# EoM-R House Rules



## sirwmholder

I was just curious what house rules everyone was using with EoM: Revised.  I have been delving into the back history of this forum but I couldn't come up with anything.  Does everyone use the material as printed?

Thank you for your time,
Wm Holder


----------



## Primitive Screwhead

Mostly as printed, altho I have a couple sheets of errata/HR at home.

The two big ones are expanded duration costs and a variant higher cost for mass spells.

Of course, I am off at a conference so I can't post the details


----------



## sirwmholder

Primitive Screwhead said:
			
		

> Mostly as printed, altho I have a couple sheets of errata/HR at home.
> The two big ones are expanded duration costs and a variant higher cost for mass spells.
> Of course, I am off at a conference so I can't post the details




I would be most interested if you could post those when you get back... I was reading through and had trouble wrapping my head around how a spell that effects one target for say 4d6 damage can inturn effect over 10 creatures clustered together for one more mana.  Just seems to be a large jump in damage dealing potential.

Thank you for your time,
Wm. Holder


----------



## Primitive Screwhead

Here ya go!





			
				Mass Spell HR said:
			
		

> Change to Mass spells
> http://www.enworld.org/showthread.php?p=2978455#post2978455
> Originally posted by Hs5ias
> 
> All Abjure, Heal, Infuse, Move and Transform spells can only affect a single target.
> 
> In order to use as a mass spell, you must pay the cost of the relevant spell effect, not including general enhancements, twice. 0 MP costs are increased to 1 MP.
> 
> 
> Fer instance:
> Heal 1D6 to all within 10’ radius normally Heal 0, Gen 1, total 1MP
> Mass Heal 1D6 to all within 10’ radius is (Heal 0)*2, Gen 1, total 2 MP






			
				Move Force table errata said:
			
		

> New table for Move Force:
> 
> MP . STR : Weight (Size)
> 0 . . . . . 1 . . . . . . 5 lb. (Tiny)
> 1 . . . . . 4 . . . . . . 30 lb. (Tiny)
> 2 . . . . . 8 . . . . . . 75 lb. (Small)
> 3 . . . . 16 . . . . . 125 lb. (Small)
> 4 . . . . 20 . . . . . 250 lb. (Medium)
> 6 . . . . 25 . . . . . 500 lb. (Medium)
> 8 . . . . 30 . . . . . 1000 lb. (Large)
> 10 . . . 35 . . . . . 4000 lb. (Large)
> 12 . . . 40 . . . . . 16000 lb. (Huge)
> 14 . . . 45 . . . . . 64000 lb. (Huge)
> 16 . . . 50 . . . . . 256000 lb. (Gargantuan)
> 18 . . . 55 . . . . . 1,012,000 lb. (Gargantuan)
> 20 . . . 60 . . . . . 4,048,000 lb. (Colossal)


----------



## sirwmholder

Thanks a ton, I have been playing around with the mass healing and buffing effects as they are... I think they are a bit too powerful for the level so I have been thinking of increasing the mp cost of all area spells instead of just the beneficial ones... or do you believe the damage spells are fine as is?

Thank you for your time,
Wm. Holder


----------



## BSF

Remember that damage spells do not scale the same way core spells do.  A normal fireball increases from 5d6 at 5th level, to 10d6 at 10th+ level, as well as improving the range indefinitely.  All for the same 3rd level spell slot.  This would be commensurate to 6 MP for a fireball.  

6 MP will get you a 3d6 evoke fire in a 20' radius out to 150' in range.  (Evoke Fire 2/Gen4).  To get a 10d6 fireball, you will need to spend a minimum 12 MP and that would be 10d6, in a 20' radius with a range of 30' (Evoke Fire 9/Gen 3).  If you wanted greater range, it will take even more MP.  

It depends on what flavor you are looking at.  If you want magic to be less pervasive in impact, increase the costs.  But if you are running something closer to a core rules assumption game, increasing the costs of damaging spells will make spellcasting less useful as a direct combat solution.  

