And as for Beam/Bolt spells, since I'm running a homebrew spellcrafting system with those explicitly defined as types of deliveries, it's not a huge concern on defining them. (But basically think things like Magic Missile, Firebolt, and... wait, does D&D have any spells cast as continuous beams?)
Damage over time is more of a nuisance than a problem, I think. It's a lot of bookkeeping for usually limited effect because most things only last 3 rounds anyway
But an actual continuous spell... you'd need to deal with what happens when either side moves around the field, or walks out of range when the other wants to follow, and what happens when people walk in the beam, and all sorts of weird interactions
@Papayaman1000 if that's the case, then I still think you look at this like a counterspell, but with a trade off of not always applicable to moving damage. Do you see it like altering it at point of creation or altering it as it's on it's way to you (sort of is it changing the initial spell like counterspell or is it doing something with it after it nearly hits the target in a dispel magic kinda way)
If you actually get it in the rules it makes for interesting area-denial for sure, but you could fill an entire chapter on them I think, so I don't blame anyone for not making them
@NautArch The idea is that, after being reflected, the spell isn't changed, only its direction. That also gives a nice risk-reward mechanic for a mage dealing with this this buff, they can get close for accuracy or stay at over half range so the spell fizzles before hitting them
@Papayaman1000 okay, so it's an endpoint, not a starting point spell. I'd still think of it more like a counterspell. Do you give your players either the knowledge or an arcana check to know the spell (if it's on their spell list?)
@Erik I know it's poor form to even consider comparing turn-based systems to real-time, but the entire idea is kind of modeled off beam spells from Magicka...
But they could have the advantage of not being constantly on target. Indeed working a little like moonbeam; a line across the field that deals damage when you cross it and can be rotated on your turn. It might work.
@Papayaman1000 In my mind it does - because it can be set up to work like counterspell. They can try and use their reaction to deflect, but if it's a higher spell slot than what they use, it's a DC check. And given that it's damage and not just turn off the spell, I'd make it a higher DC check and a higher guaranteed. So maybe i'ts a 3rd level spell, it automatically deflects 2nd level and below, and if it's third level or higher it's DC 13+spell level.
@Erik Yep. I've been considering allowing the caster to rotate beams about 45 degrees per turn while holding it, sweeping across the difference in the process. This means they could theoretically sweep the whole field in 8 turns (which is long), but even then they'd be burning through resources like mad, since a held spell's cost is set up to burn the casting cost once per second.
The player could deflect ANY spell with one of those delivery types is the idea. And the whole idea of spell levels really doesn't jive with this new system.
@NautArch It is a reaction, but the ability to do so is dependant on either having a weapon enchanted to deflect spells or having this buff active on the wielder
@NautArch I... used... a mana system (cue hiding). I call it Focus for flavor reasons, which also lent itself nicely to certain situations putting a serious drain on it.
I've been considering making Clerical spells cast from hit points, though, since they already rely on CON with this system.
@Erik Sort of... I mean, currently, there's already a spell component in this system that basically provides a magical blood transfusion (hence it's named Transfusion).
And a spell's exact strength is determined by how many levels of power the caster includes. There's already a different kind of power component for each main branch of magic, so it wouldn't be too hard to just append something to the Cleric's component
@Erik Seeing as how they're already specced out as a heavily armored tank armed with a magical healing whiffle bat here, that's kind of the point.
@Papayaman1000 okay, if that's the case, then I think it still works the same way. You have to expend mana to deflect it. And it should be a greater amount than the spell itself. Mostly because you are redirecting it. Maybe have a smaller increase to deflect it straight back, but a much higher increase to deflect it to a different creature (or maybe a simple return is at no cost, while the redirect is the action on your turn)
Why is the word "Rötschreck" spelled with an Umlaut? was temporarily closed with the reason that it is 'drawing primarily speculation/opinion' (emphasis mine).
I'd like to point out that there is a difference between speculative answers that propose a theory based on facts and ones of opinion an...
@Papayaman1000 Although I'm still liking a bounceback to caster at no additional action cost. But still a mana cost. How are you treating counterspell in your system?
