# Elements of Magic: Questions for the Designer



## Psion

One thing I really like about Mongoose books is that they have a page of designer notes that describes why they did what they did. In a way, I guess I would have like to have seen this for EoM revised.

So, I put to you, RangerWickett, this burning question:

What was the reason for going from one action as a baseline to cast spells to two full rounds and then requiring signature spells to bring it down? Not saying this doesn't work, but it definitely seems like a major shift in the flavor of the mage. I'm curious what motivated this change.


----------



## RangerWickett

You're right.  For a project that has this much new stuff, I probably should have included an explanation.  I guess my subconscious thought I'd already typed one up, because I've explained it to playtesters and folks here on the ENBoard several times.  So, I'll put up an official compilation of explanations, and make sure to include it in the sequel book.

As to your question, it was part flavor, part balance, and a lot of ease-of-play.

For the flavor, I knew the spell lists give you a lot of flexibility, and in combat, when time is tight, you might be tempted to min-max and use just the right spell for the situation, with precisely the right area, range, and so on.  But because combat is where a lot of cool, dramatic stuff happens, it tends to become a big part of the history of your characters.  I like it when spellcasting characters have spells that they use over and over; it gives them personality.  So by encouraging people to use signature spells, it makes your magical 'fighting style' more distinctive.

Also, with signature spells, you'd feel less pressure to have tons of options available in combat, because you'd be content with a few well-designed spells you prepare in advance.  This frees up characters to devote more spell lists to a particular motif, and less to the 'sorcerer syndrome.'  I'm sure you've seen a couple threads where people bandy about what the 'optimal' list of spells known is for a sorcerer.

For the balance, it's again much the same problem -- too much flexibility making Mages with a good spell selection very effective.  You can still take your time and have flexibility when you're not in danger, but in combat you've got less time to think of what's the best thing to do.  I hoped this would be a happy medium between 'utility wizards' and 'blaster sorcerers.'  Because Mages do still have a bit more flexibility even with the signature spell restriction, you'll notice their spells are slightly less powerful than what's available at the same level for core spellcasters.

Also, this emulates the sorcerer restriction that metamagicking a spell takes a full round.

Finally, and most importantly, for ease of play. . . .  In one playtest, where a 20th level mage and a 20th level fighter faced off against an array of random monsters (including a tarrasque), the fighter's turn, even with four attacks and some number crunching to finagle out an effective power attack, took about a minute and a half.  The Mage's turn, after he used Create Time to spend a few bonus rounds buffing himself and the fighter, then summoning monsters, then casting a weaker quickened create time to get one spare round then transmuted the floor under the tarrasque to mud, and ended with a 20-MP Evoke spell touch attack cast through an unorthodox usage of Move Space, took about 10 minutes.

Without the signature spell rules, spellcasters can take a long time creating spells on the fly.  Even with a one full round casting time (the original time when casting a spell on the fly), it didn't deter many people, particularly when they had meat shields to keep them safe as they cast.  A two-round casting time means concocting a spell mid-combat will keep the player busy for a while, during which time the rest of the group can continue on with combat.

Also, signature spells make NPCs easier for GMs to come up with.  That's actually the biggest hurdle with adopting this sytem, because GMs usually won't want to slow down the action to come up with a complete spell for a mage villain on the fly.  Players at least can think when it's not their turn, but GMs are always busy, so signature spells encourage a bit of advanced planning.  And ... *cough* if you ever sort of stuck for ideas, you can just 'double check' the rules and make up a spell on the fly, but assure your players it was a signature spell.

Actually, I was hoping people would be interested in coming up with a bunch of example spells, so we could have a web compilation of possible signature spells.  I think it'd be a nice resource for GMs, and it could impress players by showing them what kinds of nifty things are possible with this system.

Now, the logical result of the signature spell rules is that your signature spells will end up being your 'combat spells,' or rather 'action spells.'  I don't really see a problem with that.  You can still have a nice variety of 'action spells' that aren't all evocations -- one mage has been getting a kick out of creating tons of weird wall spells that let him change the battleground.

Any other questions?


----------



## mroberon1972

*Effects of dispel against permanent items*

On page 48 (second column), in the section on duration.  It advises that the supression of magic is detailed below.  

I found nothing.

Also, how does dispel effect permanent spells, such as a perm'ed version of "Man to Frog".

Are permanent spells treated as magic items that can only be supressed, or are they treated like using the permanency spell and can be dispelled?

How would you permanently add a spell effect to a person anyway?  Things such as transform, charm or compel are common in fiction...


On a side note, I think this is a wonderful design, and can see where 4ctf influenced it in areas.  Overall, it looks flexable enough to be useful, and simple enough to be used in regular play without killing a game.  

My use of it will truly tell the tale, though.  We will see.....  

Ok, compliments are over.  Back to work, mister!!!

<sound of whip cracking>


----------



## torem13

*Question about detect magic*

I have a question about detect magic on page 76. It states a cost of 0 mp and DC 10. Does this mean that a mage can detect magic at any time as long as he/she has  a minute to spare?


----------



## RangerWickett

mroberon1972 said:
			
		

> On page 48 (second column), in the section on duration.  It advises that the supression of magic is detailed below.
> 
> I found nothing.
> 
> Also, how does dispel effect permanent spells, such as a perm'ed version of "Man to Frog".
> 
> Are permanent spells treated as magic items that can only be supressed, or are they treated like using the permanency spell and can be dispelled?




Ah, it's not the most obvious connection, but on page 50, left column, "Dispel: A slightly more complicated use of Dispel Magic is to end an ongoing magical effect. If you attempt to dispel an effect that is permanent, instead you merely suppress it for the skill’s duration."

So you only suppress permanent spells, not negate them.  On the whole, a permanent spell will cost more than an equivalent spell affected by Permanency would in the core rules, so we treat them like permanent magic items.



> How would you permanently add a spell effect to a person anyway?  Things such as transform, charm or compel are common in fiction...




The simplest way to make a permanent effect is to just use the permanent spell feat.  If your opponent fails his save and you feel like spending a few hundred XP, you can make the spell permanent.  Lyceian Arcana is also going to have an optional rule about specialized curses that don't cost XP, but that can be ended if you fulfill some sort of condition, like "must be kissed by a princess."

I'm glad you like the book so far.  We're still working on getting stuff set up for people to post their own spells.


----------



## torem13

*Creating objects*

Also, How would you create a flaming sword. I know you use Infuse force/gen to create a wonderous item but it specifically states that invoke is not suppose to be use with wonderous item. So do you need both create charged and create wonderous item and then infuse the sword with force and the add invoke fire to it? How much would a sword +1 with 1d6 fire damage cost?

Thanks


----------



## torem13

torem13 said:
			
		

> Also, How would you create a flaming sword. I know you use Infuse force/gen to create a wonderous item but it specifically states that invoke is not suppose to be use with wonderous item. So do you need both create charged and create wonderous item and then infuse the sword with force and the add invoke fire to it? How much would a sword +1 with 1d6 fire damage cost?
> 
> Thanks



Sorry, missed it the first read through. Infuse Force 1/Create Fire 1/Gen 1
Total price: 9000 gp.


----------



## RangerWickett

torem13 said:
			
		

> I have a question about detect magic on page 76. It states a cost of 0 mp and DC 10. Does this mean that a mage can detect magic at any time as long as he/she has a minute to spare?
> 
> Also, How would you create a flaming sword. I know you use Infuse force/gen to create a wonderous item but it specifically states that invoke is not suppose to be use with wonderous item. So do you need both create charged and create wonderous item and then infuse the sword with force and the add invoke fire to it? How much would a sword +1 with 1d6 fire damage cost?
> 
> Thanks




For Detect Magic, that's not _quite_ right.  First, you have a limit to how many 'free cantrips' you get each day, so you can detect magic whenever you want, as long as you have free cantrips to spare (or you want to spend 1 MP after your 'free' cantrips run out).  Also, it would only take 2 rounds to use detect magic, not a minute, but of course you might've been using 'minute' in a more colloquial sense.

As for a flaming sword, under Create [Element] there's the option for an elemental weapon enhancement, so you can use Infuse Force 1/Create Fire 1/Gen 1 to create a +1 sword that does +1d6 points of fire damage.  Since it's a total of a 3-MP effect, the cost to create a permanent enhancement of this type would be 9,000gp.  I know, it's not exactly the same as the 8,000 for a core rulebook +1 flaming sword, but it fits into the standardized cost system of the rest of the magic items in the book, and isn't a huge change, so hopefully its benefits outweigh its drawbacks.


----------



## anondragon

*Permanent spells: spell lists*

First off great work on the revision, it has come a long way.  

For the permanent spell, if I want to grant spellcasting ability (using a spell list) to a non spell casting creature I would need to grant the spell list and a mana battery.  This counts as two spell effects on a creature.  What would the cost be if I wanted to combine this into one effect?

   Thanks


----------



## RangerWickett

anondragon said:
			
		

> First off great work on the revision, it has come a long way.
> 
> For the permanent spell, if I want to grant spellcasting ability (using a spell list) to a non spell casting creature I would need to grant the spell list and a mana battery.  This counts as two spell effects on a creature.  What would the cost be if I wanted to combine this into one effect?
> 
> Thanks




Hmm.  You know, I'd never actually considered the costs of combining a permanent charged effect and a permanent non-charged effect in the same permanent spell.  I'd suggest going the same route as the core rules, which says that dissimilar abilities put onto one item that fills a single 'body slot' cost 100% for the first one, and 150% for the second.

So, take the cost of the one more expensive of the two (charged or enduring), and use its base cost.  Then add 150% of the cost of the cheaper of the two.


----------



## mroberon1972

Page 21:

There seems to be a bunch of missing data under Spellcasting limits.

Between the 1st and 2d column...

Thanks...

Update:  I would also like a better description of why the MP limit for casting a spell rises so quickly when learning the same spell list.  I better description would be of help...


----------



## torem13

RangerWickett said:
			
		

> For Detect Magic, that's not _quite_ right.  First, you have a limit to how many 'free cantrips' you get each day, so you can detect magic whenever you want, as long as you have free cantrips to spare (or you want to spend 1 MP after your 'free' cantrips run out).  Also, it would only take 2 rounds to use detect magic, not a minute, but of course you might've been using 'minute' in a more colloquial sense.
> 
> As for a flaming sword, under Create [Element] there's the option for an elemental weapon enhancement, so you can use Infuse Force 1/Create Fire 1/Gen 1 to create a +1 sword that does +1d6 points of fire damage.  Since it's a total of a 3-MP effect, the cost to create a permanent enhancement of this type would be 9,000gp.  I know, it's not exactly the same as the 8,000 for a core rulebook +1 flaming sword, but it fits into the standardized cost system of the rest of the magic items in the book, and isn't a huge change, so hopefully its benefits outweigh its drawbacks.




This is from page 76 in the book. Second Column under Identify Magic.

Detect Magic (0 MP, DC 10). Each attempt to detect
magic takes one minute. If you succeed the check, you
know whether there is any magic in the area of effect.

Does this mean it takes 2 rounds to cast and then one minute duration?

I figured out the flaming sword. The cost actually become cheaper for this system at +3 weapons or better.


----------



## RangerWickett

mroberon1972 said:
			
		

> Page 21:
> 
> There seems to be a bunch of missing data under Spellcasting limits.
> 
> Between the 1st and 2d column...
> 
> Thanks...




That's not cool.  I guess a bit got messed up in layout.  It's just missing one line.  The full paragraph ought to read:

"Thus, if a 20th level Mage knew only 1 Infuse spell list and 2 Heal spell lists, she could only cast Infuse spells of up to 5 MP, Heal spells of up to 10 MP.  She could, however, cast Heal Life 10/Infuse Earth 5/Gen 5."


----------



## RangerWickett

torem13 said:
			
		

> This is from page 76 in the book. Second Column under Identify Magic.
> 
> Detect Magic (0 MP, DC 10). Each attempt to detect
> magic takes one minute. If you succeed the check, you
> know whether there is any magic in the area of effect.
> 
> Does this mean it takes 2 rounds to cast and then one minute duration?
> 
> I figured out the flaming sword. The cost actually become cheaper for this system at +3 weapons or better.




Yes, unless it's a signature spell, you spend two rounds to cast, and then you concentrate for one minute (unless you pick the enhancement that lets you do it more quickly).  Now, usually you'll pick the duration of 'concentration' when you're trying to detect magic, since you have to concentrate to use it anyway, and picking the concentration duration lets you make several attempts if you want.

Actually, that's a difference that probably wasn't spelled out well enough, now that I think about it.  For divination, dispel magic, and scry, you make a check, and if you succeed, the spell lasts for the duration.  For spellcraft, the duration lasts for however long you pay for, and during that time you can make several checks


----------



## mroberon1972

I would also like a better description of why the MP limit for casting a spell rises so quickly when learning from the same spell list. I better description would be of help...

It seems that low level characters can generally specialize in something like transform, placing 4 lists in varing forms of transform, and be able to spend every point of thier power for one big effect.

What would be the reason for building a system like this?


----------



## RangerWickett

Oh, well there's still the normal caster level MP limit.  So if you're 5th level, you're not going to be able to spend more than 5 MP total on a single spell anyway.  You could know 10 different Evoke spells, and you still couldn't cast Evoke Fire 6.

Basically, it's a two-pronged balance.  You're limited once by caster level, once by the number of spell lists you know of a given action type.  You can't go over either of the limits.  The spell-lists-known restriction is to encourage spending more than a single spell list in each field.  It keeps a mage from just knowing one Heal list (Heal Life) and being able to use all the healing spells he'd ever want.  It makes high-level magic have an extra prerequisite.

Most mages, for instance, won't want to 'waste' lists on things like Heal Earth or Heal Air, because usually you'll be healing party members, which are [life] creatures, not air or earth elements (or walls of stone).  This means that if the mages just want to have access to a little healing, then can get by with just the one spell list.  Devoted healers, though, will take several lists, and will probably grab the Heal Specialist feat.


----------



## mroberon1972

RangerWickett said:
			
		

> Oh, well there's still the normal caster level MP limit.  So if you're 5th level, you're not going to be able to spend more than 5 MP total on a single spell anyway.  You could know 10 different Evoke spells, and you still couldn't cast Evoke Fire 6.
> 
> Basically, it's a two-pronged balance.  You're limited once by caster level, once by the number of spell lists you know of a given action type.  You can't go over either of the limits.  The spell-lists-known restriction is to encourage spending more than a single spell list in each field.  It keeps a mage from just knowing one Heal list (Heal Life) and being able to use all the healing spells he'd ever want.  It makes high-level magic have an extra prerequisite.
> 
> Most mages, for instance, won't want to 'waste' lists on things like Heal Earth or Heal Air, because usually you'll be healing party members, which are [life] creatures, not air or earth elements (or walls of stone).  This means that if the mages just want to have access to a little healing, then can get by with just the one spell list.  Devoted healers, though, will take several lists, and will probably grab the Heal Specialist feat.




Wait... Wait...

Is that what it says in the book?

AH!!!!

You cannot spend more MP than either of the following:
- The max magic points as dictated by your level (on a one for one basis).
- More than 5 x the number of spell lists of a paticular action type.  1 list = 5 MP max, 2 lists = 10 MP max, 3 = 15 MP each, 4 = unlimited MP.

Now, another question: does the limit include all modifiers to a spell?

Would a fifth level caster use:

Evoke fire 5/gen 5

or

Evoke fire 4/gen 1

As a maxed spell?  In other words, if the max per part fo the spell, or for the total spell?

I think I've got it, but I want to make sure of the limiting factors before deciding on the power levels of such spell casters...

Right now, a fifth level caster would make fireball as the following:

Fireball
(Evoke fire 1/gen 4)

Spell causes a 20' radius burst of fire damage.  The damage is 2d6.

Cost:  Evoke fire = 1mp, Medium range = 2mp, Area 20' = 2mp:  5mp total

It would seem that a fifth level Mage would be able to cast it a max of 7 times before depleting all of his points (35).

A normal Wizard would be able to cast one full powered fireball for 5d6 damage, and slightly better range.

So, Mages have a lower max power, but can spread it around more?


----------



## RangerWickett

Yeah, pretty much.  EOM mages have a lot of flexibility, but less raw power, especially when it comes to damage dealing.  I knew that the nice array of spell lists would give them a lot of things they could be cool at, so they don't need to be killing things right and left.

In general, EOM has less swinginess at high levels, I hope.  At least the swinginess requires more power-gaming to use, instead of it being blatant.  In core rules, any good high-level wizard ought to have finger of death and power word kill, both of which are instant kills, which spoils the fun when you use them on the party.

The closest thing you have to an instant kill in EOM is transforming someone into an inanimate object, but even that is only until the spell's duration ends.  It accomplishes the same thing for the purposes of combat (i.e., defeating monsters), but it gives more options for dealing with it.

EOM magic will play a little differently than core magic.  I tried to hew close to the core rules, but no doubt my personal philosophy made certain things subtly shift in the direction I prefer.  For instance, while a high-level, focused Evoke specialist can still deal ~40 damage to a large group of critters or ~70 damage to a single target, but he doesn't have any spells that do ~70 damage to multiple targets.

Ooh, I need to post Captain Blowshi'tup.  He was a fun thought experiment.


----------



## mroberon1972

Hmnnn...

Oh! Oh!

I got an idea!

How about the ability to push past Max sp limits by taking con damage that cannot be healed except with rest.

Hmnnn...  A one for one basis seems good...  Would give a good one shot punch.

Perhaps even make it into a feat?

Sacrifice I
This feat allows the spellcaster to expend spell points beyond his normal limit.  For each consititution point spent, the mage can surpass his mp limit by one point to a maximum of 1.5 times his spellcaster level.  The consititution point loss is damage, not drain, and is recovered at one point per day of rest.

Sacrifice II
Prereq: Sacrifice I, spellcaster level 10
This feat allows the spellcaster to expend spell points beyond his normal limit.  For each consititution point spent, the mage can surpass his mp limit by two points to a maximum of twice his spellcaster level.  The consititution point loss is damage, not drain, and is recovered at one point per day of rest.


----------



## RangerWickett

Already in Lyceian Arcana.  *grin*


----------



## mroberon1972

RangerWickett said:
			
		

> Already in Lyceian Arcana.  *grin*





<whine>

But I don't haaaaavvvvve it!

</whine>

Oh, I printed your book.  It very pretty.  Had it bound and given a color cover.


----------



## Blue mage for hire2

Here are some spell lists I'd like to donate

Deadly Displacement
Create Space 2/ Move Force 2/ Move Space 1/Gen 3/Evoke Space 4
Total MP: 11
Duration: 10 min, Evocation lasts 1 min.
Range Short (30 ft.)

This spell is one of the most well-kept secrets of Duhamel, the Master of Space (if not Time), and he reserves it only for important enemies, least someone figures it out.  First, the spell creates a gate to a pocket of space 10 feet wide behind the target (who can be in 30 ft. of the caster), followed by an invisible hand of Force bull rushing the target (with 25 effective strength), pushing it into the pocket dimension, which only has one opening.  Within the pocket dimension, the target suffers 1d6 points of space damage during the first minute.  During this time the caster may close the entrance to the pocket space to let his/her enemy suffer, cast ANOTHER spell (like the Grudgeholder, below) or push someone else in if they are 10 ft. away from of the entrance to the pocket space (a forced teleport, then a bull rush).  The Enduring damage lasts only 1 minute, but the target isn't ejected from the pocket dimension until the spell ends in 10 minutes, or it escapes through an open exit.  2 MP elemental object, 2 MP Effective strength 25, 1 MP 10 foot teleport, 4 MP enduring damage, 1 MP Short range, 1 MP 10-foot area, full circle, 1 MP 10 minute duration.

Grudgeholder
Evoke Force 6/ Move Force 1/ Gen 3
Total MP: 10
Range: 30 ft.
Duration: 1 minute
This spell, once cast, lets loose a violent burst of Pure Energy, dealing 3d6 damage to all corporeal and incorporeal creatures in a ten foot burst.  This spell's area of effect can move at the casters whim, and lasts for as long for 60 seconds, as long as the caster can concentrate on venting his/her rage on
the hated enemies and all those who dare protect them!  It also helps that this spell knows to only harm up to ten selected foes with no risk of friendly fire........

Invincibility!
Abjure Space 4/ Abjure Force 3/ Transform Space 8/ Heal Life 4/ Gen 1
Total MP: 20
Range: Touch
Duration: 10 Minutes
The Ultimate in Defense, this spell grants the target to become intangible, as well as recieving 20 space energy resistance and 12 SR, and with automatic healing (1d6 per round) lasting for the first minute of this spell's duration.  Off course, those annoying Ghost touch weapons tend to spoil your fun, but hey, you COULD cast another defensive spell. You're a 20th level mage, after all.^_^

A little high level, but do these help? Please point out any rules restricting the abilities of my spells that I missed, I haven't had time to review all the rules with my incessant college exams.


----------



## PugioilAudacio

Interesting spells. I wonder if there is a DM willing to run a PbP game based on EoM


----------



## PugioilAudacio

I only started proofreading in the middle of the document, but here's what I came up with as far as typos, unclear areas, etc: (Changes are in bold)

page 28 - third paragraph under the "Spell Enhancements" heading-
"For example, if you cast Compel Humanoid 7/Evoke Fire 3/ Gen 2, you can spend no more than 7 MP on Compel enhancemenets, no more *than*  3 MP on Evoke enhancements, and no more than 2 MP on General enhancements."

Besides the left out "than" - this paragraph is a little unclear. It seems to be saying that if you cast a Compel Humanoid 7, you can't spend more than 7 MP on the spell. Isn't that kind of obvious? Also, the beginning "For example" serves to confuse, as the previous paragraph talked about TOTAL MP spent, rather than MP spent per spell list.

page 28 - second column, last full paragraph: "Also, if the spell has a large are of effect..." How large is considered large?

page 30 - first paragraph, when talking about using skills with spells cast not from their own knowledge: "In these cases, make your skill check as if you had ranks equal to the MP spent on Dispel Magic, or using your own ranks if that is higher."

Do you mean that when using any magical skill from an outsides source you instead use your ranks in Dispel Magic? Or your ranks in whatever skill is being used?

page 31 - second colum, under the heading of Damage Reduction, [Element]: "The spell provides DR that applies against *against*..."
Extra "against".

page 35 - first column, towards the end of the heading Binding, [Alignment] (3 MP): "If a creature attacks or otherwise deals damage to the bound creature, it is free to retaliate, but is still bound spatially. If you attack the bound creature, it is free entirely from the binding."
Does this mean that a casters allies can attack the creature, but the caster himself can not (without freeing the creature)?

page 37 - first column 3rd paragraph, towards the end: "Once a happiness, anger, fear, or confusion effect wears off, though, the creature will realize they were being influenced. Note that this only applies to happiness, anger, and confusion effects."
Should this be "only applies to happiness, anger, confusion, and *fear* effects?"

page 37 - second column, right above the Emotions heading: "If there is more than one creature in the area of effect, this spell affects those with the lowest Hit Dice first,  until it reaches its Hit Dice Threshold. Creatures beyond  the HD Threshold are not  affected at all."
Does this mean that the spell will affect everything below the threshold? Or that it will only affect a number of hit dice equal to the threshold. The text would support the second version, as it says it affects those with the lowest Hit Dice first, but it is not perfectly clear on this point.

page 42 - second column, Mind Read (4 MP) header: "Reading a mind requires a Wisdom check  with a bonus equal to the Compel spell’s MP, and the DC  is the same that it would be for a Knowledge check."
What DC is that? A knowledge check as if the creature was making the check itself?

page 42 - second column, Mind Modify (4 MP) heading: "The  knowledge or modification only lasts as long as the spell’s  duration, and you must *spend* about one round concentrating to change the creature’s memory.
Left out the word "spend". Also, why does it say 'about' one round?

page 43 - last 2 words on the page: ".. or does it create *an* objects whole cloth"
Left out the word "an".

page 45 - first column, Moderate Wind (0 MP) heading: "See the DMG for information on wind forces."
Don't you mean "see the core rules" 

page 45 - second column, Weather (2 MP) heading.
Does the rain generated by the weather disappear at the spell (as if by a Create food type spell)?

page 45 - second column, Create Lava heading: "You cannot create lava to surround a create*r* ..."
Left out the 'r'.

page 46 - first column, Create Lightning header: "Normal lighting deals 1d6 damage per round."
What is this supposed to mean? If someone is continually hit by lightning they only take 1d6 damage per round?

page 46-47 - Dilated Time headers: If someone uses Dilated Time, Long - everyone in the effect just ages for half a day? In other words, the time of day doesn't change nor do affected creatures notice any change in time?

page 47 - second column, first paragraph: "since these flames are actually solid, the wall must actually be supported by something..."
What does this mean? The flames have to wreathe a stone wall to be supported?

page 49 - first column, end of first paragraph: "As detailed in the Magical Skills section, a  caster makes the check using his own ranks in the skill,  or a number of ranks equal to the MP cost of the skill,  whichever is higher."
It sounds like it should be "or a number of ranks equal to the MP cost of the SPELL".

page 50 - second column, last bullet on bulleted list: " Not counting general enhancements, the armor is a 3 MP effect,"
What is this saying? So what if the armor is a 3 MP effect, it doesn't seem to affect the rules at all, as the DC listed to dispel the armor is 11 + caster level 4, not 3.

page 50-51 - In the examples of using the Dispel Magic skill, it keeps changing the ranks that Ursus has in Dispel Magic. In the first few examples, and in the beginning of the book, Ursus is listed as having a +22 to his Dispel Magic checks. However, in certain examples (like example five) he is listed as having only a +16 to his Dispel Magic skill.

page 52 - end of first paragraph: "Finally, getting another mage’s signature spells  for Dispel Magic can help greatly when you need to dispel  magic you are unfamiliar with. "
What is this statement saying?

page 52 - second column, Fire Guard spell: "Make the Dispel Magic *echeck*..."
There is an e before the word "check".

page 56 - first column, Fatigue (2 dice) header: "fatigued creature gets an effective –2 penalty to Strength  and Dexterity, cannot run or charge."
Left out an 'and' by "Dexterity, [and] cannot run or charge".

page 56-57 - In the Crystal, Earth, and Metal categories it says that these attacks deal bonus [damage type] damage - and to see the Nature heading for details. However, it does not seem to list the actual amount of bonus damage dealt by these attacks, either under their own heading or under the Nature heading.

page 58 - first column, Mild header: "The slime *lasts* can affect up to Medium creatures."
The word "lasts" doesn't belong here.

page 59 - first column, Arctic Blast spell: "This impact damage is not energy damage, so energy resistance does not protect  against it, but DR does. A successful Reflex save halves this  damage."
It appears like the reflex save only works against this (2d6 of) impact damage. However, given that there is no ranged touch attack for the 3d6 ice damage, the save should probably apply to that damage too.

page 59 - second column, Horrorstrike spell: "Developed by a vicious ghostly mage, this spell can  be cast on the ethereal plane but still affect the material  plane."
This spell uses the space side effect - which says that damage from this spell can only affect either the Material or Ethereal planes. Therefore, the text should probably read "can be cast on the ethereal plane but *can only* affect the material plane."



Thus ends the extent of my current proof-reading binge. These corrections should not be misconstrued as criticism for the book. I really like the Elements of Magic system and am just stating the areas that might need a quick change (IMHO).


----------



## RangerWickett

Blue mage for hire2 said:
			
		

> Deadly Displacement
> Create Space 2/ Move Force 2/ Move Space 1/Gen 3/Evoke Space 4
> Total MP: 11
> Duration: 10 min, Evocation lasts 1 min.
> Range Short (30 ft.)
> 
> This spell is one of the most well-kept secrets of Duhamel, the Master of Space (if not Time), and he reserves it only for important enemies, least someone figures it out.  First, the spell creates a gate to a pocket of space 10 feet wide behind the target (who can be in 30 ft. of the caster), followed by an invisible hand of Force bull rushing the target (with 25 effective strength), pushing it into the pocket dimension, which only has one opening.  Within the pocket dimension, the target suffers 1d6 points of space damage during the first minute.  During this time the caster may close the entrance to the pocket space to let his/her enemy suffer, cast ANOTHER spell (like the Grudgeholder, below) or push someone else in if they are 10 ft. away from of the entrance to the pocket space (a forced teleport, then a bull rush).  The Enduring damage lasts only 1 minute, but the target isn't ejected from the pocket dimension until the spell ends in 10 minutes, or it escapes through an open exit.  2 MP elemental object, 2 MP Effective strength 25, 1 MP 10 foot teleport, 4 MP enduring damage, 1 MP Short range, 1 MP 10-foot area, full circle, 1 MP 10 minute duration.




Rather interesting.  A few quick revisions, though.  While it is true that you have to spend at least 1 MP on any spell list you use (unless it's the only spell list in the spell), you don't actually have to buy any of the listed enhancements if the spell list's description has an inherent ability.  For instance, Create Space lets you automatically create a pocket dimension equal to the size of the area of effect.  If you were casting a simple spell, such as Create Space 0/Gen 1, you could create a pocket of space, 10-ft. radius.  Since this is a complex spell with multiple spell lists, you have to spend at least 1 MP on Create Space, but you don't need to buy the 'elemental object' enhancement.  You'd use that enhancement if you wanted a solid object, such as, say, a sword made out of 'space.'  An odd concept, sure, but that's what that particular enhancement is for.

You make mention of 'closing' the extradimensional space.  How?  You can only close the entrance if you are inside the pocket dimension yourself, and I'd imagine you wouldn't want to trap yourself in there with the Evoke Space damage.

While the rules don't prohibit some of the stuff in the spell, it seems a little eclectic, so as a GM I'd probably suggest you pare it down a bit.  There are a few too many things going on at once.  Normally you can only have one target in any given spell, and in this spell the 'target' is the spot you create the extradimensional pocket at.  I'd be okay with you also having the bull rush effect or the forced teleport effect, but if you want both, you need to buy the Move Force enhancement twice, because you're using it two different ways.  You can _either_ use Move Force for combat manuevers, or for forcibly flying/teleporting/etc. a target. 

One final suggestion - the enduring damage from Evoke spells is best used on targets who are mobile.  If you're trapping someone in an enclosed space as with this spell, you're mostly better off with something like Create Fire to just fill the pocket dimension with fire (or acid, or lightning, vel cetera).  The drawback is that the creature has a chance of escaping, but if they don't escape, you can potentially deal more damage.  4 MP buys a total of 10d6 over the course of a minute with Evoke, or 1 MP buys 100d6 if you can trap someone in the same spot for ten minutes.  Sure, his friends might help him escape, or he could destroy the barrier, or planeshift out, but it's still generally better to fill an area with created damaging matter than evoked energy.

Still, this is a really complicated spell, and you got pretty close to having everything right for the book only being out for four days.  Nicely done.  With a slight revision, this spell looks like:

*Deadly Displacement*
Create Space 1/Create Metal 1/Create Lava 1/Move Force 2/Gen 4
Total MP: 9
Range: Short (30 ft.)
Duration: 10 minutes
Area: 10-ft. radius
Saving Throw: None

This spell is one of the most well-kept secrets of Duhamel, the Master of Space (if not Time), and he reserves it only for important enemies, least someone figures it out.  First, the spell creates an extradimensional gate behind the target (who can be in 30 ft. of the caster).  This gate leads to a pocket of space 10 feet wide, filled with baking lava, which deals 1d6 damage each round to anyone inside the pocket dimension.  For the spell's duration, you control an invisible hand of force (Str 25) that can be used for bull rushes.  Typically, this is used to push the target into the pocket dimension.

As soon as a creature enters the pocket dimension, the entrance is surrounded by a thick wall of metal, one foot thick (10 hardness, 360 hp).  The spell lasts ten minutes, long enough to deal hundreds of points of damage if the creature cannot free itself from this tiny hell.

Costs:  1 MP pocket dimension, 1 MP metal object (wall), 1 MP normal lava, 2 MP Effective strength 25, 1 MP Short range, 1 MP 10-foot area, 1 MP duration, 1 MP contingency (creation of metal wall).




> Grudgeholder
> Evoke Force 6/ Move Force 1/ Gen 3
> Total MP: 10
> Range: 30 ft.
> Duration: 1 minute
> This spell, once cast, lets loose a violent burst of Pure Energy, dealing 3d6 damage to all corporeal and incorporeal creatures in a ten foot burst.  This spell's area of effect can move at the casters whim, and lasts for as long for 60 seconds, as long as the caster can concentrate on venting his/her rage on
> the hated enemies and all those who dare protect them!  It also helps that this spell knows to only harm up to ten selected foes with no risk of friendly fire........




Hmm.  From what I understand, this spell first has a burst of 3d6 damage, and then it does an extra 1d6 damage each round, but you have to move the area around?  It's possible to make this work a little more smoothly.  Since you're picking the 'discerning' enhancement, you can choose to have the spell anchor to each creature in the area of effect, meaning you don't have to concentrate to move it.  

Basically, you cast the spell, and choose your targets in the area of effect.  Each target gets a Reflex save for half of 3d6 damage, and then each round thereafter for a minute, no matter where they go or if they split up, they have to make another Reflex save or take 1d6 more damage.

*Grudgeholder*
Evoke Force 6/Gen 3
Total MP: 9
Range: Short (30 ft.)
Duration: 1 minute
Saving Throw: Reflex half

When you cast this spell, pick up to nine targets, all of which must be within range and must fit within a 10-ft. radius.  Each target takes 4d6* points of force damage (Reflex half), and is thereafter harried by whirling bursts of energy.  Each round, for the rest of the spell's duration, each creature takes an additional 1d6 force damage (Reflex half).  This spell affects both corporeal and incorporeal creatures.

Costs: 2 MP extra damage, 4 MP enduring damage (1 minute), 1 MP range, 1 MP duration, 1 MP discerning.

*It does 4d6 damage the first round, not 3d6.  The first 1d6 is a free effect from using Evoke, and the 2 MP spent on extra damage do +2d6 damage.  Then the enduring damage does 1d6 each round, including the first.




> Invincibility!
> Abjure Space 4/ Abjure Force 3/ Transform Space 8/ Heal Life 4/ Gen 1
> Total MP: 20
> Range: Touch
> Duration: 10 Minutes
> The Ultimate in Defense, this spell grants the target to become intangible, as well as recieving 20 space energy resistance and 12 SR, and with automatic healing (1d6 per round) lasting for the first minute of this spell's duration.  Of course, those annoying Ghost touch weapons tend to spoil your fun, but hey, you COULD cast another defensive spell. You're a 20th level mage, after all.^_^




Well, the spell is perfectly fine, but the Spell Resistance isn't terribly useful at high levels.  Anyone you'd be fighting at that level wouldn't even have to roll to beat SR 12.

I really like the first two spells.  You could have a lot of fun with them.  In fact, I think I'll start a thread for people to post spells.


----------



## RangerWickett

I only started proofreading in the middle of the document, but here's what I came up with as far as typos, unclear areas, etc: (Changes are in bold)

page 28 - third paragraph under the "Spell Enhancements" heading-
"For example, if you cast Compel Humanoid 7/Evoke Fire 3/ Gen 2, you can spend no more than 7 MP on Compel enhancemenets, no more *than*  3 MP on Evoke enhancements, and no more than 2 MP on General enhancements."

Besides the left out "than" - this paragraph is a little unclear. It seems to be saying that if you cast a Compel Humanoid 7, you can't spend more than 7 MP on the spell. Isn't that kind of obvious? Also, the beginning "For example" serves to confuse, as the previous paragraph talked about TOTAL MP spent, rather than MP spent per spell list.

Ah, good point.  Yeah, it’s a little out of place there. 

page 28 - second column, last full paragraph: "Also, if the spell has a large are of effect..." How large is considered large?

It’s supposed to mean that if the spell has an area of effect that affects more than one target (i.e., usually larger than just the basic 5 ft.), you can use discerning to have the spell stick to the targets you choose, rather than having the area of effect stay in one spot. 

page 30 - first paragraph, when talking about using skills with spells cast not from their own knowledge: "In these cases, make your skill check as if you had ranks equal to the MP spent on Dispel Magic, or using your own ranks if that is higher."

Do you mean that when using any magical skill from an outsides source you instead use your ranks in Dispel Magic? Or your ranks in whatever skill is being used?

Yes, it should be ‘make the skill check as if you had ranks equal to the MP spent on the magical skill, or your own ranks if that is highter.’  It was a copy/paste error, because the problem of “what happens when you use someone else’s magical skill” first came up with Dispel Magic.  Dispelling got a lot of playtesting in my local group because I wanted to make sure I wasn’t being unfair and making it too easy or hard.  There are probably a lot more cool things available with that skill than with any other. 

page 31 - second colum, under the heading of Damage Reduction, [Element]: "The spell provides DR that applies against *against*..."
Extra "against".

page 35 - first column, towards the end of the heading Binding, [Alignment] (3 MP): "If a creature attacks or otherwise deals damage to the bound creature, it is free to retaliate, but is still bound spatially. If you attack the bound creature, it is free entirely from the binding."
Does this mean that a casters allies can attack the creature, but the caster himself can not (without freeing the creature)?