Primitive Screwhead:  I note you didn't mention changing the MP expenditure to be equal to character HD rather than spellcasting level.  For some reason I thought you were the one that first proposed that change.  Am I incorrect?


----------



## Primitive Screwhead

BardStephenFox, I don't recall suggesting that.. I am happy with the spell casting limit going on caster level, even tho I favor mutli-class characters 

Of course, since I post alot from work I don't always save my suggestions....


----------



## Verequus

BardStephenFox said:
			
		

> Primitive Screwhead:  I note you didn't mention changing the MP expenditure to be equal to character HD rather than spellcasting level.  For some reason I thought you were the one that first proposed that change.  Am I incorrect?




If my memory serves me right, then it was actually me, who proposed this rule after mulling over the consequences of a feat, which would have done the same for only one particular spell list. In case, people think that it is overpowered to implement such a rule: 1. You don't get any new spell lists. 2. You deplete your MP resources faster (as you don't get any additional MPs). 3. Your spells can be as powerful as the ones of your teammates - otherwise you have the Mythic Theurge effect, which makes you to only a support caster. That is for most people not so fun as killing people. 4. It simplifies the table with the availalbe MP for a particular caster level. I've seen the difference.


----------



## BSF

Verequus said:
			
		

> If my memory serves me right, then it was actually me, who proposed this rule after mulling over the consequences of a feat, which would have done the same for only one particular spell list. In case, people think that it is overpowered to implement such a rule: 1. You don't get any new spell lists. 2. You deplete your MP resources faster (as you don't get any additional MPs). 3. Your spells can be as powerful as the ones of your teammates - otherwise you have the Mythic Theurge effect, which makes you to only a support caster. That is for most people not so fun as killing people. 4. It simplifies the table with the availalbe MP for a particular caster level. I've seen the difference.




*laugh*   Fair enough, it has been a while since I saw it suggested.

For the record, I agree with your assessments.  We are using the house rule with the games I play in/adjudicate.

EDIT:  One additional comment.  Lyceian Arcana introduced _Magical Calling_ which allows you to use as many MP for a single spell list as you have HD.  I have found the feat to be useful for the times when you want to make a character that is very good at something specific without needing to bump more spell lists to get the greater usage.

An Example.  Randy the Righteous is a crusading spellcaster type.  He might know a lot of infusions, evokes, and abjurations.  So now Randy wants to summon celestial allies.  But when he takes 1 Summon list, he can only summon a fairly small range of allies.  He isn't as interested in purchasing more Summon lists.  But if he takes _Magical Calling_, he opens up his options for bringing in allies with the single Summon list he does have.


----------



## Verequus

BardStephenFox said:
			
		

> EDIT: One additional comment. Lyceian Arcana introduced Magical Calling which allows you to use as many MP for a single spell list as you have HD. I have found the feat to be useful for the times when you want to make a character that is very good at something specific without needing to bump more spell lists to get the greater usage.
> 
> An Example. Randy the Righteous is a crusading spellcaster type. He might know a lot of infusions, evokes, and abjurations. So now Randy wants to summon celestial allies. But when he takes 1 Summon list, he can only summon a fairly small range of allies. He isn't as interested in purchasing more Summon lists. But if he takes Magical Calling, he opens up his options for bringing in allies with the single Summon list he does have.




I totally forgot about that part of Magical Calling. Considering, that with the aforementioned house rule a good part of the feat is already free, and that RangerWickett agrees with me, that Extra Spell Lists should give actually 2 free lists, I don't see any value in having Magical Calling around. Even if it would remove the limitation from 3 or 4 spell lists. After all, the more spell lists you have, the less severe is the restriction. And you gain more effects and possibilities for the spent feat.


----------



## RangerWickett

I'm actually curious what people do for House Rules for EOM also, because I'm working on a final version (a 'Third Edition,' actually) of EOM that fixes problems, gets rid of clunky mechanics, and adds in the best parts of Mythic Earth. If people have sort of a consensus of things they like or don't like, it would help me out.