I wouldn't make it more expensive than the spell itself, that sort of removes the point. It's a very situational ability and you'd almost be better off just casting the same spell yourself
@NautArch As a decently expensive component restricted to Illusory (read: nondamaging/Cleric-ing) magic that can fizzle a spell on the spot, but can also be fought by the countered spell's caster overloading their spell with mana
[as a reaction to it being countered]
This is a very complicated and daunting task but I love it so much and so does my group
And the more I make every last system more and more free-form I begin to realize I'm progressively making the Elder Scrolls game I've always wanted
@nitsua60 (& @BESW) There's a couple of answers I want to write in response to that question but I've been feeling a bit weird & out of it mentally just recently (like I have a weak fever). One of those is suggesting we need to do something about that general sentiment -- it's showing up in the top-voted answer on the "how are we doing?" question, and in several election questionnaire questions.
But I'm not sure what I can say that hasn't been said already in the past, and I'm not sure what solution is appropriate at this point (and I'd rather suggest something actionable), and it's hard to find the words which match to what I can feel is going on, and I also don't want to create a "bad stuff re: mods behaviour" dogpile in what has been a very useful and refreshing question.
@NautArch Yeah. And, just for the record: the extra difficulty to choose a new target for deflection is only for choosing the target. If you don't roll for it, it can go anywhere in a hemisphere facing the caster, including right at your feet... which would be bad if the spell was loaded with an AoE.
So, counterspell, but with interesting quirks. Kehehe...
@Papayaman1000 that's kinda how i'm seeing it. So treat it initially how you do with counterspell, and then add layers of mana cost depending on what you want to do with it.
@doppelgreener Well, you can't form a solution until you have a definition of the problem(s). So step one is to work towards describing what you feel is going on and a specific problem that situation is causing.
That does, of course, give a very off chance of them hitting the target they intended regardless... but it's much more likely to explode at their feet.
But here's an idea: Just reduce the duration of the buff depending on how much mana is behind the spell being deflected. What's that, deflecting the thing that burnt half the caster's mana? Your buff is shattered and the spell just phases through your sword as normal.
@LegendaryDude If he's a playable character in the game they probably needed to find ways to make him be awesome, because having total dud player characters is bad for the game.
@doppelgreener It's a 2D fighting game (a la Mortal Kombat) so it's partially a balance decision, but I'm referring more to his presence and the general flavor of his character in contrast to the dopey "I can talk to fish" hero that we all love to hate on.
@NautArch Yeah, for sure. But with six upvotes and plenty of comments trying to sincerely engage the sentiment, I'd say that there's pretty-strong desire to at least discuss the feeling and experience behind the rant.
@doppelgreener Yeah, those are all good points. I certainly don't think lopping off their heads to spite their noses is a good solution, but I do wish we had more discussion in the space between "everything's great" and unreasonable complaint.
5e doesn't contain any distinction between the two.
So we turn back to my favorite TSR publication of all time, the 2e Arms and Equipment Guide.1
Glaive
The glaive is a pole weapon with a large head shaped like a knife or a sword mounted on an eight- to ten-foot long shaft.... [Descript...
@Yuuki Tridents are much more useful when roasting game over a campfire. Exploration/overland is 1/3 of the game, after all =)
@nitsua60 Yeah, so they could've saved a few fractions of cents on ink and space by making a single 'polearm' entry and letting everyone flavor their particular polearm in a different way.
@nitsua60 But they're one pound heavier. One pound could make a big difference traveling overland.
@Adam It was pretty light-hearted, yeah. Back then, The Joker was actually true to his name, he was a prankster who didn't really mean too much harm. The Joker didn't get established as a super dark twisted character until later.
@LegendaryDude that's an interesting suggestion you made on my help-pile answer. I think right now there's enough going on with that question, the election-question-question, and soon with election that I don't want to throw something more into the cacophony. But can you help me remember in a week or two to do as you suggest?
At first I though I figured out what the OP needed in this question but with his last edit I less and less understand
It makes me the effect of someone who would say "I read cure light wounds can work on nearly everyone, and can be cast several times on the same creature, it seems so overpowered to be able to heal everyone completely!" I just don't get it.
While reading the answers to this question, I noticed this thing:
Some of the information contained in this post requires additional references. Please edit to add citations to reliable sources that support the assertions made here. Unsourced material may be disputed or deleted.
