# [Elements Revised] Spell list fixes - proposed



## RangerWickett (Nov 27, 2004)

So most of the people here are familiar with the problems that've been brought up involving some key spell lists.  I've got some proposed fixes.  If you approve, I intend to put them in Lyceian Arcana, and to make them available as a free download.  These are the biggies that aren't so obvious, but there'll also be a few minor clarifications and such.

So here goes:


----------



## mbgrove (Nov 27, 2004)

*First glance...*

Have some thoughts on the EOM fixes.  Generally, I really like them.  

*[size=+2]Duration[/size]*:  

I like the Duration, Permanent.  However, I never did understand why there weren't other durations between what we already have.  Such as:

Duration, Concentration (0 MP)
Duration, Short (1 MP) - 10 minutes
*Duration, ???? (2 MP) - 30 minutes
Duration, Medium (3 MP) - 1 hour
*Duration, ???? (4 MP) - 5 hours
*Duration, ???? (5 MP) - 10 hours
*Duration, ???? (6 MP) - 14 hours
*Duration, ???? (7 MP) - 18 hours
Duration, Long (8 MP) - 1 day

Obviously, all the ones with * are the ones I added in.  It just makes sense to have those individual MPs in there.  When you want something to last as long as it can, and you NEVER have enough MPs, it's extremely useful to have options for each MP instead of going from 1 to 3 to 8.  Just my $0.02 there.  (Oh, I think Contingency should work the same way.)


*[size=+2]Transform:[/size]*

*Cosmetic changes - Creatures:*  Like the addition.

*Cosmetic changes - Objects:*  Like this also.  But, does this mean that I can use TransForm Nature with 1 for area and make a blade of grass 10' in size?  Or a toothpick into a 10' long plank?  (Ooooo...  I see the ole' pebble-into-bolder trick coming on...)  Don't know if there should be some sort of limit besides "but you cannot increase their size to larger than the spell’s area of effect."  Or, maybe it's just my evil, devious mind.  ::wry smile::

*Size changes:*
First of all, using the tables provided, it looks like you would get NO penalties for going smaller.  I think I'm seeing a copy/paste error.    I would guess that the strength and reach penalties should be highest at Fine and work it's way down.  Should be opposite of increase size.

Secondly, it seems strange to have to spend 8 MPs to go from Gargantuan to Colossal, but only 4 to go from Medium to Large.  (Or, for that matter, if you want to be silly about it, it takes 3 MPs to go from Medium to Medium.)  Could you have something like a progressive system something like:
    Size increases:
    +2 MPs for each size category
    +1 Str for each size category
    +5 ft. reach for every 2 size categories beyond medium

Don't know if it would work with everything else in the system.  I recognize that it's not as easy to figure everything, either.  Just a different point of view.  

Additionally, I have to say that I really like how you did the "greater of the two costs" for size change and transforming into a strong creature.  Kudos.  Makes a lot of sense.

(Believe me, I understand what you're going through trying to balance Transform.  I had similar issues when I was trying to build my own system that I've mentioned before.  And that was before CR's existed.)


*[size=+2]Translate:[/size]*
Have to agree that this should be it's own thing.  I like it.


All in all, very good changes.  Now, if I can just figure out how to get these changes into the PDF without buying Adobe Acrobat...  ::wry smile::

Michael


----------



## Verequus (Nov 27, 2004)

I do like the changes, too, but I want to protest, that the rules clarifications and changes are going into Lyceian Arcana. It should not only remain pure regarding its goal to include options, but with the planned major update of EoMR itself the changes would clutter uselessly a second book. Even if you put that section into the appendix, it would waste paper, if I print the entire book without considering to exclude the respective pages - and that is relatively easy to forget.

Next to mbgroves remarks, which I agree, I found the following.

"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." Should be that word not "by"?

_Translate_ is a little bit odd with being it only a kind of Action type, but neither I see better alternative nor would Spell Expertise/Mastery make sense for it. Comparing to the original version, it lost its DC to beat and the Decode function. Is the last intentional, too? At least, the +10 to the check is gone - I've never understood this rule, how to apply it, but I simply put it on the pile of history.  

Hmm, that is it.


----------



## Primitive Screwhead (Nov 27, 2004)

*Transform...*

All the changes look good, altho I think Transform can still use a little more work.

 I would highly suggest using the MM rules for increases in size, and have the cost to increase be half the increase in strength. Flip the scale for a decrease in size.

 Here are the appropriate tables from the SRD:


```
Table: Changes to Statistics by Size
Old*	New       Str	Dex	Con	Nat Armor   AC/Attack
Fine	Dimin	Same	–2	Same	Same	     –4
Dimin	Tiny	+2	–2	Same	Same	     –2
Tiny	Small	+4	–2	Same	Same	     –1
Small	Medium	+4	–2	+2	Same	     –1
Medium	Large	+8	–2	+4	+2	     –1
Large	Huge	+8	–2	+4	+3	     –1
Huge	Gargan	+8	Same	+4	+4	     –2
Gargan	Colossal	+8	Same	+4	+5	     –4
*Repeat the adjustment if the creature moves up more than one size.

Table: Increased Damage By Size
Old Damage (Each)*	New Damage
     1d2	                                  1d3
     1d3	                                  1d4
     1d4	                                  1d6
     1d6	                                  1d8
     1d8	                                  2d6
     1d10	                                  2d8
     2d6	                                  3d6
     2d8	                                  3d8
* Repeat the adjustment if the creature moves up more than one size category.
```
I also grant a change in the base move of 5' per, and an increase in Face/Reach by 5' at Large and at Gargantuan. A similar decrease in Face/Reach by 5' at Tiny and Fine. Not sure if that matches the MM, but it comes close.

Decreasing size is the direct opposite as far as stat changes.

Strong creature enhancement.. was there ever a line about the CR being higher than current? My character is a CR 2 (Drow).. so to transform into anything CR 2 or less should be 0MP {same size of course} right? Changing into a CR 3 would cost 2MP.. or am I just lost on this?


Translate.. Good idea! Any reason for not making it Translate {Creature}? This way you could emulate the various 'Speak with X' spells. Druids could have Translate {animal}, Bards would go for Translate{Humanoid}.
Techincally you could also have a Translate {alignment} if you are using the alignment languages, which I don't.

Last, I agree with both above posters, on the duration and on the not including into TEOM:LA. Much better as either a seperate errata.


----------



## RangerWickett (Nov 27, 2004)

I suppose we can include it in a separate document file included in the zip.  I just want to make sure it's included with the book somehow, because some of the new material uses the changes in the rules.

