Difference between revisions of "User talk:MisterSinister/TOToM (3.5e Sourcebook)/Creating A Spell"

From Dungeons and Dragons Wiki
Jump to: navigation, search
(Created page with "Havvy - FYI, frequency is going to be basically written out of the system. Limited is the default case and really shouldn't need a tag, Passive and At-Will don't really do anythi...")
 
(Ritual as a component then?)
Line 2: Line 2:
  
 
Thoughts on which direction to go with ritual appreciated :-) - [[User:Tarkisflux|Tarkisflux]] 15:21, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
 
Thoughts on which direction to go with ritual appreciated :-) - [[User:Tarkisflux|Tarkisflux]] 15:21, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
 +
 +
:Well, if the slot component is going to replace the need for [Passive] and [At-Will], then wouldn't a ritual component replace the need for [Ritual]?  Heck, for some spells (for example, knock) the ritual could even include a bit of flavor in it.  --[[User:Havvy|Havvy]] 21:21, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Revision as of 21:21, 30 October 2010

Havvy - FYI, frequency is going to be basically written out of the system. Limited is the default case and really shouldn't need a tag, Passive and At-Will don't really do anything that a limited spell with a duration of Slot doesn't (and the duration is easier to understand and requires fewer tags), and Ritual is too undefined at the moment to worry about. It might get added back on to some spells as an option for people to learn them as "skill tricks" (have a rank prereq, spend some skill points, learn the thing), or it might get its own subsystem and not be a spell tag at all.

Thoughts on which direction to go with ritual appreciated :-) - Tarkisflux 15:21, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Well, if the slot component is going to replace the need for [Passive] and [At-Will], then wouldn't a ritual component replace the need for [Ritual]? Heck, for some spells (for example, knock) the ritual could even include a bit of flavor in it. --Havvy 21:21, 30 October 2010 (UTC)