Difference between revisions of "Talk:Blood Painter (3.5e Feat)"
From Dungeons and Dragons Wiki
(→Some Loopholes) |
|||
| Line 19: | Line 19: | ||
::::I'd say it's fine to adopt but if you do I'd avoid changing it so radically and just apply a light clarifying touch. If you were going to change the mechanics significantly I'd prefer creating a lower-powered alternate version with con burn and (Sp). I mean, (Sp) bypasses XP and material cost requirements anyway. I guess I just don't see con damage (as opposed to burn) as a huge issue since there's a time requirement for painting the spell. [[User:Surgo|Surgo]] ([[User talk:Surgo|talk]]) 04:51, 21 May 2016 (UTC) | ::::I'd say it's fine to adopt but if you do I'd avoid changing it so radically and just apply a light clarifying touch. If you were going to change the mechanics significantly I'd prefer creating a lower-powered alternate version with con burn and (Sp). I mean, (Sp) bypasses XP and material cost requirements anyway. I guess I just don't see con damage (as opposed to burn) as a huge issue since there's a time requirement for painting the spell. [[User:Surgo|Surgo]] ([[User talk:Surgo|talk]]) 04:51, 21 May 2016 (UTC) | ||
| − | :::::[[ | + | :::::[[Cast Blood Rune (3.5e Feat)|Ok then.]] -- [[User:Eiji-kun|Eiji-kun]] ([[User talk:Eiji-kun|talk]]) 12:09, 21 May 2016 (UTC) |
Latest revision as of 13:22, 19 January 2017
Some Loopholes[edit]
So this lets you cast a spell without using a spell slot right? hats cool, especially with the large cast time but there are three problems.
- Con damage can be healed, effectively fueling casting with wands of Lesser Restoration for cheap as free. I recommend Con burn.
- Technically you can use this to cast a long casting time spell in minutes. Wording can fix that.
- Making spells (Su) opens up some breakage, as some spells are balanced only by having SR: Yes. Not many, but they exist.
Can you address these issues? Oh, it's Frank & K. It will never be addressed, damn. -- Eiji-kun (talk) 10:57, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
- You could always adopt it ;-) --Ghostwheel (talk) 18:24, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
- This breaks in worse ways than that. Issue (1) can (and should) be addressed by making the diagram become 'useless' after a cast, forcing you to paint another and take up the time. Agree for (2). Not sure that (3) is really a problem. The real benefit you get out of making things supernatural is ignoring XP/material costs. Surgo (talk) 19:02, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
- Can you even adopt F&K articles? I thought they were here for legacy, sacred cows and whatnot.
- Yeah, if I had my hands on it, it'd probably be con burn, you have to repaint (I didn't even notice that it doesn't technically expire), and probably keep it (Sp). Otherwise the idea of cheating past spell slots at the cost of health and time is perfectly sound. -- Eiji-kun (talk) 22:18, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
- I'd say it's fine to adopt but if you do I'd avoid changing it so radically and just apply a light clarifying touch. If you were going to change the mechanics significantly I'd prefer creating a lower-powered alternate version with con burn and (Sp). I mean, (Sp) bypasses XP and material cost requirements anyway. I guess I just don't see con damage (as opposed to burn) as a huge issue since there's a time requirement for painting the spell. Surgo (talk) 04:51, 21 May 2016 (UTC)