Me personally, I hated the 'Magical Skills' from EOM-R in execution. They were only really in there because I didn't know of a better way to handle divination, dispelling magic, and so on in the form of 'spell lists.' Rather than break the 'verb + element' idea, I just shoved this clunky mechanic in. So unless I hear a huge outcry that it was awesome, I'm taking that out.


----------



## sirwmholder

RangerWickett said:
			
		

> I'm actually curious what people do for House Rules for EOM also, because I'm working on a final version (a 'Third Edition,' actually) of EOM that fixes problems, gets rid of clunky mechanics, and adds in the best parts of Mythic Earth. If people have sort of a consensus of things they like or don't like, it would help me out.
> 
> Me personally, I hated the 'Magical Skills' from EOM-R in execution. They were only really in there because I didn't know of a better way to handle divination, dispelling magic, and so on in the form of 'spell lists.' Rather than break the 'verb + element' idea, I just shoved this clunky mechanic in. So unless I hear a huge outcry that it was awesome, I'm taking that out.



I am personally a fan of the magical skills... it makes spell casting more dynamic and more importantly it works... it effectively does every combination I could think to do with it.  Especially the way Overmastering and Dispelling work right out of the box... a great many Mage battles have been fought with both parties being satisfied with the outcome using those rules.  

Personally, I have not found much use for the scrying or divination skills... I kind of felt they should have been put together though it wasn't a big issue in our game.  Piggy-backing spells on a scry check was a very cool idea but have the potential to break the game... example: see an orc camp in the distance use a low level scry to see inside the camp.  Wait for night fall without alerting the orcs to your presence... piggyback a massive fireball that envelops the entire camp. ( Mage + a lot of experience, rest of party +0 )

That being said I am curious as to what you have in mind to replace those skills sets with that is both as flexible as the original and easier to use.  Very willing to playtest .

Thank you for your time,
Wm. Holder


----------



## Primitive Screwhead

The magical skills are a bit klunky in that they are not intuitive... it takes a bit to understand them. I like the variation and really enjoyed the scry and dispell rules. Never really goto to stress test them tho 

I will toss my vote in for a proof-read  ... I don't have a group again so no actual playtesting


----------



## BSF

I like the ideas behind the magical skills.  But I agree that they are not an elegant solution.  If you have something better, that would be cool.  Of course, if you are rolling it into new spell lists, that would be troublesome for conversions of existing characters.  I haven't looked at Mythic Earth so I am not conversant in what you might bring from there.  

For some reason I missed the 1.2 update for EOM-R, despite having purchased it via RPGNow back in June 2004.  So I am not entirely sure what rules I am using that might be considered errata and what might be considered house rules.


----------



## sirwmholder

Primitive Screwhead, ( btw, love the Bantha Skull ) I seem to recall you house ruling area increases to be in diameter and not radius due to a Move (Death) example with Zombie arrow fodder... 

Our group currently uses an increased mana cost table for Move (Force)... we have also made every spell save based ( Ref half damage / Fort or Will nothing happens ). The group felt touch AC was too easy to hit at higher levels.  Though personally I like the anchoring of spells using the disconcerting enhancement.

Thank you for your time,
Wm. Holder


----------



## Primitive Screwhead

You are correct... that Zombie arrow fodder showed how nasty the radius version can truely be

 {for those who missed the conversation, a DM let me run an 8th level EOM Mage without reading the rules. I dropped a 20' radius Move Death spell that dropped movement the charging Zombies movement to 5'... because they are not intelligent they just charged on through.... while the archers on the other side pin-cushioned them with GMW'd arrows..  }

{Got the skull pic off my phone, of all places.. it was a special Star Wars edition from a marketing campaign Cincular did a while back and I ended up signing up 6 months later and happened to get a free 'left-over' for signing up...  my ring is the Cantina song  }


I like the idea of forcing Dicerning on all area affect, I was working a variant where you pay for spreads, bursts, and manifesting..but never got is clean enough to test.


