# Core spell conversions to EoM:R?



## CapnZapp (Nov 15, 2004)

The title asks it all: are you aware of someone that has begun creating Elements of Magic Revised versions of SRD spells as signature spells?

Myself, I would think it would be VERY nifty to recreate the core base spellcasting classes using EoM mechanics.

Because then you could continue gaming as usual (using standard adventure modules etc) but with the possibility for much much greater flexibility.

All questions regarding doing something the core books don't allow can then be answered with "just take two full round actions!" (in addition to all the other advantages 

I know that may not have been the original intent of the book (because then you keep the "love is a dove" poems ;-) but I would sure love being able to give the following answers to my players:

- "I want to cast a acidball instead of fireball!" 
- "Ok, just take two full round actions!"

- "I want to cast a waterball instead of fireball!" 
- "Ok, just take two full round actions!"

- "I want to cast a turnundeadball instead of fireball!" 
- "Ok, just take two full round actions!"

Instead of the complex, minmax-encouraging, cash-draining
"ok, lets dig up these half dozen splat books, and we'll see what we can find. Oh.. you need the energy substitution feat",
"ok, you probably need this and this and this and I still need to choose between blunt and cold damage", and
"Are you crazy, you can't do that"
answers the core book gives.

Probably the biggest gripe anyone could have against EoM is it's difficult to start out (even though I understand revised is much better in this regard), and it's difficult to integrate into existing modules. Not that this is EoMs fault!

As I see it EoM use much much more of the existing mechanics than any other attempt at switching D&D magic systems, so now we are soo close to getting all the advantages and none of the disadvantages!

There can't be any legal obstacles to reprinting the SRD spells but with the mechanics ripped out, can there?

If anyone has already started this process, then perhaps we could convert the spell lists of other popular rpgs to "EoM D&D"...? 

Zapp


----------



## CapnZapp (Nov 15, 2004)

And, oh, I forgot.

The real treat would be to have official conversions, that people can trust use the EoM:R rules correctly, and in a balanced way (not violating "rule 1"), updated to current errata (I understand it's still too early to try to convert illusion spells, for instance).

Then EoM:R could really be presented as an alternative magic system ready to go (somewhat akin to Monte Cook's Arcana Unearthed).

I see completely new replacement versions of the PHB Spells chapter as well as the DMG Magic Items chapter (the SRD versions of course).

I'm not saying this is what EoM should be. I merely think this would interest many more D&D gamers than those willing to create a completely new set of signature spells (i.e. use EoM fully). These people would then of course not be able to stay away from experimenting with the system later on... 

The point is: the sooner you get up "full compatibility"* with "that d20 fantasy game" the better! 

Zapp

*) I know a Fireball would need, what, 6 MPs and thus be a "3,5 level spell" to work as in the original. But that would only mean "not only are we compatible, we actually take care of balance as well". By using EoM magic point costs the overpowered staple spells would become more expensive, while the most underpowered spells would get another change.


----------



## Archus (Nov 15, 2004)

I've put togeter a wiki page with all of the spells posted to these forums plus a few spells of my own (mostly generic ones like Magic Ball - to be made into Fireball or whatever).  My plan was to clean up the spells some to remove duplication and then start adding spells from the core rules for ease of conversion.  

Feel free to add or modify the spells at:
http://arcana.arcanearcade.com


----------



## RangerWickett (Nov 15, 2004)

Lyceian Arcana, the sequel to EOM-Revised, will contain versions of the core spellcasting classes, with guidelines for using the EOM system in the core rules.  Converting all the core spells would be a huge task, and unfortunately not one I'm up to.

I am looking into a simplified version of EOM, but the problem is that the core magic system isn't simple itself, so it's hard to dumb it down and still keep all the fun stuff.  EOM is designed to be elegant and consistent, but I wanted to keep almost all the same options the core rules allow.