Size shifting alters only Strength (and even then the bonus is less than the Monster Manual would suggest) because:

A) the normal changes are really significant, and I didn't want people to have to pay tons if they just wanted to get a little taller.
B) I wanted to make sure Transform can't trump Infuse and Abjure for stat-boosting.
B) book-keeping all the changes that would normally happen is a pain.  

I think some of you might have misread the table just a bit, though.  Each entry's cost is how much it takes to go to that size from the nearest size above or below (depending on if you're enlarging or shrinking).

Thus, a human becoming a diminutive toad takes 5 MP (1 to go small, 1 to tiny, 3 to diminutive).  A human turning into a 40-ft. tall gargantuan human takes 14 MP (4 to large, 4 to huge, 6 to gargantuan).


High-CR creatures don't get a discount to shapeshifting.  Imagine a 1st level storm giant shaman (CR 13) transforming himself into a beholder (CR 13) by spending only a cantrip.  Sure, his raw power level doesn't increase too much, but he would gain much more flexibility than a normal 1st level mage could.


With the durations, I wanted to keep durations simple.  In general, an encounter won't last more than a minute, unless it's a very strange one.  For those strange, long encounters, use the 10 minute duration.  For an extended scene where you don't want your spells to wear off, use the hour duration.  For complete security, use the day duration.  Anything between those is just liable to cause frustration.  In my games, I don't track time that closely, and honestly the durations are meant to be a little fuzzy.  

Player:  "Has it been an hour yet?"
DM:  "No, your spell is still good for a little while yet."

I just don't think getting more specific than that is necessary.  Individual groups can of course decide otherwise.


Good point about the toothpick to board thing.  I don't see it as much of a problem, unless you want your character to go around with elaborately-detailed miniatures of useful items, which he can enlarge when needed.

As for pebble to boulder, remember the rules override in Transform that says you cannot use Transform as an attack spell.  It just doesn't work that way.  You could turn pebbles into a boulder and roll the boulder down the hill, but you can't put a pebble on someone's head and then crush them by enlarging it.

Any other comments?


----------



## Primitive Screwhead (Nov 27, 2004)

*Transform ..size*

As to the the number crunching.. I would rather a Transform size increase grants the same basic benefits as changing into larger creature.

 Yes.. I know that sentence sounds weird.

 An Merrow is basically a Large Humanoid with a swim speed. So, changing Dax into a Large Dax or into a Merrow should grant basically the same benefits. Using the MM table I end up with two differences: Large Dax has a higher dexterity (18) and a Move of 45, Merrow Dax has a low dexterity (12) and a Move of 30, Swim of 40.

It does step on the toes of the Infuse/Abjure lists alot, as it would cost almost 30 MP  to do this with Infuze and Abjure, however just turning into a Merrow will do that. Either way it would cost Dax 7 MP to cast.
As GM, I only allow Transforms/Summons for creatures that the player has prewritten up on either a card or a sheet of paper. This keeps it from slowing down gameplay and almost eliminates the book-keeping.

I don't know. Transform/Poly has always been really hard to balance in game, both as ease of use and equivilient power. A big part of why I have been playing Dax is to test the balance of these lists, and the biggest bang for my buck has been to transform my partners into Ogres. Strong wizards are usually not a problem.. strong monks and fighters tho  :\ 
Perhaps to trim it down a bit, make Transform a Personal list, and have an enhancement to allow for changing someone else.. kinda the Poly-self/Poly-other route.  This would make Infuse/Abjure the route for Buffing and Transform the route to go for specialty mage. Its not quite as useful to only be able to change yourself.
Maybe +4MP to target someone else?
Another +2 for any additional targets? This would emulate the Mass-Poly.

BTW, I was planning on only adding a size increase rule, and the MP cost of this one makes alot of sense.

As a side thought.. possible reduction in MP cost for turning into a smaller version of something? For instance Dax turning into a Small Merrow, by these rules, would still cost 7MP {6 for the CR3 +1 for smaller creature} and would grant a significantly reduced dexterity and a Swim speed of 20. But I guess having gills could be worth it. 

Another side note: Any plan on incorperating my comments on creating Poisen?


----------



## RangerWickett (Nov 28, 2004)

Primitive Screwhead said:
			
		

> Another side note: Any plan on incorperating my comments on creating Poisen?




As it stands right now, poison can be created with just a normal Create Life 1/Create Nature x spell, with the MP cost depending on the cost of the poison.  Creating specialty poisons is a fairly niche effect, and I haven't done enough work with poisons in game mechanics or in real life to feel comfortable working on them.  Crafting your own poisons with Craft (alchemy)would be a cool way to get a GM to let you create the same poisons with magic.


----------



## Primitive Screwhead (Nov 28, 2004)

*Poison..*



> Characters with the skills of Craft Charged Item, Knowledge Poison and Alchemy can create poisons through spell use. The spell costs XP in the amount of (total MP of the Evoke|Death * 10 ) and results in a single dose of the poison.. the caster can choose to include a pretty vial for storage if they wish.
> 
> Initial portion must include:
> Create [Life] 2 enduring
> ...




I thought of this method since Evoke is supposed to be the damaging list and a normal Create Nature style poison spell would just expire with no ill effects. It also matches up with the Heal MP cost being about half the Evoke Death costs.

Anyway, I digress.. but that happens on a Saturday night! Thanks for listening.. I think I will go read a book now.


----------



## Verequus (Nov 28, 2004)

Another comment on Transform: I've discovered, that there is no comment regarding the use of Transform spells as a disguise help. Can you change to the mayor of the town? I know, that is stepping on the Illusion list, but "_Cosmetic Changes – Creature (0 MP)._ If you choose this enhancement, you can change the shape and appearance of a creature of the appropriate creature type." can be used for this effect.

BTW, what would someone else see in the following situation: I sit on a stool and in front of me is a glass filled with water, which I take to drink from. But I am disguised with Illusion as a cat, which is too small to reach the glass. Does the glass simply levitate mid-air?


----------



## Staffan (Nov 28, 2004)

What about the odd Daze-Hold-Stun progression? I would suggest removing Stun from the charm list (and make it something you only do with Evoke Lightning - possibly Evoke Sound as well, but that's beside the point) and add in some other condition. Perhaps Staggered (only a standard or move action) - Dazed (no action) - Stunned (no action and can't defend)?