----------



## sirwmholder

Primitive Screwhead said:
			
		

> I like the idea of forcing Dicerning on all area affect, I was working a variant where you pay for spreads, bursts, and manifesting..but never got is clean enough to test.



I've been tinkering around with this very thing... I used the chart from the Epic Level Handbook for a basis... it was the closest thing to modular spell creation in core rules... one thing that's off is the MP calculation... everything is a bit more expensive using this chart.  Area and range have been separated... anyway feel free to look over and critique.

**NOTE: This is by no means perfect or final... it's just something to give an idea about.

Thank you for your time,
Wm. Holder

EDIT: EOM-R GE.rtf was removed and new one was attached further down.


----------



## sirwmholder

Another House Rule we use in our game is the Infuse/Drain charts are the same... for some reason the Ice and Mist are reversed on the other side.  Not a big deal and probably just a typo but worth noting.

Thank you for your time,
Wm. Holder


----------



## Thomas5251212

sirwmholder said:
			
		

> Our group currently uses an increased mana cost table for Move (Force)... we have also made every spell save based ( Ref half damage / Fort or Will nothing happens ). The group felt touch AC was too easy to hit at higher levels.  Though personally I like the anchoring of spells using the disconcerting enhancement.




This is actually the one thing I need to address if and when I ever get around to using EOM (which I plan to some day, but many a slip as the saying goes...); currently, I don't think the to-hit and save versions of the spells are well balanced; the former is far more effective.  On the other hand, I don't really want to get rid of them altogether, so I need some other method to balance them.

There are probably some others I'd need to work on (I seem to recall a few other things seemed a little dodgy when I read it, but its been a while) but that one was sufficiently problematic I honestly wonder it never got addressed in playtest.


----------



## Archus

RangerWickett said:
			
		

> I'm actually curious what people do for House Rules for EOM also, because I'm working on a final version (a 'Third Edition,' actually) of EOM that fixes problems, gets rid of clunky mechanics, and adds in the best parts of Mythic Earth. If people have sort of a consensus of things they like or don't like, it would help me out.



Sign me up for a third edition - it is still my favorite d20 spell system (over Mythic Earth as well) because of the flavor it gives spellcasters.  Some conversion notes on using it with True20 would be nifty.  I'm digging through my old stuff and trying to remember what house rules I had.


			
				RangerWickett said:
			
		

> Me personally, I hated the 'Magical Skills' from EOM-R in execution. They were only really in there because I didn't know of a better way to handle divination, dispelling magic, and so on in the form of 'spell lists.' Rather than break the 'verb + element' idea, I just shoved this clunky mechanic in. So unless I hear a huge outcry that it was awesome, I'm taking that out.



They felt a little clunky as skills to me as well.  I think that just verb spell lists that require spellcraft as the skill would be a fine replacement.  If you really need verb + element, make a new element that is only used with those meta skills (like "magic" the root element only usable with 'Dispell + Magic', 'Scry + Magic', etc.).


----------



## sirwmholder

Archus said:
			
		

> ...I think that just verb spell lists that require spellcraft as the skill would be a fine replacement.  If you really need verb + element, make a new element that is only used with those meta skills (like "magic" the root element only usable with 'Dispell + Magic', 'Scry + Magic', etc.).



Unfortunately I can't get into detail right now... in our games we replaced the magic skills with Divine (Space, Time, Creature, Element and Alignment),,, it has worked exceptionally well.  I'll try to get the full details up in the next day or two.

Good gaming,
William Holder


----------



## Bayonet_Chris

*Divine [Alignment], [Element]*



			
				sirwmholder said:
			
		

> Unfortunately I can't get into detail right now... in our games we replaced the magic skills with Divine (Space, Time, Creature, Element and Alignment),,, it has worked exceptionally well.  I'll try to get the full details up in the next day or two.
> 
> Good gaming,
> William Holder




I have been working on doing the same thing, so I'm curious as to what you came up with.