I suppose a truly simple version of the rules would just have the 11 spells, with no elemental/creature type/alignment differentiation.  Flexibility balancing would be a greater issue here, perhaps, but it would make things easy if everything just did one thing.


Abjure just grants AC and save bonuses?
Charm only makes people friendly or scared?
Compel only does suggestion and dominate (actually, Compel is one of the simplest spell types right now).
Evoke just does 1d6 damage + 1d6 per MP, no elemental differences.
Heal works similar to Evoke.
Illusion complexity depends solely on MP, not which spell lists you use.
Infuse grants bonuses to whatever you want, no elemental differences.
Move only does telekinesis and flight.
Summon is already very simple.
Transform remains ridiculously, stupidly complicated.

I've been trying to rewrite Transform to mesh with the Level Adjustment rules in the monster manual, but I keep hitting snags with creatures that don't have LA, like animals or other nonsentient things.

Oh, but speaking of fireball, I realized probably the best way to do fireball as a 5-MP spell is to give it a 10-ft. radius, 5d6 damage, range of touch.  Charge a rock with the spell, and throw the rock so that it goes off wherever it lands.


----------



## Verequus (Nov 15, 2004)

CapnZapp said:
			
		

> The title asks it all: are you aware of someone that has begun creating Elements of Magic Revised versions of SRD spells as signature spells?
> 
> Myself, I would think it would be VERY nifty to recreate the core base spellcasting classes using EoM mechanics.
> 
> ...




I don't understand one thing - are you using simply EoM-spells, which are prepared in advance like the core spells, without MPs and spell lists? In this case, firstly you should not only give 2 MP more than the spell level suggests, because EoM-Spells are weaker than their counterparts, because power is traded for flexibility, which you are taking away, and secondly, you should let them up their EoM-spells easily if they use an higher level slot. If this lets EoM-spells be still too weak, give them free extra damage for their higher caster levels and toss in a certain ratio range and area enhancements. This should model core spells more closely, but those ideas are untested.

Another thing, what I don't understand - are you giving your players free access to spell lists, which they can use for building their spells? That would be unbalancing. Lyceian Arcana has classes, which model the core spellcaster more closely, like the Arcanist. Those could ease the transition for you.



> Instead of the complex, minmax-encouraging, cash-draining
> "ok, lets dig up these half dozen splat books, and we'll see what we can find. Oh.. you need the energy substitution feat",
> "ok, you probably need this and this and this and I still need to choose between blunt and cold damage", and
> "Are you crazy, you can't do that"
> ...




The starting out problem will be remedied through the incorporating of cantrips and 1 MP spells into EoMR 1.5. And for the integrating of EoMR into existing modules - just pretend, that everything functions the same - following the rules of EoMR - and convert only mechanics, which are handled different, like Antimagic. EoMR is balanced with existing mechanics, so this approach shouldn't be less a problem than the other way around.



> As I see it EoM use much much more of the existing mechanics than any other attempt at switching D&D magic systems, so now we are soo close to getting all the advantages and none of the disadvantages!
> 
> There can't be any legal obstacles to reprinting the SRD spells but with the mechanics ripped out, can there?
> 
> ...




The SRD spells can be used in any fashion, as long you include a correct OGL.



> And, oh, I forgot.
> 
> The real treat would be to have official conversions, that people can trust use the EoM:R rules correctly, and in a balanced way (not violating "rule 1"), updated to current errata (I understand it's still too early to try to convert illusion spells, for instance).
> 
> ...




You are overlooking, that an EoM-spell is frozen regarding its behaviour, because you are assumed to remake the spells, if you want to have more power. Thus the question is: How do we represent this change? I've created a compact format, which allowed to scale a Fireball in damage, area, range, delayed, firetrap, etc. - and this for every element at once. But I suggest to create a department for all spells, which function in general the same - so we can have all the variety spelled out.

Also this is intertwined with the topic, how many MPs can be spend for a converted spell? The official guidelines ensure, that such a spell is weaker on regard. And if we try to mimick the effect, which is the minimum one for the spell, then - see above paragraph.