----------



## RangerWickett (Nov 28, 2004)

RuleMaster said:
			
		

> Another comment on Transform: I've discovered, that there is no comment regarding the use of Transform spells as a disguise help. Can you change to the mayor of the town? I know, that is stepping on the Illusion list, but "_Cosmetic Changes – Creature (0 MP)._ If you choose this enhancement, you can change the shape and appearance of a creature of the appropriate creature type." can be used for this effect.
> 
> BTW, what would someone else see in the following situation: I sit on a stool and in front of me is a glass filled with water, which I take to drink from. But I am disguised with Illusion as a cat, which is too small to reach the glass. Does the glass simply levitate mid-air?




Oh, okay.  I forgot the obligatory "+10 to Disguise checks" thing.  I'll put it in somewhere.

And I'd say that the kitty stands up on two feet, puts its forepaws on the bar, then picks up the glass with its forepaws and drinks.  Wouldn't that be adorable?


----------



## RangerWickett (Nov 28, 2004)

Staffan said:
			
		

> What about the odd Daze-Hold-Stun progression? I would suggest removing Stun from the charm list (and make it something you only do with Evoke Lightning - possibly Evoke Sound as well, but that's beside the point) and add in some other condition. Perhaps Staggered (only a standard or move action) - Dazed (no action) - Stunned (no action and can't defend)?




Actually, I plan to cut out the sleep mode of Charm (which was basically a variant of hold person), and changing the daze progression to:

Dazed
Stunned
Helpless

Dazed is already available in the core rules as a cantrip.  Stunning is available to first level monks.  And Helpless nicely covers both holding someone and putting them to sleep.


----------



## Staffan (Nov 28, 2004)

RangerWickett said:
			
		

> Actually, I plan to cut out the sleep mode of Charm (which was basically a variant of hold person), and changing the daze progression to:
> 
> Dazed
> Stunned
> ...



Ah, that works too. Just as long as "stunned" is a less severe condition than "helpless."

Also note that a minor area-effect stun is available to 3rd level clerics, 4th level bards, and 3rd level psions (_sound burst_, _energy stun_). So it fits with being available at pretty low levels. Though in both those cases it's more of a side effect of being damaged, which would fit more with Evoke [whatever].


----------



## Verequus (Nov 28, 2004)

RangerWickett said:
			
		

> And I'd say that the kitty stands up on two feet, puts its forepaws on the bar, then picks up the glass with its forepaws and drinks.  Wouldn't that be adorable?




Yes, it would, but what if the illusion would show me even smaller? Like an ant? Would it result in a disbelieve?


----------



## Archus (Nov 28, 2004)

Overall I like the additions, here are some specific comments.

* I was worried about Translate [Creature] because it seemed to take up a whole list for not much value.  Once I saw that there would be a single Translate list I was happier.  But I can see some value in Translate [Creature] to simulate the focused spells like "speak with plants", but I still think that it wouldn't quite be worth it for a whole list.

* I like the addition of size changes, but what if I want to reduce something Gargantuan to Diminutive?

* Transforming willing targets seems ok in clost.  What if the cost to change an unwilling target was based on the difference in his CR and the CR - it should be harder to turn a dragon into a whale than a peasant.  Maybe that is captured in their save though.

* Speaking of dragon->whale, what about deadly transformations?

--Archus


----------



## RangerWickett (Nov 28, 2004)

RuleMaster said:
			
		

> Yes, it would, but what if the illusion would show me even smaller? Like an ant? Would it result in a disbelieve?




No, not necessarily.  A creature might think, "Huh, that's odd," and choose to disbelieve, but you wouldn't get an automatic save just for seeing it.



			
				Archus said:
			
		

> Overall I like the additions, here are some specific comments.
> 
> * I was worried about Translate [Creature] because it seemed to take up a whole list for not much value. Once I saw that there would be a single Translate list I was happier. But I can see some value in Translate [Creature] to simulate the focused spells like "speak with plants", but I still think that it wouldn't quite be worth it for a whole list.
> 
> ...




I only included the changes.  Anything not mentioned is still the same.

If you want to talk to animals, use Compel to read their minds.  If you want to talk to plants, use Divination, and just say the plant thing is for flavor.

Changing a Gargantuan creature to Diminutive size costs as much as the total of all the size changes in sequence.  Gargantuan to huge (0 MP), huge to large (0 MP), large to medium (0 MP), medium to small (1 MP), small to tiny (1 MP), tiny to diminutive (3 MP).  So a total of 5 MP for a willing creature, or 9 MP for an unwilling creature.


----------



## mbgrove (Nov 28, 2004)

*Transform*

Hmmm...  I think one of us is getting confused.    As far as I know, we're _just_ talking about changing size, not transforming into another creature.  If that is the case, changing from Small to Medium shouldn't cost 3 MP, nor should going from Large to Huge cost 4 MP.  Why would it cost me a bunch of MP to change to a size that gives me nothing?  (Game mechanic-wise, not role-playing-wise.  I believe we're basically talking game mechanics here.)  I suppose I see the size just as just that:  a size change.  There's nothing inherently unbalancing about changing size, with just the bonus' you gave.

It almost seems like we're getting size change and "Transform into Strong Creature" mixed up, from your example.  In the example, RW said that we didn't want a high-CR creature to get a discount to shapeshifting.  I don't see how that is possible with what we've got in the fixes.  If Mr. Storm Giant Shaman wanted to transform himself into a beholder, which is a CR13 critter, from the way I read it, he would have to spend 7 MP to be able to get the powers and abilities of that CR-level of a critter.  That's because of this  from the fix doc:



> If you turn something into a creature and have it actually possess the ability of that creature, you must choose this enhancement.  To determine the MP cost of this enhancement, find the form’s Challenge Rating (CR), and consult the following table.




This is only affected by the size change when they are changing to something of a different size.  Such as our friendly neighborhood Storm Giant Shaman changing into a bat.  A bat, being a CR nothing, would only cost a cantrip to something that is already diminutive, but Mr. Storm Giant, who is huge, would have to spend a bit of MP of get down to that size.



> I think some of you might have misread the table just a bit, though. Each entry's cost is how much it takes to go to that size from the nearest size above or below (depending on if you're enlarging or shrinking).




I would have to disagree with this for multiple reasons.  One, this doesn't work like other tables in the system.  Take, for instance, the next table in the fixes document, which is the "Transform into Strong Creature".  If you want a CR of 7, you don't pay 2+4+6+7+10+12+14 MP, you just pay 14.  Secondly, I just don't see it needing 29 MP to go from Diminutive to Colossal when all it does is give you +4 Str and +15 Reach.  (Now, I'm _assuming_ here that the Str and Reach aren't cumulative like the MP supposedly are.)  That just doesn't make sense.    I could see removing the MP cost from the table and stating that you get the listed Str and Reach adjustments for whatever size you have moved to, and having each "level" of size change cost 2 MP.  Even at that,it costs 14 MP to change from Diminutive to Colossal.  But, hey, that's a big change.  But, Gargantuan to Colossal isn't that big of a change in contrast to how big Gargantuan starts out.