Correct.  If I bind a demon, and Bob my buddy attacks the demon, the demon can counterattack against Bob, but it can’t attack me, nor can it leave the area of effect.  If I attack the demon, we’re screwed. 

page 37 - first column 3rd paragraph, towards the end: "Once a happiness, anger, fear, or confusion effect wears off, though, the creature will realize they were being influenced. Note that this only applies to happiness, anger, and confusion effects."
Should this be "only applies to happiness, anger, confusion, and *fear* effects?"

Yep.  My error. 

page 37 - second column, right above the Emotions heading: "If there is more than one creature in the area of effect, this spell affects those with the lowest Hit Dice first,  until it reaches its Hit Dice Threshold. Creatures beyond  the HD Threshold are not  affected at all."
Does this mean that the spell will affect everything below the threshold? Or that it will only affect a number of hit dice equal to the threshold. The text would support the second version, as it says it affects those with the lowest Hit Dice first, but it is not perfectly clear on this point.

It works like the core _sleep_ spell works.  If your HD threshold is 14, and you’re targeting an area filled with eight 1-HD goblin thugs, two 4-HD goblin cleric, a 6-HD goblin rogue, an 8-HD goblin blackguard, and a 20-HD goblin ranger, you’d affect the thugs and one of the shamans (total of 12 HD), but you wouldn’t affect the other shaman, the rogue, the blackguard, or the ranger.  If you had just targeted the ranger individually, though, he’d be affected, but he’d have a +6 bonus to his save because his HD is above your threshold. 

page 42 - second column, Mind Read (4 MP) header: "Reading a mind requires a Wisdom check  with a bonus equal to the Compel spell’s MP, and the DC  is the same that it would be for a Knowledge check."
What DC is that? A knowledge check as if the creature was making the check itself?

Yeah, this one is odd.  I couldn’t really think of a perfectly clear and concise way to explain what I wanted.  Basically, your GM sets the Knowledge check as if you knew what the creature(s) you’re scanning knew.  If one of them knows the information quite clearly, you don’t really have to make the check.  

For instance, if you’re scanning a bunch of dark Elf soldiers for the name of their commander, you wouldn’t need to make a check.  If you wanted to know about how their drow city government works, though, you’d need to make a pseudo-Knowledge (local) check.  The GM might decide that it’s not a very obscure piece of information in the soldier’s minds, so the DC’s just 15.  If you wanted to know where the secret entrance to House Bamboozle is, it might be a Knowledge (local) DC 40 check.  The soldiers might not even realize they know it, but you could ferret out the information with a good roll.

I hope that’s a little clearer.

page 42 - second column, Mind Modify (4 MP) heading: "The  knowledge or modification only lasts as long as the spell’s  duration, and you must *spend* about one round concentrating to change the creature’s memory.
Left out the word "spend". Also, why does it say 'about' one round?

It’s supposed to give GMs a little leeway.  The player says, “I want to make him think he’s a duck,” and the GM says, “That’ll take a bit several minutes.”  The player says, “Okay, instead, I want to make him think I’m a rich nobleman from the city of Freeport, and that a few years ago I lent him money when we was down on his luck, and that he said he’d repay the favor,” and the GM says, “That will still take two rounds, about as long as it took you to say it.”  The player finally says, “Okay, instead, I want to make him think I’m a duck, and that I never attacked him,” and the GM says, “Okay.”

The rule should more accurately say: “The knowledge or modification only lasts as long as the spell’s duration, and you must spend about one round concentrating for every piece of information or event you change.  Extremely complicated and detailed memories may take slightly longer to create, at the GM’s discretion.  In general, if it takes more than a minute to explain what the memory is, it should take several rounds to implant the memory.”

page 43 - last 2 words on the page: ".. or does it create *an* objects whole cloth"
Left out the word "an".

No, I didn’t.  “Create objects” is fine as is, isn’t it? 

page 45 - first column, Moderate Wind (0 MP) heading: "See the DMG for information on wind forces."
Don't you mean "see the core rules" 

I suppose that’d be more accurate, since you could see the core rules of D&D, or D20 Modern, but WotC now wants folks to use book abbreviations, instead of the old way of ‘Core Rulebook II’ and such. 

page 45 - second column, Weather (2 MP) heading.
Does the rain generated by the weather disappear at the spell (as if by a Create food type spell)?

Nope.  You actually manipulate the atmosphere to create the appropriate weather.  Yes, you can screw with ecosystems this way.  Just assume that the extra cost of making the created precipitation endure is rolled in with the cost of creating the weather. 

page 45 - second column, Create Lava heading: "You cannot create lava to surround a create*r* ..."
Left out the 'r'.

Actually, I left out more than that.  It should be ‘surround a creature.’  Oops. 

page 46 - first column, Create Lightning header: "Normal lighting deals 1d6 damage per round."
What is this supposed to mean? If someone is continually hit by lightning they only take 1d6 damage per round?

It’s more like sparks of electricity.  The same way that created ‘lava’ is more accurately ‘hot rocks’ instead of ‘molten rock,’ created ‘lightning’ is just ‘electricity.’  It’s, like, low voltage, or amperage, or something.  This is for the sake of balance.  If you want lightning that really hurts, use Evoke Lightning. 

page 46-47 - Dilated Time headers: If someone uses Dilated Time, Long - everyone in the effect just ages for half a day? In other words, the time of day doesn't change nor do affected creatures notice any change in time?

Correct.  It just makes that little pocket of the world age half a day in an instant.  It’s nice when people are exposed to hazardous situations.  Someone falls into a vat of acid, you hit them with dilate time, and if they fail their save, they dissolve before your eyes. 

page 47 - second column, first paragraph: "since these flames are actually solid, the wall must actually be supported by something..."
What does this mean? The flames have to wreathe a stone wall to be supported?

Not exactly.  It means you can’t create a bubble of solid fire floating in mid air.  Basically, the wall has to obey most laws of physics as if it were a solid object, meaning it needs to rest on the ground, and that a large enough creature could theoretically move it.  Just imagine a normal stone wall, and now make it a little easier to cut through, but be on fire. 

page 49 - first column, end of first paragraph: "As detailed in the Magical Skills section, a  caster makes the check using his own ranks in the skill,  or a number of ranks equal to the MP cost of the skill,  whichever is higher."
It sounds like it should be "or a number of ranks equal to the MP cost of the SPELL".

Should be “or a number of ranks equal to the MP spent on the skill.”  So if, for this spell, I spend 5 MP on Dispel Magic and write down the spell, you can cast the spell as if you have at least 5 ranks of Dispel Magic. 

page 50 - second column, last bullet on bulleted list: " Not counting general enhancements, the armor is a 3 MP effect,"
What is this saying? So what if the armor is a 3 MP effect, it doesn't seem to affect the rules at all, as the DC listed to dispel the armor is 11 + caster level 4, not 3.

The armor is a 3 MP effect, which means that to dispel it, you’d have to either spend 3 MP, or increase the DC of the check by +3.  Some of that paragraph is extraneous, but the intent was that, even though it’s just a 3-MP effect, you can’t dispel it because you have no MP left.  To be more precise, that bullet entry should say:

* 18 for the armor (11 + caster level 4 + 3 not enough MP).  Even though Ursus could not fail this check, he cannot dispel the armor’s magic because his dispel attempt has no MP left. 

page 50-51 - In the examples of using the Dispel Magic skill, it keeps changing the ranks that Ursus has in Dispel Magic. In the first few examples, and in the beginning of the book, Ursus is listed as having a +22 to his Dispel Magic checks. However, in certain examples (like example five) he is listed as having only a +16 to his Dispel Magic skill.

He has a total of +22 to his checks, but only 16 ranks.  Antimagic sets the SR based on how many ranks you have.  Ursus has 16 ranks, a +3 bonus from Skill Focus, and a +3 Charisma bonus. 

page 52 - end of first paragraph: "Finally, getting another mage’s signature spells  for Dispel Magic can help greatly when you need to dispel  magic you are unfamiliar with. "
What is this statement saying?

See the first section on Page 49.  When you write down a Dispel Magic spell or set a Dispel Magic contingency spell, you include several spell lists that the spell ‘knows,’ for the purposes of setting the Dispel check DC.  Even if I don’t know Compel Humanoid, if I find a written down spell that was designed to dispel Compel Humanoid, the DC is easier than if I used, say, a spell written down that was designed to dispel Evoke Fire.  I could still try to use the antifire dispelling, but the DC would be increased by +10. 

page 52 - second column, Fire Guard spell: "Make the Dispel Magic *echeck*..."
There is an e before the word "check".

page 56 - first column, Fatigue (2 dice) header: "fatigued creature gets an effective –2 penalty to Strength  and Dexterity, cannot run or charge."
Left out an 'and' by "Dexterity, [and] cannot run or charge".

page 56-57 - In the Crystal, Earth, and Metal categories it says that these attacks deal bonus [damage type] damage - and to see the Nature heading for details. However, it does not seem to list the actual amount of bonus damage dealt by these attacks, either under their own heading or under the Nature heading.

Ah, okay.  My brain was glitching when I wrote that.  There’s no bonus damage, but rather, as a benefit, these Evoke spells deal piercing, slashing, or bludgeoning damage.  So you could, for example, use Evoke Earth to hurl bludgeoning stones and deal extra damage against glass objects, since the PHB suggests that bludgeoning attacks could ignore the hardness of glass, or could deal double damage. 

page 58 - first column, Mild header: "The slime *lasts* can affect up to Medium creatures."
The word "lasts" doesn't belong here.

page 59 - first column, Arctic Blast spell: "This impact damage is not energy damage, so energy resistance does not protect  against it, but DR does. A successful Reflex save halves this  damage."
It appears like the reflex save only works against this (2d6 of) impact damage. However, given that there is no ranged touch attack for the 3d6 ice damage, the save should probably apply to that damage too.

Yeah, the reflex save sentence needs to be somewhere else.  The save does apply to the whole spell.  It was just a problem with trying to put two qualifiers on the same effect. 

page 59 - second column, Horrorstrike spell: "Developed by a vicious ghostly mage, this spell can  be cast on the ethereal plane but still affect the material  plane."
This spell uses the space side effect - which says that damage from this spell can only affect either the Material or Ethereal planes. Therefore, the text should probably read "can be cast on the ethereal plane but *can only* affect the material plane."

When you cast the spell, you choose whether to affect ethereal or material.  However, the spell can only affect one at a time, and that isn’t spelled out perfectly clearly.

Thanks for the read-through.  It's nice to get some fresh eyes looking at this.  We'll try to have a FAQ out in a few weeks, and the more frequently you ask questions, the better.  *grin*


----------



## Kavyk

*Spells*

Let me know where to post some spells when you put that thread up. I've got some As duplicated from the PHB.

So, Lyceian Arcana is going to have a way to actually cast that Epic Revive, huh? That's good to hear. I was wondering about that 25 mp base cost.


----------



## PugioilAudacio

Actually, I think this system lends itself perfectly to ritual type magics. I'm thinking of something that will allow a bunch of casters to group together and raise the total limit on Magic Points spent.


----------



## Kavyk

*Yuppers*

/sage nod

Indeed, I was thinking of that myself. And it is also great for Epic types of magic. You don't have to use a silly seed system, since you can use a progression of the current system that will still provide additional power.

I think the Circle Magic class abilities of Red Wizards and Hathrans from FR would work better as EoM:R ritual magic. The question, though, is how many points each secondary caster can contribute to the casting. They can't contribute their total MP limit for a single spell, I think, or things would quickly get out of hand. I have some ideas in that direction, but I can't decide how much more powerful rituals should be than normal magic.


----------



## PugioilAudacio

Well I was thinking of doing something like EL is handled. Assign each caster a "CR" (caster rating) equal to their Spellcasting level. Then, just calculate total MP allowed per spell as if you would calculate EL. For instance, 4 6th Spellcaster level people would be able to cast a spell with a total MP of 10.


----------



## PugioilAudacio

*The File Sharing has Begun*

Curious to see what would come up, I type in elements of magic into a file sharing client. I discovered one copy of Elements of Magic being shared. I guess this is the problem with .pdf releases.


(If anyone wants to know, the ip was:172.195.209.164:6346 - I traced it to an AOL server, node name ACC3D1A4.ipt.aol.com)

Wouldn't it be funny if this guy got an email from AOL telling them to "Stop sharing Elements of Magic!"


----------



## Blue mage for hire2

Here are some more spells, spin-offs of the most powerful spell in the Final Fantasy series (cause my imagination is emotionally drained from studying for the exams and says "Go away! I don't want to talk to you!  I hate you!  Go to Hell!" and I figured he needed his space.  But if YOU would like to talk to him.....)

Flare
Evoke Fire 10/ Hex Water 8/ Gen 2
Total MP: 20
Range: short (30 ft.)
Duration: 10 minutes
This Fiery spell deals 11d6 points of damage to the target, the Flames of Flare are super-hot, and completely ignores fire resistance.  Indeed, the potency of Flare is such that they target doesn't recover his fire resistance until 10 minutes have passed. 

Meteor
Evoke Earth 12/ Evoke Lava 1/ Gen 7
Total MP: 20
Area: 150 ft. cone.
Duration: 1 minute
Calling a Meteor storm down to Earth, this spell does 9d6 points of Bludgeoning damage to everything in a 150 ft long Cone each round for one minute.  All objects and the ground itself are baked for the duration of the spell, and deal 1d6 damage to all who are in contact with them. 8 Mp extra Damage, 1 MP Lava side effect, 4 Mp enduring damage, 6 MP 150 ft. Cone, 1 Mp duration.

Ultima
Evoke Force 18/ Gen 2
Total MP: 20
Range: 30 ft.
Area: 10 ft. Burst
Duration: Instantaneous
This most awesome spell does 19d6 points of damage in a 10 ft. Burst.  Its basically Anihalation in a bag. Simple enough. 18 Mp extra damage, 1 MP range, 1 MP duration

Might Guard
Abjure Nature 6/ Abjure Force 6/ Gen 2
Total MP: 14
Area of effect: 10 ft area, centered on you.
Duration: 10 minutes
A nice spell to have in a pinch, this grants DR 6 and an Energy Buffer against all types of energy, which fails if the damage exceeds 40 points.  In short, it reduces damage done by non magical weapons and attacks by 6 and will totally block all damage by energy sources, as long as its under 40 damage. This effect lasts for ten minutes.


----------



## Verequus

FYI, I asked RangerWickett some months ago, if there will be some kind of "Circle Magic", and he said, that there will be "Group Casting" in Lyceian Arcana. If it is still true (can that be confirmed?), then no work is necessary.

Okay, here is my error and questions list - I'm posting this here, so your other thread is kept pure for printing purposes. Please include confirmed ones there.

Errata:
Page 7: Can a Transform Specialist while being Animagus change his animal form using this ability? Why can't be all Boons upgraded like the Minor Energy Resistance?

Page 24: "Diogenes’s Deshackling (Dispel Magic 13/Gen 2)": Shouldn't the name be "Diogenes’ Deshackling"? And the spell is a Dispel Magic 14/Gen 1.

Page 27: "When you first cast the spell, you can choose to have its duration be less than the normal one minute. You can also dismiss the spell as a standard action." This is true for spells with enhanced durations?

Page 31: "Saving Throw, [Element]. The spell provides a saving throw bonus against natural attacks (including innate magical attacks) from creatures with the appropriate elemental descriptor." and similar. If innate magical attacks are also attacks with innate mage levels, how count these magical attacks, if extra mage levels stack with the innate ones? As normal if the MPs spent are more than the innate mage level? 

Page 32: Table 3.6: MP Cost & Energy Resistance: With 7 MPs one can gain a energy resistence of 40, but the corresponding Hex entry says only 35.

Page 34: How interact Energy Weakness and Energy Resistance, if you weak someone with full resistence? Also only the table has the text "Energy Weakness", the surrounding text mentions still "Energy Resistance".

Page 42: "Telepathic Domination (7 MP). For the spell’s duration, you may command the creature whenever you want from any distance, with any level of complexity." Also on other planes? "Mind Modify": Does  a permanent modification count as effect, which counts to the number of permanent spells and wondrous items a character can use?

Page 44: "Elemental Object": "(2 MP for the area of effect, the base 2 MP for this enhancement, and then another 2 MP because of how much the area of effect costs)." The first 2 MP are for the enhancement Elemental Object.

Page 45: "Create Air": "farhenheit" instead "Fahrenheit".

Page 46: "Create Light", "Create Shadow": Do they cancel each other? At least Evoke Shadow has an influence on Create Light, but why not vice versa?

Page 48: "Pocket Armory": "Thee can be any weapons and armor of your choice,..." "Thee" instead "They". Dispel Magic: "Dispel Magic can dispel (but not counter) the ongoing effects of supernatural abilities as well as spells." The new 3.5 core rules don't allow this anymore. "Area of Effect: Normally you’ll target only a single spell or effect with this skill, but sometimes you may want to dispel or counter every effect in an area, and thus you can purchase area of effect enhancements normally as with any spell." If a spell covers more area than the dispel spell can target, what happens?

Page 49: Counterspelling, Example Two: "TheDC is 34 (11 + caster level + 0 for...". Obvious.

Page 51: "Example Six: Ursus is generally cautious of being spyed on,...". "spyed" instead "spied".

Page 52: "Fire Guard" - "You must know Evoke Fire to have the shield set to protect against it." While there are 4 MP spent on Dispel Magic, it isn't mentioned that "Fire Guard" can know three other spell lists.

Page 56: "Putrify Food" instead "Putrefy". "Ice – Freeze": Do objects gain their hardness back after the end of the duration?

Page 57: "Life - Life": What can protect against the Mild effect? Abjure Life?

Page 58: "Time – Temporality: If an Evoke Time spell is save-based, it allows a Will save instead of a Reflex save." Shouldn't that be worded like the other examples? "Evoke Time spells that allow saving throws for half damage require Will saves instead of Reflex saves." Or can be chosen between a Reflex and a Will save?

Page 68: "Casters can choose not to make the recipient detect in this way, and most magic items that grant ability bonuses do not change a creature’s aura." "detect" instead "detectable"? And if a caster has chosen this option, is the recipient still affectable as described above?

Page 69: "Phasing Attack. The attack selectively passes through certain types of matter harmlessly,..." What certain types?

Page 71: "Move Life": A permanent Move Life used for possession allows someone to take over the body of dragon and kill his own former body. This lets some questions open: What happens to the hit dice? Do I gain the racial hit dice of my new body? Do I gain all ex-, su- and sp-abilities? What happens, if a (permanent) dispel affects me?

Page 72: "Move Nature": No explanations are given for Snowstep, Waterwalk and Airwalk. "Move Space": What category is a place which has been scried upon?

Page 74: "Remote Viewing": What is the base DC for the Will save for noticing, that one's being scried upon? The same of the spell?

Page 78: "Cantrip: A 0 MP Transform [Creature] spell can turn a willing creature into a creature of the appropriate type with CR ½ or lower, but only if they are the same element type." Shouldn't that be "the same creature type"? The last sentence of this paragraph half redundant.

Page 88: "...(base 10, 10 from MP, and 10 from psuedo-ranks)." Obvious. "you’ll usually want to combine this with some sort of inescapable death trap." This sentence is used twice - maybe one time too much.

Can items created, which can use the item creation feats themselves? How about intelligent items? If creatures can be created through the Permanent Spell feat, why can the undead spawn other undead? Because of the multiplier effect of the item creation feat above, is the magic some kind of virulent? Can created creatures be resurrected? And there is no mentioning of the "Pay 5000 XP and get a _Wish_-like effect.".

The open question from my review: Do only the general creature types loose their immunities like [Plant] the immunity against transformations? Also subtypes like the Abominations (see the SRD or the ELH)? An example in the Transform spells shows that Dragons keep their Sleep immunity. Regarding Transform's Strong Defenses enhancement: I use the CR system from the (upcoming?) Immortals Handbook, which equals CR and ECL. Because so the CR includes the possibility of the player's abuse: Is Strong Defenses still necessary?

And I didn't found a possibility to increase the mental ability threshold from the Animate enhancement. Furthermore, the "partly transformation"-option should say something in the lines: "You can choose to transform yourself partly, like having bear claws instead hands. The resulting CR has to be examined like a new race, which is the corresponding modified base form of your own race without any class levels." Of course, this isn't something what can be done on the fly, but with the above mentioned CR system it is possible.


----------



## UoR11

One question about Lyceian Arcana: Will there be any notes about using this with d20 Modern. I've started thinking about how to make a few advanced classes for Modern that use the magic from EoM.


----------



## Verequus

What happens, if someone under the influence under a Transform spell loses a limb? Changes this part back? What if this spell is permanent? If the spell is permanent, do change the age categories? Can a human get older through changing into an elf?

Have illusions hit points? Can they be killed or destroyed? How can the damage of an illusion determined? Does it depend, what the illusion is? Do a sword and a fireball illusion different amounts of damage? If yes, what is the maximum damage, which can be done by a illusion spell? (This all assumes an Illusion Force enhancement.)


----------



## Blue mage for hire2

Actually, guys?  I've changed my e-mail how do I fix it under my login name here?


----------



## RangerWickett

RuleMaster said:
			
		

> FYI, I asked RangerWickett some months ago, if there will be some kind of "Circle Magic", and he said, that there will be "Group Casting" in Lyceian Arcana. If it is still true (can that be confirmed?), then no work is necessary.




Here’s the basics of it, which will vary depending on the style of ritual magic you use in your game.

To cast a spell through combined effort, you need to have all the contributing spellcasters donate MP.  The amount of MP you donate is worth a different amount of ‘Ritual Magic Points.’  The MP cost of the spell you’re trying to cast determines how much RMP it takes to pay for it.  There’s more to it than this, but here’s the chart.

*MP Paid: - RMP Value:*
01 : ……1
02 : ……2
03 : ……3
04 : ……4
05 : ……6
06 : ……8
07 : …..12
08 : …..15
09 : …..25
10 : …..35
11 : …..50
12 : …..65
13 : …..95
14 : ….125
15 : ….190
16 : ….250
17 : ….375
18 : ….500
19 : ….750
20 : …1000
21 : …1500
22 : …2000
23 : …3000
24 : …4000
25 : …6000
26 : …8000
27 : ..12000
28 : ..16000
29 : ..24000
30 : ..32000
31 : ..48000
32 : ..64000
33 : ..96000
34 : .128000
35 : .192000
36 : .256000
37 : .384000
38 : .512000
39 : .768000
40 : 1024000
41+ : For each 2 MP you increase, double the cost.

Only spellcasters who know all the spell lists used in the spell you’re casting can donate MP, and each cannot donate more MP in a single round than his MP Limit.  However, the spellcasters can donate MP over the course of several turns.  Each round a mage donates MP, he must make a caster level check (DC equal to the spell being cast), or else his donated MP is wasted.

Once all the MP is gathered, the group must still cast the spell.  Since you are casting the spell on the fly, this takes two full rounds.  A ‘lead caster’ makes a caster level check (DC 11 + spell MP cost), and each assisting spellcaster who beats a DC 10 caster level check gives the main caster a +2 bonus.  If the check succeeds, the spell is cast.  If the spell fails by less than 5, the spell just fails.  If the check fails by 5 or more, the spell backlashes on those involved.  The specifics of the backlash depend on how the GM wants to set up his magic.  

A nice guideline is damage equal to the spell’s MP cost, and a point of Wisdom damage for each MP the spell is above the strongest Mage’s MP Limit.  A particularly nasty setting, something Cthulhu-esque, might have you still take half damage on a success.

_Example One: Four 14th level mages try to cast a 20-MP spell.  Each 14 MP they donate is worth 125 RMP, and a 20-MP spell takes 1000 RMP to cast.  Each round, the mages have to succeed DC 20 caster level checks, but if they’re not in a rush, they can just take 10.  After two rounds of each donating 14 MP, they have enough MP, and can begin casting the spell.  Two rounds later, the mage who is the leader makes a DC 30 caster level check.  The other three casters cannot fail their assist check, so the lead mage adds a +6 bonus to his check.  If the lead mage Takes 10, he will manage to succeed in casting the spell.

Example Two: A 20th level mage tries to revive a legendary warrior who died centuries ago, a 25-MP spell.  The mage spends six rounds donating 20 MP each round, enough to total the 6000 RMP needed for the 25-MP spell.  After concentrating for six rounds, and spending two rounds to cast the spell, he must make a DC 35 caster level check._

Still undergoing some revision.  It’s rather hard to playtest 30-MP effects.




> Okay, here is my error and questions list - I'm posting this here, so your other thread is kept pure for printing purposes. Please include confirmed ones there.
> 
> Errata:
> Page 7: Can a Transform Specialist while being Animagus change his animal form using this ability? Why can't be all Boons upgraded like the Minor Energy Resistance?




No to the Transform Specialist question.  For the other question, some of the boons sorta scale, like spiritual medium to sixth sense.  The boons were mostly just sample ideas for minor magical powers that would be interesting and flavorful.  It should be easy to make up new ones for your own game.



> Page 24: "Diogenes’s Deshackling (Dispel Magic 13/Gen 2)": Shouldn't the name be "Diogenes’ Deshackling"? And the spell is a Dispel Magic 14/Gen 1.




Depending on which book you reference, it is either correct or incorrect to put ‘s after a singular word that ends in S.  For plurals that end in S, like “Mages’ Spellbooks,” you never put the s after the apostrophe.

And yes, it is incorrectly listed as 13/2 on page 24.



> Page 27: "When you first cast the spell, you can choose to have its duration be less than the normal one minute. You can also dismiss the spell as a standard action." This is true for spells with enhanced durations?




You can dismiss any spell you cast by spending a standard action.  Or, when you cast a spell, you can choose any specific duration that is less than the amount you paid for.  That way, the spell will end automatically and you don’t have to spend an action to end it.  It doesn’t come up often.



> Page 31: "Saving Throw, [Element]. The spell provides a saving throw bonus against natural attacks (including innate magical attacks) from creatures with the appropriate elemental descriptor." and similar. If innate magical attacks are also attacks with innate mage levels, how count these magical attacks, if extra mage levels stack with the innate ones? As normal if the MPs spent are more than the innate mage level?




So you’re asking, basically, if you had a fire monster with a natural caster level of 5, and it cast a spell on you, would Abjure Fire give you a saving throw bonus against the spell?  Yes.  If the creature then took a level of Mage to have a caster level of 6, would Abjure Fire still protect against its spells?

I don’t know.  It never came up.  What do you think?



> Page 32: Table 3.6: MP Cost & Energy Resistance: With 7 MPs one can gain a energy resistence of 40, but the corresponding Hex entry says only 35.




It’s easier to get a resistance to energy than it is to remove resistance.  Not all effects of reversible spell lists are equal in cost.



> Page 34: How interact Energy Weakness and Energy Resistance, if you weak someone with full resistence? Also only the table has the text "Energy Weakness", the surrounding text mentions still "Energy Resistance".




If you try to ‘reduce’ energy immunity, there’s no effect.  You’d have to spend 8 MP to remove the energy immunity, or 15 MP to remove every energy resistance on the creature.



> Page 42: "Telepathic Domination (7 MP). For the spell’s duration, you may command the creature whenever you want from any distance, with any level of complexity." Also on other planes? "Mind Modify": Does  a permanent modification count as effect, which counts to the number of permanent spells and wondrous items a character can use?




As per the core rules, pretty much nothing extends to other planes unless it says so.

Any permanent spell, even an unwilling one, counts against the limit.



> Page 44: "Elemental Object": "(2 MP for the area of effect, the base 2 MP for this enhancement, and then another 2 MP because of how much the area of effect costs)." The first 2 MP are for the enhancement Elemental Object.




I don’t know what you’re saying.



> Page 45: "Create Air": "farhenheit" instead "Fahrenheit".
> 
> Page 46: "Create Light", "Create Shadow": Do they cancel each other? At least Evoke Shadow has an influence on Create Light, but why not vice versa?




Of course they negate each other.



> Page 48: "Pocket Armory": "Thee can be any weapons and armor of your choice,..." "Thee" instead "They".
> 
> Dispel Magic: "Dispel Magic can dispel (but not counter) the ongoing effects of supernatural abilities as well as spells." The new 3.5 core rules don't allow this anymore. "Area of Effect: Normally you’ll target only a single spell or effect with this skill, but sometimes you may want to dispel or counter every effect in an area, and thus you can purchase area of effect enhancements normally as with any spell." If a spell covers more area than the dispel spell can target, what happens?




I could’ve sworn I got the ‘dispel supernatural abilities’ text from the 3.5 PHB.  Hrm.  Well, since most such abilities don’t have MP costs or caster levels, just ignore it.



> Page 49: Counterspelling, Example Two: "TheDC is 34 (11 + caster level + 0 for...". Obvious.
> 
> Page 51: "Example Six: Ursus is generally cautious of being spyed on,...". "spyed" instead "spied".
> 
> Page 52: "Fire Guard" - "You must know Evoke Fire to have the shield set to protect against it." While there are 4 MP spent on Dispel Magic, it isn't mentioned that "Fire Guard" can know three other spell lists.




You _can_ have up to 4 spell lists, but I chose to only mention 1.  The rest were unimportant to the flavor of the spell, and up to you to decide.



> Page 56: "Putrify Food" instead "Putrefy".
> 
> "Ice – Freeze": Do objects gain their hardness back after the end of the duration?




Of course they go back to normal when the spell ends.



> Page 57: "Life - Life": What can protect against the Mild effect? Abjure Life?




Nope.  If you use the mild side effect of Evoke Life, you change the way the spell deals damage.  It should have been spelled out, but no, Life resistance will reduce the damage, but it won’t stop it from being mental.



> Page 58: "Time – Temporality: If an Evoke Time spell is save-based, it allows a Will save instead of a Reflex save." Shouldn't that be worded like the other examples? "Evoke Time spells that allow saving throws for half damage require Will saves instead of Reflex saves." Or can be chosen between a Reflex and a Will save?




Nope, it’s Will.  It was just that, when we cleared up the wording of that effect on other Evoke spells, we didn’t clear it up for Evoke Time.



> Page 68: "Casters can choose not to make the recipient detect in this way, and most magic items that grant ability bonuses do not change a creature’s aura." "detect" instead "detectable"? And if a caster has chosen this option, is the recipient still affectable as described above?




“Detect” I think is a suitable word, but regardless, if the caster of Infuse Fire chooses for the subject to not become a Fire creature, then Heal Fire won’t heal it.  If the caster chooses for Infuse Evil to not make the target detect as evil, then Evoke Good won’t do full damage to it.



> Page 69: "Phasing Attack. The attack selectively passes through certain types of matter harmlessly,..." What certain types?




Read the next sentence in that paragraph.  It ignores armor and shields, but not the enhancement bonuses of those items.



> Page 71: "Move Life": A permanent Move Life used for possession allows someone to take over the body of dragon and kill his own former body. This lets some questions open: What happens to the hit dice? Do I gain the racial hit dice of my new body? Do I gain all ex-, su- and sp-abilities? What happens, if a (permanent) dispel affects me?




If you’re in the body, you’d have all your class-based hit dice, plus all the racial hit dice appropriate to that body.  You’d have all that body’s appropriate abilities.  Your GM will probably want to adjust your effective character level, but hey, if you manage to force your way into a dragon’s body, good for you.

If you’ve made the spell permanent, and a temporary dispel is used, your soul is forced out of your body, akin to the spirit wander effect.  If your original body is still alive, the two souls go back to their normal sides.  Otherwise, your soul’s just ejected and the body lies limp.  If the dispel is permanent, and your original body is dead, you die too, and may end up as some sort of uneasy spirit if your GM wants.  Your new body lives on in a coma-like state.



> Page 72: "Move Nature": No explanations are given for Snowstep, Waterwalk and Airwalk. "Move Space": What category is a place which has been scried upon?




Snowstep lets you walk on snow or ice without making balance checks.  Waterwalk lets you walk on water as if it were solid ground.  Airwalk lets you walk on air as if it were solid ground.  I thought that seemed obvious enough.  If you’ve scryed on a place, it counts as ‘Viewed Once,’ unless you’ve scryed on it a lot.



> Page 74: "Remote Viewing": What is the base DC for the Will save for noticing, that one's being scried upon? The same of the spell?




Yes.  If a spell mentions a save DC, it’s always 10 + ½ MP cost + caster’s Charisma bonus, unless it says otherwise.



> Page 78: "Cantrip: A 0 MP Transform [Creature] spell can turn a willing creature into a creature of the appropriate type with CR ½ or lower, but only if they are the same element type." Shouldn't that be "the same creature type"? The last sentence of this paragraph half redundant.




No, a 0 MP Transform Animal spell would let you turn a human into a cat, Transform Humanoid would let you turn into a goblin, and Transform Vermin would let you turn into a giant bee.  You could not, however, use Transform Undead to turn a human into a zombie, because one is a life creature, and one is a death creature.



> Page 88: "...(base 10, 10 from MP, and 10 from psuedo-ranks)." Obvious. "you’ll usually want to combine this with some sort of inescapable death trap." This sentence is used twice - maybe one time too much.
> 
> Can items created, which can use the item creation feats themselves? How about intelligent items? If creatures can be created through the Permanent Spell feat, why can the undead spawn other undead? Because of the multiplier effect of the item creation feat above, is the magic some kind of virulent? Can created creatures be resurrected? And there is no mentioning of the "Pay 5000 XP and get a _Wish_-like effect.".




I’m not quite clear about the question.



> The open question from my review: Do only the general creature types lose their immunities like [Plant] the immunity against transformations? Also subtypes like the Abominations (see the SRD or the ELH)? An example in the Transform spells shows that Dragons keep their Sleep immunity. Regarding Transform's Strong Defenses enhancement: I use the CR system from the (upcoming?) Immortals Handbook, which equals CR and ECL. Because so the CR includes the possibility of the player's abuse: Is Strong Defenses still necessary?




I’m not very familiar with the Immortals Handbook.

For immunities, generally if the immunity is only to a small type of magic (like dragons against sleep), it keeps it.  If the creature had immunity to mind-affecting effects, it can still be affected by specifically-designed Charm and Compel lists against that creature type, since that was a key part of the design of the magic system.  I wasn’t familiar with Abominations, so probably the most balanced thing for them would be to have a new Charm Abomination spell list.

As for Transforming the untransformable, I never understood why plants can’t be transformed, but then again, I rarely use plant monsters.  For your game, I’d suggest you keep the resistance, but maybe allow it if you include the ‘different element type’ enhancement.



> And I didn't found a possibility to increase the mental ability threshold from the Animate enhancement. Furthermore, the "partly transformation"-option should say something in the lines: "You can choose to transform yourself partly, like having bear claws instead hands. The resulting CR has to be examined like a new race, which is the corresponding modified base form of your own race without any class levels." Of course, this isn't something what can be done on the fly, but with the above mentioned CR system it is possible.




I didn’t want to allow you to increase mental ability scores.  And yes, that’s pretty much what I was shooting for, with the warning that you should not let casters ‘research’ creatures that are inappropriate for their type.  For instance, no humanoids with natural breath weapons.


----------



## RangerWickett

UoR11 said:
			
		

> One question about Lyceian Arcana: Will there be any notes about using this with d20 Modern. I've started thinking about how to make a few advanced classes for Modern that use the magic from EoM.




I haven't looked into d20 Modern for a long while.  We're already mostly done with LA, and I'd rather get it out soon rather than take the time necessary before I'd feel comfortable gauging a proper power level in d20 Modern.  Certainly a full caster level progression would not be balanced.


----------



## RangerWickett

RuleMaster said:
			
		

> What happens, if someone under the influence under a Transform spell loses a limb? Changes this part back? What if this spell is permanent? If the spell is permanent, do change the age categories? Can a human get older through changing into an elf?
> 
> Have illusions hit points? Can they be killed or destroyed? How can the damage of an illusion determined? Does it depend, what the illusion is? Do a sword and a fireball illusion different amounts of damage? If yes, what is the maximum damage, which can be done by a illusion spell? (This all assumes an Illusion Force enhancement.)




You stay in the new form, even severed limbs, until the spell ends.  If the spell doesn't end, such as if it's permanent, then your limbs stay in your normal form.  Of course, this is a very very minor issue usually, so if the GM'd prefer for it to work differently for flavor's sake, I don't see how that would be unbalancing.

If you change race, you become a person of your same equivalent maturity, but you'll age like that race.  So an adult human becomes an adult Elf.

Illusions work however their controller wants them to work, and how their complexity level allows.  Simple illusions would easily be determined to be fake when you stab them and nothing happens.  As for the damage they can deal, treat them like Evoke spells.  No more than 1d6 base per MP of the illusion, modified by the percentage appropriate from Illusion Force.

So a spell Illusion Light 3/Illusion Force 5/Gen 4 to create an illusion of a burst of flame, 20-ft. in radius, with medium range, it could do 8d6 damage, which would do 60% because of a complex illusion force.  Even though you have Illusion Force, those struck by the spell get a Will save to disbelieve.  This is simply inherent in the nature of any Illusion spell: the first time it touches you, you get a save.