----------



## CapnZapp (Nov 16, 2004)

RangerWickett said:
			
		

> Lyceian Arcana, the sequel to EOM-Revised, will contain versions of the core spellcasting classes, with guidelines for using the EOM system in the core rules.  Converting all the core spells would be a huge task, and unfortunately not one I'm up to.



Ideally, you'd not have to - you should only have to give your (semi)-official nod to the works of Archus and others   

*Archus*, by the way, how about having a separate list for converted core spells? While new spells are great (and probably the best use of EoM) it would IMHO still be nice to being able to concentrate only on the EoM SRD spells. Perhaps you can add the ability to mark a spell as "core", and then filter on that.



			
				RangerWickett said:
			
		

> I am looking into a simplified version of EOM, but the problem is that the core magic system isn't simple itself, so it's hard to dumb it down and still keep all the fun stuff.  EOM is designed to be elegant and consistent, but I wanted to keep almost all the same options the core rules allow.



And you'd be right to do so. IMHO, that's what makes EoM:R stand out from every other attempt at alternate spell systems!    (And I have looked at quite a few...)

If you want to create a EoM Simplified, of course go ahead - but don't let it replace the current system! For me, as long as the overall system is simple enough, I don't mind complexities for individual spell lists. But the real value of EoM is its ability to "explain" the core spells. And if you can't recreate a Fireball with only 5 MP, well, then that's just proof Fireball is an overpowered spell. (Not that this is shocking news to anyone).



			
				RangerWickett said:
			
		

> Oh, but speaking of fireball, I realized probably the best way to do fireball as a 5-MP spell is to give it a 10-ft. radius, 5d6 damage, range of touch.  Charge a rock with the spell, and throw the rock so that it goes off wherever it lands.



That's an intriguing idea. I haven't made up my mind what would best serve the customer that just want replacement core spells, though. 

And this idea comes perhaps too close to the "does arrows stick?" question. (In D&D arrows shot at a monster with tough hide can't be allowed to stick when they miss due to natural armor, because then you can enchant the arrows and circumvent both the monster's AC and SR.)

In the fireball case it's no biggie, because the core spell targets an area anyway. But ray spells should not be allowed to ignore AC in this way.


----------



## CapnZapp (Nov 16, 2004)

RuleMaster, that was quite a lot. Perhaps I should start by adding I am by no means an expert on EoM. Just starting out.

My idea was simply to have EoM versions of core classes in a world where the only signature spells possible would be the EoM versions of SRD spells.

This would ideally then mean a campaign with great core compatability, but with the (no small) addition of being able to customize your spells much more greatly and freely than using core mechanisms. This customizing could be taken to the extent that you're looking at completely new spells, of course.

The balancing factor would be the slightly lesser firepower-per-MP, as well as the 2r casting time for most customizations. 

And with more experience of how EoM actually plays, I probably would allow players persuade me into allowing signature versions of their new spell creations, opening up the full power of EoM while still starting out with close to zero learning curve.

I think I will refrain from answering your specific questions at this time, RM, cluttering up the thread. Instead please tell me which q's you believe I didn't clear up, and I will do my best to explain 

Regards,
Zapp


----------



## Verequus (Nov 16, 2004)

CapnZapp said:
			
		

> RuleMaster, that was quite a lot. Perhaps I should start by adding I am by no means an expert on EoM. Just starting out.
> 
> My idea was simply to have EoM versions of core classes in a world where the only signature spells possible would be the EoM versions of SRD spells.
> 
> ...