Maybe even have a table similar to the attached so that there's no questions as to what is what.  (I haven't completed it, just something to give the general idea.  Would make it clear, at least.)

Now, no matter which direction we go, PS brought up something that sheds some light on something.  In the fixes doc, RW wrote:


> Remember, a human becoming Fine gains a +8 size bonus to attack rolls and AC, and a +16 bonus to Hide checks.  It might not be the best spell for a warrior, but for a mage, being the size of a fly has great advantages.



Here on the forum, RW said that he wanted to make sure that Transform can't trump Infuse and Abjure for stat-boosting, which is why size shifting only alters Strength (and less of a bonus).  However, it appears that you get other bonus' too.  What bonus' count and what don't?  Are the listed ones the only ones that change and you get all the other inherent bonus'?

Well, I think I've raised enough questions for the moment.  Time to clean the house.  

Oh, and RW, I did forget the rules override saying you can't use Transform as an attack spell.  Whoops!  Sorry 'bout that.  (Though, what happens if that plank I created just happens to be over a huge pit?  Hmmm...  ::grin:: )

And, please check out the Excel attachment for the size change table idea.

Michael


----------



## astriemer (Nov 29, 2004)

*Errata Comments*

Overall, the fixes look great. I agree with the other posters who are recommending that the errata/fixes not be imbeded in LA. Perhaps they could be included as a patch similar to the one that added the internal links and other mild revisions?

Specific Comments:
Re: Epic progressions...
Have you considered adding a line to the tables that says something like, "for each additional MP spent, do such and such." For example with the Infuse Life Temporary Hit Points table, add a line "for each additional MP spent after 20, increase the Bonus HP by +20 hit points."

Re: Infuse Nature...
Another option for increasing the power of this list would be to let it give Regeneration (Heal [x] can be used to give Fast Healing, but nothing so far gives regeneration other than possibly Transform).

Re: Illusion Force...
Should the last paragraph under Resisting Illusions start, "Similarly, if an invisible _illusionary_ creature deals damage to you"?

The complex Illusion Force seems broken at high MP costs. For 12 MP I can do 20d6 damage and for 20 MP I can do 52d6 damage! Perhaps the illusion should be limited to doing no more than the caster level or total MP spent on the spell d6 damage in a single round.

Re: Cosmetic Changes - Object...
If I use the Transform Life enhancement and get an animated object, can I increase its size using just area increases, if so that seems like a cheap way to get a large animated object. Or, once you've Transform Life'ed it to a creature, does it have to use the normal Size Change enhancment?

Re: Size Change...
Regarding the table, I agree that it should be more like the other tables and not be cumulative.
Looking at the size changing spells in the core rules however, I notice that there aren't really any spells that allow you to change your size more than one category (with the exception of a WuJen spell in the new Complete Arcane). There are two basic size changing spells...the Enlarge/Reduce pair and Righteous Might. Given them as a guideline for starting perhaps Size Change could be simplified to the following:
*Enlarge/Reduce (2 MP). * With this enhancement, you can change a creature's size, but not its exterior shape. The spell causes the creature's height to double/halve, and its weight to increase/decrease by a factor of 8. This changes the creature's size category to the next larger/smaller one. The target gains a +2/-2 size bonus/penalty to Strength, a -2/+2 size penalty/bonus to Dexterity (to a minimum of 1), and a -1/+1 penalty/bonus to attack rolls and AC due to its changed size. This enhancement does not stack with any other size changing magic.
*Size Change (8 MP).* With this enhancement, you can change a creature's size, but not its exterior shape. This spell causes the creature to increase or decrease by one size category with all resultant changes. This enhancement does not stack with any other size changing magic (if keeping to the core rules); or, This enhancement stacks only with its own size changing magic (to allow for greater than one size change category).

The MP costs are similar to those core rule equivalent spells. I don't think the 8 MP cost trumps the 8 MP that you sould spend using the Infuse spell list to get the same strength bonus as there are other penalties associated with the size change (in particular the attack/AC penalty), however, it is more flexible then the single Infuse spell list so perhaps the cost should be 10 MP per size change. This would keep things less complicated (as RW has indicated that he wants to do), while allowing for the flexibility to just change size and not form. I think that this would also allow you to remove the paragraph under Creature Form that has you comparing tables as well.

Re: Creature Form...
Would the cost for creatures above CR 10 increase at a +1 CR per 2 MP spent rate?
Clarification: If you are transforming someone into a Swarm form would you just pay for the resultant CR or would you also have to pay for the Splitting enhancement?
Clarification: If you transform into a creature that can summon other creatures do you get that ability? For that matter do you gain all the spell-like abilities or only extraordinary and supernatural?

Re: Manifest...
Why not just describe intangible as incorporeal instead of as a manifesting ghost?
Clarification: Can an intangible creature launch physical attacks or must they have the ghost touch property to do so?
Would the Gaseous Form spell effect just be another option for Manifest? Thus an intangible creature functions as either an incorporeal creature or as a gaseous creature at the caster's choice upon creating the spell.

Re: Translate...
This seems like an odd spell list. Might it be better represented as another magical skill instead?

If it is a spell list, it seems that the ESP/Telepathy powers from the Compel list would more naturally fall in this list (perhaps called Communication). The Compel lists would still have to have the ability to communicate a command telepathyically, but wouldn't allow for two way communication. Then the list would also have the [Creature] type associated with it.

Re: Divination...
Are you still considering adding the ability to use this skill to temporarily give access to a feat? (Such as when Tenser's Transformation gives the target the ability to use the Martial Weapons Proficiency feat). If so, would that be part of the errata/additional spell options?


----------



## astriemer (Nov 30, 2004)

Where will sleep be going then?


----------



## RangerWickett (Nov 30, 2004)

astriemer said:
			
		

> Where will sleep be going then?




You can compel someone, "Sleep!" but that requires them to fall asleep naturally.  But the new text of daze makes it flexible, so if you cast a strong daze to make someone helpless, you can choose to have them just be paralyzed but conscious, or to make them asleep.  Your choice.


----------



## astriemer (Dec 1, 2004)

RangerWickett said:
			
		

> You can compel someone, "Sleep!" but that requires them to fall asleep naturally.  But the new text of daze makes it flexible, so if you cast a strong daze to make someone helpless, you can choose to have them just be paralyzed but conscious, or to make them asleep.  Your choice.