----------



## RangerWickett

Blue mage for hire2 said:
			
		

> Actually, guys?  I've changed my e-mail how do I fix it under my login name here?




Ask in Meta.  They could give you a better answer.


----------



## RangerWickett

Flare
Evoke Fire 10/ Hex Water 8/ Gen 2
Total MP: 20
Range: short (30 ft.)
Duration: 10 minutes
This Fiery spell deals 11d6 points of damage to the target, the Flames of Flare are super-hot, and completely ignores fire resistance.  Indeed, the potency of Flare is such that they target doesn't recover his fire resistance until 10 minutes have passed. 

You should make a note that the target has to fail its Will save to be affected by the Abjure, and that it takes half damage from the Evoke spell if it succeeds a Reflex save.  Also, you're probably better off having the spell just last one minute, but do 12d6 damage.

Meteor
Evoke Earth 12/ Evoke Lava 1/ Gen 7
Total MP: 20
Area: 150 ft. cone.
Duration: 1 minute
Calling a Meteor storm down to Earth, this spell does 9d6 points of Bludgeoning damage to everything in a 150 ft long Cone each round for one minute.  All objects and the ground itself are baked for the duration of the spell, and deal 1d6 damage to all who are in contact with them. 8 Mp extra Damage, 1 MP Lava side effect, 4 Mp enduring damage, 6 MP 150 ft. Cone, 1 Mp duration.

First of all, you don't need to pay any MP to get a one-minute duration spell.  Second, you misunderstand enduring damage.  Each 4 MP you spend will make it do 1d6 damage per round, for a minute.  You cannot then add the 'extra damage' enhancement to make it deal 9d6 damage per round.  You _can_ buy enduring damage three times, for a total of 12 MP, so that you'll do 3d6 damage per round for a minute.

Enduring damage is useful for _slowly_ wearing down a target.  Over the course of that minute, you'll do more damage than you would have with a one-shot Evoke spell, but if it worked the way you have it, it'd be overpowered, with the possibility of doing 300 points of damage to a person, or more.

Ultima
Evoke Force 18/ Gen 2
Total MP: 20
Range: 30 ft.
Area: 10 ft. Burst
Duration: Instantaneous
This most awesome spell does 19d6 points of damage in a 10 ft. Burst.  Its basically Anihalation in a bag. Simple enough. 18 Mp extra damage, 1 MP range, 1 MP duration

Why do you include a duration cost?  You don't have to buy a duration unless you want the spell to last 10 minutes or more, and there's no reason this would last 10 minutes.

Might Guard
Abjure Nature 6/ Abjure Force 6/ Gen 2
Total MP: 14
Area of effect: 10 ft area, centered on you.
Duration: 10 minutes
A nice spell to have in a pinch, this grants DR 6 and an Energy Buffer against all types of energy, which fails if the damage exceeds 40 points.  In short, it reduces damage done by non magical weapons and attacks by 6 and will totally block all damage by energy sources, as long as its under 40 damage. This effect lasts for ten minutes.

This spell may be a little weak, since that energy buffer will apply just once for the entire duration, and only once for the entire area of effect.  If people in the area are all hit by one single attack, the buffer will stop the damage to each of them, but people are individually targeted, the buffer could be dropped quickly.  Not horrible, though.


----------



## Verequus

A nice group casting concept - even functional with one man! But I have to calculate, if you followed your 41+-rule all the way up (after a certain point).



			
				RangerWickett said:
			
		

> So you’re asking, basically, if you had a fire monster with a natural caster level of 5, and it cast a spell on you, would Abjure Fire give you a saving throw bonus against the spell? Yes. If the creature then took a level of Mage to have a caster level of 6, would Abjure Fire still protect against its spells?
> 
> I don’t know. It never came up. What do you think?



Is an improved natural caster level still a natural caster level? If yes, question solved. If no, then:

a) Are all spells affected by the improved caster level? If yes, it would mean that the spells become "muddied" by the improvement, but have still their basic nature. The corresponding mechanic: Calculate the percentage of natural caster level/improved caster level. Roll with a d% and if the result is in the percentage, the Abjure spell protects the target. For easier handling, the smooth translation can be changed to: Divide the natural caster level through 4 and round up to gain the quarter. Then calculate the four limits - (natural caster level) + quarter * (number of limit). For every limit, the improved caster level is higher, the percentage, that an Abjure spell can affect this spell is reduced by 25%. Effectively, if you have an improved caster level, which is the twice of your natural caster level, you aren't considered having a natural caster level.

b) Are all spells affected by the improved caster level? If no, then it could mean, that the caster can choose the source of his power. Having a 5/5, the caster could only use his class-improved caster level up to 5 MP, making low-level spells more invulnerable. If you say, that class-improved caster level are always on the top (the creature is simply more accustomed to use his own powers), then all upper-level spells are more invulnerable.

I like the quarter solution from a) - it is the best from both worlds, while being easy to maintain through having only percentages of 100%, 75%, 50%, 25% and 0%, which means only a extra die roll for a certain time and not forever (or until the chance isn't measurable with d%).



> It’s easier to get a resistance to energy than it is to remove resistance. Not all effects of reversible spell lists are equal in cost.



If I am right, then this 35/40-issue is the only difference between both tables. If it should be more difficult, then it isn't there.



> Page 44: "Elemental Object": "(2 MP for the area of effect, the base 2 MP for this enhancement, and then another 2 MP because of how much the area of effect costs)." The first 2 MP are for the enhancement Elemental Object.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don’t know what you’re saying.
Click to expand...


Look at the description - it says, you pay twice for the area of effect, but nothing for the ehancement Elemental Object, and that's wrong.




> Page 48: "Area of Effect: Normally you’ll target only a single spell or effect with this skill, but sometimes you may want to dispel or counter every effect in an area, and thus you can purchase area of effect enhancements normally as with any spell." If a spell covers more area than the dispel spell can target, what happens?



You overlooked that question.



> If you’re in the body, you’d have all your class-based hit dice, plus all the racial hit dice appropriate to that body. You’d have all that body’s appropriate abilities. Your GM will probably want to adjust your effective character level, but hey, if you manage to force your way into a dragon’s body, good for you.



What happens to my own ex-, su- and sp-abilities? If I interpret your statement correctly, then class-based abilities stay, while racial-based abilities are gone. Is this then better than a permanent Transform Dragon spell (except the dispelling issue and you have to fight a dragon)?



> Snowstep lets you walk on snow or ice without making balance checks. Waterwalk lets you walk on water as if it were solid ground. Airwalk lets you walk on air as if it were solid ground. I thought that seemed obvious enough.



Snowstep wasn't so obvious - I would have thought, it would be like Trackless Step. But I haven't read the DMG regarding the balance check... 



> No, a 0 MP Transform Animal spell would let you turn a human into a cat, Transform Humanoid would let you turn into a goblin, and Transform Vermin would let you turn into a giant bee. You could not, however, use Transform Undead to turn a human into a zombie, because one is a life creature, and one is a death creature.



Somewhere in the first two chapters there was an example, which mentioned that problem. But not everyone has the already the mindset, that every creature belongs to an element, too, so a more explicit remainder would be great.

Edit: I found that explicit remainder - when I forget to look at the right place... 




> Can items created, which can use the item creation feats themselves? How about intelligent items? If creatures can be created through the Permanent Spell feat, why can the undead spawn other undead? Because of the multiplier effect of the item creation feat above, is the magic some kind of virulent? Can created creatures be resurrected? And there is no mentioning of the "Pay 5000 XP and get a _Wish_-like effect.".
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I’m not quite clear about the question.
Click to expand...


If you pay enough XP, then you can give away feats and then you can create items which can use not only signature spells but even spell lists and metamagic feats. So theoretically, I could create an _Orb of Magic's Doom_, which casts two permanent spells, which give the use of Spellcraft and Dispel Magic to everyone, who touches the _Orb_, can't I? And you never mentioned intelligent items. Should we use the DMG's Guide for that?

And to the undead - I asked myself: "Why can undead spawn undead without paying any XP, while the spawning is surely some kind of magic?" I figured, if the question in the paragraph above would be answered with "yes", then magic can be virulent like the GPL and it would explain my question in this paragraph. The question "Can be created creatures be resurrected?" and "There is no mentioning of the 'Pay 5000 XP and get a _Wish_-like effect.'." should be clear themselves.



> I’m not very familiar with the Immortals Handbook.



Its author Upper_Krust is right in the following point: There should be no difference between a monster's CR and a character's CR. The last one's CR is simply his (E)CL, but the monster have usually a CR and a LA. Your "Strong Defenses" enhancement mentions, that the CR should be more regarded as the ECL, and U_K's CR system does exactly this thing - making the CR to the ECL. This means, that the CRs are usually one-third higher than the ones from the SRD. So if the CRs, I'm using already, include the defenses like directly assigned for a character, I don't need this enhancement, do I?



> As for Transforming the untransformable, I never understood why plants can’t be transformed, but then again, I rarely use plant monsters. For your game, I’d suggest you keep the resistance, but maybe allow it if you include the ‘different element type’ enhancement.



Actually, I don't understand the restriction either. If it would be because of the immunities, a plant monster loses, then undead wouldn't be transformable, too. And if I already toss the Unentchantable stuff already in the bins, then I can kill that, too. That reminds me... *looks into the SRD*

*"Immunities (Ex):* Abominations are immune to polymorphing, petrification, or any form-altering attack. They are not subject to energy drain, ability drain, or ability damage. They are immune to mind-affecting effects (charms, compulsions, phantasms, patterns, and morale effects), and are immune to one of five energy types (specific to the abomination)."

If the fairest solution is a new spell list, then welcome Transform Abomination! 



> I didn’t want to allow you to increase mental ability scores [through Transform].



Then we have to use Infuse [Element] for that?

"Animate: If this enhancement is chosen for a transformation of one creature into another, the transformed creature must make a Will save (same DC as the rest of the spell) or have its mind change so that it acts like the new creature."
A human turned into a celestial cat has then the instincts of a cat?



> And yes, that’s pretty much what I was shooting for, with the warning that you should not let casters ‘research’ creatures that are inappropriate for their type. For instance, no humanoids with natural breath weapons.



But Monstrous Humanoids and Magical Beasts with breath weapons are allowed? But aren't all hybrids or bear-clawed warriors per se Monstrous Humanoids?

And can I decide while using a Transform spell the gender and racial features only in the normal range for the race like in the core rules?


----------



## UoR11

RangerWickett said:
			
		

> I haven't looked into d20 Modern for a long while.  We're already mostly done with LA, and I'd rather get it out soon rather than take the time necessary before I'd feel comfortable gauging a proper power level in d20 Modern.  Certainly a full caster level progression would not be balanced.



Okay, cool. As a first guess, I'd have the same requirements as the Mage advanced class in Modern, and simply use the first 10 levels of the Mage class from EoM. I'll be running a Modern game using this over the summer with any luck, so I'll let you know how it works out.


----------



## Izerath

*Some initial kudos.*

Ryan, 

I know you asked for questions here but regardless, I want to say: Well done!

I purchased the first EoM release and found that the spirit of the rules were in the right place, but the system was clunky; So much so that I continued to use my own rules for just this type of magic. I've never been satisfied, even with my own rules. With that said, I have been scouring your new release and while I am not yet finished reading, I am pleased. 

I want to commend you for breaking loose of the common "must be in levels" power rating. This is the one "stigma" I believe is holding back the industry as a whole. Nearly every author is concerned about "levels." I understand that old habits die hard, but in this case, your use of a "caster level" mechanic did the trick and opened up the possibilities for the system without having to work through the whole "levels stack/do not stack" issue. Bravo.

I am already taking notes on how to adapt my house rules (more like a core rulebook at this juncture with over 200 pages) to use EoMR as the core system for arcane spellcasting. Thank goodness EoMR is 100% OGL! (sans the 'names' of course!)

Second, I applaud your classification of core spells as "signature spells." I would love to see a web enhancement that classifies all of the existing core spells into the appropriate Action type/Effect categories. I don't believe complete conversion is required, since you can figure out the MP cost by doubling the spell level and subtracting one, but a translation like this would be well worth the effort to place each core spell under the most appropriate 'spell list'. Namely, I think it'd be super handy for those who buy EoMR. I know I'd love it, since I have to do this anyway! LOL!

Two recommendations: #1 I'd love to see a dedicated thread with player spell contributions, I noticed a few posted already here. #2 a web enhancement placing the core 'signature' spells into the associated spell lists by action type/effect.

Thanks for a good revision!

Ron Janik, a.k.a Izerath.


----------



## Kemrain

EoM Revised is great. Best < $10 I've ever spent on a DnD book.

Some questions:

I'm loving the Magic Item rules, but there are some things I'm not exactly sure about. I have a character who has some shape shifting ability, and it is awfully annoying that her equipment can't change with her. To this effect, I'm putting together a Ring of Change. Transform Nature 1, Trandform Metal 1, Gen 1 should be enough to make a wonderous item that can transform her armor, clothing, and weapons to fit her new form. Obviously, weapons made into non-weapon objects can't be used to attack effectively, and Armor changed into clothing wouldn't protect much at all, but if she changed an item, say her armor with a +1 Enhancement bonus, into say, Bracers, would they still confer the Enhancement bonus to AC? Also, since the ring is a perminant effect, would the changed equipment be permanant, too? Would permanant changes cost XP constantly? What type of action would changing an object be? (Transform Metal could be a great way to get around those long donning armor times.) Oh, and how should I price a Transform MEtal spell that made Iron into, say, Mithral.

If (since in our game Drow Adamantine weapons corrde in sunlight) I put an Abjure Light spell on a sword, to give it Energy Resistance (so it wouldn't turn to, um, Adamantine-Oxide), would the Energy Resistance apply to the wielder, too?  If it does, and I have 2 Swords with that same enchantment on them, would they both count towards the number of Magic items I can use at once, since they don't stack and one is canceled out? Could they both be enchanted at once if they're both in the origional area of effect?

Is there a way to make a Magic Item that grants a bonus that *will* stack with other magic bonuses (asside from the Deflection/Enhancement bonuses to AC) for an increased cost?

- Kemrain the Curious


----------



## Kemrain

Looking at the Infuse spell list, it says you can Infuse an Element or an Alignment. However, looking at the spell list, I can't seem to find what, other than aligning to an Element or Alignment, Infuse Alignment, would do.

Now that I think about it, what would happen to an aligned Outsider, say a Demon, if they were Infused with Good and had their alignment overpowered by the spell?

Oh, and could you Abjure Good, for DR, with the Greater DR enhancement, aligned to Cold Iron, so the above Demon's Cold Iron or Good DR was made into simply Cold Iron DR?

- Kemrain the [Evil].


----------



## Verequus

Metamagic feats: Is the DC not increased through the extra paid MP? I didn't found a direct mentioning of that, but the example of Intense Spell implies it, along with core rules.

Can item creation with restrictions be less costly? How can items created which allow only a race or alignment, behave different, if used by members of different classes, or impose some kind of another restriction?

Transform Splitting Option: What happens to the memory of (killed) split beings? Does the transformed being know everything after the spell ends?

Are ritual magic spells handled equally in every regard to normal spells except their casting? Can metamagic feats applied to ritual spells?

Can Move Space be used to teleport into antimagic-fields? If yes, the normal SR check has to be done? Can an antimagic-field be dispelled?

Move Life, Spirit Wander: How can these souls be affected? And how can these affect anything?

"When the spell ends, extraplanar summoned creatures return whence they came, taking with them any items or injuries they received." This means, death is permanent, too?

What is the saving throw of Evoke Death 3/Evoke Fire 3? Two saving throws for each kind of damage? If you attack an incorporeal creature with Evoke Fire 3/Evoke Force 3, damages only Evoke Force 3 normally?

"When a creature changes form, it gains the new form’s Strength, Dexterity, Constitution, movement abilities, natural armor, and innate natural, extraordinary, spell-like, and supernatural abilities. The creature’s hit points also change to those of the new form, if the new form has more hit points." If I have 5th level character with 30 hp and Constitution of 18 and the character changes to a creature with a Con 10, what happens? Do I lose 20 hp first and compare then, if the new form has more than 10 hp, or are my minimum hp 30? And after looking into the teaser thread, I've found out, that I've asked, what happens to nonabilities like transforming into an undead, but the answer isn't in EoM.

"If you want permanent transformation, such as with a medusa’s gaze, you must use the Craft Permanent Spell feat." I wonder, why those medusas and basiliks don't have to pay for XP - because sp- and su-ablities don't pay XP usually?

After looking into the spell listing thread, I see that Kavyk had the same idea I had: Spells with entries, how to scale them. The EoM component structure lends itself for a quick powerup. Such entries would allow a GM to change spells on the fly or saying "That was a signature spell!". I dug my old proposition out and cleaned it up:

[Element]/[Alignment]ball
Minimum MP: 2
Evoke [Element]/[Aligment] 1/Gen 1
Range: Short (30 ft.)
Duration: Instanteous
Saving Throw: Reflex half, other for possible ambient side effects

This spell surrounds the target shortly with a ball of [Element]/[Alignment] and does 1d6 damage. Costs: 1 MP damage, 1 MP range.

Improvements:
Scalable damage: 1 MP for 1d6, can be from every element/alignment.
Increased range: 1 MP for Medium (150 ft.), 2 MP for Long (800 ft.).
Contingency: 1 MP for Short (10 minutes), 2 MP for Medium (one hour), used for delay or as trap trigger.

The improvement entries are the most likely used enhancements with included values, what will be changed, and if applicable, the upper range of the enhancement (there could be used more MPs on such an enhancement, but such situations would be rare) and specific use. This example defines not only a Fireball, but also a Delayed Blast Fireball and a Fire Trap in all varieties, including other elements and aligments. I didn't include a side effect table, because that would be clunky and it can be simply looked up. Or is this format too unwieldy? Then it has to be broken up into 27 different spells.

Blue mage:
You forgot the "Total MP"-entry in your spells in the other thread.


And to all, who didn't write a review yet:

How about writing one? There are some people, who want totally uninfluenced opinions - at least some reviews where they can think that.


----------



## Blue mage for hire2

RangerWickett said:
			
		

> You should make a note that the target has to fail its Will save to be affected by the Abjure, and that it takes half damage from the Evoke spell if it succeeds a Reflex save.  Also, you're probably better off having the spell just last one minute, but do 12d6 damage.




well, I guess I could have used Evoke Force, but the basic idea was to have a powerful spell that was graphically fiery yet did non elemental damage.  I was doing too many things at once, I guess.



> First of all, you don't need to pay any MP to get a one-minute duration spell.  Second, you misunderstand enduring damage.  Each 4 MP you spend will make it do 1d6 damage per round, for a minute.  You cannot then add the 'extra damage' enhancement to make it deal 9d6 damage per round.  You _can_ buy enduring damage three times, for a total of 12 MP, so that you'll do 3d6 damage per round for a minute.
> 
> Enduring damage is useful for _slowly_ wearing down a target.  Over the course of that minute, you'll do more damage than you would have with a one-shot Evoke spell, but if it worked the way you have it, it'd be overpowered, with the possibility of doing 300 points of damage to a person, or more.




ah. I see.



> Why do you include a duration cost?  You don't have to buy a duration unless you want the spell to last 10 minutes or more, and there's no reason this would last 10 minutes.



my bad, I meant: 1 MP area.



> This spell may be a little weak, since that energy buffer will apply just once for the entire duration, and only once for the entire area of effect.  If people in the area are all hit by one single attack, the buffer will stop the damage to each of them, but people are individually targeted, the buffer could be dropped quickly.  Not horrible, though.




hmm...maybe I should read the rules more carefully.  I guess I should switch it to energy resistance.  That's uh....15 points of energy damage deducted every round.  I guess that works.


----------



## Vaxalon

*Charm [Creature] and Compel [Creature]*

In the change to EOMR, why were the options for Charm [Creature] and Compel [Creature] reduced?  There were lots of options in EOM.


----------



## RangerWickett

I promise to get around to replying to these in a few days, but I graduate Monday, and I have to get ready to pack up and move.

In response to the last question, what charm and compel options did you feel were missing?


----------



## Phaedrus

To become a Heal Specialist (and get combined healing) requires 6 heal lists.  This means Life + 5 "throw away" elements, if all you want to do is heal people.  That's just the way it is, right? Or am I missing something? (Heal Earth, Nature, Metal so can repair equipment and walls, but you still need 2 more).

And, does Abjure Metal protect against normal metal weapons, or only against magical metal elemental attacks?


----------



## Vaxalon

RangerWickett said:
			
		

> ...what charm and compel options did you feel were missing?




Instill Emotion in [Creature] had:

Courage, Depression, Fear, Friendliness, Hostility, Humor, Rage, Sadness

Charm [Creature] inspired loyalty.

Command [Creature] allowed you to give orders.

Compel [Creature] included:

Attract, Hold, Repel, Suggestion, Dance, Debauchery, Discord, Forget, Sing, Sleep

Dominate [Creature] allowed you to take more-or-less complete control.

Now we have fewer spell lists.

Abjure [Creature] gives us Hedging and Binding, which are something like attract and repel, sort of.  It also gives us Hold, as I recall.

Charm [Creature] gives us emotions:
Anger, Calm, Confuse, Courage, Daze, Fear, Happiness, Sleep.

Compel [Creature] folds in the command and dominate lists, along with Telepathy.

The way I see it, Dance, Debauchery and Sing from the old Compel are gone, and with them anything related to requiring a particular action in general.

Am I missing something?


----------



## Izerath

*Abjure Metal*



			
				Phaedrus said:
			
		

> To become a Heal Specialist (and get combined healing) requires 6 heal lists.  This means Life + 5 "throw away" elements, if all you want to do is heal people.  That's just the way it is, right? Or am I missing something? (Heal Earth, Nature, Metal so can repair equipment and walls, but you still need 2 more).
> 
> And, does Abjure Metal protect against normal metal weapons, or only against magical metal elemental attacks?




Crystal, Earth, Metal, and Nature deal physical damage not element energy damage. Therefore, those Abjure [element] spell lists do not bestow direct protection from the primary element, but they WILL protect you from their friendly element counertparts. This is specified in the ** bullet below "Table 2.2 - Elemental Relations" on page 26 of EoMR.

For example:

- Abjure [Metal] will not protect you from Metal damage, since it is considered slashing damage and not elemental energy damage, but it WILL protect you from Ooze damage. 

- Abjure [Earth] will protect you from Lava and Ooze, but not Earth itself, since Earth deals bludgeoning damage, not elemental energy damage. 

- Crystal protects from Ice and Light.

- Nature has no Abjuration value whatsoever, since it has no friendly elements.

Hope that helps.


----------



## Kemrain

Izerath said:
			
		

> Crystal, Earth, Metal, and Nature deal physical damage not element energy damage. Therefore, those Abjure [element] spell lists do not bestow direct protection from the primary element, but they WILL protect you from their friendly element counertparts. This is specified in the ** bullet below "Table 2.2 - Elemental Relations" on page 26 of EoMR.
> 
> For example:
> 
> - Abjure [Metal] will not protect you from Metal damage, since it is considered slashing damage and not elemental energy damage, but it WILL protect you from Ooze damage.
> 
> - Abjure [Earth] will protect you from Lava and Ooze, but not Earth itself, since Earth deals bludgeoning damage, not elemental energy damage.
> 
> - Crystal protects from Ice and Light.
> 
> - Nature has no Abjuration value whatsoever, since it has no friendly elements.
> 
> Hope that helps.





This information is slightly incomplete. With Abjure Metal you can give your target Damage Reduction against attacks from creatures with the Metal descriptor, or metal weapons.  Even though DR and ER are close, I think DR against metal weapons is what Phaedrus is looking for. You can't Abjure Metal for an AC boost and expect it to apply to weapons, however, because it only protects against natural attacks of creatures with the Metal descriptor.

Abjure Nature, likewise, has no Energy Resistance, but it's not valueless, as with Abjure Nature you can give yourself DR against attacks from any physical source, or boost your AC against all attacks. Hedging Nature is good for creating barriers, too. Certanly a worthwhile list.

- Kemrain the "Naturally" "Metallic".


----------



## Phaedrus

Kemrain has my intent correctly... I'm talking about protecting against normal physical attacks from swords and the like.

Seems like Abjure Metal is a really good way to eliminate damage from normal metal weapons.  Overpowered?

Abjure Nature is even better... all physical attacks, not just those from metal weapons.

Why would any mage NOT take these lists (and use them all the time)?


----------



## anondragon

Phaedrus said:
			
		

> Kemrain has my intent correctly... I'm talking about protecting against normal physical attacks from swords and the like.
> 
> Seems like Abjure Metal is a really good way to eliminate damage from normal metal weapons.  Overpowered?
> 
> Abjure Nature is even better... all physical attacks, not just those from metal weapons.
> 
> Why would any mage NOT take these lists (and use them all the time)?




It only provides DR/magic (unless you buy the enhancement to make it something more exotic.)  magic is pretty low barrier to overcome to bypass damage reduction.  Another thing to point out is that by the time a mage can cast this with a reasonable duration, a fighter at a similiar level can power attack and easily get some damage through the DR.  That said it would make a pretty good link in a mage's arsonal of defences, just be sure to include a high AC to foil power attack.


----------



## Izerath

Oops


----------



## Izerath

*More info.....*

In some fashion my earlier statement was indeed incomplete.

The base effect of Abjure is to grant some protective benefit. Enhancements almost always have to be purchased to boost AC, Saving Throws, grant DR, grant Energy Resistance, and grant Spell Resistance. The base cantrip offers minimal protection at best.

In some cases, these enhancements really favor certain elements, (like Nature for AC and DR, Force for AC) but in others they are significantly weaker because of the lack of friendly elements (Abjure Nature doesn't do didly for anything BUT Nature when applied to Saving Throws, Energy Resistance, and SR. I hope you can find a tree you need protection from in this case).

Also, I am led to believe that Abure Nature for DR only protects against natural attacks, not all physical attacks. This is a bit confusing and ultimately I think is a place for interpretation, or maybe even some guidance from Ryan on what he intended. If it is all attacks, then drop the 'physical' descriptor and say all attacks instead. If it is just natural attacks, like claws, fists etc, then use 'natural' instead of 'physical' as the descriptor. It makes things more clearly understood since thw word 'physical' can be interpreted a number of ways.

Ultimately, I think some of the less intuitively-understood elements, like Life, Death and Nature, need to be clearly defined in their uses for the different spell lists. Some of these are clear, others are cloudy. If that's intentional then great, since we all like a little wriggle room to work with as DMs!

Maybe Ryan's already ahead of the game and will offer more on this in LA.


----------



## mbgrove

*Questions on (mostly) Create*

First of all, I want to say that I am /very/ impressed with EOM(R).  Much 
goodness!  

And now my questions...

My first question is, can you have multiple instances of the same list in the same spell?  Take Abjure Force, for instance.  Abjure Force can give you a deflection bonus to armor or a saving throw bonus or energy resistance or an energy buffer.  Would it be possible to get multiple effects in one casting?  If so, would it be created (Create Force 1, Create Force 1), where the first one is giving a deflection bonus and the second one is giving a saving throw bonus?  Or would it be Create Force 2 with 1 of it defined as giving the deflection bonus and the other giving the saving throw bonus?  (Personally, I would angle towards the second option, at least for reasons below.)

============

Create - In Create, we have the Elemental Object enhancement.  I have a couple of different questions regarding this.  First of all, in a couple of the examples (Mage Armor and Mage Plate), Create Force is used to create armor made of force.  But, Elemental Object says, "If you are using Create Death, Force, Life, Space, or Time to create a physical object, you must select this enhancement, because there is no normal physical version of those elements."   I read these as creating physical versions of Force.  (How else would it give an armor bonus?)  So...  are the examples wrong or am I thinking of this wrong?

That being said, you'd need to be at least 3rd level in order to do a Create Force 3, with 1 being used for the max GP value and 2 being used for the Elemental Object enhancement.  You could use other elements also, but it is the physical representation of the element that is what gives you the armor bonus, right?  (On a more... enlightening... note, just think of plate mail made from Create Light.  I'm not thinkin' you'd be on the vampires Christmas list.  ::grin:: )

============

Question on the Elemental Weapon...  Can you just create an Elemental Weapon out of any element and wield it?  Would you have to use the Elemental Object enhancement first?  So, if I wanted a force blade, how would I do it?  I can think of at least 4 different ways at the moment:  (Assuming a 5 MP spell)
* Use Elemental Weapon for 3d6 damage, doing no other damage but force, since it isn't in the "form" of anything specific (I didn't use any MP to purchase a GP limit). (But could I hold it?  Would it have a physical form?)
* Use 1 MP to create an object up to 100 GP (call it a long sword), 3 MPs to give it extra damage from Elemental Weapon and have another MP for general enhancements.  It would do 1d8 as a long sword and +2d6 of force damage. (Again, could I even hold it?)

And variants on above: 
* Use Elemental Object (2 MPs) to create the weapon out of force and 3 MPs to give it 2d6 damage.  Would only do the 2d6 of force damage, since it isn't in the form of any specific weapon.  (Would actually be a physical "thing" to wield.)
* Use 1 MP to create an object up to 100 GP (call it a long sword), 2 MPs for Elemental Object, and 1 MP for Elemental Weapon.  Would be a long sword doing 1d8 with an additional +1d6 of force damage.

So basically, could you just create a weapon (not a specific sword like long sword, just a "weapon") that you could wield without using MPs for GP cost or "physical manifestation" only doing the elemental damage?  Or would you have to use one or both of the GP costs and physical manifestation (Elemental Object)?

============

And last, but not least, another question on Elemental Weapon...  I noticed that 1 MP gives you +1d6 damage, 3 MP gives you +2d6 damage, etc.  This is the reason that I like option 2 from the first question, since otherwise you could do (Create Force 1, Create Force 1) on your already existing long sword to give it +2d6 damage instead of using (Create Force 3).  I guess this isn't just a question, but more of a clarification that needs to be put in either as "You can't have the same list in the same spell twice" or "You can have multiple effects of the same list in the same spell, but the effects can't be duplicated (I.e. can't have 2 separate instances of Abjure Nature 1 in an Abjure Nature 2 spell for an AC bonus of +4 instead of +3 that it would be for a straight Abjure Nature 2 spell).  Again, I like option number 2, but it needs to be stated explicitly.  (Yes, I do know people who would try to twist it the way things are.)

Well, I think that's "all" for now.  ::wry smile::  Thanks for any clarification....


----------



## Verequus

Ok, I'll try to cut the Gordic knot in your mind.



> My first question is, can you have multiple instances of the same list in the same spell? Take Abjure Force, for instance. Abjure Force can give you a deflection bonus to armor or a saving throw bonus or energy resistance or an energy buffer. Would it be possible to get multiple effects in one casting? If so, would it be created (Create Force 1, Create Force 1), where the first one is giving a deflection bonus and the second one is giving a saving throw bonus? Or would it be Create Force 2 with 1 of it defined as giving the deflection bonus and the other giving the saving throw bonus? (Personally, I would angle towards the second option, at least for reasons below.)



You mention the use of Abjure Force first, but then you write Create Force - that are two different spell lists. Generally, you can buy whatever you want, as long you can pay the MP cost. you can buy multiple enhancements from one spell list or take only one from several different lists. For convience, you add all costs for one spell list up, so the second line in the stat block lists Abjure Force 2/Gen 0 or Abjure Force 1/Abjure Nature 1/Gen 0. In the end, you aren't paying for every component in a spell individually, but the Total MP cost - if you haven't a caster level high enough for that, you can't cast the spell. Surely, you can split the spell into its components and cast them individually, but this has several disadvantages (more rounds to cast, Gen list has to be paid multiple times, not all intendend spell effects can be splitted and be effective, because opponents can dispel effects of former spells) and thus isn't recommened, if you don't have to.



> Create - In Create, we have the Elemental Object enhancement. I have a couple of different questions regarding this. First of all, in a couple of the examples (Mage Armor and Mage Plate), Create Force is used to create armor made of force. But, Elemental Object says, "If you are using Create Death, Force, Life, Space, or Time to create a physical object, you must select this enhancement, because there is no normal physical version of those elements." I read these as creating physical versions of Force. (How else would it give an armor bonus?) So... are the examples wrong or am I thinking of this wrong?



Actually, these spells give an armor bonus, because they create OBJECTS, not an enhancement bonus. Different (and thus stackable) means for improving the AC. The main advantage for Force armory is, that it is weightless. The main disadvantage - it can be dispelled.



> You could use other elements also, but it is the physical representation of the element that is what gives you the armor bonus, right?



Yes - for elements having a physical representation already you don't need Elemental Object and are thus cheaper - but look for side effects like of fire - Create Fire 1 toasts everyone without protection.



> Question on the Elemental Weapon... Can you just create an Elemental Weapon out of any element and wield it? Would you have to use the Elemental Object enhancement first? So, if I wanted a force blade, how would I do it? I can think of at least 4 different ways at the moment: (Assuming a 5 MP spell)
> * Use Elemental Weapon for 3d6 damage, doing no other damage but force, since it isn't in the "form" of anything specific (I didn't use any MP to purchase a GP limit). (But could I hold it? Would it have a physical form?)
> * Use 1 MP to create an object up to 100 GP (call it a long sword), 3 MPs to give it extra damage from Elemental Weapon and have another MP for general enhancements. It would do 1d8 as a long sword and +2d6 of force damage. (Again, could I even hold it?)
> 
> And variants on above:
> * Use Elemental Object (2 MPs) to create the weapon out of force and 3 MPs to give it 2d6 damage. Would only do the 2d6 of force damage, since it isn't in the form of any specific weapon. (Would actually be a physical "thing" to wield.)
> * Use 1 MP to create an object up to 100 GP (call it a long sword), 2 MPs for Elemental Object, and 1 MP for Elemental Weapon. Would be a long sword doing 1d8 with an additional +1d6 of force damage.



Partly answered above. The maximum cost for a creation is determined through the MP spent on the Create lists alone. So the best possibility is Elemental Object (2 MP) and 3 MP for +2d6 damage, while you have a long sword with a base damage of 1d8.



> So basically, could you just create a weapon (not a specific sword like long sword, just a "weapon") that you could wield without using MPs for GP cost or "physical manifestation" only doing the elemental damage? Or would you have to use one or both of the GP costs and physical manifestation (Elemental Object)?



You have to specify the resulting object. "*Monetary Guidelines: *Regardless of what specific enhancements you get for a Create spell, the total MP spent on Create lists determines the maximum monetary value of item you can create. This monetary value refers to both craftsmanship and materials. For example, full plate costs 1500 gp normally, so if you wanted to create an item with the same defensive qualities as plate using Create Force, you would need to spend at least 3 MP, even though force itself has no material cost. Likewise, if you wanted to create full plate made of solid gold, the price would effectively be 4000 gp, 1500 for the suit itself, and an additional 2500 for 50 pounds of gold (gold is about 50 gp per pound)."




> And last, but not least, another question on Elemental Weapon... I noticed that 1 MP gives you +1d6 damage, 3 MP gives you +2d6 damage, etc. This is the reason that I like option 2 from the first question, since otherwise you could do (Create Force 1, Create Force 1) on your already existing long sword to give it +2d6 damage instead of using (Create Force 3). I guess this isn't just a question, but more of a clarification that needs to be put in either as "You can't have the same list in the same spell twice" or "You can have multiple effects of the same list in the same spell, but the effects can't be duplicated (I.e. can't have 2 separate instances of Abjure Nature 1 in an Abjure Nature 2 spell for an AC bonus of +4 instead of +3 that it would be for a straight Abjure Nature 2 spell). Again, I like option number 2, but it needs to be stated explicitly. (Yes, I do know people who would try to twist it the way things are.)
> 
> Well, I think that's "all" for now. ::wry smile:: Thanks for any clarification....





I answered that above. I don't know exactly, where the rules text stand, but I think it must be under the basics in chapter 3.

If some questions are still open, then simply ask!


----------



## mbgrove

RuleMaster said:
			
		

> Ok, I'll try to cut the Gordic knot in your mind.
> You mention the use of Abjure Force first, but then you write Create Force - that are two different spell lists.
> [/font]




Heh...  That I did.  I knew I was writing about both of them, just didn't wait until I got to the Create stuff.  A classic example of reading what you know you wanted to write.  ::wry smile::



			
				RuleMaster said:
			
		

> Generally, you can buy whatever you want, as long you can pay the MP cost. you can buy multiple enhancements from one spell list or take only one from several different lists. For convience, you add all costs for one spell list up, so the second line in the stat block lists Abjure Force 2/Gen 0 or Abjure Force 1/Abjure Nature 1/Gen 0. ...
> [/font]




Well, really my point was that it needs to be explicitly stated in the rules that you can't have something like (Abjure Force 2/Gen 0) and say that it is Abjure Force 1 twice to get +4 to saving throws instead of +3 that you would get with using all the MPs together.