Right now I think it would be something like this (off the top of my head, glancing at the Divination and Scry skills):

Divine [Alignment], or [Element]

* Translate - perhaps move to Compel (telepathy)?
* Special Vision - perhaps move to Infuse or Transform?

[Time] - Divination/Questions: I would also add a feat (with Divine Mastery) for allowing the future questions past immediate future. Discern Lore/History Reading included here. I would model it after infuse skill and just make it a bonus to the appropriate knowledge. Since infuse cannot add to magical skill checks (the divination part), it would have to be done this way.
[Alignment, Element] - Dowse Simple, Specific. Requires a Search check (element) or Sense Motive check (alignment)
[Life] - Dowse Creature (living). Requires a Search check.
[Death] - Dowse Creature (other - undead, outsiders, etc.). Requires a Search check.
[Nature] - Dowse all, increased MP cost. Requires a Search check.
[Space] - Remote viewing - the extra sensory enhancements (sound, olfactory, etc.) I would model after the illusion effects, including the "negative" illusion effects for the discreet view enhancement. Maybe Search or some other skill for the skill check?
[Force] - Remote casting


----------



## sirwmholder

Bayonet_Chris said:
			
		

> I have been working on doing the same thing, so I'm curious as to what you came up with.
> 
> Right now I think it would be something like this (off the top of my head, glancing at the Divination and Scry skills):
> 
> Divine [Alignment], or [Element]
> 
> * Translate - perhaps move to Compel (telepathy)?
> * Special Vision - perhaps move to Infuse or Transform?
> 
> [Time] - Divination/Questions: I would also add a feat (with Divine Mastery) for allowing the future questions past immediate future. Discern Lore/History Reading included here. I would model it after infuse skill and just make it a bonus to the appropriate knowledge. Since infuse cannot add to magical skill checks (the divination part), it would have to be done this way.
> [Alignment, Element] - Dowse Simple, Specific. Requires a Search check (element) or Sense Motive check (alignment)
> [Life] - Dowse Creature (living). Requires a Search check.
> [Death] - Dowse Creature (other - undead, outsiders, etc.). Requires a Search check.
> [Nature] - Dowse all, increased MP cost. Requires a Search check.
> [Space] - Remote viewing - the extra sensory enhancements (sound, olfactory, etc.) I would model after the illusion effects, including the "negative" illusion effects for the discreet view enhancement. Maybe Search or some other skill for the skill check?
> [Force] - Remote casting



I apologize for the delay...

Our revision looks something like this...

Divine (Alignment) - Dowse - Points you to the location of the highest concentration (Infuse can give a false positive reading).
Divine (Creature) - Dowse - Points you to the location of the highest concentration (Transform can give a false positive reading).
Divine (Element) - (Any Element on the wheel) Dowse - Points you to the location of the highest concentration (Infuse can give a false positive reading).
Divine (Space) - Can be cast for a specific Person or Thing acts as d20 Scry /Remote Viewing - Must pay for range or you only get a faint direction as per Dowse.  Can also use this to enhance vision.
Divine (Time) - Can be cast on a person or object works like d20 Legend Lore.  Future readings are done by comparing the chart in EoM to determine MP cost for how far into the future.  **NOTE: All futures are possibilities... nothing is set in stone.

Remote Casting can be done by combining a Divine (Space) spell with whatever spell effect you want.

Translation can be done with Infuse Skill check - Speak Language

For Dispel Magic we substituted Spellcraft for the Dispel Magic check and use it as is.

This is the base of it... everything except for Dispel Magic has been taken off Skill Checks and assigned MP values.  I was hoping to give the MP cost for each action but I can't get to that file right now.

Hope this helps,
William Holder


----------



## sirwmholder

BSF said:
			
		

> ... One additional comment.  Lyceian Arcana introduced _Magical Calling_ which allows you to use as many MP for a single spell list as you have HD.  I have found the feat to be useful for the times when you want to make a character that is very good at something specific without needing to bump more spell lists to get the greater usage...