Won't that prevent the "1st level" sleep effect, as the minimum MP to cast a sleep spell will be 4 MP?


----------



## RangerWickett (Dec 1, 2004)

Yeah, but realize that sleep is an instant kill spell, pretty much.  They fail their save, your buddy runs over and coup de graces them.


----------



## astriemer (Dec 2, 2004)

*Table 7.xxyz*

Is there a reason why CR 4 from Table 7.xxyz: Transform into Strong Creatures in the proposed errata doesn't follow the pattern as the rest of the CRs?


----------



## Kemrain (Dec 3, 2004)

astriemer said:
			
		

> Re: Cosmetic Changes - Object...
> If I use the Transform Life enhancement and get an animated object, can I increase its size using just area increases, if so that seems like a cheap way to get a large animated object. Or, once you've Transform Life'ed it to a creature, does it have to use the normal Size Change enhancment?




You've made it into a critter, and need Transform Construct to change it, as a creature.

Translate:

RW, this is a *HORRIBLE* idea!  You're de-volving the system back towards Elements of Magic 1.  I was thrilled by how seamless you made the system, with your Nouns and Verbs, but now you're gonna give it this big crease... I think that Translation fits fine under Divination - especially if Speak with Plants is Divination fluff!  It works, and makes sense, and it's easy, and I think changing it would be... A crime against humanity!

The other changes I like. It's good to see how you modify these things, so I can butcher and reassemble them for my own gamesystem.  Much appreciated.

Again, I gotta say, Translate should fall under Divination and not it's own spell list.  You're breaking the paradigm you worked so hard to create.  I believe there should be no spell lists that don't folow the convention of a Noun and a Verb, but I think making Translate Humanoid, Translate Plant, Translate Animal, is a bad, bad, bad idea - Worse even than breaking the paradigm, though not by much...  Spell Lists need to be broad, flexible, and adaptable, and these abilities are weak enough to fall under another category, not be one themselves.

A Crime Against Humanity!

- Kemrain the War Crimes Tribunal.


----------



## Archus (Dec 4, 2004)

Kemrain said:
			
		

> Again, I gotta say, Translate should fall under Divination and not it's own spell list.  You're breaking the paradigm you worked so hard to create.  I believe there should be no spell lists that don't folow the convention of a Noun and a Verb, but I think making Translate Humanoid, Translate Plant, Translate Animal, is a bad, bad, bad idea - Worse even than breaking the paradigm, though not by much...  Spell Lists need to be broad, flexible, and adaptable, and these abilities are weak enough to fall under another category, not be one themselves.




I'll second this sentiment.  It was my original one, then I wavered but now I'm back.

I never found using Divination to translate awkward.  The Divination skill can be seen as "getting information or knowledge" and language is a form of language or knowledge.  You could still use Compel [Creature] to do mind-speech but the knowledge of language is out there for Divination to find.  If you really don't think the ability and what it can do - change the name.

The Noun & Verb paradim is nice and elegant.  Adding a Verb only "Translate" would break the symmetry. The skills can be seen as meta manipulation and are clean as they are:


 Dispel Magic - Destroying and Controlling magic
 Divination - Gathering information and knowledge (past, present, and future)
 Scry - Sensing things at a distance
 Spellcraft - Analyzing magic

If anything needs changing, I feel that Spellcraft should absorb Dispel Magic and be the raw manipulation, control, and analysis of magic.  That reduces the number of skills by one and having spellcraft do all the magic manipulation feels right to me.  Right now Spellcraft by itself just doesn't seem like it does enough and controlling magic (overmastery) doesn't quite match up with "dispel".  If you don't want to collapse the skill, maybe move the overmastery into spellcraft (the crafting of spells eh) and have only the magic destruction in Dispel.

Translate by itself, just doesn't seem enough to warrant a pick by itself even if it doesn't have the noun verb limits.  I'd just take compel humanoid  and for 4 mp be able to mentally talk with all humanoids and mess with them as well.

--Archus


----------



## RangerWickett (Dec 4, 2004)

astriemer said:
			
		

> Is there a reason why CR 4 from Table 7.xxyz: Transform into Strong Creatures in the proposed errata doesn't follow the pattern as the rest of the CRs?




Oh.  No there isn't.  Typo.  Ought to be 8.


----------



## RangerWickett (Dec 4, 2004)

I suppose I agree with you with Translate.  I just don't think a skill check ought to be needed.  I'll just make it be a DC 0 check under Divination, but require MP.

Spellcraft doesn't need to get lots of options.  I mean, people will take Spellcraft for its mundane purposes, so the magic identification is just added gravy.


----------



## Verequus (Dec 4, 2004)

Archus said:
			
		

> If anything needs changing, I feel that Spellcraft should absorb Dispel Magic and be the raw manipulation, control, and analysis of magic. That reduces the number of skills by one and having spellcraft do all the magic manipulation feels right to me. Right now Spellcraft by itself just doesn't seem like it does enough and controlling magic (overmastery) doesn't quite match up with "dispel". If you don't want to collapse the skill, maybe move the overmastery into spellcraft (the crafting of spells eh) and have only the magic destruction in Dispel.




 Actually, I think that Overmastery is good option for Dispel Magic - it is a mastery of counterspelling. With Dispel Magic you mess with the magical fabric the spell is consisting of and break it in neat pieces which don't do any harm (hmm, no one did ever include an option, that a failed Dispel Magic could go awry, making the spell to be dispelled wild, because the fabric is damaged. No, that would make Dispel Magic too powerful. Maybe moving it up, so there is an opposed caster level check after succeeding the Dispel chack - if the opponent succeeds then the spell goes wild instead fizzling into nothing.), while Overmastery is the reconstructing of those neat pieces after your image. It would be a nice feat to change the Overmastered spell even more - Ryan, did you include this proposal into Lyceian Arcana?


 And to translate - the DC 0 solution is the best one, I've seen here!


----------



## RangerWickett (Dec 5, 2004)

I've got some new options for overmaster in LA.  Which, by the way, has 75% of its art in, so we'll probably start layout Monday.

I just remembered what my problem with Translate being Divination was - you need 5 ranks in Divination if you want to translate well, which means you might as well also be seeing the future.  I know a lot of characters who don't want to see the future, since it wouldn't fit their character concept.

Oh well.  Divination still works well enough.