			
				RuleMaster said:
			
		

> Actually, these spells give an armor bonus, because they create OBJECTS, not an enhancement bonus.
> [/font]




Basically, I /was/ saying that the spell is supposed to be giving an armor bonus.  However, I'm not seeing how Create Force by itself (according to the rules, anyway), without the Elemental Object enhancement, can give that armor bonus.  THAT is my point.  The "Mage Armor" and "Mage Plate" spells both use Create Force, but I can't find anywhere that says that (Create Force 1) gives an armor bonus by itself.  Specifically since it doesn't have a physical "version". (Essentially, when and how to use Elemental Object is giving me fits.  ::wry smile::  My thoughts on Create Force are below.)



			
				RuleMaster said:
			
		

> Yes - for elements having a physical representation already you don't need Elemental Object and are thus cheaper - but look for side effects like of fire - Create Fire 1 toasts everyone without protection.
> [/font]




It won't harm the caster, though, so that's good.  You could wield your Create Fire-based sword and not be harmed.

But again, with Elemental Object, if you use Create Force to create the mithril chain shirt in the example...  *I* am reading it that it would need to be (Create Force 3) to get the armor bonus, since it explicitly says that Force doesn't have a physical version  Yet, I can use (Create Fire 1) to give me that flamin' mithril chain shirt that gives me the armor bonus because it has a physical version?  No, not that either.  The Flaming Barrier example shows us that, for the Create Fire spell to actually be a barrier of any sort, it needs the Elemental Object enhancement.  So, what is the Elemental Object enhancement really doing for me?

Basically, there are a couple of issues at hand here.
1) Create Force - In my opinion, along with Metal, Earth, Ooze, Lava, Ice, and Crystal, wouldn't NEED Elemental Object, since they DO have physical manifestations that you can touch.  (In this way, I see Force as a force field type of thing.  The book says that it exists on both the material and ethereal planes.  I'm thinkin' that's a physical manifestation of force, which I would call a force field, which WOULD give an armor bonus.  But Elemental Object says otherwise.)
2) I would think that all OTHER elements would need the Elemental Object in order to create a physical manifestation of the element that could be touched, hit or be used TO hit to do physical damage.  Personally, I've never known of fire or mist, for examples, to be able to deflect anything in a way that could be described in the game as an armor bonus or that would stop someone from physically running through it (with the exception of the fear of not wanting to get hurt by the fire).

(Yes, this is somewhat getting bogged down in the "can it give an armor bonus", but trying to figure out /exactly/ what Elemental Object is doing for me is the issue at hand.)




			
				RuleMaster said:
			
		

> You have to specify the resulting object. "*Monetary Guidelines: *Regardless of what specific enhancements you get for a Create spell, the total MP spent on Create lists determines the maximum monetary value of item you can create.
> [/font]




Ok.  I follow.  But, my question here is, do I have to create something that is real and has monetary value?  

Again, assuming a 5 MP spell, here are a couple of the "I'm going to create a 'weapon' and hit you with it" scenario:
1) Create a greatsword (the 100 gp value category) out of Light and add Elemental Weapon to it.  So, I have 1 MP for the monetary value, 2 MPs for the Elemental Object and 1 MP for Elemental Damage Bonus of +1d6.  (Don't have enough to add another die.)  So, this would give us 2d6 physical damage from the sword itself and 1d6 of Light elemental damage.  Would look like (Create Light 4).
OR could I
2) Create a brightly glowing, light-saber lookin' "rod" of pure Light that /has/ no physical manifestation, but causes 3d6 Light damage.  This would be using (Create Light 5) with using all the MPs to fuel the Elemental Weapon.  So, at this point, all I'm doing is wielding a beam of pure Light.

So...  could I create #2 with just using a "monetary value" of 20gp or less since it doesn't actually have a physical form?  Can I even DO the option in #2?

(Yes, it's very possibly more "efficient" to create the sword with Elemental Object and tag on Elemental Weapon, but that's not the point.  ::wry smile:: )


----------



## lord_banus

With create [Element], is it possible to create a vessel for the more liquid elements for free. For example, could I use create water or create acid in a simple glass container or would I have to do a create crystal? How about changing some of the properties of the liquid such as increasing its surface tension or making into goo or is this the realm of transform. 

Just curious how people would do it.


----------



## RangerWickett

So, I can't reply to all of these b ecause I'm  borrowing a computer while my friends eat dinner, but I'll see if I can answer a few questions.  Dang it, I hate using Macs to type.


----------



## RangerWickett

Phaedrus said:
			
		

> To become a Heal Specialist (and get combined healing) requires 6 heal lists.  This means Life + 5 "throw away" elements, if all you want to do is heal people.  That's just the way it is, right? Or am I missing something? (Heal Earth, Nature, Metal so can repair equipment and walls, but you still need 2 more).
> 
> And, does Abjure Metal protect against normal metal weapons, or only against magical metal elemental attacks?




Heal Specialist is a great feat, and so if you're going to get it, you oughta find a way to take advantage of the requirement.  Heal can help you fix objects, repair damage to undead and constructs, and heal elementals.  Plus, you'll probably want to grab the alignment healing spell lists, so you can heal good guys and hurt bad guys.

Abjure Metal provides DR against metal weapons, and against any creature with the 'metal' descriptor (none in the core rules officially, but you'd probably make stuff like Iron Golems count).  There isn't metal elemental damage.  Metal, Nature, Crystal, and Earth don't deal elemental damage.


----------



## RangerWickett

I'm loving the Magic Item rules, but there are some things I'm not exactly sure about. I have a character who has some shape shifting ability, and it is awfully annoying that her equipment can't change with her.

What makes you think that?

If you want to transform metal into mithral, permanently, it would be (off the top of my head, since I'm having to work from memory here) Transform Metal 0/Gen 1, made permanent with craft permanent spell.  I think that'd be something like 100 XP to turn steel to mithril.  But it'd suck if you got hit by dispel magic or entered an antimagic field.

As for light-proofing your groovy dark Elf weapons, you could use either a) Craft Permanent Spell to get light resistance on the object and only the object, or b) Craft Wondrous Item to get light resistance to the bearer of the item, and all other items the bearer carries.  Option B is better.  The only benefit of option A is that the swords would not decay in light if you lose hold of them, and that it wouldn't count against your limit.

The enhancements go up to high numbers so that you can have a single item that provides a high bonus, instead of multiple small items that add up to a high bonus.


 To this effect, I'm putting together a Ring of Change. Transform Nature 1, Trandform Metal 1, Gen 1 should be enough to make a wonderous item that can transform her armor, clothing, and weapons to fit her new form. Obviously, weapons made into non-weapon objects can't be used to attack effectively, and Armor changed into clothing wouldn't protect much at all, but if she changed an item, say her armor with a +1 Enhancement bonus, into say, Bracers, would they still confer the Enhancement bonus to AC? Also, since the ring is a perminant effect, would the changed equipment be permanant, too? Would permanant changes cost XP constantly? What type of action would changing an object be? (Transform Metal could be a great way to get around those long donning armor times.) Oh, and how should I price a Transform MEtal spell that made Iron into, say, Mithral.

If (since in our game Drow Adamantine weapons corrde in sunlight) I put an Abjure Light spell on a sword, to give it Energy Resistance (so it wouldn't turn to, um, Adamantine-Oxide), would the Energy Resistance apply to the wielder, too?  If it does, and I have 2 Swords with that same enchantment on them, would they both count towards the number of Magic items I can use at once, since they don't stack and one is canceled out? Could they both be enchanted at once if they're both in the origional area of effect?

Is there a way to make a Magic Item that grants a bonus that *will* stack with other magic bonuses (asside from the Deflection/Enhancement bonuses to AC) for an increased cost?

- Kemrain the Curious


----------



## Owldragon

Okay, here is my take on the questions *mbgrove* is raising about the Create list:

The text does actually say that you need to use the Elemental Object enhancement to create Force physical objects, but the examples directly contradict that.  The examples treat Force as one of the physical elements, like a "force field."  I tend to think that the listing of Force as one of the elements you need Elemental Object for was a mistake, but we'll have to ask the author for the definitive answer on that. 

As for Elemental Weapon, I do think you need something physical to enhance, even if it is a cheap sword or club.  If you wanted a blade of Light, for example, you'd have to either:
  a) spend 2 MP on Elemental Object, and then more for Elemental Weapon
  b) use a combination spell - one spell list to create a physical weapon for 1 MP and then Create Light to add the Elemental Weapon damage

Of course, if Force really works like the examples indicate, you might be able to spend up to your maximum MP on Elemental Weapon, and also create the weapon that is being enhanced without having to take the Elemental Object enhancement.

That's how I read things, anyway.

While we're talking about the Create lists, btw... the wording of Create Light implies that the created object sheds light, but I don't see any problem with just having the light generated from a point in space.  I've also thought about whether or not it would be a good idea to allow the light to come from an existing object.  If that is allowed, then you have to determine if you can light up attended objects, like the armor of a thief who's trying to hide.  I would say that you can make light come from a point in space or an object you create; I'm still ambivalent about other objects.  Any thoughts?


----------



## Verequus

Sorry for the delay.



			
				mbgrove said:
			
		

> Well, really my point was that it needs to be explicitly stated in the rules that you can't have something like (Abjure Force 2/Gen 0) and say that it is Abjure Force 1 twice to get +4 to saving throws instead of +3 that you would get with using all the MPs together.



AFAIK, only healing and damage dice stack. I have to admit, that I don't know if this stand in EoM and if it is in the text, where to look. But in another thread RangerWickett stated this explicitly.



> Basically, I /was/ saying that the spell is supposed to be giving an armor bonus. However, I'm not seeing how Create Force by itself (according to the rules, anyway), without the Elemental Object enhancement, can give that armor bonus. THAT is my point. The "Mage Armor" and "Mage Plate" spells both use Create Force, but I can't find anywhere that says that (Create Force 1) gives an armor bonus by itself. Specifically since it doesn't have a physical "version". (Essentially, when and how to use Elemental Object is giving me fits. ::wry smile:: My thoughts on Create Force are below.
> 
> It won't harm the caster, though, so that's good. You could wield your Create Fire-based sword and not be harmed.
> 
> But again, with Elemental Object, if you use Create Force to create the mithril chain shirt in the example... *I* am reading it that it would need to be (Create Force 3) to get the armor bonus, since it explicitly says that Force doesn't have a physical version Yet, I can use (Create Fire 1) to give me that flamin' mithril chain shirt that gives me the armor bonus because it has a physical version? No, not that either. The Flaming Barrier example shows us that, for the Create Fire spell to actually be a barrier of any sort, it needs the Elemental Object enhancement. So, what is the Elemental Object enhancement really doing for me?
> 
> Basically, there are a couple of issues at hand here.
> 
> 1) Create Force - In my opinion, along with Metal, Earth, Ooze, Lava, Ice, and Crystal, wouldn't NEED Elemental Object, since they DO have physical manifestations that you can touch. (In this way, I see Force as a force field type of thing. The book says that it exists on both the material and ethereal planes. I'm thinkin' that's a physical manifestation of force, which I would call a force field, which WOULD give an armor bonus. But Elemental Object says otherwise.)
> 
> 2) I would think that all OTHER elements would need the Elemental Object in order to create a physical manifestation of the element that could be touched, hit or be used TO hit to do physical damage. Personally, I've never known of fire or mist, for examples, to be able to deflect anything in a way that could be described in the game as an armor bonus or that would stop someone from physically running through it (with the exception of the fear of not wanting to get hurt by the fire).
> 
> (Yes, this is somewhat getting bogged down in the "can it give an armor bonus", but trying to figure out /exactly/ what Elemental Object is doing for me is the issue at hand.)



Oh, I didn't think my answer entirely through. You have to use my rule of thumb: If you throw a rock at an element and the rock won't pass through that element, you don't need Elemental Object. Ooze and Lava are still liquids and won't pass the test. To the Force dilemma: It depends how you view Force - it could be in it natural state intangible like gravity.



> Ok. I follow. But, my question here is, do I have to create something that is real and has monetary value?
> 
> Again, assuming a 5 MP spell, here are a couple of the "I'm going to create a 'weapon' and hit you with it" scenario:
> 
> 1) Create a greatsword (the 100 gp value category) out of Light and add Elemental Weapon to it. So, I have 1 MP for the monetary value, 2 MPs for the Elemental Object and 1 MP for Elemental Damage Bonus of +1d6. (Don't have enough to add another die.) So, this would give us 2d6 physical damage from the sword itself and 1d6 of Light elemental damage. Would look like (Create Light 4).
> 
> OR could I
> 
> 2) Create a brightly glowing, light-saber lookin' "rod" of pure Light that /has/ no physical manifestation, but causes 3d6 Light damage. This would be using (Create Light 5) with using all the MPs to fuel the Elemental Weapon. So, at this point, all I'm doing is wielding a beam of pure Light.
> 
> So... could I create #2 with just using a "monetary value" of 20gp or less since it doesn't actually have a physical form? Can I even DO the option in #2?
> 
> (Yes, it's very possibly more "efficient" to create the sword with Elemental Object and tag on Elemental Weapon, but that's not the point. ::wry smile:: )



"The *total* MP spent on Create lists determines the maximum monetary value." Look at the bold word and then at my example - the best possibility for 5 MP is Elemental Object (2 MP) and 3 MP for +2d6 damage, while you have a long sword with a base damage of 1d8. The maximum monetary value for 5 MP is _always_ 100.000 gp - whatever the cost for a longsword is, you don't need to use extra MP for increasing the gp limit.

BTW, RangerWickett, the unlimited cost for 6 MPs is not good, like the big jump from 4 MP to 5 MP. How about "For every extra MP, the maximum monetary value is doubled.", beginning at 4 MP. And have Macs different keyboards?


----------



## lord_banus

Do we have any word on when Lyceian Arcana will be release. Mid may was the last I heard which is now here. 

I'm pretty eager to get my hands on it.


----------



## RangerWickett

Kemrain said:
			
		

> Looking at the Infuse spell list, it says you can Infuse an Element or an Alignment. However, looking at the spell list, I can't seem to find what, other than aligning to an Element or Alignment, Infuse Alignment, would do.




Infuse Alignment doesn't do much.  It helps you hurt people if you have Evoke Alignment spells (hit them with Infuse Evil, then Evoke Good), and it helps you heal the converse way.  It messes with divinations.  And it would make an item count as aligned for the sake of bypassing certain types of damage reduction.




> Now that I think about it, what would happen to an aligned Outsider, say a Demon, if they were Infused with Good and had their alignment overpowered by the spell?




They would still be evil, but would detect as good.  It wouldn't turn the creature into a kindly, loving being; you'd need Compel to do that.



> Oh, and could you Abjure Good, for DR, with the Greater DR enhancement, aligned to Cold Iron, so the above Demon's Cold Iron or Good DR was made into simply Cold Iron DR?
> 
> - Kemrain the [Evil].




Hmm.  So, you're casting Abjure Good on a demon, which gives it DR x/magic.  But I'm not sure if you're saying you want to upgrade the spell to grant DR x/cold iron, or DR x/good.  Or maybe I'm misunderstanding.


----------



## RangerWickett

Wow, you ask a lot of questions at once.  Okay, let me take this step by step.



			
				RuleMaster said:
			
		

> Metamagic feats: Is the DC not increased through the extra paid MP? I didn't found a direct mentioning of that, but the example of Intense Spell implies it, along with core rules.




The saving throw of an Elements of Magic spell is 10 + 1/2 MP cost + Charisma modifier.  It doesn't matter whether you paid the MP for spell lists or metamagic feats.  The Intense Spell feat just lets your MP work double duty.



> Can item creation with restrictions be less costly? How can items created which allow only a race or alignment, behave different, if used by members of different classes, or impose some kind of another restriction?




I've got some material on this subject in Lyceian Arcana.  A lot of it comes down to "guess."  A few flavorful restrictions here and there, like the Elvish Oathbow, are kinda nice, and it'd be okay to cut a 10% price break on such an item.  But if a player custom buys all his magic items and has them all made so they can only be used by him, well, that's not really a drawback, so it shouldn't provide a cost reduction.



> Transform Splitting Option: What happens to the memory of (killed) split beings? Does the transformed being know everything after the spell ends?




Only one of the entities is actually you.  The rest are extensions of you.  If you split yourself into 12 wolves, one of those wolves has your mind, and the rest just act at your command.  If the one wolf that is you dies, the whole group dies.



> Are ritual magic spells handled equally in every regard to normal spells except their casting? Can metamagic feats applied to ritual spells?




The ritual spellcasting rules are still being fiddled with.  But yes, you ought to be able to metamagic them.



> Can Move Space be used to teleport into antimagic-fields? If yes, the normal SR check has to be done? Can an antimagic-field be dispelled?




You can try to teleport into an antimagic field, yes.  And you'd have beat the SR.  If you fail, I'd say that you go nowhere at all, but some GMs might prefer that you end up just outside the field.

You can try to dispel an antimagic field.  You'd have to beat its SR first for your spell to work at all, and then you'd do a normal dispel check.



> Move Life, Spirit Wander: How can these souls be affected? And how can these affect anything?




A 'spirit wander' spell just lets a creature pop out of its body for a little while and look at people's souls.  The Elements of Magic system doesn't exactly have the same set-up of ethereal and astral planes that the core rules assume, but the Spirit Wander and Spirit Projection effects both effectively turn you ethereal.  Spirit Projection lets you enjoy the benefits of being like an ethereal creature, whereas Spirit Wander pretty much only lets you observe things.  

In spirit wander, you can't attack, but you can be hurt by effects that can hurt incorporeal creatures, and that affect the mind or soul.  An Evoke Space spell, even though it could hit you, wouldn't damage you because your body is not actually there.  An Evoke Death spell could harm you, since it damages your life force, and Charm and Compel spells could affect you too.




> "When the spell ends, extraplanar summoned creatures return whence they came, taking with them any items or injuries they received." This means, death is permanent, too?




Eh, I don't worry about it.  It's up to GMs to decide whether you're actually summoning something, or if you're just creating creatures out of nothing.  And even if you are actually summoning something, your GM might decide that it works like core summon spells.  Just do whatever works for you.



> What is the saving throw of Evoke Death 3/Evoke Fire 3? Two saving throws for each kind of damage? If you attack an incorporeal creature with Evoke Fire 3/Evoke Force 3, damages only Evoke Force 3 normally?




Evoke Death 3/Evoke Fire 3/Gen 0 would have a DC 13 Fortitude save, and a DC 13 Reflex save, assuming the caster had no Charisma modifier.  If you cast Evoke Fire x/Evoke Force x/Gen x at an incorporeal creature, yes, only the Force damage would hurt it.  You could, however, use Evoke Fire x/Evoke Space 3/Gen x, and hit it with fire, but you could only hit _either_ corporeal or incorporeal creatures, not both with the same spell.



> "When a creature changes form, it gains the new form’s Strength, Dexterity, Constitution, movement abilities, natural armor, and innate natural, extraordinary, spell-like, and supernatural abilities. The creature’s hit points also change to those of the new form, if the new form has more hit points." If I have 5th level character with 30 hp and Constitution of 18 and the character changes to a creature with a Con 10, what happens? Do I lose 20 hp first and compare then, if the new form has more than 10 hp, or are my minimum hp 30? And after looking into the teaser thread, I've found out, that I've asked, what happens to nonabilities like transforming into an undead, but the answer isn't in EoM.




I just swung by the Rules forum, and as it was over a month ago, people still can't quite decide what happens to HP with polymorph.  I say, however, that for Elements of Magic, a Transform spell will never make you lose hit points.  When you assume the creature's form, if the creature's normal total HP is more than your normal total HP, you get the creature's HP.



> "If you want permanent transformation, such as with a medusa’s gaze, you must use the Craft Permanent Spell feat." I wonder, why those medusas and basiliks don't have to pay for XP - because sp- and su-ablities don't pay XP usually?




Monsters get to break the rules.



> After looking into the spell listing thread, I see that Kavyk had the same idea I had: Spells with entries, how to scale them. The EoM component structure lends itself for a quick powerup. Such entries would allow a GM to change spells on the fly or saying "That was a signature spell!". I dug my old proposition out and cleaned it up:
> 
> [Element]/[Alignment]ball
> Minimum MP: 2
> Evoke [Element]/[Aligment] 1/Gen 1
> Range: Short (30 ft.)
> Duration: Instanteous
> Saving Throw: Reflex half, other for possible ambient side effects
> 
> This spell surrounds the target shortly with a ball of [Element]/[Alignment] and does 1d6 damage. Costs: 1 MP damage, 1 MP range.
> 
> Improvements:
> Scalable damage: 1 MP for 1d6, can be from every element/alignment.
> Increased range: 1 MP for Medium (150 ft.), 2 MP for Long (800 ft.).
> Contingency: 1 MP for Short (10 minutes), 2 MP for Medium (one hour), used for delay or as trap trigger.
> 
> The improvement entries are the most likely used enhancements with included values, what will be changed, and if applicable, the upper range of the enhancement (there could be used more MPs on such an enhancement, but such situations would be rare) and specific use. This example defines not only a Fireball, but also a Delayed Blast Fireball and a Fire Trap in all varieties, including other elements and aligments. I didn't include a side effect table, because that would be clunky and it can be simply looked up. Or is this format too unwieldy? Then it has to be broken up into 27 different spells.




That works nicely for Evoke, Heal, and Summon, which are rather straightforward, and you can kinda do it with Abjure and Infuse since they have numerical factors too, but each has a lot of options.  And it's pretty much pointless to try to make a short format version of Create or Transform.  For Lyceian Arcana, I want to include a simplified version of the spellcasting rules, but I keep hitting snags trying to figure out how to simplify the complicated spells.


----------



## RangerWickett

lord_banus said:
			
		

> Do we have any word on when Lyceian Arcana will be release. Mid may was the last I heard which is now here.
> 
> I'm pretty eager to get my hands on it.




Two mitigating factors are delaying it.  First, I just graduated, and the few weeks leading up to and following graduation have been hectic, what with me needing to find something to do now that I no longer have to pay thousands of dollars a year to become smart.  Part of that includes getting a normal paying job, which takes up most of the time I previously had available to write.

Second, the ENWorld Gamer magazine just came off hiatus, which means I've got that as extra workload.  Thankfully I'm mostly just managing the magazine, not writing it myself, but it still takes up a bit of time.  Heck, I haven't had a chance yet to reply to the ~15 people who sent me article proposals in the past two days.

So, unfortunately, Lyceian Arcana won't be coming out this month.  I've got too much work done on it already to put it off for too long, but I don't want to set a specific date until I know I can make that date.  I will try to post teasers every two weeks or so.


----------



## RangerWickett

Vaxalon said:
			
		

> <trimmed synopsis of old compel options>
> The way I see it, Dance, Debauchery and Sing from the old Compel are gone, and with them anything related to requiring a particular action in general.
> 
> Am I missing something?




You can use the Compel spell list now to make a person do whatever you want, which ought to cover any of those actions.  True, the Charm spell list can only get you general emotions or very broad sorts of actions, but that's its niche.  Compel is what you use when you want something specific.

Of course, I'd allow, for flavor's sake, a Charm spell that made people fall asleep instead make them dance, act debauched, or sing, as long as they could be shaken out of it as easily as a person could be awakened from the magical sleep.


----------



## RangerWickett

Izerath said:
			
		

> The base effect of Abjure is to grant some protective benefit. Enhancements almost always have to be purchased to boost AC, Saving Throws, grant DR, grant Energy Resistance, and grant Spell Resistance. The base cantrip offers minimal protection at best.
> 
> In some cases, these enhancements really favor certain elements, (like Nature for AC and DR, Force for AC) but in others they are significantly weaker because of the lack of friendly elements (Abjure Nature doesn't do didly for anything BUT Nature when applied to Saving Throws, Energy Resistance, and SR. I hope you can find a tree you need protection from in this case).




Abjure Nature and Abjure Force are each really good for two things.  Nature gives great AC and great DR.  Force gives great saves and great SR.  They are the two default defenses.  While Abjure Fire will give you great defenses against all things fire, the amount of elements it protects against is a little limited.  With Nature and Force, they protect against all elements, so their drawback is that each one can only protect against two types of attacks, not all types.



> Also, I am led to believe that Abure Nature for DR only protects against natural attacks, not all physical attacks. This is a bit confusing and ultimately I think is a place for interpretation, or maybe even some guidance from Ryan on what he intended. If it is all attacks, then drop the 'physical' descriptor and say all attacks instead. If it is just natural attacks, like claws, fists etc, then use 'natural' instead of 'physical' as the descriptor. It makes things more clearly understood since thw word 'physical' can be interpreted a number of ways.




Abjure Nature provides DR against all attacks.  The word 'physical' is there to differentiate from 'energy' attacks, since Damage Reduction doesn't apply to energy damage.



> Ultimately, I think some of the less intuitively-understood elements, like Life, Death and Nature, need to be clearly defined in their uses for the different spell lists. Some of these are clear, others are cloudy. If that's intentional then great, since we all like a little wriggle room to work with as DMs!
> 
> Maybe Ryan's already ahead of the game and will offer more on this in LA.




Wiggle room is good.  But here are the guidelines, which I myself may have made a few mistakes on, over the course of the whole book.

Nature governs the world of solid objects that aren't alive, and aren't undead.

Life governs things that are alive.

Death governs things that are undead.

Now, since there are probably a lot more [Life] and [Death] creatures than [Metal] creatures, Abjure Life and Abjure Death are useful when being attacked by creatures.  Abjure Metal is mostly useful when you're being hacked at by warriors, but it also helps when those iron golems try to grind you down.


----------



## RangerWickett

mbgrove said:
			
		

> First of all, I want to say that I am /very/ impressed with EOM(R).  Much
> goodness!




Thank you very much.  I do intend to look into releasing a patch to address the numerous questions I've been answering.



> And now my questions...
> 
> My first question is, can you have multiple instances of the same list in the same spell?  Take Abjure Force, for instance.  Abjure Force can give you a deflection bonus to armor or a saving throw bonus or energy resistance or an energy buffer.  Would it be possible to get multiple effects in one casting?  If so, would it be created (Create Force 1, Create Force 1), where the first one is giving a deflection bonus and the second one is giving a saving throw bonus?  Or would it be Create Force 2 with 1 of it defined as giving the deflection bonus and the other giving the saving throw bonus?  (Personally, I would angle towards the second option, at least for reasons below.)




For any sort of option that has a table listing multiple costs and effects, you can't just buy a low-cost option multiple times.  For Abjure, if you want a high AC bonus, you have to pay a high MP cost, not several low MP costs.  However, if you want a low AC bonus, a low save bonus, and a low DR, you _can_ buy three low effects, because they're from different tables.

For Evoke and Heal, however, you can buy damage or healing multiple times.  Those two spell lists progress linearly.  Most of the other spell lists progress irregularly.



> Create - In Create, we have the Elemental Object enhancement.  I have a couple of different questions regarding this.  First of all, in a couple of the examples (Mage Armor and Mage Plate), Create Force is used to create armor made of force.  But, Elemental Object says, "If you are using Create Death, Force, Life, Space, or Time to create a physical object, you must select this enhancement, because there is no normal physical version of those elements."   I read these as creating physical versions of Force.  (How else would it give an armor bonus?)  So...  are the examples wrong or am I thinking of this wrong?




Okay, I see there's been a lot of discussion on this, and I wish I'd replied to it sooner.  It's a mistake on my part.  You _do_ have to purchase Elemental Object for force objects.  I just forgot that when I created 'mage armor.'  It ought to cost 3 MP (Create Force 2/Gen 1) and let you get a +6 AC bonus.  I made the mistake because I was trying to emulate the core rule Mage Armor spell.

A key thing to remember is that you don't have to pay MP based on the cost of the object you're creating.  Instead, you figure out the MP you've paid for enhancements and such, and then look to see whether with that MP cost you can afford the item you want to create.  If the MP you're paying is too low, you can choose to spend extra MP on the Create spell, even if you're not getting any specific enhancements.

For instance, say I wanted to create a lightning boat that's forty feet across, and a normal boat would cost 50,000gp.  First, I would need an area of effect that's got a 20-ft. radius, to fit my 40-ft. boat.  That's 2 MP for the area.  Then I need the elemental object enhancement, which is a base of 2 MP, plus 2 more MP, because you have to pay equal to the cost of the area.  So far, you have Create Lightning 4/Gen 2.

However, we see that the 4 MP spent on create lightning only lets me get something worth 10,000gp.  Since the boat costs more than that, I need to spend an extra 1 MP.  I can choose to just waste 1 MP, with no specific enhancement, or I could pick, say, Create Air, to fill my boat with breathable air.  Ooh, so now I can have a Lightning Submarine.  Create Air 1/Create Lightning 4/Gen 2, with possibly more MP if I want it to last longer than a minute.

Note that you could just as easily use Create Metal 3/Gen 1 to have full plate armor made of elemental metal (with the elemental object enhancement), as opposed to real metal.  It would weigh practically nothing.  However, Create Force gives you the benefit that it blocks ethereal attacks.



> That being said, you'd need to be at least 3rd level in order to do a Create Force 3, with 1 being used for the max GP value and 2 being used for the Elemental Object enhancement.  You could use other elements also, but it is the physical representation of the element that is what gives you the armor bonus, right?  (On a more... enlightening... note, just think of plate mail made from Create Light.  I'm not thinkin' you'd be on the vampires Christmas list.  ::grin:: )




Only real sunlight kills vampires.  So armor of light might piss 'em off, but that's about it.



> Question on the Elemental Weapon...  Can you just create an Elemental Weapon out of any element and wield it?  Would you have to use the Elemental Object enhancement first?  So, if I wanted a force blade, how would I do it?  I can think of at least 4 different ways at the moment:  (Assuming a 5 MP spell)




You could use Create Force 2/Gen 0 to create a force longsword with the Elemental Object enhancement.  If you hit someone with it, it would do 1d8 force damage, not normal damage.  If you wanted a 'light saber,' you could use Create Force 2/Create Light 1/Gen 0 to have a force longsword that does +1d6 light damage with each hit.

_Or_, you can use the elemental weapon enhancement to enhance an existing item.  You could cast Create Light 1/Gen 0 on your normal longsword, and it would deal +1d6 light damage per hit.



> * Use Elemental Weapon for 3d6 damage, doing no other damage but force, since it isn't in the "form" of anything specific (I didn't use any MP to purchase a GP limit). (But could I hold it?  Would it have a physical form?)
> * Use 1 MP to create an object up to 100 GP (call it a long sword), 3 MPs to give it extra damage from Elemental Weapon and have another MP for general enhancements.  It would do 1d8 as a long sword and +2d6 of force damage. (Again, could I even hold it?)
> 
> And variants on above:
> * Use Elemental Object (2 MPs) to create the weapon out of force and 3 MPs to give it 2d6 damage.  Would only do the 2d6 of force damage, since it isn't in the form of any specific weapon.  (Would actually be a physical "thing" to wield.)
> * Use 1 MP to create an object up to 100 GP (call it a long sword), 2 MPs for Elemental Object, and 1 MP for Elemental Weapon.  Would be a long sword doing 1d8 with an additional +1d6 of force damage.
> 
> So basically, could you just create a weapon (not a specific sword like long sword, just a "weapon") that you could wield without using MPs for GP cost or "physical manifestation" only doing the elemental damage?  Or would you have to use one or both of the GP costs and physical manifestation (Elemental Object)?




No.

If you pick the Elemental Object enhancement, you have to give the object a real shape of some sort.  You can't just hold pure force and have it deal damage.   Well, I guess you could create a 'rock' of pure force, and anyone you hit would take 1d3 points of force damage, since that's how much it would hurt to hit someone with a rock.



> And last, but not least, another question on Elemental Weapon...  I noticed that 1 MP gives you +1d6 damage, 3 MP gives you +2d6 damage, etc.  This is the reason that I like option 2 from the first question, since otherwise you could do (Create Force 1, Create Force 1) on your already existing long sword to give it +2d6 damage instead of using (Create Force 3).  I guess this isn't just a question, but more of a clarification that needs to be put in either as "You can't have the same list in the same spell twice" or "You can have multiple effects of the same list in the same spell, but the effects can't be duplicated (I.e. can't have 2 separate instances of Abjure Nature 1 in an Abjure Nature 2 spell for an AC bonus of +4 instead of +3 that it would be for a straight Abjure Nature 2 spell).  Again, I like option number 2, but it needs to be stated explicitly.  (Yes, I do know people who would try to twist it the way things are.)




I think I answered this above.


----------



## RangerWickett

lord_banus said:
			
		

> With create [Element], is it possible to create a vessel for the more liquid elements for free. For example, could I use create water or create acid in a simple glass container or would I have to do a create crystal? How about changing some of the properties of the liquid such as increasing its surface tension or making into goo or is this the realm of transform.
> 
> Just curious how people would do it.




If you just use create water or acid by itself (or, for that matter, create air, mist, ooze, etc.), the created material just shows up by itself, and will act like matter of that type would act.  You would need to use an extra spell list to create a container.  Or you could use Elemental Object, and have a 'water cup' holding normal water.

As for making water act differently, that would probably fall under Transform.


----------



## RangerWickett

Owldragon said:
			
		

> While we're talking about the Create lists, btw... the wording of Create Light implies that the created object sheds light, but I don't see any problem with just having the light generated from a point in space.  I've also thought about whether or not it would be a good idea to allow the light to come from an existing object.  If that is allowed, then you have to determine if you can light up attended objects, like the armor of a thief who's trying to hide.  I would say that you can make light come from a point in space or an object you create; I'm still ambivalent about other objects.  Any thoughts?




Indeed, it was a bit of bad wording on my part.  You can have create light emanate from a point in space.  However, you cannot create light on an unwilling target, or on its gear.


----------



## RangerWickett

RuleMaster said:
			
		

> Sorry for the delay.
> 
> Oh, I didn't think my answer entirely through. You have to use my rule of thumb: If you throw a rock at an element and the rock won't pass through that element, you don't need Elemental Object. Ooze and Lava are still liquids and won't pass the test. To the Force dilemma: It depends how you view Force - it could be in it natural state intangible like gravity.




Good rule of thumb.  And Force is intangible normally.  By itself, creating force is kinda pointless, but of all the elements, it has the potential to be the most indestructible.



> "The *total* MP spent on Create lists determines the maximum monetary value." Look at the bold word and then at my example - the best possibility for 5 MP is Elemental Object (2 MP) and 3 MP for +2d6 damage, while you have a long sword with a base damage of 1d8. The maximum monetary value for 5 MP is _always_ 100.000 gp - whatever the cost for a longsword is, you don't need to use extra MP for increasing the gp limit.
> 
> BTW, RangerWickett, the unlimited cost for 6 MPs is not good, like the big jump from 4 MP to 5 MP. How about "For every extra MP, the maximum monetary value is doubled.", beginning at 4 MP. And have Macs different keyboards?




When I type, I make heavy use of the Ctrl button plus the arrow keys, so I can shift through sentences or paragraphs quickly.  I also use home and end a lot so I can jump around without having to use the mouse.  On Macs, the location of the buttons that accomplish the same functions are different, so I'm not as readily able to fiddle around.  And the Mac I was using was a laptop, with one of those fingerpad mouses, which I'm not used to.  Finally, I miss my right-click button.  I don't like Macs for typing.

They are, however, great for art programs.

As to the concern about item value, I don't see how it could be broken.  Since you can't permanently create objects anyway, this is mostly just a restriction to keep low-level folks from creating a huge gold statue, slapping it with Illusion Death to make it detect as nonmagical, and selling it.  And it means that you've got to spend a bit of extra MP to have that suit of magic adamantine armor.  There really aren't that many mundane objects that cost more than 10,000gp, except for boats and castles.

If you show me how it's broken, or overpowered, I will consider changing my stance.


----------



## lord_banus

I was just poking holes in the system and was wondering how I might be able to create intelligent items. I can see some possibilities but by the straight rules there is no clear path. Anyone got any ideas about the best way to do it?

thanks


----------



## RangerWickett

I hadn't actually done any specific work on figuring out the costs for such things, but I suppose you could make it using the creature creation rules.  Figure out what the challenge rating/effective character level of the item is, then just use Craft Permanent Item to make it.  In this version, intelligent items would probably be pseudo-constructs, but they'd still be subject to damage, mind control, etc.


----------



## anondragon

RangerWickett said:
			
		

> I hadn't actually done any specific work on figuring out the costs for such things, but I suppose you could make it using the creature creation rules.  Figure out what the challenge rating/effective character level of the item is, then just use Craft Permanent Item to make it.  In this version, intelligent items would probably be pseudo-constructs, but they'd still be subject to damage, mind control, etc.





I would have used the transform life effect (animate) to  make the item intellegent (giving it 10's in Int,Wis,Char).  Use infuse[X] to up the ability scores.   compel[humanoid] to give it telepathy with people.  Effects that the sword can call on would be additional effects.

For instance I want to enchant my magical ring of protection (Abjure Force 1/Gen 1) with a very basic intellegence (Transform Life 2(animate)/Compel Humaniod 2 (telepathic communication std)/Infuse Water 3 (wisdom boost+4)/Gen 1. Now I have an intellegent ring with Int 10, Wis 14, Chr 10 that can talk to me.  (The alignment would be neutral because I didn't infused with an alignment.)