Ah, so I was right. I am sorry, but this won't function balancing-wise - I've given my advice for this situation above. If you are a beginner, then you shouldn't try to change the system - it looks to me, that you haven't understood all the changes to the core system and why they have been made this way. With this premise I doubt, that you can successfully transfer the rules back... :\ 



> And with more experience of how EoM actually plays, I probably would allow players persuade me into allowing signature versions of their new spell creations, opening up the full power of EoM while still starting out with close to zero learning curve.
> 
> I think I will refrain from answering your specific questions at this time, RM, cluttering up the thread. Instead please tell me which q's you believe I didn't clear up, and I will do my best to explain
> 
> ...




You are the DM, right? How good do you know the standard core rules? If you aren't familiar with these, then EoMR could be too much for your own good, because it isn't written with new players in mind. Another question: Why aren't you switching the system entirely at once?


----------



## CapnZapp (Nov 16, 2004)

Well, the brevity of my answer seems to have been misleading.



			
				RuleMaster said:
			
		

> Ah, so I was right. I am sorry, but this won't function balancing-wise - I've given my advice for this situation above.



You mean 
"...are you using simply EoM-spells, which are prepared in advance like the core spells, without MPs and spell lists? In this case, firstly you should not only give 2 MP more than the spell level suggests, because EoM-Spells are weaker than their counterparts, because power is traded for flexibility, which you are taking away, and secondly, you should let them up their EoM-spells easily if they use an higher level slot."?



			
				RuleMaster said:
			
		

> If you are a beginner, then you shouldn't try to change the system - it looks to me, that you haven't understood all the changes to the core system and why they have been made this way.



I am a EoM beginner, but consider myself rather knowledgeable of standard D&D 3E.



			
				RuleMaster said:
			
		

> You are the DM, right? How good do you know the standard core rules? If you aren't familiar with these, then EoMR could be too much for your own good, because it isn't written with new players in mind. Another question: Why aren't you switching the system entirely at once?



My idea was not with a particular campaign of mine in mind.

My idea was to make EoM more easily available to the average gamer and DM, by offering to replace the spell system with something that is functionally almost identical, but with real rules & real mechanisms behind it. Of course this is to be in addition of the great and flexible system you've already cooked up.

Myself, I was always thinking of classes-with-spellpoints, never the straight classes out of the PHB. But your summary of how to beef the power of the EoM spells definitely has a place in any "behind the curtain" discussion.

In order not to have to create spells from scratch for each and every PC (not to mention the pregenerated NPCs of commercial adventure modules), I thought it would be great to have a catalog of premade signature spells. And what range of spells would be better to create than the core spells? This would mean that existing NPCs are ready to go. Simply note down their MP totals (which depend only on their level) and start to use their spells!

Then, when players and DMs alike are starting to get used to the inevitable changes that do occur, they will be ready to unleash the full power of EoM. This is the part that's most complex. Creating the spells in the first place, sure; but my concerns go to the poor DM who need to learn to say "no". Rule 1 that is.

At least, that's the idea.

So sorry about any confusion. 

What do you think? Is it possible to come close to the core spells, and how close? Which kinds of spells should we begin experimenting with - that is, which spells present the most difficulties (as regards to mimicing core spells)? I already know save-or-die spells and high-damage multiple-target spells are out, and am OK with not reproducing spells like Slay Living and Horrid Wilting. (In fact, this is purely a plus in my book).


----------



## Archus (Nov 17, 2004)

CapnZapp said:
			
		

> *Archus*, by the way, how about having a separate list for converted core spells? While new spells are great (and probably the best use of EoM) it would IMHO still be nice to being able to concentrate only on the EoM SRD spells. Perhaps you can add the ability to mark a spell as "core", and then filter on that.



I split the spells into new spells and d20 conversions.  Since I didn't want to rename a bunch of pages the new spells are {{Spells}} and the d20 spells are {{D20Spells}} and there is a page {{AllSpells}} that links to to two of them and has instructions.

Right now I'm trying to prep for some Finance exams, which will swiftly be followed by an Ethics and another Finance exam.  I probably won't get to the pages much until Dec 18.

My plan is as follows:
* The D20Spells page will have the closest approximations to d20 spells as possible.