----------



## Archus (Dec 5, 2004)

RangerWickett said:
			
		

> I've got some new options for overmaster in LA.  Which, by the way, has 75% of its art in, so we'll probably start layout Monday.



Excellent.  I'm looking forward to starting a d20 game after the new year.


----------



## astriemer (Dec 6, 2004)

RangerWickett said:
			
		

> I've got some new options for overmaster in LA.  Which, by the way, has 75% of its art in, so we'll probably start layout Monday.
> 
> I just remembered what my problem with Translate being Divination was - you need 5 ranks in Divination if you want to translate well, which means you might as well also be seeing the future.  I know a lot of characters who don't want to see the future, since it wouldn't fit their character concept.
> 
> Oh well.  Divination still works well enough.




Since Speak Language is a class skill for Mages, what about just creating a magical version of Speak Language that lets you spend MP to do the translation effects?


----------



## RangerWickett (Dec 6, 2004)

Even in skills, languages are a bit freaky, since you don't add up ranks in them; you get them separately.  I considered it, but scrapped the idea.


----------



## torem13 (Dec 7, 2004)

*Revised EOM*

Ranger Wickett, 

When the fixes you proposed become finalized. Are the changes going to be integrated in a new PDF? 

I am willing to purchase a new version to get all of the fixes.  I will most likely purchase LA, but I would like everything EOM base in one document.

Thanks,


----------



## RangerWickett (Dec 7, 2004)

Right now it's not in our budget to re-layout EOM.  The changes are significant enough that a patch would still be a fairly complicated process, so for a while at least the updates will have to be in text form.

I'm thinking of including a copy of a .doc file with LA, and also making the update a free download on the main page.  I _think_ also we can update the file on sale of EOM-R so it comes with the updates.


----------



## astriemer (Dec 7, 2004)

Couple of thoughts, some of which I think were touched on in the Questions for the Designer thread, but might ought to go into the fixes.

1a) Abjure X. Damage Reduction, Greater. The 3.5 rules do allow for multiple GDRs (such as Good and Adamantine) so change the limitation that it can only be taken once to only twice. Should you specify that frivolous materials cannot be taken? "DR 5/cotton candy" for example.

1b) Abjure X. Add a way to get DR X/- effects.

2) Abjure Death - a mention that it would stop negative energy damage (from core d20 spells), and perhaps a conversion for hp to level (like trade 5 hp of protection to prevent 1 level drain or something like that).

3) Divination - add a way for this or some other skill/list (infuse?) to grant a feat temporarily (in particular weapon proficencies, though there are a few d20 core spells that add other feats as well such as cleave)

4a) Evoke Space - add the major effect: affects both planes simultaneously

4b) Evoke X - add comment that alternate dice can be extrapolated if desired based on average damage?

4c) Evoke X - add comment that spell can be made area effect and no save by reducing the damage by 1/2 when creating spell (e.g., a 3 MP spell gives 4d6 damage with either an attack roll or save for 1/2; or a 3 MP spell can give 2d6 damage no save and no attack required.)

5) Move Death - example has at reduce level 1 metal becoming dirt (which should be becoming stone...or remove stone level).

6) Move Force - perhaps add an enhancement that allows the spell to be used for attacks (ala Spiritual Weapon).

7) Scry Special Vision - add guidelines of how to get other senses (Scent, tremorsense, etc.)

8) Transform - add a way to add a template to creatures (when transoforming into a completely different creature this is no problem just add the template CR adjustment to the new creature form, but if adding a template to an existing creature (such as the caster) make the cost related to Level Adjustment perhaps to balance the effectiveness for PCs).

9) Core d20 spells are frequently limited in effect (for example only granting an attack bonus and not a damage bonus as is normal for infuse force). Include a mechanic (in errata or LA) for allowing a way to take that into effect. We discussed earlier that it isn't much of a limitation for mages who can change their spells on the fly, but couldn't it apply to signature spells somehow as those can't be changed on the fly.

Then a couple of questions regarding "why you did it that way."

1) Infuse that grants a Strength bonus you double the bonus on, why?

2) Evoke Death doesn't do double damage on a crit, yet most of the d20 effects that create similar effects do, why not for EoM?

And one clarification question.

1) Abjure Life, will this provide the "Other" bonus on Table 3.3 (and others) for most living creatures...thus giving a better bonus than Nature while still affecting most creatures (not undead, elementals, and constructs)?


----------



## Kemrain (Dec 9, 2004)

RangerWickett said:
			
		

> I suppose I agree with you with Translate.  I just don't think a skill check ought to be needed.  I'll just make it be a DC 0 check under Divination, but require MP.




Brilliant! I knew you had it in you, you lovable little ewok.

- Kemrain the Pardon from the Govenor.


----------



## Kemrain (Dec 9, 2004)

I know I'm not RangerWickett, but, I have some feedback and suggested andwers for these questions.



			
				astriemer said:
			
		

> Couple of thoughts, some of which I think were touched on in the Questions for the Designer thread, but might ought to go into the fixes.
> 
> 1a) Abjure X. Damage Reduction, Greater. The 3.5 rules do allow for multiple GDRs (such as Good and Adamantine) so change the limitation that it can only be taken once to only twice. Should you specify that frivolous materials cannot be taken? "DR 5/cotton candy" for example.
> 
> 1b) Abjure X. Add a way to get DR X/- effects.



Good idea. Should be fixed. Personally, I'd suggest an even cheaper way of adding DR X/Blah OR Blablah, like many outsiders have (This is Greater DR but with 2 penetration options, thus, cheaper.)



> 2) Abjure Death - a mention that it would stop negative energy damage (from core d20 spells), and perhaps a conversion for hp to level (like trade 5 hp of protection to prevent 1 level drain or something like that).



Also a good idea! I think this was spelled out in the origional EoM, but it needs to be here, too.



> 3) Divination - add a way for this or some other skill/list (infuse?) to grant a feat temporarily (in particular weapon proficencies, though there are a few d20 core spells that add other feats as well such as cleave)



This would be very hard to do fairly, given thatyou'd need to come up with pricing for each feat, or a guideline for costing them. Not all feats are created equally, and some are just better than others. Which would you rather gain with a 3MP spell, Dodge, or Spring Attack?  Making someone pay for each feat the new one requires (that they don't already have) and infuse your ability scores up to meet the prereq's could be a start, but this idea would need to be thoroughly tested for balance issues, even though it's a great one.



> 4a) Evoke Space - add the major effect: affects both planes simultaneously
> 
> 4b) Evoke X - add comment that alternate dice can be extrapolated if desired based on average damage?
> 
> 4c) Evoke X - add comment that spell can be made area effect and no save by reducing the damage by 1/2 when creating spell (e.g., a 3 MP spell gives 4d6 damage with either an attack roll or save for 1/2; or a 3 MP spell can give 2d6 damage no save and no attack required.)