Now comes the interesting part, trying to determine what effects count for who?  I would say when an effect can be activated or enjoyed by the wearer, treat the effect against the wearer.  If the effect is one that only the item can activate, treat the effect against the item's 12 effects. (Intellegent items need one effect for their life)  It might be a good idea to have all effect count against the item's 12 effect.  And onlt those that the wearer can use count againt the wearer.  Any ideas?


----------



## Kemrain

Me said:
			
		

> Now that I think about it, what would happen to an aligned Outsider, say a Demon, if they were Infused with Good and had their alignment overpowered by the spell?






			
				RangerWickett said:
			
		

> They would still be evil, but would detect as good. It wouldn't turn the creature into a kindly, loving being; you'd need Compel to do that.






			
				Me said:
			
		

> Oh, and could you Abjure Good, for DR, with the Greater DR enhancement, aligned to Cold Iron, so the above Demon's Cold Iron or Good DR was made into simply Cold Iron DR?






			
				RangerWickett said:
			
		

> Hmm. So, you're casting Abjure Good on a demon, which gives it DR x/magic. But I'm not sure if you're saying you want to upgrade the spell to grant DR x/cold iron, or DR x/good. Or maybe I'm misunderstanding.





I was unclear. I'll reiterate.

First question: What I want to know is the effect of Infusing an aligned creature with it's opposing alignment. If it would make the creature register as the opposed alignment, for the purposes of Type (I know Infusing a Demon wigh Good wouldn't make a friendly Demon, but it would make a decent Fool-the-Paladin suprise), would there be any other effect on the creature? An Evil creature wielding a Holy sword (One Infused with Good) takes negitive levels in Core DnD, so I wanted to know if there were any like effects with EoM alignments.

Second question: The End Result I'm looking for is to get a Demon with DR 5/Cold Iron or Good to have DR 5/Cold Iron, and be uneffected by aligned weapons of any kind. The real question is, could I turn DR of one type into Dr of another type, or perhapse just DR X/-? How does EoM DR interact with [Su] or [Ex] DR already in place?

I have more questions, and they're along the same lines. I want to understand Alignments in EoM a bit better.

Say I wanted to make a weapon Holy, pretty close to how it works in Standard DnD. It'd need to be aligned Good, and do 2d6 points of Good damage to anything Evil. (EoM's 1d6 to Neutral creatures is pretty cool, to, so I'll just keep that...) To make the aligned part I need to Infuse with Good, that's not too difficult- I can probably squeeze some other benefit out of that one, too. I think the Damage is a little kludgey, though. I wanted to just "Create Good" and go with Elemental Weapon, but Create only works with Elements. Evoke Good, as I understand it, is best used in some sort of Charged item, as opposed to a Constant Effect, or do I have that wrong? How would *you* make a Holy Sword?

- Kemrain the Dis-Holy.


----------



## astriemer

*Mage Armor and Shield*

How would you go about creating Mage Armor that doesn't require armor proficiency without spending a lot of MP to get a magical suit of armor created out of force?

Similarly, how would you create a Shield effect? Create Force would let you create a shield out of force, but as I understand, it would require that the mage put it on (and thus probably need proficiency) and wield it. Would Move Force let you use the shield without paying any attention to it (as in the standard Shield spell)? For example,

Shield
Create Force 2/Move Force 1/Gen 1
Total MP: 4
Range: 0
Area: shield of force
Duration: 10 minutes
Save: None
Spell Resistance: No?
Description: Creates a tower shield of force that moves to intercept attacks made at the caster providing a +4 shield bonus to AC. The shield is virtually weightless and moves of its own accord to block attacks as long as the caster is aware of the attack. Costs: 2 MP elemental object, 1 MP effective strength, 1 MP duration.

Granted that is now a "2nd level" effect. If that works then this should as well right?

Shield
Create Metal 1/Move Force 1/Gen 0
Total MP: 2
Range: 0
Area: tower shield
Duration: 1 minute
Save: None
Spell Resistance: No?
Description: Creates a tower shield that moves to intercept attacks made at the caster providing a +4 shield bonus to AC. The shield  moves of its own accord to block attacks as long as the caster is aware of the attack. Costs: 1 MP gear, 1 MP effective strength.


----------



## Suldulin

bump: how goes an errata fix/add bookmarks patch?


----------



## RangerWickett

We're working on it.  We have a patch file, but we're double-checking to make sure it works right.  Look for an announcement within a week.


----------



## Glacialis

Maybe I missed this, but as I can't afford to be a contributor I can't use the search function :-(. Where's LA at? Want! :-D


----------



## Kemrain

LA has not yet been released, as far as I can tell.

- Kemrain the Patient.


----------



## RangerWickett

It is still in the writing stages, but is fairly done.  I had to put it on hold when the ENMag restarted, but I'll be getting back to it the middle of this week.  It will be out before the end of summer, certainly.


----------



## Kemrain

Not to be a nudge or anything but, RangerWickett, is there any chance that you're going to answer my questions about EoMr Alignment I asked in May? No pressure or anything, I'm just still curious.

- Kemrain the Patient, but Curious.


----------



## RangerWickett

Kemrain said:
			
		

> First question: What I want to know is the effect of Infusing an aligned creature with it's opposing alignment. If it would make the creature register as the opposed alignment, for the purposes of Type (I know Infusing a Demon wigh Good wouldn't make a friendly Demon, but it would make a decent Fool-the-Paladin suprise), would there be any other effect on the creature? An Evil creature wielding a Holy sword (One Infused with Good) takes negitive levels in Core DnD, so I wanted to know if there were any like effects with EoM alignments.




A creature whose alignment is altered with Infuse (or with Illusion Death, for that matter) is affected by magic as if that were its real alignment.  In the case of Illusion Death, if the spellcaster disbelieved, his magic would function against the creature using its normal alignment.



> Second question: The End Result I'm looking for is to get a Demon with DR 5/Cold Iron or Good to have DR 5/Cold Iron, and be uneffected by aligned weapons of any kind. The real question is, could I turn DR of one type into Dr of another type, or perhapse just DR X/-? How does EoM DR interact with [Su] or [Ex] DR already in place?




Things stack oddly with damage reduction.  Even in the core rules, there seems to be no guidelines for stacking damage reduction of different types.  Basically, if the damage reduction types are identical, stack them.

So if you have a creature with DR 5/Cold Iron and then you give it DR 3/Cold Iron, it'll now have DR 8/Cold Iron.  If instead you give it DR 3/wood, then the creature will have both damage reductions.  Hitting it with a cold iron sword would get past the cold iron DR, hitting it with wood would get past the wood DR.  There really oughtn't be a way to get past both DRs at once, barring some freaky magic.

I hadn't thought of using Abjure to _just_ change the DR on a creature.  I haven't playtested to see how broken it would be to just pay 1 or 2 MP and make a creature change from DR 10/magic to DR 10/fishsticks, but I imagine it would be balanced with a 4-MP effect.



> Say I wanted to make a weapon Holy, pretty close to how it works in Standard DnD. It'd need to be aligned Good, and do 2d6 points of Good damage to anything Evil. (EoM's 1d6 to Neutral creatures is pretty cool, to, so I'll just keep that...) To make the aligned part I need to Infuse with Good, that's not too difficult- I can probably squeeze some other benefit out of that one, too. I think the Damage is a little kludgey, though. I wanted to just "Create Good" and go with Elemental Weapon, but Create only works with Elements. Evoke Good, as I understand it, is best used in some sort of Charged item, as opposed to a Constant Effect, or do I have that wrong? How would *you* make a Holy Sword?
> 
> - Kemrain the Dis-Holy.




In Lyceian Arcana, I made sure to add in the option for Create [Alignment], which I just completely forgot about for EOM.  Create [Alignment] isn't really good for much else than creating aligned weapons, but it is still a useful trick.  And I suppose it'd be cool to have a house made of pure good, using 'elemental object.'


----------



## BSF

Ryan, 
I haven't picked up the the Revised EOM yet, I still have the old one.  But, I am thinking of grabbing it when I pick up Steam & Steel.   

I have a conceptual question for you.  I am not a huge fan of the Epic spellcasting rules.  It just doesn't scream Epic to me.  However, using the concepts of Spellseeds to give an Epic spellcaster access to EOM-style magic does start to seem Epic.  Weaving together spells on the fly, while non-epic magic casters are "stuck" using known formulized spells seems like it could be an interesting way to approach Epic play.  Any thoughts on how easy this would be to integrate?  Advisability on integrating it?  Heck, maybe there is even an idea in there that you want to run with for another supplement?


----------



## RangerWickett

Fox, I think it could work rather well, though it might be a little odd having normal spells up to 20th level, and then spell lists thereafter.  I admit that I haven't looked closely at the epic rules, especially not for magic.  I never quite understood how it worked that the only way for characters to get better spells at epic level was to spend feats to get one or two spell slots at a time, but I suppose it was balanced by the idea that they'd be using the epic spellmaking rules.

That's one of the things I plan to put into Lyceian Arcana, since I have a few extra weeks to brainstorm thanks to the delays caused by the ENMag.  I already have EOM equivalents of the core spellcasting classes, and I was looking into figuring out how broken stuff might get at epic levels.

So, short answer:  I'm on it.

Long answer:  It's danged complicated.  It's not hard to use EOM and non-EOM magic in the same campaign, but I hadn't bent my efforts toward figuring out how to work them into the same character.  But expect something to touch on it in Lyceian Arcana.


----------



## BSF

Well, Epic Spellcasting doesn't quite rely on spellslots either.  Higher spellslots seem to be more geared toward metamagicing high level spells.  Epic spells, as portrayed in the ELH are just researched and memorized formulae with a higher power cap.  

I loved the concept of questing for Spellseeds and acquiring more mastery over that component of magic.  But then to have it just used as part of a formula to research some near-ritualisitc spell that gives you ridiculous bonuses just rings off-key for me.  Having spellseeds give you more dynamic control over magic seems far more cool.  

One thing I do notice is that I don't see much on Epic magic in the SRD.  Hmm.


----------



## Kemrain

RangerWickett said:
			
		

> A creature whose alignment is altered with Infuse (or with Illusion Death, for that matter) is affected by magic as if that were its real alignment.  In the case of Illusion Death, if the spellcaster disbelieved, his magic would function against the creature using its normal alignment.
> ...
> In Lyceian Arcana, I made sure to add in the option for Create [Alignment], which I just completely forgot about for EOM.  Create [Alignment] isn't really good for much else than creating aligned weapons, but it is still a useful trick.  And I suppose it'd be cool to have a house made of pure good, using 'elemental object.'




Thank you for answering these questions. I appreciate your time. Now, I have more! Bwahahahah..err..  Right...

If I Create Space X/ Gen 1 to make a permanant pocket dimention 5 feet square (using craft Wonderous Item or Permanant Spell), and I put the opening in the mouth of my backpack, if I pick up and wear said backpack do I have to carry the weight of the items in the pocket? Does the opening move with the backpack, or with me, or is it fixed to a point in space? Could I move the opening like a portable hole? There isn't air in the space unless I cast Create Air too, right?

If I made a Ring that had Transform Metal on it, I could alter it's shape and appearance, but that ability wouldn't be usable on other objects, right? How do I create a non-charged item that will let me transform my equipment/clothing/armor? Any way to make that transformation a free action instead of a standard action?

For now, I'll just follow the rules for Create Element and apply them to Create Alignment. In LA, are you going to throw in rules similar to the negitive levels bestowed upon a non-good wielder of a Good item? Would a Good sword deal damage to, say, a Demon, simply by touching it to them, or must you cut?

I am eagerly awaiting the release of Lyceian Arcana, and busy testing EoMr to it's limits. Hope something constructive comes from me asking these crazy questions (Like Create Alignment spells). Thanks again.

- Kemrain the [Space].


----------



## Kemrain

I've come up with another question, based on the Blur spell. Is there a way to grant consealment less than total in EoM? You can become invisible with Illusion Shadow 3 (I think), but could I simply grant myself partial consealment (20% miss chance) so I could hide in a lit alrea without cover, or prevent myself from being sneak attacked?

- Kemrain the Hidden.


----------



## RangerWickett

Kemrain said:
			
		

> If I Create Space X/ Gen 1 to make a permanant pocket dimention 5 feet square (using craft Wonderous Item or Permanant Spell), and I put the opening in the mouth of my backpack, if I pick up and wear said backpack do I have to carry the weight of the items in the pocket? Does the opening move with the backpack, or with me, or is it fixed to a point in space? Could I move the opening like a portable hole? There isn't air in the space unless I cast Create Air too, right?




You can affix any spell to a point in space or to an object or creature, so yeah, you can have a backpack with an extradimensional space.  Heck, you could even do some classic magic tricks, like having an extradimensional space behind your ear where you keep your coins, or under your skirt where you keep your giant hammer or katana (pardon the anime joke).  The extradimensional space is on a different plane, so items inside it don't have a weight in this world.  

You can use Create Air to make the pocket dimension have fresh air, which is necessary if you're going to have someone live in there for long.  If you don't, though, air will circulate through the opening just as it would through a normal opening.  You could hide in a dimensional pocket and have enough air for a few minutes probably, and if you left the entrance open you'd be able to breathe just fine.



> If I made a Ring that had Transform Metal on it, I could alter it's shape and appearance, but that ability wouldn't be usable on other objects, right? How do I create a non-charged item that will let me transform my equipment/clothing/armor? Any way to make that transformation a free action instead of a standard action?




If you cast Transform Metal on a ring, then you've just changed the shape of the ring.  You could create a ring that had an unlimited-use ability to cast Transform Metal, which would let you transform any metal you touched.  If you want a magic item that will let you change the shape of what you're wearing, you could have an unlimited-use Transform Nature 1/Transform Metal 1/Gen 0, but again, that would work for things you touch.

I would suggest, as a judgment call, that if you wanted an item that could transform your clothes, make an unlimited-use item that can cast Transform Nature 1/Transform Metal 1/Gen 0, but at a quarter cost because you're limited to only using it on yourself.  If it also lets you transform all your gear (like weapons, or, taken to an extreme, letting you have nearly any tool you want), I wouldn't cut you a discount.  At 1/4 price, it's effectively a variant of 'disguise self,' that isn't an illusion, and that can't change your bodily appearance, just your stuff.



> For now, I'll just follow the rules for Create Element and apply them to Create Alignment. In LA, are you going to throw in rules similar to the negitive levels bestowed upon a non-good wielder of a Good item? Would a Good sword deal damage to, say, a Demon, simply by touching it to them, or must you cut?
> 
> I am eagerly awaiting the release of Lyceian Arcana, and busy testing EoMr to it's limits. Hope something constructive comes from me asking these crazy questions (Like Create Alignment spells). Thanks again.
> 
> - Kemrain the [Space].




Hm.  Negative levels from wielding aligned objects.  Hmm.  I wish you'd mentioned that two months ago.  It would've been a nice thing to let Infuse [Alignment] do.  I'll think on it.  Thanks.


----------



## RangerWickett

Kemrain said:
			
		

> I've come up with another question, based on the Blur spell. Is there a way to grant consealment less than total in EoM? You can become invisible with Illusion Shadow 3 (I think), but could I simply grant myself partial consealment (20% miss chance) so I could hide in a lit alrea without cover, or prevent myself from being sneak attacked?
> 
> - Kemrain the Hidden.




I could've sworn I included that as an option for a mild- or moderate-strength visual Illusion.  It ought to be available for 1 MP, so that you can intensify it and have it available for 4 MP, to match the Blur spell.


----------



## Primitive Screwhead

*Possible Options*

Greetings.

 First off, thanks for working on this system, I like the concept and so far it seems fairly well balanced. Not having the next version yet (willing to proof-read tho   ) I had some thoughts on balance and potential changes.

 For balance, I think the base damage of 1D6 gets to be too much too soon. I lost a mummy in 3 rounds of combat courtesy of a magic missile spell. I would suggest lowering this to 1D4. 

 Of course, it does not have to stay that low. In an effort to emulate the Sorcerer concept of less spell options and more power, I have developed a house rule that allows the character to trade in spell lists for enhancements. This can be done in a couple areas:

  Damage increases. Select the same list multiple times to increase the base damage. 1D6 costs 2 lists, 1D8 costs 6 lists, 1D10 costs 14 lists, 1D12 costs 30 lists, 1D20 costs 60 lists.
  When trading dice for effects, such as in Heal, higher die types are worth more. D8's are worth 2 dice, D12's are worth 3 dice, and D20's are worth 4 dice.  

  List enhancements. Use 2 lists to gain a 1MP enhancement for a specific list.  You can choose to use these enhancements when casting a spell that is exclusively from that list. You do not actually pay the MP costs of these enhancements, altho the spell MP total remains the same. The caster is still limited from casting higher MP spells.

   FX, Carl selects the Evoke:Acid list 4 times, once as an initial selection, once to increase the base damage to 1D6, and twice for the 1MP side effect of continuing damage for 1 round. Now when Carl casts an Evoke:Acid cantip, it deals 1D6 damage for 2 rounds just as a Evoke:Acid1/Gen0 but only costs Carl 0 MP.

  FX, Carl selects Abjure:Undead list 7 times, once as an initial selection, and six times for the 3 MP increase of duration 1 hour. The spell, Protection from Undead Abjure:Undead4/gen3 provides an hours worth of protection, and Carl would only have to pay 4 MPs to cast it.

These extra selections of the same list do not count towards Specialization, Mastery, or for the increase of mana limits. A Fire Mage who has spent all his lists on Evoke:Fire may be able to toss around spells that deal 1D20 damage, but would still have the 5 MP limit due to not knowing any other Evoke spell lists. Not that this doesn't make him *really* dangerous... an Evoke:fire4/gen16 that burns a 80' radius for a day dealing 1D20 each round is, well, nasty.


 I am not sure how/if this meshes with the upcoming rules, but its what I intend on doing with my game.

Incidently, I tend to prefer formula's to tables, mainly due to wanting to make an excell spreadsheet to handle all these options, and some of your tables defy my limited math skills. Do you have formula's for these things?
 Like the mana points per caster level.. can't get that at all.

Thanks!


----------



## Kemrain

I like the concept you're describing, Screwhead, however I think the limiting factor that you might not have taken into account is that, at 20th level, you'd only have 45 Spell Lists. You need every list you can get! The cost of a spell list is prohibitively high, and spending more than one seems crazy to me. I'd be more likley to willingly give up MP from my total than cut off a spell list, but that's just me.  Interesting idea. I'd like to see what Ranger Wickett thinks of it.

- Kemrain the Spell-List Deprived.


----------



## Primitive Screwhead

Kemrain, I did take that limiting factor into play.. I listed the D20 damage level mainly for those epic types out there.

 My game rarely makes it over 14th level, so I am more concerned over the balance of the lower level abilities.

 My main goal is to emulate more castings of higher power but less variety. Take your generic 5th level mage, who has 17 lists to play with. 
 Carl decided to be Mr Fry guy, and spends his lists as follows:
  Evoke Fire     6 for 1D8 damage 8 for Enduring damage, 2 for 10 minute duration.
  Evoke Ice  1 for 1D4 damage

 His 0 MP Fire cantrip can deal 1D8 damage per round for 10 minutes.
 He can choose not to use the enduring damage or the extended duration, but if he does he does not have to pay for them.
 He also cannot spend more than 10MP in Evoke:Fire since he has only 2 lists (counting the Enduring damage if he uses it)
  He is also very reliant on dealing Fire damage, run into an encounter that is protected from this, he is potentially screwed. It makes him a 'Specialist' without having to have any class dependant mechanics, and the player can choose how specialized to be.

 and yes, I very much beleive spell lists are scarce already,thats part of why I chose them for exchange value 
 My first draft had a spell list = 1MP, which was way to low. Who wouldn't burn 3 extra spell lists to have a 0MP cone of fire?

JHMO, thanks for the reply! I don't have any players who have fully read the rules yet.


----------



## Primitive Screwhead

*Limitations*

<snip>
sorry, double post.. bad internet browser!


----------



## Kemrain

*EoMr Classes Houserule!*

I posted a new EoM Houserule I'm using to the Houserules forum, but in retrospect I should have probably just posted it here. I don't know which Mod I should grovel to, or even how, so I doubt it'll get moved (hint hint, please!).

Oh well.. Instead of posting it all here again, I'll just Link to it!

http://www.enworld.org/forums/showthread.php?t=92981

That should bring you to my Mage and Wizard class Houserule Thread. I'm hoping for some sort of comment on it. Don't make me beg, people.

- Kemrain the Desperate for Attention.


----------



## astriemer

*Spell Design Questions*

Rangerwickett-
I was wondering what your thoughts were on my attempt to simulate the Shield spells a few posts back?

Also, I had a few design questions for you in my (long) post in the Elements of Magic - Spell Creation and Critique section (regarding entrapment spells and a spiritual weapon like effect), any chance you'll have time to answer the questions?

Thanks,


----------



## Kemrain

Here's a question a friend of mine asked, Ranger Wickett...

Why is there no Charm, Compel, Create or Move Specialist feats?

What might they do, if they *did* exist? Can we expect to see them in Lycean Arcana?

- Kemrain the Move Specialist.


----------



## RangerWickett

There are no charm, compel, and move specialist feats because I couldn't think of anything for them to do.  Oh, and because Move only has like 8 spell lists possible.

Astriemer, I'll reread what you posted and try to get back to you with an answer tomorrow.


----------



## Kemrain

RangerWickett said:
			
		

> There are no charm, compel, and move specialist feats because I couldn't think of anything for them to do.  Oh, and because Move only has like 8 spell lists possible.
> 
> Astriemer, I'll reread what you posted and try to get back to you with an answer tomorrow.




Oooh, he didn't mention Create! I still have hope for Create!

Also, I think that many of the Move lists are very worthwhile, and I'd love to see a feat for them.  I'll set my friend to brainstorming, and maybe we'll come up with some feats for ya.

- Kemrain the Create Specialist.


----------



## RangerWickett

To touch again upon this old question:



			
				Kemrain said:
			
		

> I've come up with another question, based on the Blur spell. Is there a way to grant consealment less than total in EoM? You can become invisible with Illusion Shadow 3 (I think), but could I simply grant myself partial consealment (20% miss chance) so I could hide in a lit alrea without cover, or prevent myself from being sneak attacked?
> 
> - Kemrain the Hidden.




Ah, yes.  It was not fully spelled out, but:

"*Simple Illusion (1 MP/0 MP).*  If used to conceal something, generally this provides a +5 bonus to appropriate skill checks.  For example, a simple visual illusion _to make you blurry_ would give a +5 bonus to Hide checks, . . ."

So a blur would be a 0 MP Illusion Shadow spell, but you'd need to add 3 MP of Illusion Lightning or else the first time you hit someone, they would automatically disbelieve.


----------



## RangerWickett

How would you go about creating Mage Armor that doesn't require armor proficiency without spending a lot of MP to get a magical suit of armor created out of force?

Sadly, you don't.  If you want an AC bonus that doesn't require armor proficiency, you have to use Abjure, and to get +4 AC from Abjure Nature costs 3 MP.

Similarly, how would you create a Shield effect? Create Force would let you create a shield out of force, but as I understand, it would require that the mage put it on (and thus probably need proficiency) and wield it. Would Move Force let you use the shield without paying any attention to it (as in the standard Shield spell)? For example,

Shield
Create Force 2/Move Force 1/Gen 1
Total MP: 4
Range: 0
Area: shield of force
Duration: 10 minutes
Save: None
Spell Resistance: No?
Description: Creates a tower shield of force that moves to intercept attacks made at the caster providing a +4 shield bonus to AC. The shield is virtually weightless and moves of its own accord to block attacks as long as the caster is aware of the attack. Costs: 2 MP elemental object, 1 MP effective strength, 1 MP duration.

Granted that is now a "2nd level" effect. If that works then this should as well right?

Shield
Create Metal 1/Move Force 1/Gen 0
Total MP: 2
Range: 0
Area: tower shield
Duration: 1 minute
Save: None
Spell Resistance: No?
Description: Creates a tower shield that moves to intercept attacks made at the caster providing a +4 shield bonus to AC. The shield  moves of its own accord to block attacks as long as the caster is aware of the attack. Costs: 1 MP gear, 1 MP effective strength.

The second is a much better option.  Good thinking.  While the rules as written don't officially say you can give a Move spell simple instructions (like, "stay around me"), if I'd thought of it, I would've included it.


----------



## Kemrain

Maybe I'm reading this wrong.. If I cast Move Life 1, Move Force 1, Gen 1, to spirit wander within a 10' radius, and move force to bring the area of effect along with me, can I travel as far as I want? I can drag the AoE along with me, so my range shouldn't be limited anymore.  Am I reading this wrong?

- Kemrain the Incorporeal.


----------



## Primitive Screwhead

*Move Life*

No, your not, altho I think using Move Life/Gen 1 would be for the Discriminating enhancement would be a better and cheaper way of doing this. The difference would be that you could bring your friends on a spirit wander, altho as you drag the AoE around others could gain the ability...

 Actually that would make an interesting visual 

"As you walk across the street, suddenly your body drops out to the ground and you are left staring at it, your body translucent and wavering in an unfelt breeze. An aged mage hustles past you, muttering to himself something to the tune of 'I am late, for a very important date..'. You stare at his retreating back and suddenly find yourself back in your flesh. People on the sides of the street stare at you with questioning looks."


----------



## RangerWickett

That is perhaps the weirdest idea I've ever heard.  Screwhead's idea doesn't quite work, because the area of effect would just _let_ people leave their bodies, it wouldn't force them.  And I'd never considered costing out a rolling area of effect Move Force spell that constantly changes who it affects.

As for Kemrain's idea, I'll have to reread the exact text of the spell, but I guess maybe yeah that could work.  Weird.


----------



## Dalamar

I think the text on the Combining enhancement for Transform is a bit confusing. Lets see if I got it right:
1)You can have another creature absorbed in another, effectively taking the other out for the duration unless they can win the Cha check to control the body. (Does this work if you have Range: Touch, by the way?)
2) You can combine them so that the whole is more than the sum of its parts, essentially creating a new creature. You prolly need the Strong Creature enhancement for this (when? if the new creature's CR is higher than the higher of the two combined? Than the lower?).
3) You can combine the creatures, taking the better of every trait from the two. Don't need Strong Creature.

And on a personal note, I think it's odd that you can change a high-CR creature to anything with same or less CR creature cheaply, but if you choose a slightly more powerful creature, the cost jumps a lot. I.e. you have a frost giant (CR 9). He can change to a a hill giant with a cantrip, but if he wants to become a fire giant (CR 10), he needs to pay 20mp for a one point increase in his CR. Couldn't the Strong Creature enhancement be based on relative CR instead of absolute? So the frost giant in my example would only need 2mp instead.


----------



## Kemrain

RangerWickett said:
			
		

> That is perhaps the weirdest idea I've ever heard.  Screwhead's idea doesn't quite work, because the area of effect would just _let_ people leave their bodies, it wouldn't force them.  And I'd never considered costing out a rolling area of effect Move Force spell that constantly changes who it affects.
> 
> As for Kemrain's idea, I'll have to reread the exact text of the spell, but I guess maybe yeah that could work.  Weird.




Cool.

Is there a way, under EoMr, that you can become incorporeal without leaving your body behind?

My GM said, in our game, "because a Demon's body and soul are one, Move Life would make their whole being incorporeal," and ruled that my Half-Demon could do it that way; however, this doesn't help mortal casters. Might there be a more powerful version of Move Life that didn't leave a shell behind? My Ghost Touch-Enchanted, Incorporeal, Untouchable Combat Monster build needs it. Heheheh. 

- Kemrain the Undying.

PS: I hope that my incessant badgering proves helpful in your design of Lycean Arcana. I don't want to be a bother, but I want to make sure LA has everything I could need in an expansion to EoMr, and I'm enjoying the process of figuring all this stuff out. Thanks for answering all our questions.

- Kemrain the Thankful.


----------



## Kemrain

To make the idea of Move Life/Move Force creating a Bubble of Out of Body Experiences less strange, try the same combo with the other Move Spells.

Move Death: With a 10' radius AoE, you could anchor people in place in the streets as you passed by. With a 60' radius, you'd be tagging people for a block in each direction. That'd be a strange scene.

Move Air: As you float past, people rise up into the air alongside you, but those that don't stay within ten feet of you will come down moments later as the AoE leaves them.

Move Fire: Everyone around you starts moving blazingly fast, but needs to react quickly, because you've taken the AoE with you a second later as you speed past.

Move Time: This one, I'll leave up to you, Ranger Wickett.

So, how WOULD you price a mobile AoE that could affect any creature within it?

Kemrain the Moved.


----------



## astriemer

*Metamagic Feats*

Did you intentionally leave out feats like Maximize, Empower, Extend, and Widen? I'm assuming so as functionally they are basically handled (all except Maximize at least) by just upping the power of the spell using the EoM rules as written. But I was curious just the same.

Also, how, if at all, would you handle some of the other metamagic feats that are appearing such as the following:
Energy Substitution (from Tome and Blood, Magic of Faerun and Miniatures Handbook) - for +0 levels you can substitude energy damage of any type to a specified type when the feat is chosen.
Chain Spell (from T&B) - for +3 levels spell affects target and 1/2 caster level additional targets
Delay Spell (from T&B) - for +3 levels the spell effect can be delayed by up to 5 rounds
Energy Admixture (from T&B) - for +4 levels spell does additional damage equal to the original but from another energy type (specfied when the feat is taken)
Subdual Substitution (from T&B) - for +0 levels spell does subdual damage instead of normal damage
Split Ray (from T&B) - for +0 levels a ray can affect two targets (with each taking 1/2 normal damage)
Consecrate Spell (from Book of Exalted Deeds) - for +1 level the spell gains the good descriptor and also 1/2 of the damage dealt is divine (and not subject to energy resistance)
Purify Spell (from BoED) - for +1 level spell does full damage to evil targets, 1/2 damage to neutral targets and no damage to good targets
Burrowing Power (from expanded psionic handbook) - for +2 power points and expending focus power can bypass some defenses
Unconditional Power (fro EPH) - for +8 power points and expending focus the power can be activated even if unconscious or disabled


Also, I didn't see anything to the contrary so am I correct that there is no damage dice cap on spells (as is 10d6 for example in the traditional system)?


----------



## Primitive Screwhead

*Incorperal*

For turning Incorperal, I would probably do a Transform Void/ Infuse Space, or something like that.

As to my Move Life idea, perhaps add another MP to Move Force to cause others to unwillingly depart thier bodies 

 I am not sure you need to price out a moving AoE... I think it works well as is.

As to the Metamagic Feats, all those can be emulted within the rules, so there is no need for the actual feats. Well, all the spellcasting ones, not the psionic ones 


I actually like the idea of Move Death with a roaming AoE! I think that will be one of my BBEG's permanent spells.. anyone who gets within X feet of him get slowed waaay down!


----------



## RangerWickett

Quick reply, as I've been invited to a pirate-themed birthday.  You can become incorporeal already with Transform Space.  It's one of the listed options in Transform.


----------



## Primitive Screwhead

*Transform..*

I didn't have my book w/ me


----------



## Vaxalon

astriemer said:
			
		

> Did you intentionally leave out feats like Maximize, Empower, Extend, and Widen?  I'm assuming so as functionally they are basically handled (all except Maximize at least) by just upping the power of the spell using the EoM rules as written. But I was curious just the same.




Yes, clearly.



			
				astriemer said:
			
		

> Also, how, if at all, would you handle some of the other metamagic feats that are appearing such as the following:
> Energy Substitution (from Tome and Blood, Magic of Faerun and Miniatures Handbook) - for +0 levels you can substitude energy damage of any type to a specified type when the feat is chosen.




Use a different evocation spell list.



			
				astriemer said:
			
		

> Chain Spell (from T&B) - for +3 levels spell affects target and 1/2 caster level additional targets




Increase MP



			
				astriemer said:
			
		

> Delay Spell (from T&B) - for +3 levels the spell effect can be delayed by up to 5 rounds




Contingency enhancement, spend more MP



			
				astriemer said:
			
		

> Energy Admixture (from T&B) - for +4 levels spell does additional damage equal to the original but from another energy type (specfied when the feat is taken)




Add another evocation spell list



			
				astriemer said:
			
		

> Subdual Substitution (from T&B) - for +0 levels spell does subdual damage instead of normal damage
> Split Ray (from T&B) - for +0 levels a ray can affect two targets (with each taking 1/2 normal damage)




Dunno about those.



			
				astriemer said:
			
		

> Consecrate Spell (from Book of Exalted Deeds) - for +1 level the spell gains the good descriptor and also 1/2 of the damage dealt is divine (and not subject to energy resistance)




That would require a new spell list, "Evoke Good" to allow for "good" damage.



			
				astriemer said:
			
		

> Purify Spell (from BoED) - for +1 level spell does full damage to evil targets, 1/2 damage to neutral targets and no damage to good targets
> Burrowing Power (from expanded psionic handbook) - for +2 power points and expending focus power can bypass some defenses




Don't know about those.



			
				astriemer said:
			
		

> Unconditional Power (fro EPH) - for +8 power points and expending focus the power can be activated even if unconscious or disabled




Again, contingency on that one.



			
				astriemer said:
			
		

> Also, I didn't see anything to the contrary so am I correct that there is no damage dice cap on spells (as is 10d6 for example in the traditional system)?




The 10d6 damage cap is only for certain levels of spells.

Yes, there is a damage cap, it's 1d6 per MP spent.


----------



## Primitive Screwhead

*Meta Feats*



			
				astriemer said:
			
		

> Subdual Substitution (from T&B) - for +0 levels spell does subdual damage instead of normal damage



1MP Evoke:Life ambient side effect



			
				astriemer said:
			
		

> Split Ray (from T&B) - for +0 levels a ray can affect two targets (with each taking 1/2 normal damage)



Use an AoE and Discriminating to select only 2 targets.
  I have a house rule that I am experimenting with that has options for Rays, inlcuding mutliple targets.. but that doesn't apply here 



			
				astriemer said:
			
		

> Consecrate & Purify



Hmm.. I was drafting a cheat sheet yesterday, the book shows Evoke can be used with alignments, so you can Evoke Good. There are no side effects, however the Good aspect of the spell would only be subject to Energy Resistance {Good}. I think perhaps we need side effects for the alignments as well, Perhaps an Ambient effect taking the place of the Purify Feat? Perhaps a Major effect to heal those of the same alignment while harming those of the opposite?



			
				astriemer said:
			
		

> Burrowing Power



Add a Hex list to the spell to lower the targets resistance.


----------



## Dalamar

Burrowing power would be using Scry and a rider-spell.


----------



## Kemrain

*Sleep and EoMr*

If the Heal spell list can remove fatigue with a 0mp spell, what does that say about a Mage's need for sleep. Can removal of Fatigue take the place of rest?

- Kemrain the Insomniac.


----------



## Kemrain

RW,

My game uses Ken Hood's 3.3 Grim and Gritty rules. Because of this, my GM has ruled that extra d6's of damage (or healing) cost 2mp, instead of 1 mp.  We're ok with this, but it's brought forth a problem...

The Heal spell, and Evoke Death, both require you to trade in dice for extras.  My GM doesn't want the costs to be doubled, but simply halving the die cost doesn't seem to come out right, as many of them are odd.  Can you think of a way to adjust the costs while not altering the levels at which you can use the spells?

- Kemrain the Evoked.


----------



## Primitive Screwhead

*Fatigue*

Fatigue is a side effect of lack of sleep/rest. Your mage could concevably stay awake for days on end and stay fresh and ready to go.. but never regain any MP. You need sleep/rest for that.

I am looking starting a campaign after the current scenario pans out, which will be an Eberron setting with lots of Ken Hood's stuff and TEoM. I plan on having all magic deal/heal D4 instead of D6. With the G-n-G cap of 4D, it takes at least 2 heal/evoke spells to heal/deal the 25 health points to kill a target.

As an aside, I also plan on extending the health bar by 5 more blocks and require a FORT save to stay awake/mobile while in the 'Dying' category. This allows for a bit more heroics and makes undead/constructs a bit nastier. 

Primitive - the wondering where Kemrain lives and if its close enough to join in a game


----------



## Kemrain

Primitive Screwhead said:
			
		

> Fatigue is a side effect of lack of sleep/rest. Your mage could concevably stay awake for days on end and stay fresh and ready to go.. but never regain any MP. You need sleep/rest for that.





			
				EoMr said:
			
		

> "A Mage can only spend time to regain MP if she is relatively well rested."



How do we define relatively? If I'm not tired anymore, aren't I 'relatively' rested? I'm quite suprised that I've never seen d20 rules for sleep depravation. I'm told it can kill. Sounds like stat damage, to me.


			
				Primitive Screwhead said:
			
		

> I am looking starting a campaign after the current scenario pans out, which will be an Eberron setting with lots of Ken Hood's stuff and TEoM. I plan on having all magic deal/heal D4 instead of D6. With the G-n-G cap of 4D, it takes at least 2 heal/evoke spells to heal/deal the 25 health points to kill a target.