It is IMHO that Magical Calling can potentially be broken... let's suppose someone takes 6 Infuse list... including Infuse Time.  Later they take Infuse Specialist and Magical Calling.  Any Infuse they cast will last 10 Minutes. Now a level 5 Mage/15 Fighter can act twice in every round for 10 minutes. Seems a bit potent for one feat.  True it's only once a day but it's still a bit too good and something that I feel should be reserved for the most dedicated casters.

Just an observation,
William Holder


----------



## sirwmholder

On a side note... I stated that Touch AC to hit was too good so we dropped it.  In our latest game we added it back in however, we also added the Defensive Bonus found in Unearthed Arcana.  So far it has worked out amazingly well.  At the beginning of each turn a player states if they are using their Armor Bonus or their Defensive Bonus  That choice last until their next turn.  So far most choose their Armor but I haven't had complaints for Touch AC being too easy since now it's the player's choice.

Good gaming,
William Holder


----------



## sirwmholder

*Updated: Chart of General Enhancements*

Since I first introduced a chart of General Enhancements it's under gone some revision.  An updated General Enhancement chart is attached.  For those who don't know... I basically separated Area and Range and scaled Duration to cost twice the amount of Contingency... having a spell lay in wait isn't as potent as being active.  In our games we allow only one Contingency to be active on a person which takes up one of their 12 magical slots... that being said you could still cast Contingency spells on objects (Magical Traps)... or on other people ( though only one per person and it takes up one of their slots as well ).

Anyway let me know what you think,
William Holder


----------



## sirwmholder

Two weeks and 22 downloads later and no suggestions... I guess it looks pretty good .

William Holder


----------



## Bayonet_Chris

*Looks OK*

Doesn't look like anything controversial. I haven't really sat down and tried to compute everything. I think something I did a while ago was figure out the "in-between" durations.

For example, in your chart 1 hour is 2 MP and 1 day is 4 MP, so 12 hours would be 3 MP. I have it somewhere, but it allows for a lot more variance in the durations.


----------



## sirwmholder

Bayonet_Chris said:
			
		

> Doesn't look like anything controversial...



I tried to stay true to the source, thanks for noticing.


			
				Bayonet_Chris said:
			
		

> I haven't really sat down and tried to compute everything. I think something I did a while ago was figure out the "in-between" durations.
> 
> For example, in your chart 1 hour is 2 MP and 1 day is 4 MP, so 12 hours would be 3 MP. I have it somewhere, but it allows for a lot more variance in the durations.



I think Ryan mentioned something about this before... if not I apologize in advance... I believe the in-between durations don't really matter that much.  If a buff is only a few rounds it works for that fight... an hour it last for a few fights... a day is until the next morning... I fail to see why you would need anything more than that.

Thanks for the feedback Chris 
William Holder


----------



## Primitive Screwhead

The only reason for a more granular duration chart is to avoid the large MP cost jumps in the table.  Not so much on the hourly side, but definatly on the day to month to year side 

 I have an expanded chart at home, but won't be back there for a couple of weeks


----------



## sirwmholder

Primitive Screwhead said:
			
		

> The only reason for a more granular duration chart is to avoid the large MP cost jumps in the table.  Not so much on the hourly side, but definatly on the day to month to year side
> 
> I have an expanded chart at home, but won't be back there for a couple of weeks



Ah... that makes sense... I guess our group uses Dispel Magic a bit heavily so the idea of investing in anything longer just doesn't seem fesible.

William Holder


----------



## Primitive Screwhead

Doesn't mean the BG's can't find a use for slightly extended durations.. those pesky wards around the dungeon have to be refreshed every once in a while 


 Of course, thats where sacrificial XP and Permanent Spell come in handy


----------



## Thomas5251212

As an aside, I finally decided that touch attack spells will do 1d8 per 2 points of effect (and you can go to a D4 for the intermediate levels if you want) which will probably balance out the advantage they have versus the save spells.


----------