A, I agree with. Evoke Space should be the Evoke Force that effects inanimate objects, too. B, I don't understand. C, why bother restricting it to AoE spells? All this does is trump Evasion at the cost of reducing damage to all. Isn't that balanced, even on a ray?



> 5) Move Death - example has at reduce level 1 metal becoming dirt (which should be becoming stone...or remove stone level).



I noticed that myself. There's a slightly screwey example under Enhance Skills in Infuse [Element] too. Infuse Water 3 gives 12, not 8. But that's nit-picky.



> 6) Move Force - perhaps add an enhancement that allows the spell to be used for attacks (ala Spiritual Weapon).



As I suggested in my EoM Houserules thread, I think you should be able to do this. I'd also like to see it clarafied if you can either move objects or perform combat maneuvers, or both, with one casting of Move Force? If both, the spell is exceedingly useful.



> 7) Scry Special Vision - add guidelines of how to get other senses (Scent, tremorsense, etc.)



Good idea. I'd like to see this.



> 8) Transform - add a way to add a template to creatures (when transoforming into a completely different creature this is no problem just add the template CR adjustment to the new creature form, but if adding a template to an existing creature (such as the caster) make the cost related to Level Adjustment perhaps to balance the effectiveness for PCs).



YES!  I'd kill small puppies to get this in there. Metaphores aside, I'd muchly enjoy this option, or at least guidelines on Transform other than simply the sizing mods (which is a GREAT start, but not enough.)



> 9) Core d20 spells are frequently limited in effect (for example only granting an attack bonus and not a damage bonus as is normal for infuse force). Include a mechanic (in errata or LA) for allowing a way to take that into effect. We discussed earlier that it isn't much of a limitation for mages who can change their spells on the fly, but couldn't it apply to signature spells somehow as those can't be changed on the fly.



What if I want a +2 to Fort saves, but not Reflex and Will? What if all I need is a static bonus to damage? If anything, this makes making magic items very interesting, as you can customize to your heart's content. Very cool idea. I like muchly.



> Then a couple of questions regarding "why you did it that way."
> 
> 1) Infuse that grants a Strength bonus you double the bonus on, why?
> 
> 2) Evoke Death doesn't do double damage on a crit, yet most of the d20 effects that create similar effects do, why not for EoM?



I can try to field these... 1, Because there's cheap ways of purchasing effects that simply grant Climb/Fly/Swim speeds, making rolling pointless. But if you can get +24 to Jump from a 3MP spell, it's worth it again.
2, Consistancy. You only have a chance to crit when you make a touch attack, and you could easily have AoE Level Drain. It's not a *bad* idea, it's just not been implamented. Double all numeric effects on a crit?  Rounds of stunning? Etc? Should this be just a Death thing, or are we beefing up all Evoke spells?


> And one clarification question.
> 
> 1) Abjure Life, will this provide the "Other" bonus on Table 3.3 (and others) for most living creatures...thus giving a better bonus than Nature while still affecting most creatures (not undead, elementals, and constructs)?



Yes?

- Kemrain your Friendly Neighborhood Not-RangerWickett.


----------



## Verequus (Dec 9, 2004)

Kemrain said:
			
		

> This would be very hard to do fairly, given thatyou'd need to come up with pricing for each feat, or a guideline for costing them. Not all feats are created equally, and some are just better than others. Which would you rather gain with a 3MP spell, Dodge, or Spring Attack? Making someone pay for each feat the new one requires (that they don't already have) and infuse your ability scores up to meet the prereq's could be a start, but this idea would need to be thoroughly tested for balance issues, even though it's a great one.



 But feats cost always one slot and are priced the same, even if they aren't entirely balanced. You have still to differentiate them after the prerequisites though - every prerequiste adds one MP, for example.



> A, I agree with. Evoke Space should be the Evoke Force that effects inanimate objects, too. B, I don't understand. C, why bother restricting it to AoE spells? All this does is trump Evasion at the cost of reducing damage to all. Isn't that balanced, even on a ray?



 B means: Instead gaining 4d6 you use 6d4 - somewhere in the Designer thread this option is buried.


----------



## astriemer (Dec 9, 2004)

Thanks for the feedback! 



			
				Kemrain said:
			
		

> Good idea. Should be fixed. Personally, I'd suggest an even cheaper way of adding DR X/Blah OR Blablah, like many outsiders have (This is Greater DR but with 2 penetration options, thus, cheaper.)




Excellent point, I hadn't thought about that combination. Maybe for 1 MP you get limited greater DR where you must specify an element and an alignment where either one bypasses.



			
				Kemrain said:
			
		

> This would be very hard to do fairly, given thatyou'd need to come up with pricing for each feat, or a guideline for costing them. Not all feats are created equally, and some are just better than others. Which would you rather gain with a 3MP spell, Dodge, or Spring Attack?  Making someone pay for each feat the new one requires (that they don't already have) and infuse your ability scores up to meet the prereq's could be a start, but this idea would need to be thoroughly tested for balance issues, even though it's a great one.




I was assuming that to get a feat that required prereqs that you meet the prereqs first, either normally or through other magical enhancements.  Perhaps include some guidelines as a beta for erratta'ing in LA?

In particular I was wanting a way to give proficiency with a particular weapon that might be created by the spell.



			
				Kemrain said:
			
		

> A, I agree with. Evoke Space should be the Evoke Force that effects inanimate objects, too. B, I don't understand. C, why bother restricting it to AoE spells? All this does is trump Evasion at the cost of reducing damage to all. Isn't that balanced, even on a ray?




B was a statement to allow for changing damage types for dice. 1d4+1 is the same average damage as 1d6 so shouldn't I be able to specify that if I wanted to? For example, what if I want to more closely simulate the core magic missile?

C, I wasn't intending to say that it should necessarily only apply to AoE spells or single target spells. Yes, the primary purpose is to trump Evasion, and regarding balance, there are a lot of core spells that do it (again, magic missle being the classic example, but Ice Storm is another good example (with AoE as well)).



			
				Kemrain said:
			
		

> What if I want a +2 to Fort saves, but not Reflex and Will? What if all I need is a static bonus to damage? If anything, this makes making magic items very interesting, as you can customize to your heart's content. Very cool idea. I like muchly.