I play with Ken's 3.3 rules, not his newly released revision. I looked at the new stuff, but it just doesn't boat my float. In my game, we double the cost of damage dice and use the Odds are One rule to keep Mages from wiping the world clean of all life. Works well enough. Wasn't aware there was a dice cap in the new GnG rules.

Boy I'm off topic.


			
				Primitive Screwhead said:
			
		

> Primitive - the wondering where Kemrain lives and if its close enough to join in a game



I find myself living in Massachusetts, though I may be moving to New Hampshire or Western MA soon. Since you asked. <grin>

- Kemrain the Relatively Well Rested.


----------



## astriemer

*Re: Metamagic Feats*

Thanks for the feedback people. I had forgotten about the general mod for delay. But I think that I need to revise my question.

How could/would you impliment these feats -- as feats -- not just through combining spell lists?

As I understand it the EoM system was designed to provide flexibility as well as freshness. In the revised edition Ryan has also attempted to streamline play. Thus, I'd like to be able to incorporate new, fresh material produced for the standard spell system into the EoM system...and I'd like to do so without needing a "shoehorn" every time. Sometimes it is fun to try to see who to duplicate a d20 spell using EoM rules, but sometimes I'd like to be able to keep it simple.

Take the Subdual Substitution feat in particular.  I have a character who wants to only use subdual damage. The use of the Evoke Life 1 list is fine except that it reduces the power of all combat spells by 1 MP and prevents me from creating a catrip damage effect (because it becomes a combined spell). While that might be fine, the use of a feat to accomplish that same effect (with no spell costs in the traditional rules) would be preferable in this case in particular.

So I guess my question to the designer in particular, but anyone if they have a good answer, is would it be in the spirit of the EoM rules to use the subdual substitution feat as written using EoM spells; thus, allowing a mage to take the feat and change his evoke spells to do subdual damage without requiring the use of the Evoke Life spell list? Or does that break the spirit of the EoM spell design system? If it is in the spirit, would it only work with signature spells or could it be applied to all spells or would it vary like the EoM Quicken feat?

Split Ray has the same problem that in the d20 rules it doesn't "cost" any spell levels to get a limited general modification EoM effect. How would you impliment that as a feat in EoM?

The Purify Spell feat is a little harder to gauge. It has a spell level cost (+1). Assuming that you allowed it as a feat (particularly as it is extremely difficult to simulate unlike some of the other feats), what cost would it have in terms of MP?

Energy Substitution and Admixture, as feats, seem to go against the spirit of the EoM rules and so I'd agree with the suggestions that those remain just use of or addition of other Evoke lists, but that brings up the question of prestige classes. How would you handle the requirement for a prestige class that needed one of these feats (Elemental Savant from T&B for example)?


----------



## astriemer

Kemrain said:
			
		

> If the Heal spell list can remove fatigue with a 0mp spell, what does that say about a Mage's need for sleep. Can removal of Fatigue take the place of rest?
> 
> - Kemrain the Insomniac.




I would look at it as, while the mage is not fatigued any more, they still haven't rested. The requirement for regaining MP is "relatively well rested." So "not being tired or fatigued" is not "relatively well rested."

Think of it like this perhaps. When you wake up from a relatively good sleep you are full of energy, throughout the day your energy levels drop and you are not at your peak. However, you are not fatigued yet and probably won't be until long after the day is over (like after an all night gaming marathon   ).

Remove fatigue would make it so that you aren't stumbling around with blurry vision and fuzzy thoughts due to lack of rest, but it doesn't bring you back to your peak of rest.


----------



## astriemer

Kemrain said:
			
		

> Oooh, he didn't mention Create! I still have hope for Create!
> 
> Also, I think that many of the Move lists are very worthwhile, and I'd love to see a feat for them.  I'll set my friend to brainstorming, and maybe we'll come up with some feats for ya.
> 
> - Kemrain the Create Specialist.




For the Move list, the specialist feat could do the same thing as the Infuse list (give free 10 minute duration).


----------



## RangerWickett

astriemer said:
			
		

> How could/would you impliment these feats -- as feats -- not just through combining spell lists?




Generally, I feel that any existing metamagic feat could work just as well in the EOM system.  Basically, every +1 level would be the same as +2 MP.  But within the rules, you must decide whether to apply metamagic feats when creating a signature spell.  I think I might, however, include a feat in LA that lets you swap in metamagic feats without increasing spell time.

Subdual Substitution would be fine as a feat, as would 'Split Spell'.

*Split Spell* [Metamagic]
You may apply this feat to any spell that has a targeted numeric effect (such as damage, healing, bonuses, or penalties).  Instead of affecting one target, it affects two, both of which must be within range.  Each target receives half the numeric effect of the spell, round down.  A spell modified by Split Spell does not change its MP cost.


The Purify Spell feat might work best as something like 'Good Specialist,' so that if you know enough Good spell lists, you could take this feat and automatically apply its benefit.  Or it could work as a normal metamagic feat, increasing MP cost +2.



> How would you handle the requirement for a prestige class that needed one of these feats (Elemental Savant from T&B for example)?




I really feel this is a minor problem.  Just as long as the character fulfills a some requirement with a similar cost and feel, balance should be about the same.  Maybe require the character to take Extra Spell List and choose a spell of a certain element.  Of course, mixing core prestige classes with EOM spellcasting might get a _little_ tricky, especially for those core PrCs that hew closely to the arcane/divine divide.


----------



## astriemer

RangerWickett said:
			
		

> The Purify Spell feat might work best as something like 'Good Specialist,' so that if you know enough Good spell lists, you could take this feat and automatically apply its benefit.




Oh, I like that idea.

I've got another question regarding the Evoke Ice side effect. I suppose that I need a clarification first though. If I use this as part of a spell, does the entrapment have to be made of ice? What if I wanted to entrap a creature in bands of metal. Would that look something like...

*Bands of Steel* 
Evoke Ice 3/Create Metal 1/Gen 1
Total MP: 5
Range: Close
Area: one creature up to Large size
Duration: 1 minute
Save: none
Spell Resistance: yes
Description: The caster creates bands of metal which with a successful ranged touch attack surround the target and render it immoble for the duration. The creature can use a full round action to attempt to break free with a successful Strength check (DC 20).
Costs: 3 MP moderate ice special effect, 1 MP create metal, 1 MP range.

Assuming that that is the correct way to create that effect, my questions become 1) Do I have to suffocate the creature (I assume not), 2) How to increase the strength of the binding (requiring more than DC 20 to break free)?

The two thoughts I had were to somehow use the Intensify feat or to somehow use the Infuse spell, but I wanted some feedback.


----------



## astriemer

*Evoke Space*

I have question about the Evoke Space side effect. For a Moderate effect you can affect either etheral or material and you get to choose which. Did you intentionally not create a Major or Extreme side effect that allows the spell to affect creatures in either plane simultaneously? If it wasn't intentional, would the effect be Major or Extreme?

Thanks again!


----------



## RangerWickett

astriemer said:
			
		

> *Bands of Steel*
> Evoke Ice 3/Create Metal 1/Gen 1
> Total MP: 5
> Range: Close
> Area: one creature up to Large size
> Duration: 1 minute
> Save: none
> Spell Resistance: yes
> Description: The caster creates bands of metal which with a successful ranged touch attack surround the target and render it immoble for the duration. The creature can use a full round action to attempt to break free with a successful Strength check (DC 20).
> Costs: 3 MP moderate ice special effect, 1 MP create metal, 1 MP range.
> 
> Assuming that that is the correct way to create that effect, my questions become 1) Do I have to suffocate the creature (I assume not), 2) How to increase the strength of the binding (requiring more than DC 20 to break free)?
> 
> The two thoughts I had were to somehow use the Intensify feat or to somehow use the Infuse spell, but I wanted some feedback.




I would use Create Metal/Move Force to create manacles, bands, and chains, and then use them to entwine the person.  Create Metal 1/Move Force 3 would let you create a large chain that could grapple with the effective strength of 30.  

The Evoke side effects are not there to replace other effects, but rather to make Evoke spell lists different from each other.


----------



## RangerWickett

astriemer said:
			
		

> I have question about the Evoke Space side effect. For a Moderate effect you can affect either etheral or material and you get to choose which. Did you intentionally not create a Major or Extreme side effect that allows the spell to affect creatures in either plane simultaneously? If it wasn't intentional, would the effect be Major or Extreme?
> 
> Thanks again!




I didn't think about that.  I suppose Major would work fine to affect both.  That would mess a bit with Evoke Force, but it's okay, I think.


----------



## astriemer

RangerWickett said:
			
		

> I didn't think about that.  I suppose Major would work fine to affect both.  That would mess a bit with Evoke Force, but it's okay, I think.




How so? Evoke Force affects Incorporeal and solid, not Ethereal, right?

On that line, See Invisible (from the standard d20 rules) allows you to see creatures that are ethereal. Is Scry, Special Vision what would let you do so in EoM? If so, what is the cost? If not, how would it be done?


----------



## RangerWickett

I thought incorporeal things _were_ ethereal.

As for seeing ethereal things, I'd toss it in along with Blindsense.  Not fully accurate as per the rules, but it's about the right power level.


----------



## astriemer

RangerWickett said:
			
		

> I thought incorporeal things _were_ ethereal.
> 
> As for seeing ethereal things, I'd toss it in along with Blindsense.  Not fully accurate as per the rules, but it's about the right power level.




Many similarities, but according to the DMG the difference is the incorporeal are on the material plane but have no physical form, while etheral things are not on the material plane at all. There are minor game effect differences as well. For example, you have a 50% chance to hit an incorporeal target (with any magic weapon or spell) while you cannot attack ethereal targets except with force effects.


----------



## Kemrain

Some interesting Metamagic ideas in the House Rules forum.

http://www.enworld.org/forums/showthread.php?p=1666033#post1666033

I think, in particular, the Insidious Magic feat is a good one for Charm and Compel Specialists.  Doesn't step on the toes of the Subtle Compulsion ability too much, and it's especially useful on non-casters.



			
				mercucio said:
			
		

> *INSIDIOUS MAGIC [GENERAL]*
> *Requirements:* Subtle Magic, caster level 10+, Bluff 9 ranks
> 
> *Benefit:* If you cast a spell against a target and the target succeeds on their saving throw they only realize a spell has been cast at them if they make a successful Spellcraft check (DC 20 + spell level).
> *Normal:* If the target of a spell succeeds on their saving throw they automatically know that a spell was cast upon them, though they do not know more specific than that.




The idea's a good one, even if that Spellcraft check might not be right. I think this would make a superb Charm or Compel Specialist feat.

- Kemrain the Insidious.


----------



## astriemer

A few more questions...

1) Attack Bonuses
How do I create an effect that grants an attack bonus that isn't an enhancement bonus?

I understand that Infuse Force will give an enhancement attack bonus, but what if I want to create, for example, a morale bonus (ala Bless), or an insight bonus (ala True Strike), etc.

Would I have to combine Infuse Force with another spell list? For example to get a morale bonus use Infuse Force and Charm Humanoid? For insight combine Infuse Force with Divination?

Or would I just use another spell list (such as Divination or Charm Humanoid) and cost the effect as if for Infuse Force?

2) Attack Only Bonus
Also, would there be any cost reduction to just get a damage bonus or to just get an attack bonus with Infuse Force?

3) Limited Save Bonus
Also from the standard Bless spell. How does one give a save bonus versus only one effect (rather than versus one creature, alignment, or element)? Would that be Abjure Force, but because of the limitation use the Other column or is a discount not valid as you can change the limitation too easily during casting?

4) Area Dispel
In your example (Example Four, page 50) of Area Dispel you go through the mechanics of attempting to dispel each of the four spells on Barbara. How do you determine what spell is targeted by the dispel first, second, etc.? Is it choice of the dispeller, dispellee, or strongest effect to weakest, or something else?

Thanks again!

P.S. Any further update on when Lyceian Arcana is expected out?


----------



## astriemer

Just got finished reading the Planar Handbook and I have a bunch more questions   

1) Is positive energy roughly equivelent to life energy and negative energy to death energy? For example, if I cast Evoke Death on someone with a Negative Energy Protection spell on, would they be protected?

2) Would you use Transform [Alignment] or Create [Alignment] to create holy water?

3) What effect would let you breathe earth (or not breathe at all for that matter)? Move Water lets you breathe water, would Move Earth let you breathe earth?

4) There are a handful of spells in the book that become normal spells that now function across planes (alarm, message and Rary's telepathic bond for example). What effect would let us create these spells? Move Space? Scry?

5) The spell Avoid Planar Effects allows one to ignore the natural effects of a specific plane (that would harm a non-native) (such as excessive heat, lack of air, poisonous fumes, emenations of positive or negative energy, chaotic deafening noise, etc.) but it does not protect you from attacks that might be related (fireball, suffocation spells, etc.). Would this effect best be simulated using a Transform Outsider spell (Strong Defenses only, no actual creature type change) or something else?

6) BTW-Does Abjure Air protect you from poisonous gas damage attacks (such as green dragon breath)?

And a few questions not related to Planar Handbook
7) How would you create a spell that transforms/coats a weapon in a special substance? Create Metal would let me create a silvered or adamantine weapon, but what if I want to add the silvered quality to my existing weapon (or to my wolf's claws). Would that be a Transform Metal? If so, how would you cost it out in MP?

8) There are a handful of spells now that grant the equivalent of feats (proficiencies, Endurance, Improved Initiative) or that grant class abilities (smite evil, extra uses of summon mount, evasion, sneak attack). How would you create these effects in general? Or would each one be created uniquely? If so, how would you specifically grant a proficiency with a weapon? Increase initiative? or grant evasion?

9) How would you simulate spells with a component cost? Could you use the component cost (gp, xp, ability damage) to increase the effective MP available for the spell? If so, what kind of ratio would you use?

Thanks ever so much!
rEOM rules!


----------



## RangerWickett

astriemer said:
			
		

> A few more questions...
> 
> 1) Attack Bonuses
> How do I create an effect that grants an attack bonus that isn't an enhancement bonus?
> 
> I understand that Infuse Force will give an enhancement attack bonus, but what if I want to create, for example, a morale bonus (ala Bless), or an insight bonus (ala True Strike), etc.




You can get a mild morale bonus from Charm, creating bravery.  Insight bonuses aren't available.  Part of the reason is that the Infuse spells can grant bonuses higher than that which is available by core spells.  Instead of casting a lot of low-level spells for different types of bonus, just spend a lot of MP on one spell.



> 2) Attack Only Bonus
> Also, would there be any cost reduction to just get a damage bonus or to just get an attack bonus with Infuse Force?




It's not in the rules, but the GM might want to make an allowance for it.  There was only so much stuff we could put in the book without the system getting cluttered.  Heck, if you wanted, you could make a spell that just grants a bonus to grapple checks made against reptilians, but it's easier to have the spell lists have a reasonable number of options without being cluttered.



> 3) Limited Save Bonus
> Also from the standard Bless spell. How does one give a save bonus versus only one effect (rather than versus one creature, alignment, or element)? Would that be Abjure Force, but because of the limitation use the Other column or is a discount not valid as you can change the limitation too easily during casting?




Again, it's up to the GM.  There are enough examples of how the rules work for it to not be hard to figure out what a fair cost would be if you only get a Fort save or only a Reflex save.



> 4) Area Dispel
> In your example (Example Four, page 50) of Area Dispel you go through the mechanics of attempting to dispel each of the four spells on Barbara. How do you determine what spell is targeted by the dispel first, second, etc.? Is it choice of the dispeller, dispellee, or strongest effect to weakest, or something else?




Highest MP cost first.



> P.S. Any further update on when Lyceian Arcana is expected out?




~late August-ish~


----------



## RangerWickett

astriemer said:
			
		

> Just got finished reading the Planar Handbook and I have a bunch more questions
> 
> 1) Is positive energy roughly equivelent to life energy and negative energy to death energy? For example, if I cast Evoke Death on someone with a Negative Energy Protection spell on, would they be protected?




That's about right.



> 2) Would you use Transform [Alignment] or Create [Alignment] to create holy water?




Infuse Good.



> 3) What effect would let you breathe earth (or not breathe at all for that matter)? Move Water lets you breathe water, would Move Earth let you breathe earth?




Move Earth lets you move through solid objects like they're less solid.  You cannot breathe inside these objects, however.  You can always use Create Air to create air in your mouth or around your body.



> 4) There are a handful of spells in the book that become normal spells that now function across planes (alarm, message and Rary's telepathic bond for example). What effect would let us create these spells? Move Space? Scry?




An alarm spell would be a contingent Create Sound spell, and you could combine it with 1 MP of Scry to remote view in an adjacent dimension.  I'll make a note to include a low-MP Move Space option to let you have a spell move to a coterminous dimension, or whatever the appropriate term is.



> 5) The spell Avoid Planar Effects allows one to ignore the natural effects of a specific plane (that would harm a non-native) (such as excessive heat, lack of air, poisonous fumes, emenations of positive or negative energy, chaotic deafening noise, etc.) but it does not protect you from attacks that might be related (fireball, suffocation spells, etc.). Would this effect best be simulated using a Transform Outsider spell (Strong Defenses only, no actual creature type change) or something else?




I would personally suggest just use the proper Abjure spell and just not worry that you get extra benefits, but a proper sort of Transform Outsider could work.  Man, you guys come up with _too many_ questions.  *grin*

Honestly, no offense intended, but you are asking enough questions, I'm sure you're experienced enough to guess how to cost such things.  You have learned the path, and now you must walk it yourself.  Only then will your training be complete.



> 6) BTW-Does Abjure Air protect you from poisonous gas damage attacks (such as green dragon breath)?




Hrmmm.  That's an odd one.  Ability damage is a little odd to deal with.  You could just as easily have a contingent Heal spell to trigger and restore ability damage whenever you're hurt.  But a special Abjure Nature spell might work.  There isn't any existing example of warding off ability damage, so it's hard to guess how to cost such a spell.



> And a few questions not related to Planar Handbook
> 7) How would you create a spell that transforms/coats a weapon in a special substance? Create Metal would let me create a silvered or adamantine weapon, but what if I want to add the silvered quality to my existing weapon (or to my wolf's claws). Would that be a Transform Metal? If so, how would you cost it out in MP?




Sounds good.



> 8) There are a handful of spells now that grant the equivalent of feats (proficiencies, Endurance, Improved Initiative) or that grant class abilities (smite evil, extra uses of summon mount, evasion, sneak attack). How would you create these effects in general? Or would each one be created uniquely? If so, how would you specifically grant a proficiency with a weapon? Increase initiative? or grant evasion?




Maybe an Infuse spell would work to grant the knowledge of strange abilities.  Infuse Time for initiative, Infuse Air to dodge with evasion, Infuse Death maybe for weapon proficiency.  Be careful not to undercost unique class abilities.



> 9) How would you simulate spells with a component cost? Could you use the component cost (gp, xp, ability damage) to increase the effective MP available for the spell? If so, what kind of ratio would you use?




There are some rules in LA about increasing your MP limit by using components.  Generally, you just get to increase your MP limit for a given spell by 1 if you spend some gp worth of stuff.  I haven't fully figured out the calculations yet, but it's all based on the complications of creating charged magic items and such.  Yikes.


----------



## RangerWickett

Kemrain said:
			
		

> Some interesting Metamagic ideas in the House Rules forum.
> 
> http://www.enworld.org/forums/showthread.php?p=1666033#post1666033
> 
> I think, in particular, the Insidious Magic feat is a good one for Charm and Compel Specialists.  Doesn't step on the toes of the Subtle Compulsion ability too much, and it's especially useful on non-casters.
> 
> The idea's a good one, even if that Spellcraft check might not be right. I think this would make a superb Charm or Compel Specialist feat.
> 
> - Kemrain the Insidious.




Sounds good.


----------



## astriemer

*Elemental damage fill out*

I was considering the damage for the elemental weapon enhancement (Create Element) and was considering filling out the chart for the missing MP values and to provide alternate damage dice. Based on average damages this is what I came up with.

MP	Damage	Average Damage
1	+1d4	2.5
1	+1d6	3.5
2	+1d8	4.5
2	+2d4	5
2	+1d10	5.5
3	+1d12	6.5
3	+2d6	7
3	+3d4	7.5
4	+2d8	9
4	+4d4	10
5	+3d6	10.5
5	+1d20	10.5
6	+2d10	11
7	+5d4	12.5
7	+2d12	13
7	+3d8	13.5
8	+4d6	14
9	+6d4	15
10	+3d10	16.5
11	+7d4	17.5
11	+5d6	17.5
12	+4d8	18
13	+3d12	19.5
14	+8d4	20
15	+6d6	21
15	+2d20	21
16	+4d10	22
17	+9d4	22.5
17	+5d8	22.5
18	+4d10+1	23
19	+7d6	24.5
20	+10d4	25
21	+4d12	26
22	+6d8	27
23	+11d4	27.5
23	+5d10	27.5
24	+8d6	28


It allows you to have xD4, xD6, xD8, xD10, and xD12 for your added damage as well as gives you a choice of damage at a few MP cost points.

Presumably you could use the chart to substitute damage dice for Evoke spells as well so that your 6 MP fireball does 4d10 damage instead of 7d6 damage (though were I to try that option, I'd probably only allow choosing lesser average damages (or perhaps up by .5 average, allowing the caster to use 10d4 for 6 MP, but no higher).

Are my assumptions reasonable? Or am I missing a loophole?

On a related note, I was considering saying that if you halved the damage the spell causes up front, you could make it a no save (and no need to hit) spell such as magic missile. Thus with Evoke spells 1 MP would get you a 1d6 no save attack, 3 MP would create a 2d6 no save, 5 MP = 3d6, etc.

Is that still balanced? If not, why not?


----------



## RangerWickett

astriemer said:
			
		

> On a related note, I was considering saying that if you halved the damage the spell causes up front, you could make it a no save (and no need to hit) spell such as magic missile. Thus with Evoke spells 1 MP would get you a 1d6 no save attack, 3 MP would create a 2d6 no save, 5 MP = 3d6, etc.
> 
> Is that still balanced? If not, why not?




As to the first question, I suppose it's balanced; I just wanted to keep things simple by using just one type of die.

The 'magic missile' effect sounds balanced too.  To convert a magic missile being cast by a 9th level wizard, in EOM it'd be Evoke Force 9/Gen 2.

That's 10d6 halved to 5d6 (statistically nearly identical to 5d4+5) so that there's no save.  Then 2 MP for range.  You end up spending 11 MP for an effect that is costed as a 1st level spell.  Yikes.  Of course, that's assuming you're hitting just one target.  If you're spreading out the damage, you could do Evoke Force 1/Gen 4 and have 1 MP for a 10-ft. radius, 1 MP for discerning, and 2 MP for range, doing 1d6 damage, no save.  Hm.

*nods*  I think it's balanced.


----------



## astriemer

RangerWickett said:
			
		

> As to the first question, I suppose it's balanced; I just wanted to keep things simple by using just one type of die.
> .




I figured that's what you had done. I created the list for myself trying to convert some standard spells that weren't using d6 for damage. I was primarily posting the other die types as an FYI though I wanted to make sure that I hadn't missed something that made it not reasonable to do the die conversions. 

As I am trying to walk the path   I'll only ask one question today!

I'm trying to simulate a spell from the Planar Handbook called Babau Slime. It is a 3rd level druid/wizard/sorcerer spell with a duration of 1 min./level that does the following: coats the target's skin, armor, and equipment with an acidic slimy jelly that does not harm the target. Any weapon (including natural attacks) that touches the target takes 1d8 points of acid damage and the weapon's hardness does not reduce the damage. A magic weapon or a creature's natural attacks gets a Reflex save to avoid the damage. How would I create something like this?

My first thought was to use Evoke Acid and just divide the dice out amongst attacks (thus Evoke Acid 5/Gen 1 for 6d6 damage lasting 10 minutes, but that would only allow 6 touches at 1d6 for each time hit). As it needs to be able to affect any number of attacks I then thought perhaps using the enduring damage effect for evoke (thus Evoke Acid 10/Gen 1 for 1d6 damage lasting 10 minutes...the problem with this is that it almost doubles the "level" of the spell). The other thought that I had was that perhaps I could use Create Acid to crete an elemental weapon effect with discerning area of effect and short contingency (Create Acid 2/Gen 4) which is the right "level" but seems like a clunky if not outright incorrect way(particularly for contingency) to do it. Thoughts anyone?

In any case, is it reasonable to say that instead of needing to hit the target or giving a save for 1/2 damage (as would be normal for an evoke spell or weapon attacks), that it instead automatically damages things striking the target with non-magical weapons and gives a save for no damage to magical weapons (including creature attacks)?


----------



## Kemrain

Here's a question I'm not sure how to rule on for myself..

 When you're level-drained as a Core Caster, you lose spell slots.. What happens to your MP in EoMr?

 - Kemrain the Undead.


----------



## Primitive Screwhead

*Possible Answers*

Kemrain, I have two thoughts on that..
  1:  reduce the amount of MP the character regains during the next rest cycle {me being nice}
  2:  Immediately reduce the MP by the difference between levels {me not being nice and having to adjust during combat}

 My initial preference is to #1, since there is less math during combat that way, and since I house rule that mages can burn hit points as MPs... losing a level, hitpoints, and MP all in one shot is really nasty.


Astriemer, I would go with the elemental weapon/contingency, but add in Evoke:Ice side effects to reduce the hardness of the weapon by 5 or 10. This will make the spell effect destroy most metal swords in 3 to 4 strikes, and a magical sword may be immune due to the higher hardness. I don't think it would need the discerning enhancment.

Ranger Wickett, no comment on my draft of the Wild element?


----------



## RangerWickett

Kemrain said:
			
		

> Here's a question I'm not sure how to rule on for myself..
> 
> When you're level-drained as a Core Caster, you lose spell slots.. What happens to your MP in EoMr?
> 
> - Kemrain the Undead.




I would suggest you lose MP equal to your current caster level before applying the negative level.  Thus, if your caster level is 12 and you get hit with 3 negative levels, you'd lose 12, then 11, then 10 MP.  Thus, you'd lose 33 MP.


----------



## RangerWickett

Primitive Screwhead said:
			
		

> Ranger Wickett, no comment on my draft of the Wild element?




Where is it?  Please forgive me if I sometimes miss some things.


----------



## Primitive Screwhead

*Wild Elements of Magic*

Here is the original thread.. Elements of.. Wild Spellcraft?


----------



## torem13

*Questions about divination, cantrips, and read magic*

RangerWickett,

I have a question about using Divination. In the book it is stated
"You can choose to make a Divination check by just
expending a free cantrip, though you’ll gain no bonus to
your check."

But every type of question (Dowse simple, specific, creature, discerne lore, and history reading) as well as the three translates have MP of 1 or better. How do we use a cantrip to do a divination?

Also, If I have a spell, let's say Create Metal 0/Gen 3. Does this mean I need 3 MP plus a cantrip or just 3 MP.

Finally, Does divination allow a Mage the equivilent of read magic and how much would it cost?


----------



## donm61873

*question about abjure/hex cantrips*

If I understand the cantrips for abjures and hexes correctly, an appropriate cantrip can have ONE of the effects listed below.

Abjure {Alignment} 0 Cantrips
	+2 deflection bonus to AC against {alignment} attacks
	+2 resistance bonus to saves against {alignment} attacks
Abjure {Creature} 0 Cantrips
	+2 deflection bonus to AC against {creature type} attacks
	+2 resistance bonus to saves against {creature type} attacks
Abjure {Element} 0 Cantrips
	+2 deflection bonus to AC against {element} attacks
	+2 resistance bonus to saves against {element} attacks
	Energy resistance 1 against {element} attacks
Abjure Crystal 0 Cantrips
	+2 deflection bonus to AC against piercing attacks
	Damage reduction 1 against piercing attacks
Abjure Earth 0 Cantrips
	+2 deflection bonus to AC against bludgeoning attacks
	Damage reduction 1 against bludgeoning attacks
Abjure Force 0 Cantrips
	+1 enhancement bonus to all saving throws
Abjure Metal 0 Cantrips
	+2 deflection bonus to AC against slashing attacks
	Damage reduction 1 against slashing attacks
Abjure Nature 0 Cantrips
	+1 enhancement bonus to AC against all attacks

Hex {Alignment} 0 Cantrips
	–2 deflection penalty to AC against {opposed alignment} attacks
	–2 resistance penalty to saves against {opposed alignment} attacks
	Damage reduction –1 against {opposed alignment} attacks
Hex {Element} 0 Cantrips
	–2 deflection penalty to AC against {opposed elements} attacks
	–2 resistance penalty to saves against {opposed elements} attacks
	Energy resistance –1 against {opposed elements} attacks
Hex Force 0 Cantrips
	–1 resistance penalty to all saves
	–1 penalty to a creature’s Spell Resistance 
Hex Nature 0 Cantrips
	–1 penalty to AC against all attacks

This leads to a couple of questions...
1. Hedging (p. 32): The text implies this only works with a Cantrip effect, as opposed to an effect that costs MP.
2, Hex Nature 0 gives a “–1 penalty to AC against all attacks”, however, it would appear from Table 3.9 on page 33 that Hex Nature 1 gives a “–1 penalty to AC against all attacks”. Is there a reason Table 3.9 has a different progression than Table 3.3?

Thanks...


----------



## Aristotle

I'm not sure if anyone is monitoring this thread anymore or not, but I had a question. I'm modifying EoM for my campaign setting and was wondering what, if any, repurcussions might come from reorganizing the item creation feats. What I'm thinking about doing...

Wrapping wonderous item and permanent spell into one feat (now it handles creatures and objects), and making the 'spell-like ability' permanent effects work like the x/day effects from charged item instead of "at will". Also probably not using the "creature creation" rules from permanent spell, as it doesn't fit with the feal of the setting.

Taking mana batteries out of charged item, and having charged items only use charges (no x/day effects, as they are now handled by permanent spell). Also making "spell list" and "metamagic" items mandatory as 'spell completion' items. (Some of my players will avoid spell casting because of the complexity. I want to make sure the magic items their non-caster characters get are simple effects that don't require them to fully understand the magic system.) 

Making mana batteries their own feat.

Hopefully you get some idea as to what I'm looking for. Any suggestions would be appreciated.


----------



## RangerWickett

> Wrapping wondrous item and permanent spell into one feat (now it handles creatures and objects), and making the 'spell-like ability' permanent effects work like the x/day effects from charged item instead of "at will". Also probably not using the "creature creation" rules from permanent spell, as it doesn't fit with the feal of the setting.




So how many feats total will you have, and what will they be?  Craft Wondrous Item, Craft Charged Item, and what?  I'm not quite clear on what you'll be doing.  

I have considered whether it might have been better to make five feats instead of just three:

Craft Spell Trigger Item, Craft Spell Completion Item, Craft Wondrous Item, Craft Permanent Spell, and Craft Creature.

Generally, removing options won't break the system, especially if you're just doing it to simplify things.  But if you were to consolidate several effects into one feat, it might be a bit too powerful.


----------



## Aristotle

RangerWickett said:
			
		

> Generally, removing options won't break the system, especially if you're just doing it to simplify things.  But if you were to consolidate several effects into one feat, it might be a bit too powerful.




Right now the plan is 3. One that basically combines Wonderous Item and Permanent Spell with a few tweaks (and possibly an increase in some costs). One that is basically Charged Item (but everything is charged, there are no x/day items in it). And one that focuses on creating the mana batteries (I couldn't tell if there was a reason that they had to be part of charged item or not, but they seem like they would be plenty useful on their own).

Although you might be right. I may have overloaded my feat that combines wonderous item and permanent spell. Although I honestly think the charged item feat would be just about as popular (a little less power maybe, but less expensive to make too). I'll have to give it some more thought, and maybe give your '5 creation feats' idea some thought too.

Thanks!


----------



## Primitive Screwhead

*Creation Feats...*

I have been looking over these feats as well, wondering what to do. 
One thing I was looking at are the necromantic 'creation' spells. These could be emulated in the system by a permanent summon undead, but I did not want my bad guys to wait until 7th level before being able to cast a 2 mp 'Create Zombie' spell.... 
 So a feat of Necromancy will be in my game, proabably at first level.

 This has led me down the road of other potentials, and since I am working on intergrating with the Eberron setting, I have to find a way to work in Artificers.

 Anyway.. all this to basically say.. I will provide input on any feat alteration deal, cause right now I am well and truely stuck on how to balance/change them


----------



## Kemrain

Having read the Fire Cantrips thread, I've been looking at the Create lists.  I'm liking what I see, and came up with this bit of broken nastyness.  Tell me, please, if this spell works the way I think it does:

 Dancing Shadowshawl
 Create Shadow 1/Create Ooze 3/Move Force 1/Gen1
 Total MP: 6
 Range: 30 ft.
 Area of Effect: 20 ft. radius
 Duration: One minute

 This spell should create a 20 ft. radius sphere of Gloom (I want to see through it with darkvision) that is Semi-Solid, not only blinding most creatures within the area of effect with no save but slowing their movement down to 5 ft. per round, imposing a -2 penalty to melee attack and damage rolls, and making all non-energy-based ranged attacks impossible.  On top of that the sphere of gloom can be moved, by mental command, by the caster, upto 30 ft. in any unblocked direction, including straight up.

 This is a killer spell, making my opponents lose their dex bonus, take a net -6 to hit, slows them better than a 4MP Move Death spell, and can be lifted and moved at will.  I can move the spell at a base speed of 30 ft., but does this mean that moving it in such a manner is a move action?

 Also, just wondering, if I moved the spell effect forward at my walking speed, I can't use the motion of the semi-solid to overcome the 5 ft. restriction, can I?  I'm gonna say "I doubt it," but the thought popped into my twisted little mind and I just had to ask.

 - Kemrain the Semi-Solid Snake.


----------



## RangerWickett

Kemrain said:
			
		

> Having read the Fire Cantrips thread, I've been looking at the Create lists.  I'm liking what I see, and came up with this bit of broken nastyness.  Tell me, please, if this spell works the way I think it does:




It doesn't, thankfully.



> Dancing Shadowshawl
> Create Shadow 1/Create Ooze 3/Move Force 1/Gen1
> Total MP: 6
> Range: 30 ft.
> Area of Effect: 20 ft. radius
> Duration: One minute
> 
> This spell should create a 20 ft. radius sphere of Gloom (I want to see through it with darkvision) that is Semi-Solid,




First things first, you didn't buy an area of effect, so you have an object made of semi-solid shadow, which _radiates_ gloom in a 20-ft. radius.  The radiation is not solid.

Second, the intention of the rules is that you cannot create solid (or semi-solid) objects around creatures.  I suppose it should be errata'd that you can't create solid objects in the same square as a creature, though you can still cover them with liquid, or surround them with energy.  I would say, though, that ooze counts as solid in this case, albeit a jiggly one.

Third, though you're not actually wrong in doing so, I never intended for people to use Create Ooze to make energy semi-solid.  I was thinking, "Hey, a trick wall that people can walk through," or actually, "Hey, solid fog is a great tactical spell (Create Mist 1/Create Ooze 3/Gen 4)," not "Jell-O Lightning."  It'd be up to the GM to adjudicate whether oozy fire still burns, or if it's even possible (I personally would say yes, because I like weird stuff like that).

Fourth, for this to work, you'd actually need to buy the Elemental Object enhancement, since you are creating an object out of shadow, and then you'd apply Create Ooze.  You still can't trap someone, but you could put a ring around them that it would take a long time for them to get through, while you could be zapping them with spells.  It'd be 4 more MP to buy the Elemental Object enhancement, though.



> not only blinding most creatures within the area of effect with no save but slowing their movement down to 5 ft. per round, imposing a -2 penalty to melee attack and damage rolls, and making all non-energy-based ranged attacks impossible.  On top of that the sphere of gloom can be moved, by mental command, by the caster, upto 30 ft. in any unblocked direction, including straight up.




Move Force lets you move intangible spell effects with ease, but for created objects, you actually have to move the item's weight.  I couldn't hazard a guess as to how much Jell-O Shadow weighs, but a 20-ft. radius is about the same as a Gargantuan creature, so you'd need 6 MP to move it, not 1.



> This is a killer spell, making my opponents lose their dex bonus, take a net -6 to hit, slows them better than a 4MP Move Death spell, and can be lifted and moved at will.  I can move the spell at a base speed of 30 ft., but does this mean that moving it in such a manner is a move action?




Directing a Move spell requires concentration (a standard action).  And yes, your spell can do what you want, but it can't trap them completely, and it costs 12 MP.  Assuming you're cool with just a 10-ft. radius (much cheaper), you have Create Shadow 3/Create Ooze 3/Move Force 4/Gen 2.  

This actually is not optimal, since you'd be better off creating a cage of pure force (Create Force 9/Gen 2 for a 30-ft. range, 10-ft. diameter cage of indestructible force).  Nice idea, though.



> - Kemrain the Semi-Solid Snake.




Snake?  I thought you were dead.


----------



## torem13

*Bump*

RangerWickett,

I have a question about using Divination. In the book it is stated
"You can choose to make a Divination check by just
expending a free cantrip, though you’ll gain no bonus to
your check."