I would l...
@LegendaryDude not for those of us who're trying to respect the distinctions among hyphen, en-dash, and em-dash while working in a small character-set =)
@JoshuaAslanSmith I had a college roommate who was a skeptic. (As in, a philosophy major, saw it as his mission to always think through all sides of things.)
@nitsua60 My philosophy course made me hate skeptics. Not "I'm skeptical of the first argument, so I'm going to look at as many sides as I can". I mean the "Knowledge can't be proven so I don't have to believe anything because brain in a jar" guys
@Adam @nitsua60 yeah, my philosophy professor told me to stop being SHirley Maclaine, otherwise you can actually argue anything when I talked with hima out that after a bad fungus experience.
@Adam Any demon who is capable of sufficiently deceiving would have to be omnipotent, and if he is omnipotent, that proves that there is a universal knowledge, even if we aren't aware of it due to the deception.
@Adam DesCartes posits that all we can know is that we exist ("I think, therefore I am") because of the possibility of a great evil demon whose sole existence is to deceive us regarding everything that we know, except that there are two types of knowledge, "perceptive" knowledge (I forget what he called it) and universal knowledge (things like maths, geometry, fundamental laws of existence).
> "Certainly, the idea of God, or a supremely perfect being, is one that I find within me just as surely as the idea of any shape or number. And my understanding that it belongs to his nature that he always exists is no less clear and distinct than is the case when I prove of any shape or number that some property belongs to its nature."
@Yuuki I just provided the entirety of his argument in that quote, basically.
Broken down:
A. Whatever I clearly and distinctly perceive to be contained in the idea of something is true of that thing. B. I clearly and distinctly perceive that necessary existence is contained in the idea of God. C. Therefore, God exists.
This is, of course, supported by his position that our internal perceptions are the only things we know to be true to our own positions.
Actually, @mxyzplk @SevenSidedDie, my nose is tingling at this question. Do you think it's worth taking a peek under the hood? (I may just be primed because of reading the meta A about weathering an attack, though.)
@LegendaryDude I remember some argument going something like: 1) Some things are more real than others, 2) real things can't affect realer things. 3) I can't affect the cogito. 4) the cogito is therefore more real than me. 5) something realer than the cogito must have created it. 6) That thing could be god 7) if that thing isn't god there is a realer thing that created it and that is basically god 8) repeat steps 6 & 7 as necessary until supreme reality is found
@JoshuaAslanSmith All we know is what we perceive. And since we don't perceive those Hitlers we don't know they're there. But, maybe they are and we just don't see them.
I remember because he challenged Randall Munroe of xkcd to "out-nerd him now". It's been a month or so since and Randall still hasn't taken that challenge. I'm disappointed.
@Yuuki It's a pretty funny comic, but a lot of the people here are engaged/married/have kids so it really isn't very much of an accurate stereotype, is it?
The problem with the question (if it's serious) is that its asking something that is immediately answered by reading the rules, specifically, "What is a spell?" section and shortly thereafter the "Cantrips" section. Jokes aside, it's really just a variation on a "read the book to me" question.
@SevenSidedDie Agreed - it's overhwelming. I'm good with you summing up my two comments into one single comment (either be me or you, really doesn't matter) and removing the rest.
@NautArch My partner's musical group is doing that song in their next musical. (They remix musical music and write a new musical around the song selections.) We haven't told our kid, so that it will be a surprise when we go to see it. :D
@Yuuki Hmm, I thought the other writer was of that descent, but that the language wasn't that and incorporates maori, hawaiian, and maybe other South Pacific languages?
nm
@Yuuki you're right, it's Tokelauan. Not sure why there isn't a pure translation to those verses, though. Just to know what he wrote.
5e doesn't contain any distinction between the two.
So we turn back to my favorite TSR publication of all time, the 2e Arms and Equipment Guide.1
Glaive
The glaive is a pole weapon with a large head shaped like a knife or a sword mounted on an eight- to ten-foot long shaft.... [Descript...
While reading the answers to this question, I noticed this thing:
Some of the information contained in this post requires additional references. Please edit to add citations to reliable sources that support the assertions made here. Unsourced material may be disputed or deleted.
I would l...