* d20 spell names will be reserved for that page.

* Duplicate spells will be consolidated.  For example there is a generic spell called Magic Touch that does an (Evoke [Element|Alignment] 0/Gen 0) for 1d6 touch damage.  There is also a Void Touch spell that does essentially the same thing.  The Void Touch spell will be removed and a "Possible Names" or something like that section will be added to Magic Touch that includes Void Touch.

* d20 conversions will be linked to the generic versions.  For example Fireball is just a form of Magic Ball.

--Archus


----------



## Archus (Nov 17, 2004)

RangerWickett said:
			
		

> Lyceian Arcana, the sequel to EOM-Revised, will contain versions of the core spellcasting classes, with guidelines for using the EOM system in the core rules.  Converting all the core spells would be a huge task, and unfortunately not one I'm up to.



I'm really looking forward to L.A. - when can I expect it?   

I'm planning on chipping away at the d20 core spells, but the main reason I made the wiki page is so a community can work on it.  If 10 people only did 10 spells, that would be 100 spells.  I'm also noticing that many spells are just duplicates of one another (not surprising).



			
				RangerWickett said:
			
		

> I am looking into a simplified version of EOM, but the problem is that the core magic system isn't simple itself, so it's hard to dumb it down and still keep all the fun stuff.  EOM is designed to be elegant and consistent, but I wanted to keep almost all the same options the core rules allow.
> 
> I suppose a truly simple version of the rules would just have the 11 spells, with no elemental/creature type/alignment differentiation.  Flexibility balancing would be a greater issue here, perhaps, but it would make things easy if everything just did one thing.




Don't make it too simple.  Really the system isn't too complicated now and has some wiggle room for DM interpretation (which is good and bad).  All you really need is a bunch of spells and I'm trying to chip away at that.



			
				RangerWickett said:
			
		

> I've been trying to rewrite Transform to mesh with the Level Adjustment rules in the monster manual, but I keep hitting snags with creatures that don't have LA, like animals or other nonsentient things.




Since many things won't have level adjustments, I wouldn't use that.  CR will always be listed and is a good simple rule of thumb for the power of a critter (at least the short term power for a combat - which is where spells will usually be used).  So just keeping the MP cost related to CR will work well for me.  Maybe add in some MP costs to just alter size.



			
				RangerWickett said:
			
		

> Oh, but speaking of fireball, I realized probably the best way to do fireball as a 5-MP spell is to give it a 10-ft. radius, 5d6 damage, range of touch.  Charge a rock with the spell, and throw the rock so that it goes off wherever it lands.




Nice.  I'll post this as a suggestion under fireball.


----------



## Primitive Screwhead (Nov 17, 2004)

*The Dreaded Transform...*

I have a current character which is a CL 7 Transform Specialist. Using CR has worked so far, I have a wide variety of interesting alternate forms but nothing that really breaks the game. Actually, the biggest combat advantage I have is to Enlarge myself! Of course, I have not had the opportunity to test out the Large Monstrous Scorpion form in play yet..   

 I was concerned that the Transform would be horrible, as it is more flexible than the Poly-Other and Shapechange spells. I have found its current incarnation to be well crafted.

Rulesmaster, I have tested EOM:R in a couple of different campains so far, some mine and some run by others. In all situations I have left the majority of the NPCs (and some PCs as well) using core rules for spells. Only special characters used EOM:R spells. There was very little adjustment required. My next campaign will be full open for EOM:R, but still the majority of NPC's will use Core spells for ease of running the show.


----------



## CapnZapp (Nov 17, 2004)

Sounds very encouraging, Pr.!


----------



## RangerWickett (Nov 17, 2004)

I was fairly confident Transform was balanced as is, though I was considering a few small changes to it, such as making the new form basically be your 'race,' so that the form would grant you racial hit points.  That led me to looking at Infuse Nature, which I realized was underpowered.  I'm still not sure what to do with Transform, or if it it even needs changing, but it doesn't feel right for you to transform a 1st level human commoner into a hill giant, and for him to still have just 4 hit points.