But every type of question (Dowse simple, specific, creature, discerne lore, and history reading) as well as the three translates have MP of 1 or better. How do we use a cantrip to do a divination?

Also, If I have a spell, let's say Create Metal 0/Gen 3. Does this mean I need 3 MP plus a cantrip or just 3 MP.

Finally, Does divination allow a Mage the equivilent of read magic and how much would it cost?


----------



## RangerWickett

torem13 said:
			
		

> RangerWickett,
> 
> I have a question about using Divination. In the book it is stated
> "You can choose to make a Divination check by just
> expending a free cantrip, though you’ll gain no bonus to
> your check."
> 
> But every type of question (Dowse simple, specific, creature, discerne lore, and history reading) as well as the three translates have MP of 1 or better. How do we use a cantrip to do a divination?




Dang it.  Well, I _intended_ to make there be an option to work like the psionic power inkling.  0 MP would let you ask a question about your own immediate future (1 hour) or near past (1 day), and I'd rule that if you want to History Read yourself, the base cost should be 0 MP.  The base DC would be 10.



> Also, If I have a spell, let's say Create Metal 0/Gen 3. Does this mean I need 3 MP plus a cantrip or just 3 MP.




You only need to spend a cantrip if the total spell cost is 0 MP.  If the spell costs more than 0 MP, it's no longer a cantrip.



> Finally, Does divination allow a Mage the equivilent of read magic and how much would it cost?




The EOM rules don't assume that magical writings are inherently hard to read, or that they're in some sort of arcane script, so magical deciphering is unnecessary.  If you want to have magic work that way in your world, though, I'd just suggest reading magic is a cantrip that all mages know.


----------



## Kemrain

Glad I asked my question then.. Learned a lot about your rules intentions.  I have some more questions.

 Charm spells with moderate and major efects are reduced a step on a successful save, not negated.  My GM saw this and flipped out, especially when he saw Fear and Daze effects.  I pointed out that you usually get a save every round, but he argued that you should only "save for half" against numeric affects, and that you should never be better off failing a save than making it: when 'held' you can take purely mental actions but when 'dazed' you can take no actions, and that seems to be a downgrade. (I realise that changing daze's definition would make half his argument moot, but...)

 I'd be grateful if you'd explain what you were intending for the Charm lists, and why they work this way (a way I don't think I've ever seen used in d20).  My GM thinks we need to modify the list for our game, and knowing why you designed them the way you did could be useful in deciding how we should rule this.

 - Kemrain the Appreciative in Advance.

 Oh, and, if you'll note a few posts above, I'm not dead but, *UN*dead.

 - Kemrain the Fiendish Vampiric Ooze Snake.

 Hope no one else asked this question already.. I'd feel awfully dim...

 - Kemrain the Created Gloom.


----------



## Kemrain

Oh, point of order WRT Create Shadow: If you create Pure Darkness will Devils, who have the ability to see in all forms of magical darkness, be able to see through it or not?

 "So dark that nothing can see through it."

 Did you have Devils in mind when you wrote this, or was there some other reason you wanted a category of darkness darker than the one even Darkvision can't see through?

 - Kemrain the Curious.


----------



## RangerWickett

A holdover from my love of 2nd edition, when the darkness spell was utter darkness.  The absence of the ability to see.  I just think it's cool that something is darker than darkness.  So dark that nothing can see, regardless of what tricks it uses.


----------



## RangerWickett

Kemrain said:
			
		

> Charm spells with moderate and major efects are reduced a step on a successful save, not negated.  My GM saw this and flipped out, especially when he saw Fear and Daze effects.  I pointed out that you usually get a save every round, but he argued that you should only "save for half" against numeric affects, and that you should never be better off failing a save than making it: when 'held' you can take purely mental actions but when 'dazed' you can take no actions, and that seems to be a downgrade. (I realise that changing daze's definition would make half his argument moot, but...)




I actually didn't think of that.  I suppose daze ought to just restrict physical actions, and also allow mental ones, but I was working from the existing definition of dazed.  In most cases, being held is much worse, because people can coup de grace you, but I suppose if you're flinging spells at a psion who's standing on a balcony overhead, daze is better.  If you want, it would not be unfair to change the 'dazed' effect so that it doesn't keep you from using mental actions.



> I'd be grateful if you'd explain what you were intending for the Charm lists, and why they work this way (a way I don't think I've ever seen used in d20).  My GM thinks we need to modify the list for our game, and knowing why you designed them the way you did could be useful in deciding how we should rule this.




If you're playing an evoker, and your opponent fails a save, they still take some damage.  With charm spells, though, the core rules make them everything or nothing.  If they work, they cripple your foe, often for quite a while, and if they don't work they're worthless.  Just like I worked to remove most save or die effects, I wanted to make charm spells be a little more flexible in how powerful they are.  At high levels you can still create spells that just leave people paralyzed or stunned for an entire combat, but at low level there's more back-and-forth.  You can't just take someone out with a single spell, usually.

At high levels it's not so much of a problem, because you have allies who can dispel stuff, counter stuff, heal you, etc., so that even 'instant death'-like abilities, such as polymorphing someone into a statue, isn't that bad.


----------



## Kemrain

Thanks!

 That actually makes some decent sense, when ya look at it.  And, given that I just noticed the "Make your save by 5 and the spell is simply negated" clause, I think my GM might let us squeek by with a redefining of Daze and some quiet fudging of enemy spell saves.  Not that he cheats or anything... Heh.  
 Thanks a lot for the info. It's always good to be able to ask the designer what the heck he was thinking, and get an answer that you can agree with. [Grin] Hell, any answer is a good answer, and you give 'em out fast. Muchly appreciated, RW.

 - Kemrain the Brownnoser.


----------



## Kemrain

Here's one about free cantrip effects, and targeting.

 If I cast a Create Shadow 1/Gen 0 spell to make my natural weapons deal 1d6 Shadow damage, can I throw in a 0MP Gloom effect for free?

 Can I cast Create Shadow 1/Gen 0 on both of my swords at once, or only one of the pair? (I'd rather enchant my swords than my claws, but I'll take what I can get.)

 Kemrain the Clawed Gloom.


----------



## torem13

RangerWickett, 

Could you clarify how Evoke Acid's extended damage works.



> Acid – Dissolve
> Acid coats affected creatures and objects, dealing 1d6 points of acid damage per round. The acid eventually becomes inert, but it can also be washed off with about one gallon of water for every 5-ft. square of area. A creature
> can scrape acid off itself or a comparably-sized object as a full-round action, though this usually ruins the scraping implement.
> Ambient: No extra damage, just mild chemical burns.
> Variable: The acid lasts 1 round for each MP spent before becoming inert.




If I spend 2 MP to get 3d6 damage for the first round, then I interpreted the above section as needing 1 MP to get an extra round of 3d6. 

If not then to get the 3d6 per round, do you need 1MP for the second round and 2 MP for the 3d6 during that second round? This would bring the total to 3 MP per round past the first round for 3d6 per round. 

Also, if the second condition is true, could use spend 1 MP and get an extra round of 1d6 damage?

Thanks,


----------



## Kemrain

torem13 said:
			
		

> If I spend 2 MP to get 3d6 damage for the first round, then I interpreted the above section as needing 1 MP to get an extra round of 3d6.
> 
> If not then to get the 3d6 per round, do you need 1MP for the second round and 2 MP for the 3d6 during that second round? This would bring the total to 3 MP per round past the first round for 3d6 per round.
> 
> Also, if the second condition is true, could use spend 1 MP and get an extra round of 1d6 damage?



 As I see it, you spend 2 MP to get 3d6 damage, and 1 extra MP to get 1d6 damage in the following round. If you payed 5 more MP, you'd deal 1d6 damage for 5 rounds.

 - Kemrain the Basic.


----------



## Primitive Screwhead

*Poor ignored thread *

I did not want to hijack this thread.. if that is even possible.. I had a thought on a skill based variant, please look at This Thread 

Of course, keep in mind that the idea is truly in the rough stage and my very well not have any merit at all  

Thanks!

Side note, while I am not anywhere near Kemrain, whose game appears to match mine... I will be spending a couple months in the area of Fort Stewart. Any TEoM games in the area that-a-way?


----------



## torem13

*Evoke Acid*



			
				Kemrain said:
			
		

> As I see it, you spend 2 MP to get 3d6 damage, and 1 extra MP to get 1d6 damage in the following round. If you payed 5 more MP, you'd deal 1d6 damage for 5 rounds.
> 
> - Kemrain the Basic.





> Acid – Dissolve
> Acid coats affected creatures and objects, dealing 1d6 points of acid damage per round. The acid eventually becomes inert, but it can also be washed off with about one gallon of water for every 5-ft. square of area. A creature
> can scrape acid off itself or a comparably-sized object as a full-round action, though this usually ruins the scraping implement.
> Ambient: No extra damage, just mild chemical burns.
> Variable: The acid lasts 1 round for each MP spent before becoming inert.




I would agree with you if the initial damage was 1d6, but the wording in Evoke Acid seems to suggest that you can get prolonged damage as a variable side effect and it could be interpolated that extra initial damage gives extra variable damage. 

Ranger Wickett, Could you clarify how Evoke Acid Variable damage works?

Thanks,


----------



## Primitive Screwhead

*Acid Side effect*

I go with Kemrain's interpretation, altho the text is a bit vague. Perhaps a better version could be:

Acid – Dissolve
Acid coats affected creatures and objects, causing 1 point of damage per round of contact. The acid eventually becomes inert, but it can also be washed off with about one gallon of water for every 5-ft. square of area. A creature can scrape acid off itself or a comparably-sized object as a full-round action, though this usually ruins the scraping implement.

Variable: The acid bypasses 5 points of hardness for each MP spent.

This way you could have an Evoke Acid spell that gradually eats through the targets equipement without making it the most powerful Evoke list. My vote for that one is Ice


----------



## RangerWickett

torem13 said:
			
		

> RangerWickett,
> 
> Could you clarify how Evoke Acid's extended damage works?




Kemrain's explanation is correct.  Regardless of how much damage the initial Evoke Acid spell does, you can spend 1 MP to have acid cling to things struck for another round, doing 1d6 damage.  The benefit of this is that the damage is enduring, so it forces spellcasters to make Concentration checks without having to ready an action to hit them as they start casting.  

I do, however, very much like Primitive Screwhead's idea, since it evokes memories of Aliens and their acid blood chewing through steel.


----------



## RangerWickett

Kemrain said:
			
		

> Here's one about free cantrip effects, and targeting.
> 
> If I cast a Create Shadow 1/Gen 0 spell to make my natural weapons deal 1d6 Shadow damage, can I throw in a 0MP Gloom effect for free?
> 
> Can I cast Create Shadow 1/Gen 0 on both of my swords at once, or only one of the pair? (I'd rather enchant my swords than my claws, but I'll take what I can get.)
> 
> Kemrain the Clawed Gloom.




Sure, take the gloom for free.

As for the question of two swords, hmm.  I'd run this by having you take the 'discerning' enhancement and choosing two targets - the two swords.  So for Create Shadow 1/Gen 1, sure.


----------



## Primitive Screwhead

*Transform.. and standardization*

Greetings!

 I was perusing the boards and ran across a debate on the Polymorph spells, which led to the WOTC articles on the topic. They have done a pretty good job of showing how to adjudicate those spells.

 In TEoM, there really isn't the same level of detail, kind of an 'all or nothing' approach. Since changing shape has lots of rules issues, I would like to steal WOTC's work on the detail. 

 Any comments on the idea of having 3 types of transform, purchased similar to the side effects of Evoke lists:
  Ambient 0MP, as the Alter Self spell 
  Moderate 3MP, as the Polymorph spell
  Major 5MP, as the Shapechange spell
The spell would still have the cost for HD differences.


I am looking at the potential of standardizing all the lists into the side-effect like categories for simplicities sake. I am not sure how feasable this is, but I figure it could cut down on some of the tables. I prefer either common tables or easy to calculate formula.. mainly becuase I am a computer geek and would rather have a spreadsheet than a pencil and paper.


----------



## Kemrain

I would also like to see the Transform lists explained more thoroughly. My game can not use the current CR system, and our game's economy is completely different so the Create list limitations are scued. I'd be interested in alternative methods of determining MP cost, or at least a clarafication of your intent behind the rules.

 I'm also curious about why, with Transform spells, you get the Supernatural and Spell-Like abilities of the form you take. That's a *very* powerful change to the system from Core, and I wondered why you'd made that decision.

 Off topic, what do you think of this feat? I'm not sure how balanced it is...

 Adaptive Dispelling
 If you succeed on the Spellcraft check to determine the Spell Lists involved in a spell you intend to counterspell, your Dispel Magic check is modified as if you knew some, but not all of the spell lists involved, even if you don't and the spell uses only one list. In addition, treat the Dispel Magic DC as if the dispeller spent 2 more MP than they actually did, upto the dispeller's MP limit.

 I'm not sure what to have for prerequisites, save for 5+ ranks in Dispel.

 - Kemrain the Adaptive.


----------



## Kemrain

I've had the idea of modifying a PrC's casting progression by giving a caster level every other level, and granting them a level of Overcharge for the remaining levels.  Overcharging increases your MP limit, without effecting your caster level, MP, spell lists, or anything else. I'm toying with the idea that the Overcharged MP can only be spent on General enhancements, but haven't decided on it yet.  I also haven't decided on whether or not to have a cost to Overcharging. It would cost the full MP ammount, and when you're casting above your level you run out of MP much faster, but the idea that for each MP over your Caster Level costs a HP is interesting.  We play in a Grim and Gritty game, so I doubt costing HP will fly, but, it's an idea.  

 Any thoughts?

 - Kemrain the Overcharged.


----------



## RangerWickett

The Transform spell list deserves to be revised a smidgen.  The guidelines of Create and Transform for making objects of a particular value are there mostly to keep people from creating houses or magnificent full plate at low level, and if you use a different monetary system, just eyeball it.  You shouldn't be able to afford large structures early on.

As for creatures, well, that's where it needs a bit of revising.  Now first I will say that I fully stand by my decision to have Transform grant supernatural and spell-like abilities.  If you want to just have a beefy body, pick Transform Animal and be a dire critter.  If you want to look like a beholder but not have its magical abilities, use the Cosmetic enhancement (0 MP) with maybe another 1 or 2 MP tossed in because you're larger, though that won't actually help you since beholders don't get reach.

What does need revising is that the system doesn't take advantage of the 3.5 Level Adjustment rules in the Monster Manual, and it ought to.  I plan to get to that soon.


The feat Adaptive Dispelling seems a bit too good.  It's balanced if you don't include the second benefit of +2 pseudo-MP, but as is it's granting effectively a +5 bonus to a skill check in a specific circumstance.  That's good enough, I think.

I don't quite understand the 'overcharge' you're discussing.


----------



## Kemrain

Okay, let's see if I can't explain it better.

 Overcharge:  
 Say a 10th level Mage has the Overcharge ability from, somewhere. She is a 10th level caster, with all the spell lists, signature spells, and MP of a 10th level caster. However, because of the Overcharge ability, she can cast 11MP spells. You should be able to get this ability more than once, as a class ability.

 Optional Modifications to this idea:
 Each time you cast an overcharged spell you take damage equal to the ammount of MP spent over your caster level. (Just an idea, don't much like it.)

 Overcharged spells require a Caster Level Check to cast succeddfully, and failure to make the CLC causes the spell to fail, and the MP to be spent. (Perhapse you take Damage equal to the Overcharged MP. I like this idea better.)

 Overcharged MP can only be spent on General enhancements.

 Sorry for being unclear. Perhapse this idea could be a Metamagic feat, or a class ability. I'm just curious to know what you think. There are feats that bump your MP, Number of Spell Lists, Signature Spells, but not MP Limit.

 - Kemrain the Optional.


----------



## RangerWickett

Well, let me post the next teaser for Lyceian Arcana, then.  I'll see what you think of it.


----------



## Kemrain

RangerWickett said:
			
		

> Well, let me post the next teaser for Lyceian Arcana, then.  I'll see what you think of it.



 The *next* teaser? You posted one already?! Where?!

 - Kemrain the Needy.


----------



## Kemrain

RW, thank you for the teasers. I'm really looking forward to Lycean Arcana.  I really like the rules for ritual casting, and my GM was psyched when he read them.  It's just what he was looking for, for his campaign.  (Massive spell to Lock the Plane, like in your teaser.) The Godhand looks useful, but I doubt we'll use it in our game just yet.  That said...

 More than one caster combinging their power to cast a spell is great, but it's not what I'm looking for with the aforementioned Overcharge ability.  What I wanted with that was a way to cast higher MP spells, while not giving more Signature Spells, Cantrips, Spell Lists or MP. (In our game we don't have free Cantrips, we double that number and call them "Spells per Day," costing one each time you cast a spell [but not use a Magic Skill.])  I wanted to know what you thought of the idea, outside of the context of the PrC I'm building that will utelize the ability. I'll post my class iseas in my next post, if theres no objections.

 - Kemrain the Overmastered.


----------



## Kemrain

I was looking to make a Rogue/Mage type class that gave up the Rogue's traps and sneak attack, and some of a Mage's spell versatility (more MP, Lists, signature's), but not power (MP limit), for improved Dispelling ability and catching up in the 'effective caster level' department. Under the EoMr rules, this is pretty easy to do, with a little creativity.

 I already posted the Adaptive Dispelling feat earlier in this thread, and I figured this class would give that as a class ability, so it's being a little more powerful than a normal feat is more excusable.

 I've been toying with an ability I'm calling "Overmastery Mastery," that'd reduce the Dispel check penalty when Overmastering, and might even reduce the MP required from 7 to 5.

 Finally, I'm looking to figure out mechanics to create a new way to Counterspel that, with a steep DC, will give the Dispeller part of the Countered spell's MP. An abusable idea, but with the proper mechanics it could work.

 I'm also thinking of granting them a bonus to effective caster level, meaning that a Rogue4/Mage4/XClass5 would add more than 9 to Caster Level Checks, upto but not exceeding their total Character Level.

  I know I only have to pass these by my GM, but I'm still curious to see what the designer would say about them.

  - Kemrain the Dispeller.


----------



## Verequus

I've collected some questions and here are all, I could write up in a complete form (damn, I'm busy...):



Practiced Spellcaster: In the core rules (and Complete Divine), this feat simply increases caster level regarding the spell effects by four (capped by hit dice, so it is only useable for multiclassed casters). For spells per day, the possible spell level and other things, the caster level remains the same. Is a feat too powerful, which increases the MP limit for spells by four? (@Kemrain, aren't you looking for such a thing?) 

If you are in an antimagic zone, you have to beat the SR for casting a spell. But what about supernatural abilities? Those don't have a caster level - how can they beat the SR? Never? Are the hit dice the caster level? What if you have already a caster level? Will it be used, if the caster level is greater than the amount of hit dice? 

Can a Live-Sword cut a living being? Will it simply go through the victim? What's with clothes? 

Dispel Magic - Can certain spells excluded from dispelling and the anti-magic field? Can the signature of a certain mage be the trigger? 

Enlarge Person is how simulated? 

How can permanent magic effects without affectable by _Dispel Magic_ created? For example, immortality or any form of crossbreeding? 

Drain Time: Partial actions have been removed from the game. You should replace the description with "The 'start full-round action' standard action lets you start undertaking a full-round action, which you can complete in the following round by using another standard action. You can't use this action to start or complete a full attack, charge, run, or withdraw." 

Maximize Spell: Should this metamagic feat still possible? After putting at least 15 MP into damage, the average damage result will be lower than the maximized version. Because the probability for average damage (or near of that) increases with more and more dice dramatically, such a feat would be must-have for archmages (level 17+). 
 The following questions are inspired by the _Teleporting Bow_. This magic item has Create Nature 0/Gen 0 (for creating normal arrows, which exist one minute) as permanent reusable spell with no use limitation (1000 XP) and Move Space 9/Gen 0 for teleporting arrows error-free within 800 ft with a 3/day limitation (8100 XP). The target loses the Dex bonus to AC.


 Teleport - how is the velocity and the direction of the subject changed? Can this simply be chosen? Personally, I would let only the direction of the subject be changed, not the velocity, because this could be abused as Move Death 5, except that the target can still move after the slow down. But what does this mean: "If a creature or object is stilled, it cannot move on its own power from its current spot." Hangs a flying creature mid-air? 

 Could you please describe round-by-round the casting of a teleport - this line seems to imply, that one has to use at least two rounds: "One time in the spell’s duration, the affected creature can teleport up to the listed distance as a full-round action." 

 "Example Thirteen: A magical tattoo artist imbues physical enhancements into tattoos. With a tiger tattoo, she grants one customer a permanent +2 Strength using Infuse Earth 1/Gen 1, at a cost of 400 XP to her, and 4000 gp to him." In this example, you charge 4000 gp for 400 XP - that's a factor of 10. Shouldn't the factor be 5 - or 25? 

 "Reusable Spells: If you know Craft Charged Item and Craft Permanent Spell, you can grant a creature or object the ability to cast a spell. If used on a creature, that creature can cast the spell at will, and you can even grant it the ability to use entire spell lists. If used on an object, you can only give it signature spells, and must set specific conditions for when those spells will trigger." What type of action is "casting at will", what type of action occurs at the triggering? Can a bow be created, which creates a normal arrow every time the string is pulled (this means, one doesn't have to have a quiver)? If this bow can teleport arrows, how many rounds does it take to fire the bow?


----------



## Kemrain

Let me go through here and try to answer some of these questions to the best of my ability. RW, feel free to pick me apart. I won't answer them all, but I'll do my best.



			
				RuleMaster said:
			
		

> Practiced Spellcaster: In the core rules (and Complete Divine), this feat simply increases caster level regarding the spell effects by four (capped by hit dice, so it is only useable for multiclassed casters). For spells per day, the possible spell level and other things, the caster level remains the same. Is a feat too powerful, which increases the MP limit for spells by four? (@Kemrain, aren't you looking for such a thing?)




 
 That is what I'm going for, but I think that increasing the MP Limit by 4 for one feat is outrageously overpowered. Raising it by 2, or even 1, is more what I had in mind, though I would still allow it to be taken more than once.


> If you are in an antimagic zone, you have to beat the SR for casting a spell. But what about supernatural abilities? Those don't have a caster level - how can they beat the SR? Never? Are the hit dice the caster level? What if you have already a caster level? Will it be used, if the caster level is greater than the amount of hit dice?





I'd say that the caster level in question is equal to HD or Caster Level, whichever is greater


> Can a Live-Sword cut a living being? Will it simply go through the victim? What's with clothes?





I assume you're talking about a Sword made with Create Life and the Elemental Object enhancement, yes? A sword made from Life would deal damage normally for a sword of it's type, save that it would deal an additional point of Life damage to any Death creature touching it, once per round.


> Enlarge Person is how simulated?





Try Transform Giant, or Transform Humanoid with the Strong Creature and Strong Defenses enhancements. This one is upto the GM, really.


> How can permanent magic effects without affectable by _Dispel Magic_ created? For example, immortality or any form of crossbreeding?





Sounds to me like you're looking for Magic with an Instantanious duration. That's really the only way I can see to create the effects you're describing. Presently, AFAIK, only the Evoke and Heal lists have a duration of instantanious, and with good reason.  If RW wants to explain his reasonings for this, I'm sure we'd all be pleased to hear it.


> Maximize Spell: Should this metamagic feat still possible? After putting at least 15 MP into damage, the average damage result will be lower than the maximized version. Because the probability for average damage (or near of that) increases with more and more dice dramatically, such a feat would be must-have for archmages (level 17+).





I think this feat was left out for a reason. Personally, I'm glad to see it go. Same with Empowered Spell. You want to do more damage, spend more MP on damage dice. If the Maximize feat were worth it in any situation, it would be worth it in *every* situation.

 Hope this helps a little. Hope RW hasn't forgotten about this thread.

 - Kemrain the Enlarged.


----------



## RangerWickett

Sorry for not replying for a while, but my computer has been giving me problems.  I've got a good deal of work to catch up on, but once that's done I'll swing by and answer questions.


----------



## Kemrain

Thanks, RW. Hope your comp's behaving now.

 - Kemrain the Pleased.


----------



## Verequus

Thank you, Kemrain, although I'm not entirely your opinions.  Oh, why do use the addendums at the end of your posts? Frankly, I don't understand the meaning behind it (like I don't understand the Einstein's formula ).



			
				Kemrain said:
			
		

> [/list]That is what I'm going for, but I think that increasing the MP Limit by 4 for one feat is outrageously overpowered. Raising it by 2, or even 1, is more what I had in mind, though I would still allow it to be taken more than once.



 You do understand, that there is hit dice cap for the caster level bonus? And using 4 levels means, that one can cast simply spells with the same power of full casters, but one doesn't have extra spell lists and extra spell points. This could result in casting of three maxed spells before running out of MP, if taken to the extreme. Isn't that balancing?



> [/list]I'd say that the caster level in question is equal to HD or Caster Level, whichever is greater



 This rule makes sense to me (but I've created, too ).



> [/list]I assume you're talking about a Sword made with Create Life and the Elemental Object enhancement, yes? A sword made from Life would deal damage normally for a sword of it's type, save that it would deal an additional point of Life damage to any Death creature touching it, once per round.



 Yes, I mean a sword made with Create Life. A human wouldn't take any damage, but his clothing is [Nature]. Furthermore, don't I remember a particular rule? I thought, Death creatures take always normal damage, if attacked with [Life].



> [/list]Try Transform Giant, or Transform Humanoid with the Strong Creature and Strong Defenses enhancements. This one is upto the GM, really.



 I'm the GM. While I understand Tranform Giant, I don't understand the latter.



> [/list]Sounds to me like you're looking for Magic with an Instantanious duration. That's really the only way I can see to create the effects you're describing. Presently, AFAIK, only the Evoke and Heal lists have a duration of instantanious, and with good reason. If RW wants to explain his reasonings for this, I'm sure we'd all be pleased to hear it.



 Exactly what I'm looking for!



> [/list]I think this feat was left out for a reason. Personally, I'm glad to see it go. Same with Empowered Spell. You want to do more damage, spend more MP on damage dice. If the Maximize feat were worth it in any situation, it would be worth it in *every* situation.



 No, *not* in every situation. I've used the following non-equation, where X is the amount of MP spent only for damage:

 3.5X < 6(X-6)

 3.5 is the average result of a d6, the first 6 is the maximized damage and the second 6 is the amount of MP spent for Maximize. You'll get:

 X > 14.4

 Actually, the reasoning behind this is, that the Gauss Curve increases the probability around the average result so much at high levels, that you could ignore the extremes. 1/(6^20) is the probality of a naturally maxed out fireball at level 20 - I would gladly take 84 poinst of damage (42 with save) instead 70. If you really want it scientific, then calculate the probality of having a higher damage without Maximize, and will see it yourself. I knew once the math...



> Hope this helps a little. Hope RW hasn't forgotten about this thread.
> 
> - Kemrain the Enlarged.



 Yes, at least I can discuss such issues.

 And RangerWickett, could you please look at http://www.enworld.org/forums/showthread.php?t=102051 and say, if a classless system still counts as dipping for armor proficiencies? Okay, there will be a lot of first level chars with armors (but don't have only wizards and sorcerers in the core rules no armor?), but it would simplify the feat enormously.


----------



## Staffan

Kemrain said:
			
		

> That is what I'm going for, but I think that increasing the MP Limit by 4 for one feat is outrageously overpowered. Raising it by 2, or even 1, is more what I had in mind, though I would still allow it to be taken more than once.



I'm thinking raising the limit by 1, or 2 with a drawback (along the lines of taking ability damage when doing it) would be good for an open-ended feat. Increasing it by 4 sounds reasonable when capped to HD/character level, which would only make it useful for multiclassed characters.

On a different note, any word on when LA is coming out? Last I heard was "late August" and "after EN Arsenal: Whips."


----------



## Kemrain

Here's a thought...

   Can I use a Targeted Antimagic to target Dispel Magic, to make Anti-Antimagic?

   - Kemrain the Dispeller.

 Oh, another thought... Do I need to use Transform Life to split an inanimate object, or could I just use Transform Nature? Splitting talks only about creatures. What if I needed to transform a blanket into a full set of clothing? Is Transform Nature enough?

  - Kemrain the Alterer.


----------



## Verequus

Staffan said:
			
		

> I'm thinking raising the limit by 1, or 2 with a drawback (along the lines of taking ability damage when doing it) would be good for an open-ended feat.



 You mean an increase of the caster level of +5 or even +6? That's hefty... Compare it to  







			
				SRD said:
			
		

> *Overchannel [Psionic]*
> 
> You burn your life force to strengthen your powers.
> 
> *Benefit*
> 
> While manifesting a power, you can increase your effective manifester level by one, but in so doing you take 1d8 points of damage. At 8th level, you can choose to increase your effective manifester level by two, but you take 3d8 points of damage. At 15th level, you can increase your effective manifester level by three, but you take 5d8 points of damage.
> 
> The effective increase in manifester level increases the number of power points you can expend on a single power manifestation, as well as increasing all manifester level-dependent effects, such as range, duration, and overcoming power resistance.
> 
> *Normal*
> 
> Your manifester level is equal to your total levels in classes that manifest powers.




 Basically, I'd like to have a feat without any drawback (compared to a pure caster of the same caster), if one casts a spell, because even with EoMR are multiclassed caster not so viable, if they multiclass into a non-spellcasting class.




			
				Kemrain said:
			
		

> Here's a thought...
> 
> Can I use a Targeted Antimagic to target Dispel Magic, to make Anti-Antimagic?
> 
> - Kemrain the Dispeller.



 I've already asked the same question (actually, more "Can I dispel an antimagic field?"). Yes, you can, but you have to overcome the SR as usual.


----------



## Staffan

RuleMaster said:
			
		

> You mean an increase of the caster level of +5 or even +6? That's hefty...



I mean that a feat that allowed a single-classed Mage 5 to spend 6 MP on a spell "for free" or that allowed 7 MP with a drawback would be OK. I would also think that a feat that allowed a Mage 5/Fighter 4 to spend 9 MP on a spell (á la the +4 caster level benefit for "Practiced Spellcaster") might be OK.

In other words, one of:
+1 caster level without strings attached.
+2 caster level with drawback (e.g. ability damage).
+4 caster level limited to HD/character level.

Disclaimer: I haven't actually used the EoM rules, so I could be totally off-base.

Edit: Thinking about it a little more, even these might be broken under EoM. The "Practiced Spellcaster" thing is balanced, because while you get a bonus to caster level, you still won't have high-level spells. This applies to a lesser degree to psionic powers as well - augmentation sometimes boosts a low-level power to the equivalent of a higher-level spell, but in most cases that's a matter of expanding the things you can use the power on (e.g. augmenting _psionic dominate_ to affect non-humanoids), not making the effect itself a higher-level effect.

For example, let's say I'm a wizard 1/fighter 4, and I take the Practiced Spellcaster feat. I can now cast _magic missile_ for 3d4+3, but I still can't cast _hold person_.
Or, let's say I'm a psion 1/fighter 4 with a "Practiced Psionic" feat that does the same as Practiced Spellcaster. I can now manifest _crystal shard_ for 5d6 damage (assuming I have the PP), but I still can't manifest _brain lock_.
However, now I'm a mage 1/fighter 4 with a feat that lets me pump in 4 MP more in a spell. Not only can I use Evoke Force to do 5d6 damage, I can also use Charm Humanoid to Hold up to 13 HD (if I understand things correctly). 

That's not something a 1st level psion or wizard could do, even with a caster/manifester level of 5. So, a +4 bonus might not work even if limited to HD.


----------



## Staffan

While looking into the Charm list for the above post, I noticed something else that's kind of strange: "Stunned" is apparently considered a worse condition than "Held". Is this because you can still do mental actions while held? Because even so, I think Held is a bit worse on account of being vulnerable to coup de graçe (aka the slitting of the throat).


----------



## Kemrain

Staffan said:
			
		

> While looking into the Charm list for the above post, I noticed something else that's kind of strange: "Stunned" is apparently considered a worse condition than "Held". Is this because you can still do mental actions while held? Because even so, I think Held is a bit worse on account of being vulnerable to coup de graçe (aka the slitting of the throat).



 It seems important to note that, while in traditional DnD, Held means Helpless, RW's Held status makes no mention of it. I made the mistake of assuming it was involved, earlier, but looking at it again I'm not sure helpless was ever intended.  RW hates Save or Die spells, and Hold Person basically equaits to Save or CdG.  Then again, the sleep enhancements provide that effect, but, there's no need for redundancy.

 Daze prevents the target from taking physical actions, but he defends himself normally.
 Hold prevents them from taking physical actions, takes away their dex bonus, and makes them easier to hit.
 Stunned prevents the target from taking any action, physical or mental, takes away their dex bonus, and makes them easier to hit.  That's all.

 I made assumptions about those myself, until just now, when I read your post above. Got me to look at it, and realise that it does nothig but what it says.  Good call.

 - Kemrain the Daz..Hel..Alright, Stunned.


----------



## Staffan

Kemrain said:
			
		

> It seems important to note that, while in traditional DnD, Held means Helpless, RW's Held status makes no mention of it.




If being held does *not* make you helpless, that should be pointed out, especially since it says that you're "immobile". The SRD says that helpless means: "paralyzed, *held*, bound, sleeping, unconscious, or otherwise completely at an opponent’s mercy." This is also included in the d20 System Guide, which means you can't change it if you want to use the d20 logo.

I can see why he wouldn't want the effect to make people helpless, but if so he should have used another name for it. Being Held comes with a lot of baggage.


----------



## Kemrain

> I can see why he wouldn't want the effect to make people helpless, but if so he should have used another name for it. Being Held comes with a lot of baggage.



 Oh, I concur. It was the only way to make sense of the idea that being completely immobile and helpless was a lesser effect than stunning.

 - Kemrain the Baggage Handler.


----------



## Verequus

I think we shouldn't use the term "caster level", if the "thing" in question shouldn't work like a real caster level increase. EoMR has the term MP limit, which is better in our discussion, because there is no actual spell level. Staffan, you referred in your post several times to it, but you mean actually "spell list". I've replaced that in the quotes accordingly and marked that in boldface.



			
				Staffan said:
			
		

> I mean that a feat that allowed a single-classed Mage 5 to spend 6 MP on a spell "for free" or that allowed 7 MP with a drawback would be OK. I would also think that a feat that allowed a Mage 5/Fighter 4 to spend 9 MP on a spell (á la the +4 caster level benefit for "Practiced Spellcaster") might be OK.
> 
> In other words, one of:
> +1 to the *MP limit* without strings attached.
> +2 to the *MP limit* with drawback (e.g. ability damage).
> +4 to the *MP limit* limited to HD/character level.
> 
> Disclaimer: I haven't actually used the EoM rules, so I could be totally off-base.



  +1: There is already  







> Spell List Familiarity [Mage]
> Choose a spell list, such as Evoke Death. You can cast a certain spell list
> more cheaply.
> Prerequisite: Caster level 15+.
> Benefit: Whenever you cast a spell that uses 2 or more MP on the chosen spell list, reduce the MP cost by 1.



 If I think about that, the Practiced Spellcaster has some advantages, if you use option +4.
  +2: The Overchannel effect.



> Edit: Thinking about it a little more, even these might be broken
> under EoM. The "Practiced Spellcaster" thing is balanced, because while you get a bonus to the *MP limit*, you still won't have *new spell lists*. This applies to a lesser degree to psionic powers as well - augmentation sometimes boosts a low-level power to the equivalent of a higher-level spell, but in most cases that's a matter of expanding the things you can use the power on (e.g. augmenting psionic dominate to affect non-humanoids), not making the effect itself a higher-level effect.



  You seem to refer to the Metamagic rules: A metamagicked spells takes a higher-level slot, but the save DC stays the same. Suppose, you can choose between a metamagicked spell, which uses a higher slot than normal, and a normal spell, which does the same damage as the metamagicked one. Which one would you choose? The normal spell? That's what I've thought. There is actually a house rule, where a metamagicked spell receives Heighten Spell for free. I would even allow to give Heighten Spell for free to spells, which simply use a higher-level slot than normal - if you use Magic Missile instead Meteor Swarm in a level 9 slot, you should receive somewhat a compensation.

 Or you could look to the instant Heighten Spell of EoMR at this way: Through the flexible way of forming spells you "research" specifically adapted spells to their level, so they have a certain DC. Moreover, while there are some Metamagic feats incorporated into the rules and therefore aren't available as feats, you have to spend two rounds instead a standard action like psions (unless you spend a certain feat which applies only to a certain spell list), if you want to change a spell on the fly.



> For example, let's say I'm a wizard 1/fighter 4, and I take the Practiced Spellcaster feat. I can now cast magic missile for 3d4+3, but I still can't cast hold person.
> 
> Or, let's say I'm a psion 1/fighter 4 with a "Practiced Psionic" feat that does the same as Practiced Spellcaster. I can now manifest crystal shard for
> 5d6 damage (assuming I have the PP), but I still can't manifest brain lock.
> 
> However, now I'm a mage 1/fighter 4 with a feat that lets me pump in 4 MP more in a spell. Not only can I use Evoke Force to do 5d6 damage, I can also use Charm Humanoid to Hold up to 13 HD (if I understand things correctly).



