User talk:MisterSinister/TOToM (3.5e Sourcebook)/SRP1

Tags

So, you use square brackets in your tags, and that makes it impossible to link to them in the page because of how wikis work with them in general. I don't know if you want to remove them from here or just go through and use {{{anchor|Tag Name}}} at every tag header so linking works. Note that you'll need to do this for all possible combinations of the multitags (Energy:Fire and Air) anyway.

Alternately, I can just remove the direct tag linking from the spell template if you want, though that seemed a useful feature. - Tarkisflux 18:24, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm not particularly attached to the notation - it just happened to be the form I'm most used to using with tags in general. What would you suggest as a good alternative notation? MisterSinister 20:48, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

I'd use the brackets in the text then, but not in the headers. That'll keep the same feel, which the spells share, and cut down on the number of anchors you need to add. Unless you like anchors, then you can just leave it. - Tarkisflux 21:55, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Or I'll just add anchors to the headers. Turns out that will mostly work too. I haven't touched the multi-attribute tags though, since I don't have an easy way to do them and I don't want to just do lots and lots of span ids. The persistable tag suffers a similar problem, since there's 20 different persistables. Everything else links nicely from the template though. - Tarkisflux 03:47, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Duration & Dissipation

Why did you choose a d6 instead of a d20? A d20 gives a higher range of %s to work with, and is more feat friendly. Not to mention the overarching system is called 'd20', so having such a roll not be a d20 is a bit weird. --Havvy 15:11, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Mostly because adding or subtracting from recovery rolls isn't something I support. Without some seriously hardcore bonus typing (i.e. one bonus type ever), what will happen to recovery rolls is the 4e Orbizard, and I have no desire to support such. Additionally, the system already uses non-d20 rolls for a whole bunch of things (such as damage rolls and durations and so on), so I'm not really sure why this is a problem.

As far as dissipation rolls go, I think using a d6 gives me enough grain to be happy. These are designed to simulate round/level durations, which I think they do quite well already. Anything which lasts longer than that will either be Slot, [Passive], or have a duration that's so long that there's not much need to track it unless your GM is being difficult.MisterSinister 19:07, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Aside from the stuff I emailed you, I think these are actually too easy to accurately replicate the round / level duration you intend on replacing. I also dislike these because there's little difference in recovering from a high level caster's spell and a low level caster's spell in that it's equally easy to recover from either of them. Are you opposed to an alternate formulation along the lines of "make a level check = DC 18 (or X for non-standard spells) + caster level of effect, with a +1 bonus for each additional check"? That makes it more difficult to get out of on the first roll, but progressively easier as the effect goes on (maintaining the round / level ness of an effect) while also maintaining higher CL effects being harder than lower CL effects. - Tarkisflux 20:15, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

I actually quite like that formulation. It also neatly addressed Havvy's concerns as well, and I'd be happy with it. It's also quite extendable to non-casty things. So yeah, let's do that instead. MisterSinister 21:51, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Actual math shows the suggestion I pulled from my ass is likely to mimic durations that actually matter in combat based on level differences instead of absolute level, and do so without invalidating ToP condition fixing / ignoring abilities, so yay for that. It's nice to be able to support my own suggestions. Thanks for pointing this out Havvy. - Tarkisflux 23:48, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Transferable

Would this make sense to have as a tag? --Havvy 15:11, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

This is certainly possible as a tag, but I'm not 100% sure it's necessary. Only [Passive] abilities are transferable, which means that it's better to have a [Passive:Transferable] and [Passive:Static] tags or something. MisterSinister 19:06, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Personally, I dislike having variables on descriptors. While the programmer part of me calls these flags, and doesn't mind variables on them, the point of these are, are that there are less variables to handle. At least, that is what I believe. This is why I also dislike [SR:Yes] and [SR:Special], though not the only reason. I can stand it for energy and elemental though. Common spell abilities should be given descriptors themselves,a nd I see [Transferable] as something that can become common.

[Ray]

Might it make sense to have the range of ray spells described as part of the ray type? That, or maybe make range tags and area tags specified.

[Range:Close/Medium/Long/Plane/Touch/Self] = Where the caster may specify the center of effect for the ability. [Area:Targets/Cone/ect.]