That's a good point I hadn't considered. With spells there is the problem of getting a discount for a limitation that isn't really a limitation (because you can whip up another version of the spell 2 rounds later that doesn't have the limitation). For for magic items (as well as signature spells) you don't get to make changes on the fly, so they should be able to get some discount for being limited.




			
				Kemrain said:
			
		

> I can try to field these... 1, Because there's cheap ways of purchasing effects that simply grant Climb/Fly/Swim speeds, making rolling pointless. But if you can get +24 to Jump from a 3MP spell, it's worth it again.
> 2, Consistancy. You only have a chance to crit when you make a touch attack, and you could easily have AoE Level Drain. It's not a *bad* idea, it's just not been implamented. Double all numeric effects on a crit?  Rounds of stunning? Etc? Should this be just a Death thing, or are we beefing up all Evoke spells?




1, Ok, that makes some sense, but I can use Divination to get an effect that makes rolling for Knowledge checks pretty much useless as well and I can use Create instead of craft to make something, so why don't Int checks get the bonus also.  I could use an illusion to do Sleight of Hand, so why not Dex also? Etc. Although thinking of the core spells, I see the logic. Jump gives a much better bonus (+10 to +30) than Magecraft (+5) and both are 1st level. So...never mind. %^)

2, Shouldn't consistancy also say though that any attack that requires an attack roll should have a chance to crit and thus double the damage. The Complete Arcana provides some clarification regarding this in the core rules (though not yet part of the SRD). To paraphrase-Any weapon-like spell (one that requires an attack roll and deals damage (hit point, nonlethal, ability or energy drain)) can crit. Any spell that crits does double damage (though only in the first round of damage and only versus a single target if multiple targets are affected). The damage is of the same time as the original damage (cold is cold, negative levels is negative levels, ability damage is ability damage). Only spells that do damage can be doubled (thus no doubling of side effects or penalties).



			
				Kemrain said:
			
		

> - Kemrain your Friendly Neighborhood Not-RangerWickett.




Great, now you've got me singing, "Kemrain, Kemrain, does whatever a Kemrain can..."


----------



## Kemrain (Dec 10, 2004)

astriemer said:
			
		

> Thanks for the feedback!



Shore! RW ain't doin it (Having a life can do that), so I figgered I should step up.



> Excellent point, I hadn't thought about that combination. Maybe for 1 MP you get limited greater DR where you must specify an element and an alignment where either one bypasses.



That's the idea. I mean, how easy is it to bypass DR X/Magic? It makes DR useful and fairly cheap, plus it goves you all that Outsider-y Goodness.




> I was assuming that to get a feat that required prereqs that you meet the prereqs first, either normally or through other magical enhancements.  Perhaps include some guidelines as a beta for erratta'ing in LA?



My idea exactly. Could be interesting. I'd like to see it written up.



> B was a statement to allow for changing damage types for dice. 1d4+1 is the same average damage as 1d6 so shouldn't I be able to specify that if I wanted to? For example, what if I want to more closely simulate the core magic missile?



The same average doesn't make them the same at all. 1d2+3 does the same *average* damage as 1d6, but it's clearly not even similar. The probability curves are very different. 1d4+1 has a lower max, by a point, and a minimum of 2. The high minimum makes it just plain better- I don't see a reason to *ever* roll 1d6 if I can do 1d4+1. Higher minimum is "teh good."



> C, I wasn't intending to say that it should necessarily only apply to AoE spells or single target spells. Yes, the primary purpose is to trump Evasion, and regarding balance, there are a lot of core spells that do it (again, magic missle being the classic example, but Ice Storm is another good example (with AoE as well)).



I personally don't like to see Magic Missile used as an example of anything but an overpowered spell, but, that's me...  I don't know if making the Evasion ability effectively useless (and Improved Evasion completely useless) is fair. Wouldn't it just be better to Evoke Time and force a Will Save, or Death and force a Fort save?



> 1, Ok, that makes some sense, but I can use Divination to get an effect that makes rolling for Knowledge checks pretty much useless as well and I can use Create instead of craft to make something, so why don't Int checks get the bonus also.  I could use an illusion to do Sleight of Hand, so why not Dex also? Etc. Although thinking of the core spells, I see the logic. Jump gives a much better bonus (+10 to +30) than Magecraft (+5) and both are 1st level. So...never mind. %^)



I know you agreed with me, but I dont' feel done. Feel free to skip over the next part if  you don't care to read it. It's 100% optional and for my benefit, not to cause trouble.



Spoiler



Strength only effects 3 skills, and you can magically reduce each of them to complete uselessness. Divination suppliments Knowledge, but it's too costly and time consuming to completely do away with Knowledges that way. Illusion gives you a bonus to Hide, Move, Disguise and the like, but it doesn't render them useless by any means. You can, and *should* hide and move silently while invisible. Spider climb, on the other hand, prevents you from having to ever make a Climb check, as long as the spell lasts.  Why jump when you can fly with perfect maneuverability? Swim with a Swim Speed, taking 10 even around hazards... Strength Skill boosts are kinda worthless if you *don't* get doubled bonuses.



I feel better...



> 2, Shouldn't consistancy also say though that any attack that requires an attack roll should have a chance to crit and thus double the damage. The Complete Arcana provides some clarification regarding this in the core rules (though not yet part of the SRD). To paraphrase-Any weapon-like spell (one that requires an attack roll and deals damage (hit point, nonlethal, ability or energy drain)) can crit. Any spell that crits does double damage (though only in the first round of damage and only versus a single target if multiple targets are affected). The damage is of the same time as the original damage (cold is cold, negative levels is negative levels, ability damage is ability damage). Only spells that do damage can be doubled (thus no doubling of side effects or penalties).



Consistancy in the EoMr rules would mean that only HP damage is multiplied on a critical hit.  Stat Damage, while it's called damage, isn't the same, and Negitive Levels aren't even *called* damage. I think things are simpler if we avoid the doubling of other effects, but that's me. I wouldn't flip out ifit were included, but it would make Evoke Death the *bestest Evoke EVAR*!





> Great, now you've got me singing, "Kemrain, Kemrain, does whatever a Kemrain can..."



Heehee! I aim to please. (Ain't my fauly my aim's so poor!)

- Kemrain the Amusing.


----------



## astriemer (Dec 14, 2004)

I was just looking at the abjure/hex spell list description and noticed the following. Table 3.8 Hex Effects list the following as a footnote, "Hex Space and Hex Time have the unique ability to make creatures more vulnerable to their own type of damage. Thus, if you know Abjure Time, you know both how to protect against and make foes weak against Time."

However, I don't see anything the explains this anywhere. What does it mean?


----------