  1. add all MP spent on Charm and Compel lists and 2. use this number on the chart to know the HD-limit. 5 MP refer to 10 HD.



> That's not something a 1st level psion or wizard could do, even with a
> caster/manifester level of 5. So, a +4 bonus might not work even if limited
> to HD.



  But a 5th level mage could do that, too - you can't make a compare so easy. A 5th level mage can't cast Charm Monster, but Charm Monster is the combination of every Charm [Creature] list. Wait, while you have to subtract the Creatures, which are immune to mind-affecting spells in the core, but still it is far more powerful, because there is no HD limit for it and it has a duration of days/level.

 Even if it means, that the Fighter 4/Mage 1 succeeds to Charm the BBEG, it will be only for one minute and then he has depleted all MP for the day (except free cantrips). _Charm Person_ may have a lower DC, but a duration of one hour. So, it looks to me, that Mages aren't as powerful as they seemed to be.


----------



## Staffan

RuleMaster said:
			
		

> You seem to refer to the Metamagic rules: A metamagicked spells takes a higher-level slot, but the save DC stays the same.




In that passage, I was mostly talking about the psionic rules, where there are some instances where you use augmenting a low-level power to get the effects of a higher-level spell. This does not require a feat. For example, _psionic dominate_ is a 4th level power, and affects one humanoid. If you augment it by 2 PP (so it costs the same as a 5th level power), you can also affect an animal, a fey, a giant, a magical beast or a monstrous humanoid. For +4 PP (so, a 6th level power equivalent), you can affect abberations, dragons, elementals, or outsiders. You can also spend points to increase duration, and the number of targets. With the right augmentations, you will have turned the 4th level equivalent of _dominate person_ until _dominate monster_, but you're still using the same power. EoM works similarly, except that it doesn't make things more powerful by having it affect different stuff (use a different spell list for that). By comparison, a core spellcaster getting an increase in caster level will still only be able to do the same stuff he could before, but better.



> Or you could look to the instant Heighten Spell of EoMR at this way:



I didn't even mention DC. The trouble with adding to the MP limit in EoM is that you not only do things better, you'll be able to do entirely different things.



> 1. add all MP spent on Charm and Compel lists and 2. use this number on the chart to know the HD-limit. 5 MP refer to 10 HD.



Actually, I did do my homework on this one. "Held" is a moderate effect, so it costs 2 MP. I spent the other 3 MP on increasing the threshold, for a total of 13 (though some should probably have gone to various general stuff, like duration and range).


> So, it looks to me, that Mages aren't as powerful as they seemed to be.



I wasn't complaining about mages' power level in general (I'm not familiar enough with EoM to do that). I was just pointing out that increasing MP limit in EoM is a lot more powerful than increasing the caster level for a PHB spellcaster.


----------



## RangerWickett

Kemrain said:
			
		

> Oh, I concur. It was the only way to make sense of the idea that being completely immobile and helpless was a lesser effect than stunning.
> 
> - Kemrain the Baggage Handler.




Just hopping in here for a second, allow me to clear this up a bit.

Power Word: Stun is 8th level.  Hold Person is 3rd level.  Taking aside the lack of saves, I still assumed that stunning would be stronger.  And if you don't plan to coup-de-grace, it is, because stunning makes 'em drop their stuff, and be unable to take mental actions.

How would you suggest working up that chain of Charm effects, considering the MP costs involved?


----------



## RangerWickett

What do you think of this feat?

*Magical Calling **[Tradition]*
Your skills with a single spell list improve even as you study other arts.
*Benefit:*  Choose one spell list or magical skill you know.  When casting spells that uses only that spell list and general enhancements, your MP Limit is equal to your character level (including level adjustments from powerful races).  For example, Kathor the Linewalker, a Mage 3/Fighter 8 chooses this feat and picks Evoke Balance.  Though normally his MP Limit is 3, he could cast Evoke Balance 10/Gen 1.

If you choose a magical skill for this feat, you can still spend no more MP than how many ranks you have of that skill.
*Special:*  You may choose this feat multiple times.  Each time it applies to a different spell list.  You can use your higher MP Limit to cast spells that use any spell lists chosen for this feat.




The Spell List Specialist feat basically lets you cast spells more powerful than a normal caster of your level could, and is intended for people who have a full caster level progression.  Battle mages who want that extra 1d6 damage, or whatever.

This feat is intended for dabblers who still want a strong effect.  I wonder if it might be too strong.  Consider, though, how much MP a multiclassed character would have available.

I actually think +4 is a fair compromise.


----------



## Verequus

Staffan said:
			
		

> In that passage, I was mostly talking about the psionic rules, where there are some instances where you use augmenting a low-level power to get the effects of a higher-level spell. This does not require a feat. For example, _psionic dominate_ is a 4th level power, and affects one humanoid. If you augment it by 2 PP (so it costs the same as a 5th level power), you can also affect an animal, a fey, a giant, a magical beast or a monstrous humanoid. For +4 PP (so, a 6th level power equivalent), you can affect abberations, dragons, elementals, or outsiders. You can also spend points to increase duration, and the number of targets. With the right augmentations, you will have turned the 4th level equivalent of _dominate person_ until _dominate monster_, but you're still using the same power. EoM works similarly, except that it doesn't make things more powerful by having it affect different stuff (use a different spell list for that). By comparison, a core spellcaster getting an increase in caster level will still only be able to do the same stuff he could before, but better.
> 
> I didn't even mention DC. The trouble with adding to the MP limit in EoM is that you not only do things better, you'll be able to do entirely different things.



 It seems, that we have to consider to increase only one spell list, like RangerWickett suggested. Or, what I haven't tested, it can only affect spell lists of one action type. A caster level increase affects in the core rules every spell, so if we restrict the improvement some way, it should be similar to the core rules, without "doing entirely different things". RW, maybe the Spell List Specialist feat should go to an action type, then. It would still suffice its spirit.



> Actually, I did do my homework on this one. "Held" is a moderate effect, so it costs 2 MP. I spent the other 3 MP on increasing the threshold, for a total of 13 (though some should probably have gone to various general stuff, like duration and range).



 You are right, this way you get 13 HD. EoMR-spells can't be defined through spent MP and used spell lists clearly enough - that leaves still options open.



> I wasn't complaining about mages' power level in general (I'm not familiar enough with EoM to do that). I was just pointing out that increasing MP limit in EoM is a lot more powerful than increasing the caster level for a PHB spellcaster.



 I answered that above.


----------



## Staffan

RangerWickett said:
			
		

> How would you suggest working up that chain of Charm effects, considering the MP costs involved?



I'd just swap Stun and Hold. While Power Word: Stun is an 8th level spell, there are stunning effects available at much lower levels. The first that comes to mind is not even magic - the monk's Stunning Fist. She can use that as early as 1st level, though it only lasts for one round. There's also the 2nd level spell _sound burst_ that stuns people in a 10-foot burst (in addition to damage), but that's only for one round too. If you look at psionics, you have _energy stun_ that's a 2nd level power, does a small amount of damage, and has a chance of stunning for one round as well (though you have to fail two saves: first the Reflex save for half damage, then a Will save for the stun). There's also, of course, _psionic blast_ that stuns creatures in a 30 ft cone for one round, and can be augmented to have a higher duration.

All these ways of stunning have one thing in common: stunning is a brief matter. You get a jolt of stunning, but you shake it off in a round or so. Perhaps stunning doesn't belong in the Charm (Creature) list at all (which is geared toward relatively long-term effects - at least using the basic 1 minute duration plus extensions). It might be better suited to being a side effect of Evoke Sonic or Evoke Lightning - if so, the basic Stun effect should be pretty cheap, but longer stuns should cost more (perhaps 2 MP for basic stun, and 3-4 MP per round's duration increase).

::looks at the actual rules::

Hey, wouldya look at that? Stun already *is* a side effect of Evoke Lightning. Though I think the duration is a little excessive - 2 rounds per MP seems pretty long compared to the basic stun duration in other parts of the system of 1 round. I think reversing the relationship would work better: 2 MP/round of stun, still with a save each round to negate (I'd have the save turn the stun into daze for current round first though - if you're stunned for 5 rounds, but succeed on your third save, you will be spending a total of 2 rounds stunned, one round dazed, and then be free to act).

Something could also be added to the Compel spell list. After all, the description says "You can even Compel a creature so that it feels in its mind as though it’s being injured," but there's no mention of that in the actual effects you can do with it.

But what about the Charm tree, then? I would either have the make it Dazed/Held/Unconscious, or move Held up to the Strong effect and find something else to fill the Moderate effect with. Hmm... maybe Slowed/Dazed/Held? Nah, that doesn't work either, being slowed gives you a penalty to defense, which dazed does not do. Oh well, that's why you guys get paid for doing this, not me.


----------



## Kemrain

RangerWickett said:
			
		

> *Magical Calling **[Tradition]*
> Your skills with a single spell list improve even as you study other arts.
> *Benefit:* Choose one spell list or magical skill you know. When casting spells that uses only that spell list and general enhancements, your MP Limit is equal to your character level (including level adjustments from powerful races). For example, Kathor the Linewalker, a Mage 3/Fighter 8 chooses this feat and picks Evoke Balance. Though normally his MP Limit is 3, he could cast Evoke Balance 10/Gen 1.
> 
> If you choose a magical skill for this feat, you can still spend no more MP than how many ranks you have of that skill.
> *Special:* You may choose this feat multiple times. Each time it applies to a different spell list. You can use your higher MP Limit to cast spells that use any spell lists chosen for this feat.



 Taking my idea and running somepace I never anticipated.  I like this feat, RW, and I think it's fair and balanced in every regard.  Given that Kathor can cast (gonna take a guess here) his Evoke Balance 10/Gen 1 spell exactly once per day, and that leaves (again with the guess) him with 6 MP, I don't see how this *could* be unbalanced.  Take into consiteration the fact that he isn't casting a spell with more MP than he has Character Levels, and still can't (unless he uses those tasty rules from the Lycean Arcana Teaser... Mmmmm.)


			
				RangerWickett said:
			
		

> I actually think +4 is a fair compromise.



 For one Spell List? I must disagree. If the spell added to your MP limit for an entire Action Type, I would agree that +4 (upto but not exceeding your Character Level) was fair. For one List, at the cost of a feat, Max power is reqired to keep it worth it. Especially since, until 4th level, a Mage doesn't even have 20MP. This is Versatility, and Power at the expense of Endurance. Fair trade in my book.

 For one Spell List, Upto Character Level.
 For one Spell Action, +4 to MP Limit, Upto Character Level.
 For any Spell List, +1 to MP Limit, Upto Character Level.

 Is the third option a fair one? What if the extra MP could only be spent on General Enhancements? 

 Would a class that, every other level, gave either +1 Caster Level, or +1 to MP Limit be fair? How much less powerful than a Mage of Equal level would this class be? What might be given in compensation?

 - Kemrian the Enjoying this Thread.


----------



## Verequus

Two addendums to my post above:
 1. It isn't clear, if Spell List Specialist feat can be used several times at once. For example, I have chosen three Evoke [Element] lists and create a Evoke A 2/Evoke B 2/Evoke C 2/Gen X spell. Can I pay 3 MP less than usual? If yes, would that be unbalancing? If yes, my proposal above would weaken it.

 2. For those unfamiliar with Upper_Krusts CR-system: He rates a feat to be worth a +0.2 CR and integrated spellcasting levels of a wizard as +0.44 and of a cleric as +0.37. Because he didn't rate psionics and my belief, that mages are of similar power as psions, I estimate an integrated mage spellcasting level as +0.40. (Integrated spellcasting means the same like "Able to cast spell like a seventh level sorcerer.".)

 As conclusion, two feats would be worth a spellcasting level, which stacks and behaves like a normal spellcasting level gained through a prestige class. One feat alone increases the spellcasting ability by one half, which still yields an increase of MP and the access to one spell list (ignoring the first two levels). So one feat alone increases not only the caster level, but does the job of Extra Magic Points and Extra Spell List, too - except that Extra Magic Points yields 2 or 1 point less in the low caster levels, but is slightly better with 0.5 MP more on average in the higher levels. Taking both feats two times scales only this situation.

 This means, that either Extra Magic Points and Extra Spell List are underpowered or one shouldn't allow the increase of the spell caster level (with increase of MP and access to new spell lists) per feat, doesn't it?


----------



## RangerWickett

All respect to UK, but I think his numbers are off.  Or else his math is doing something I don't understand.

I'm a 20th level mage.  If you suddenly take away my spellcasting abilities, I lose much more than 8.8 levels of effectiveness.  I end up maybe about as strong as a 6th or 7th level fighter.


----------



## Verequus

RW, while you seem to have read v4 or even v5 of his system, you miss at least two things (UK is the great expert, not me), which make a 20th level mage more powerful without his spellcasting abilities than a 7th level fighter.

 At first, let's look, how are both the 7th level fighter and the 20th level mage rated at full power. Ignoring the small discrepancies in power of the different classes, we have a CR of 7 and 20, respectively. Subtracting 8 from 20 (this equals spending all available MPs), we still have a CR 12 for the mage. The mage has more hit dice (even if they are smaller) and has more wealth than the 7th level wizard. I'll point UK to this thread - maybe he knows something more.

 On another note, RW: What do think of this chage of weapon handling? http://www.enworld.org/forums/showthread.php?t=103168


----------



## Upper_Krust

Hi RangerWickett! 



			
				RangerWickett said:
			
		

> All respect to UK, but I think his numbers are off.  Or else his math is doing something I don't understand.




See below, it could be you are not taking into account the secondary effects of removing spellcasting ability.



			
				RangerWickett said:
			
		

> I'm a 20th level mage.  If you suddenly take away my spellcasting abilities, I lose much more than 8.8 levels of effectiveness.  I end up maybe about as strong as a 6th or 7th level fighter.




Remember the +8.8 value is attributed to spellcasting alone. It does not incorporate feats and/or magic equipment that augment spellcasting which would for the most part be rendered useless if you anulled the spellcasting abilities.

If you want to make a fair appraisal, take a 20th-level Sorceror, remove spellcasting abilities, give it 20th-level Fighter equipment and build ability scores and feats around martial capacity and set it against an 11th-level character.


----------



## The Goblin King

Hello all.  I am a little unclear about what exactly the limits of Illusion are.  I am trying to start up a game and one of the characters is going to be an illusion specialist.

1) Nightmare Incarnate says use the stats for any creature.  If the mage created an illusion of a Solar would you use the creatures number of attacks?

2) Illusion Nature says that the illusions are partly real.  Could one have an illusionary servant do stuff like open doors?

3) Could you give your Illusion Life/Nature warrior a real sword to fight with?


----------



## Verequus

Wow. You have a lot of good questions, I'd like to have asked myselves.  Sorry, that I can't answer those except No. 2, but you have overlooked other:

 1. How many hit points/hit dice has an illusion? Gives the interaction through hacking a save to the attacker, even if Illusion Life is used? Have illusions themselves saves?

 2. If you duplicate spells, the amount of MP is at max the same amount of MP spent on Illusion lists? What, if I create a spellcasting illusion? How do I the capabilities of range, area and other spell effects?

 3. And my answer to No. 2 would be: Yes, I'd allow it. But the real question is, do I have to use Illusion Nature for that?


----------



## The Goblin King

RuleMaster said:
			
		

> Wow. You have a lot of good questions, I'd like to have asked myselves.  Sorry, that I can't answer those except No. 2, but you have overlooked other:
> 
> 1. How many hit points/hit dice has an illusion? Gives the interaction through hacking a save to the attacker, even if Illusion Life is used? Have illusions themselves saves?
> 
> 2. If you duplicate spells, the amount of MP is at max the same amount of MP spent on Illusion lists? What, if I create a spellcasting illusion? How do I the capabilities of range, area and other spell effects?




I was going to assume that your illusion doesn't have hit points.  Its like a hologram so you can't kill it, just dispel it.  Actually, the hologram analogy works pretty well.  You can create anything you want.  With a holodeck, err, I mean with Illusion Nature you can make the hologram interact with real things.  Your hologram can't cast spells at all.  Its not real.  Buuuut, with some sneaky magicking you could make it appear as though your illusion is casting Fireball by adding Evoke.  Clever, eh? 



> 3. And my answer to No. 2 would be: Yes, I'd allow it. But the real question is, do I have to use Illusion Nature for that?




I'm pretty sure you would need Nature unless you did some kind of combo with Move Force to make it only appear as though a creature opened the door.


----------



## The Goblin King

To answer some of my own questions:



			
				The Goblin King said:
			
		

> 1) Nightmare Incarnate says use the stats for any creature.  If the mage created an illusion of a Solar would you use the creatures number of attacks?
> 
> 2) Illusion Nature says that the illusions are partly real.  Could one have an illusionary servant do stuff like open doors?
> 
> 3) Could you give your Illusion Life/Nature warrior a real sword to fight with?




2) I'm pretty sure they could.

3) I would say no.  The illusion would be too weak to use a real sword properly.  Allowing it would effectively be short-circuiting Illusion Force.

1) Still not clear on this one.  Perhaps limit number of attacks based on caster?  An illusionary Solar with 5 attacks seems a bit much.  On the Other Hand: thats 5 saves to disbelive isn't it?


----------



## Archus

RangerWickett said:
			
		

> Kemrain's explanation is correct.  Regardless of how much damage the initial Evoke Acid spell does, you can spend 1 MP to have acid cling to things struck for another round, doing 1d6 damage.  The benefit of this is that the damage is enduring, so it forces spellcasters to make Concentration checks without having to ready an action to hit them as they start casting.



I've been trying to figure out why I'd use the Acid's side effect.  I can buy 1d6 Enduring Damage each round for 1 minute for 4 MP, or 4 rounds of 1d6 Acid Side effect for 4 MP.  Is the acid side effect better because you don't have to make an attack roll or the target doesn't get a reflex save?  If that is the case the Acid damage still doesn't seem that great since they can take an action to scrape or wash it off and end the damage, where the reflex save would keep going.


			
				RangerWickett said:
			
		

> I do, however, very much like Primitive Screwhead's idea, since it evokes memories of Aliens and their acid blood chewing through steel.



Reducing hardness would be nice.


----------



## Archus

*Spellcaster Ability Scores*

Overall I love EoMR, but I've been wondering why all of the spellcasters use Charisma as the Spell Save DC modifier, Intelligence for the Signature spells, and  Wisdom for most of the skills.  While this makes them spread their abilities around to all of the non-physical, it does encourage really charming and Intelligent Mages.  The skill bonus is more easily offset by ranks than the Save DC and you can spend a feat to get 4 more signature spells or just prepare a few more spells in advance.

You can take Spell List Focus to get a +2 to the DC of your spells, but I've noticed that that usually isn't enough.  In general spells can be pretty damn easy to resist in D&D (I imagine I'll have spells to reduce saves though).  Have you considered allowing spellcasters to pick the primary ability (Int, Wis, Cha) used by their tradition and have that effect Saves and Signature spells?  You would still have incentive to get intelligence for skill points, wisdom for will save, all stats for skill bonuses..... I suppose what you have done finally make Charisma a non-dump stat for anyone wielding offensive magic.

Maybe I've convinced myself there isn't a problem.


----------



## RangerWickett

The Goblin King said:
			
		

> Hello all.  I am a little unclear about what exactly the limits of Illusion are.  I am trying to start up a game and one of the characters is going to be an illusion specialist.
> 
> 1) Nightmare Incarnate says use the stats for any creature.  If the mage created an illusion of a Solar would you use the creatures number of attacks?
> 
> 2) Illusion Nature says that the illusions are partly real.  Could one have an illusionary servant do stuff like open doors?
> 
> 3) Could you give your Illusion Life/Nature warrior a real sword to fight with?




I'm going to include the following revision to Illusion in Lyceian Arcana, as well as put it up as a freebie.  Basically, Illusion Force could be broken far too easily.

*Believed Damage is Real.*  Force allows you to make illusions deal actual damage.  You can only use Illusion Force if you also know Create Force, and only on illusions that have a created sensory component.  

An illusion can hit any number of creatures each round, though it can only 'hit' once per round.  Illusionary creatures do not need to make attack rolls, and illusory dangerous objects or energy sources cannot be dodged.  An illusion can 'hit' all creatures in its area of effect, though if the illusion doesn't look like it should be dealing damage, the creature may be granted a +2 or greater bonus to its Will save to disbelieve.  An illusion of a duck that deals 5d6 damage per round to everything in a 30-ft. radius would be too strange for most people to believe.

If a creature is hit by this illusion, it takes 1d6 points of damage for each MP spent on Illusion for this spell.  For a simple Force illusion, 20% of this damage is real, and the rest is nonlethal.  For a standard Force illusion, 40% is real, and 60% is real for a complex Force illusion.  The creature is allowed a Will save to disbelieve, just as with any illusion.  If it disbelieves, it takes no damage, and any previous nonlethal damage it had taken from the spell vanishes.

Even with Illusion Force, an illusion cannot harm mindless creatures, nor can it harm inanimate objects.

*Illusion is Partly Real.*  Nature allows you to provide some actual matter to your illusions.  You can only use Illusion Nature if you also know Create Nature, and only on illusions that have a tactile component.  If you do, an illusion with a tactile component is actually 20% real.  A partially real illusory bridge can support 20% as much weight as it ought to, for example.  These partially real illusions cannot deal damage, however.  For standard illusions, it is 40% real, and 60% real for complex.

An illusion with Illusion Nature can carry or move real objects, but with a Strength of 1 for Simple, 2 for standard, and 5 for complex.  It cannot use real objects to deal damage by attacking; the illusion is simply incapable of generating enough impact, though it could drop objects or otherwise create hazards.

*Resisting Illusions:*  For the purposes of disbelieving, illusions in Elements of Magic function much the same as in the core rules.  A creature that studies an illusion or interacts with it is automatically allowed a saving throw to disbelieve.  A creature that is given absolute proof that an illusion is not real automatically disbelieves it.  Additionally, if a creature is ‘hit’ by an illusion and should take damage, it automatically makes a Will save to disbelieve.  Whether it succeeds or fails, a creature cannot take damage from an illusion unless the spell includes Illusion Force, though it may temporarily believe it is injured.

If an invisible creature deals damage to you, you can automatically disbelieve it.  If an invisible creature deals damage to a creature other than you in your line of sight, you are automatically allowed a saving throw with a +4 bonus.  Also, if you resist a non-damaging spell cast by an invisible creature, you get a save to disbelieve with a +4 bonus.  Similar saves are allowed in the cases of blind creatures being attacked my enemies affected by illusions that make them silent, and so on with other senses.

Tell me what you think.  Does it address the concerns people had?

Nightmare Incarnate will have to be changed to this:

Nightmare Incarnate
Illusion Force 5/Light 1/Gen 2
Total MP: 8
Range: Short (30 ft.)
Duration: One minute
Area of Effect: 10-ft. radius circle
This spell creates an image of a horrifying spectral creature, barely visible, which attacks all creatures in the area of effect, dealing 6d6 points of damage each round, 60% of which is real, 40% of which is nonlethal.  Each round, creatures in the area of effect may make a Will save to disbelieve.  Those who do take no damage, and negate any previous nonlethal damage they had taken from the spell.  The creature seems completely invincible, and does not respond to creatures except to attack.  

_Costs:_  1 MP standard visual, 5 MP complex force, 1 MP range, 1 MP area.

And then, just to show that you can't abuse the rules anymore, in honor of Halloween I present:

Elm Street Terror
Illusion Force 5/Illusion Life 5/Ice 4/Lava 1/Lightning 1/Ooze 1/Gen 3
Total MP: 20
Range: Short (30 ft.)
Duration: One minute
Area of Effect: 20-ft. radius circle
This spell can only be cast by a mage who knows all the illusion spell lists for the cardinal elements, plus Illusion Space, Illusion Time, and Illusion Force, and who has the Illusion Specialist feat.

This illusion is multilayered, reactive, and terrifying.  The basic premise is that creatures in the area of effect are subjected to nightmarish scenarios of monsters and crazed killers, which deal 17d6 points of damage per round, 60% of which is real, 40% of which is nonlethal.  

Because of the Illusion Specialist feat, the spell includes for free a simple Space and Time distortion, which makes the scenario feel like it covers a large room and lasts two minutes.  The spell also has free standard visual, auditory, tactile, and olfactory senses.  These sensory elements can be disbelieved, but they do not vanish, since the senses are intensified.  Also, the free standard Illusion Death effect makes the spell detect as faintly magical, rather than strongly magical.

Each round, creatures in the area of effect may make a Will save to disbelieve.  Those who do take no damage, and negate any previous nonlethal damage they had taken from the spell.

Creatures in the area of effect think they are trapped in some sort of nightmare maze, and though they could get free of the area of effect by simply walking 20 ft., unless they think to walk through walls, they will not find a way out.

_Costs:_  5 MP complex force, 5 MP complex reactive, 7 MP intensify, 1 MP range, 2 MP area.

A tricked out mage could give this thing a DC 28 Will save to disbelieve, meaning your average 20th level Fighter with a +10 Will save would probably die to it, but a 20th level mage with a +20 Will save would make it out with just a little damage.


----------



## RangerWickett

Archus said:
			
		

> I've been trying to figure out why I'd use the Acid's side effect.  I can buy 1d6 Enduring Damage each round for 1 minute for 4 MP, or 4 rounds of 1d6 Acid Side effect for 4 MP.  Is the acid side effect better because you don't have to make an attack roll or the target doesn't get a reflex save?  If that is the case the Acid damage still doesn't seem that great since they can take an action to scrape or wash it off and end the damage, where the reflex save would keep going.
> 
> Reducing hardness would be nice.




You have a good point.  I suppose instead Evoke Acid's enhancements could be:

*Ambient:*  If you purchase an enduring damage enhancement, it costs half as many MP.  However, the acid can be washed off with about one gallon of water for every 5-ft. square of area.  A creature can scrape acid off itself or a comparably-sized object as a full-round action, though this merely transfers the acid to the scraping implement, which will probably be ruined.
*Mild:* The acid ignores the hardness of objects.
*Moderate:* The acid ignores the hardness of objects, and its damage is not halved, unlike normal energy damage.

There'd be no major or extreme.  Sound good?  I think that captures better the classic horror of being burned by acid - the idea that it just keeps burning.  You're encouraged to use the long-duration version of Evoke Acid spells.

I just realized that Evoke Ice is the best way to kill small creatures.  If the creature's Strength score is less than 10, it can never get out if you freeze it.


----------



## RangerWickett

RuleMaster said:
			
		

> If you are in an antimagic zone, you have to beat the SR for casting a spell. But what about supernatural abilities? Those don't have a caster level - how can they beat the SR? Never? Are the hit dice the caster level? What if you have already a caster level? Will it be used, if the caster level is greater than the amount of hit dice?




I'll have to fix this officially, but here's my initial thought:  If the creature has spell-like abilities, use its caster level for all effects, or use its challenge rating, whichever is higher.  I personally hate using Challenge Rating as an in-game modifier, but it's a more appropriate number than hit dice.  Or maybe 1/2 its hit dice.  Hmm.  



> Can a Live-Sword cut a living being? Will it simply go through the victim? What's with clothes?




If you mean a sword created with Create Life, then it won't go through someone, but it won't deal damage.  It could damage objects like clothes, though you'd actually have to use a Sunder.  Of course, the flavor of a sword (or arrow) of life energy just passing harmlessly through living creatures is pretty cool, so if the player wanted it, I'd allow it, though you'd want to be consistent.



> Dispel Magic - Can certain spells excluded from dispelling and the anti-magic field? Can the signature of a certain mage be the trigger?




Not sure exactly what you mean here.



> Enlarge Person is how simulated?




I suppose you could use the Half-Giant in the Expanded Psionics Handbook, which would require Transform Humanoid 0.  Or you could say that a large human is a CR 1 creature (+4 Strength, -2 Dex, reach, size penalties to attacks and AC), in which can it'd require Transform Humanoid 2.  As it is in the core rules, Enlarge Person violates the normal guidelines of changing sizes, because there's no balanced way to make a fighter large at 1st level.



> How can permanent magic effects without affectable by _Dispel Magic_ created? For example, immortality or any form of crossbreeding?







> Drain Time: Partial actions have been removed from the game. You should replace the description with "The 'start full-round action' standard action lets you start undertaking a full-round action, which you can complete in the following round by using another standard action. You can't use this action to start or complete a full attack, charge, run, or withdraw."




Affirmative.



> Maximize Spell: Should this metamagic feat still possible? After putting at least 15 MP into damage, the average damage result will be lower than the maximized version. Because the probability for average damage (or near of that) increases with more and more dice dramatically, such a feat would be must-have for archmages (level 17+).




Nope.  I don't like the feat.  If you want to use it, I can't stop you, but I won't endorse it.  9d6 maximized is 54, 15d6 average is 52.5.  14d6 max is 84, 20d6 average is 70.  Though the spell is useless except for Heal and Evoke, it just doesn't seem right to me.  I mean, there's already a way to do more damage: spend more MP.  You don't need two different ways.




> Teleport - how is the velocity and the direction of the subject changed? Can this simply be chosen? Personally, I would let only the direction of the subject be changed, not the velocity, because this could be abused as Move Death 5, except that the target can still move after the slow down. But what does this mean: "If a creature or object is stilled, it cannot move on its own power from its current spot." Hangs a flying creature mid-air?




In general, I think it's agreed that teleportation is smart, and it breaks the laws of physics.  Teleporting creatures and objects retain their same position and velocity relative to their frame of reference.  If you're running 10 miles per hour on a track, and then you were teleported into an airplane flying 300 miles an hour, you'd be traveling 10 miles per hour relative to the floor of the planes.  You would not slam into the back of the plane a speed of 290 miles per hour.

Move Death does let you make flying creatures just float in mid-air with anchor.  Still would cause a creature to fall.



> Could you please describe round-by-round the casting of a teleport - this line seems to imply, that one has to use at least two rounds: "One time in the spell’s duration, the affected creature can teleport up to the listed distance as a full-round action."




Sorry.  Should be a move action.  That way you can cast and teleport in the same round.



> "Example Thirteen: A magical tattoo artist imbues physical enhancements into tattoos. With a tiger tattoo, she grants one customer a permanent +2 Strength using Infuse Earth 1/Gen 1, at a cost of 400 XP to her, and 4000 gp to him." In this example, you charge 4000 gp for 400 XP - that's a factor of 10. Shouldn't the factor be 5 - or 25?




No, it's 10gp per XP.  It's explained near the beginning of the Permanent Spells section in Chapter Four, under Permanent Spell Basics.



> "Reusable Spells: If you know Craft Charged Item and Craft Permanent Spell, you can grant a creature or object the ability to cast a spell. If used on a creature, that creature can cast the spell at will, and you can even grant it the ability to use entire spell lists. If used on an object, you can only give it signature spells, and must set specific conditions for when those spells will trigger." What type of action is "casting at will", what type of action occurs at the triggering? Can a bow be created, which creates a normal arrow every time the string is pulled (this means, one doesn't have to have a quiver)? If this bow can teleport arrows, how many rounds does it take to fire the bow?




Basically, for creatures, you can grant spell-like abilities, which are used as a standard action (if a signature spell) or which take two rounds otherwise.  

For objects, a spell can only trigger once per round, but it triggers instantly.  Now, for something like a bow that produces arrows, I think it would be fair to say that the bow could create more than one arrow per round, because any given casting of Create Nature 0 could give you a lot of arrows.  So yeah, for 1000 XP you could make a bow that never needs arrows.


----------



## Primitive Screwhead

*Evoke: Death [Poisen]?*

I am currently in an evil type game, and realized that my Cleric has Poisen as a preffered weapon choice... as Heal: Life I can *cure* poisen, but *cause* poisen seems to be missing...

With a bit of house rule territory, perhaps:
   Characters with the skills of Knowledge Poisen and Alchemy can create poisens through spell use. The spell costs the total MP * 10 in xp.

 Initial portion must include:
  Create [Life] 2 enduring
  Create [Nature] 1 for the substance
  General 1 , 10 minute duration

 Individual poisens deals initial damage based on the Evoke Death component. You cannot spend more MP on this component than you have ranks in Alchemy.
 The secondary damage is double the initial, but you do not have to pay for it.

For instance, creating viper venom would look like: Total cost, MP 8, XP 80
 Create [Life 2] [Nature 1]
 General 1
 Evoke [Death 4] Ability point damage

Deals initial damage of 1d6 Dex, and secondary damage of 2D6.


In addition, you can chose to trade 1 dice of ability damage for 1 point of ability drain.

What do you think? 
  {side note, my PC would have to gain 2 lists before being able to do this... not the most preferable route as far as he is concerned....the benefit is that the duration would not be limited to the spell, a target would only recover 1 point of ability damage per day}


----------



## Kemrain

Do lists like Abjure/Hex and Infuse/Drain count once or twice towards [Element] Expertise or Mastery?

 - Kemrain the Elementary.


----------



## Archus

Kemrain said:
			
		

> Do lists like Abjure/Hex and Infuse/Drain count once or twice towards [Element] Expertise or Mastery?
> - Kemrain the Elementary.



It is my understanding that the list and their reverse are really just one list (none of the iconic mages have the reverse spell lists).  So when you take Abjure Force, you have both Abjure and Hex.  If that is an accurate statement, they should only count as one list toward Expertise or Mastery.


----------



## CapnZapp

Sorry if this has been answered elsewhere, but it seems organized errata/FAQ info is still a little way off, so I don't even know if I've checked everywhere.

At page 25, it says "Whenever an effect grants energy resistance versus a type of element, that protection also applies to the friendly elements. For example, if you have Shadow Resistance 5, this prevents the first 5 points of damage each time you take shadow, acid, or void damage."

Shouldn't that be shadow, metal, or void damage? Or rather; shadow or void damage as metal isn't energy damage?


----------



## RangerWickett

This is one of the areas where simplicity lost out to flavor.  The friendly elements don't always correspond to those of adjacent elements (e.g., if you were to draw a diamond, fire and earth would be adjacent, fire and water would be opposite).  It made more sense for creatures of shadow to be unharmed by acid.


----------



## CapnZapp

Thanks for your quick reply. 

I saw in the "notes to self" tread that clarifying this was recently added.

I will use the 2.2 Table instead of the circles in the meanwhile!


----------



## Kemrain

I was looking at the Ritual Magic rules today, and noticed that a 1st level Mage can cast a 3MP spell for 2 MP.  That supposed to be that way?

 +2MP has a cost of MP limit x 2. When your limit is 1, that equals 2, even though you're getting a 3MP effect.  Neat, eh?

 - Kemrain the, um, numbers thingey?


----------



## Primitive Screwhead

*Rituals...*

It appears that way. You must also remember that the mage is taking 4 rounds to cast the spell and actually has a slim chance, if rolling a 1 on the caster check.., of fouling up the spell.

I dont think thats game breaking.


- Prim Screw.. the suprised on timing!

 [I am working on a spreadsheet to ease the ritual casting math and thought to double check the board to see if there were any clarifications  ]


----------



## RangerWickett

Thanks for pointing that out.  I'll fix it in the full text.  *grin*


----------



## Archus

*Limited Spells and Enlarge/Reduce*

I'm working on converting some d20 core spells and have a few questions/comments.

Having some MP reductions for limited spells would be useful.   I'm looking at a Hold Portal spell in EoMR.  Move Force 2/Gen 1 to get a 25 strength holding a portal closed 30 feet from you.  This seems like a pretty outrageous cost for what it does - especially considering that the same MP could be spent to move anything around in range.  A "limited spell" reduction of 1 or 2 MP would seem reasonable.

Enlarge and Reduce could be made tranform effects without needing to turn into a creature that is that size.  I was thinking that for 1 or 2 MP you can increase or decrease the size ategory of a creature by one step.  For each level of size change the following modifiers would be applied:

* Increase: +2 Str, -2 Dex, -1 Attack, -1 AC, +5' Reach, +5' Move

* Decrease: -2 Str, +2 Dex, +1 Attack, +1 AC, -5' reach (min 0), -5' Move (min 5)

What do you think?

Edit:
I would note that I believe only signature spells should get an MP discount for a restricted effect.  Spontaneous effects would never be discounted.


----------



## astriemer

How to cost fortification for magical armor? What spell list? How many MP?

Off the top of my head, I'd think perhaps Abjure Space (or Nature), maybe 3 MP for light, 5 for medium, and 7 for heavy (based on similar MP costs for equivalent spell resistances).

Also, would Infuse Space applied to armor make it ghost touch? The list description mentions weapons, and I just wanted to clarify that it should indeed apply to armor.


----------



## RangerWickett

A general guideline is 1 MP per 'plus' it would be worth as a magic weapon or armor, adjusted up or down by 1 for utility.  Once I figured out how I was going to do magic items, it helped me reverse engineer some effects.  I just missed fortification.


----------