I have sent out the art call for Lyceian Arcana, so we should have all the necessary materials by the end of November, which means a mid-December release of LA.  This time we'll make sure to put quicklinks in the initial version.


----------



## Primitive Screwhead (Nov 17, 2004)

*Hill Giant..*

I am not sure about granting racial hit dice.. altho for my character would really like it. You already gain a bonus to your CON, and you are already limited by the CR. To change into a hill giant is something like a 14 MP spell. (book not handy...so I guessed  )


Mid-Decemeber for LA! Yahoo!


----------



## Semirhage (Nov 17, 2004)

*Transform*

The only thing that chaffs me about Transform right now is that my 18th level human Mage is still limited to changing himself into a CR 10 creature. I think that things are balanced right now, but I think there is another, equal way to do it, if I can just work it out.

The nice thing about working with Hit Dice and Level Adjustment is that the Strong Creature enhancement would be unnecessary, since the Level Adjustment already reflect the spell like abilities and such. 

The problem is that the EOM:R system is designed not to scale with level, except as MP is concerned and I think Transform, as I envision it, should scale with Character Level, not CR.


----------



## RangerWickett (Nov 18, 2004)

Well, here are the limiting factors of Transform:

1. Changes to lots of stats.  I need to make sure that Transform spells aren't simply better than the equivalent Infuse spells.  One of the biggest issues is the change in Constitution.  I think with a revision, I would make it so that Transform grants you racial hit points, but if it changes your Con, your class level hit points don't change.  This requires less math, since you just add the hit points listed in the monster's entry.

2. Summoning.  Summoning should be an easier way to get monsters of a particular power.  The theory is that a loyal giant is good, but a loyal fighter who also has the strength and size of a giant is better.  I had to look at Transform as a combat buff spell as well as a pseudo-summoning spell.

3. At first I thought, "Okay, I'm a 5th level character, so becoming a CR 5 creature is fair, becoming a CR 3 creature is weak, and becoming a CR 10 creature is strong."  But the flavor I wanted was that becoming a big scary monster would actually make you big and scary too, if you were compared to a normal human.  So instead of a human fighter 5, your buddy is now an ogre fighter 5, which is darned strong.  You aren't replacing your powers; you're adding to your powers, which makes Transform powerful.

4. Next I tried, "Okay, I'm a CR 1/2 human, so becoming a CR 1/2 elf is fair.  And a CR 1 troglodyte is good, but not broken.  What if I have a demon ally, and I transform him into a different demon that's the same CR?"  It doesn't make him more powerful, but it can really give him a ton of powers of a lot of different types.  Here, you _are_ replacing your powers, but the versatility of a high-CR demon having a low-level lackey cast Transform spells on him was too powerful.  Sure, at any given time he's only CR 15, but he has all the options of being any of a dozen demons, dragons, or other foes that are CR 15 or less.

It's a conundrum.


----------



## Staffan (Nov 18, 2004)

RangerWickett said:
			
		

> 2. Summoning.  Summoning should be an easier way to get monsters of a particular power.  The theory is that a loyal giant is good, but a loyal fighter who also has the strength and size of a giant is better.  I had to look at Transform as a combat buff spell as well as a pseudo-summoning spell.



While you do have a point, there's also the issue that summoning something means you have another creature running around performing actions. If you already have a demonic ally, turning it into another demon means you still only have one demon using one spell-like ability per round, while summoning one means you have two.


----------



## Semirhage (Nov 18, 2004)

*Animate Enhancement*

Staffan, I think RangerWickett is refering to the Animate Enhancement option. The consideration, though, is that an object has no Hit Dice. In a system based on Hit Dice or Level, Transform really can't be used to overshadow Summon. 

Even if you limit the CR/ECL to +10 over and above your current level/caster level, as it is currently, a single 9 hit dice/CR creature is the most you can ever Transform, without resorting to rituals, and that remains the same. In that respect, I don't think Transform will ever really challenge Summon. And it shouldn't. 

It could easily out-perform Infuse, though. And could compete with certain Move Spell Lists.

Just because I understand the reason for things doesn't mean I have to like them. As noted elsewhere, I love EOM:R. I just miss Shapechange, I guess. 

My House Rules will probably be based on ensuring that a 20th level mage can approximate that spell.


----------



## RangerWickett (Nov 18, 2004)

Oh, the core rules spell Shapechange is one of the craziest, most overpowered spells in the rules.

Someone emailed me a copy of Upper_Krust's CR system, which would let you determine exactly how strong a form is.  The thing is, I want to keep math to a minimum, and I don't want players to have to spend fifteen minutes calculating how strong a form is, or make them consult a huge list of creature level adjustments.  I'd prefer to use an existing number that's already in the core rules.

I'm sure you can understand, shapeshifting is challenging from a rule standpoint.  WotC has a seventy-eight part article describing how just to use Polymorph, so I'll keep thinking for a while, and things should keep working as written without being too unbalanced.

But yeah, I want to turn into a dragon too.  Maybe I oughta just have a set of MP costs for if you want to be large, huge, gargantuan, and colossal, and then you can just pick whatever form you want.  It won't grant the actual powers of the creature, but it'll look nifty.


----------



## Primitive Screwhead (Nov 19, 2004)

*More on transform..*

I agree that there should be a short list of options, like:
---Alter self, gain the appearance of the form more of an Illusion
---Physical Change, gain the appearance and physical traits. STR, DEX, CON, etc. Much like Polymorph is.
---Best of Both Worlds, change into a hybrid creature, picking the best traits.
---Total Change. Complete alteration mentally as well as physically.

 Using the WOTC material as a basis, I created a spreadsheet of alternate forms that my character can change into. I won't use any other forms simply as I refuse to slow the game down. It doesn't take much math to begin with, the hardest part was scaling the forms up.

BTW, I use a house rule of +2 MP for each size change beyond what the form already provides, so if I want to be a Huge Worg for a minute... CR 3 medium creature + double size increase = 10 MP.


----------



## CapnZapp (Nov 24, 2004)

Me said:
			
		

> In order not to have to create spells from scratch for each and every PC (not to mention the pregenerated NPCs of commercial adventure modules), I thought it would be great to have a catalog of premade signature spells. *And what range of spells would be better to create than the core spells?* This would mean that existing NPCs are ready to go. Simply note down their MP totals (which depend only on their level) and start to use their spells!
> 
> ...
> 
> What do you think? Is it possible to come close to the core spells, and how close? Which kinds of spells should we begin experimenting with - that is, which spells present the most difficulties (as regards to mimicing core spells)? I already know save-or-die spells and high-damage multiple-target spells are out, and am OK with not reproducing spells like Slay Living and Horrid Wilting. (In fact, this is purely a plus in my book).




Ok, so this is slightly a bump, but the thread got sidetracked. Do you think my basic idea is feasible?

The catalogue doesn't need to be complete: the 80-20 rule should let us implement 80% of the PHB spells and still avoid all the really difficult ones.

But if the designer of the game should say "Don't bother, it won't work" then I won't...


----------



## Archus (Nov 24, 2004)

CapnZapp said:
			
		

> The catalogue doesn't need to be complete: the 80-20 rule should let us implement 80% of the PHB spells and still avoid all the really difficult ones.




I think its worthwhile to try converting as many spells as we can, because it will make migration easier.  I'm taking your suggestion and moving the d20 spells to their own list.  Then I'm starting at the low level spells and just starting to convert.

http://www.arcanearcade.com/wiki/index.php/HighArcana/D20Spells

Sadly I've been really busy lately and havet had a chance to do any work on this.


----------

