Stretching an idea from another thread, this feat will allow a player to be permanently affected by a chosen spell. The feat-point cost may also vary depending on the spell... it may also require a high degree of skill in the spell
detect magic, detect evil, detect illusion - 1
comprehend languages, bless - 2
sanctuary - 3
armor, shield, dragonskin - 4
stone skin, bulls strength, mnemonic enhancer, slink, heroism, friends, trollish vigor - HAHA very funny
Spell permanency
Spell permanency
Chars: Aryvael et all.
-
- Sword Grand Master
- Posts: 331
- Joined: Wed Feb 01, 2006 6:51 pm
- Location: Ardeep Forest
- Contact:
I think this feat might be better served as a number of Feats allowing spellcasters to make items (because even without the Big Happy Spells on permanently, a permanency to a bunch of smaller spells could still be broken, and having them take up clothing slots would be helpful). I would be more than happy with as many Feats required to make magic items as are normally required in D&D-- the skills could be left for scrolls and potions, and the Trade for Staves, but beyond that feats would be required for things like magical armor, magical weapons, magical jewelery, and the like. Alternately, each of these could be turned into a Trade of its own.
I think the effect of creating such an item, to balance the difficulty and stress of making them, ought to be a tough price for the Caster-- perhaps something like drained stats for an in-game month. If there were a Feat/Trade instituted for Wonderous Items, maybe the exhaustion would be increased to a year, and the crafting of another magic item would be impossible during this time, due to the simple inability to gather enough strength to concentrate on a task so daunting. These, of course, I think ought to be in addition to the usual XP and component cost as detailed in D&D. If I recall right, the cost of components to make a magic item usually adds up to about 1/10 of the value of the completed item. This would (hopefully) discourage the use of mages and priests as magic item factories, but still allow spellcasters to make such an item in situations where it would be RP appropriate, like to protect a friend going into danger or as a gift to someone for a great service.
I think the effect of creating such an item, to balance the difficulty and stress of making them, ought to be a tough price for the Caster-- perhaps something like drained stats for an in-game month. If there were a Feat/Trade instituted for Wonderous Items, maybe the exhaustion would be increased to a year, and the crafting of another magic item would be impossible during this time, due to the simple inability to gather enough strength to concentrate on a task so daunting. These, of course, I think ought to be in addition to the usual XP and component cost as detailed in D&D. If I recall right, the cost of components to make a magic item usually adds up to about 1/10 of the value of the completed item. This would (hopefully) discourage the use of mages and priests as magic item factories, but still allow spellcasters to make such an item in situations where it would be RP appropriate, like to protect a friend going into danger or as a gift to someone for a great service.
Dear Enemy: May the Lord hate you and all your kind, may you be turned orange in hue, and may your head fall off at an awkward moment.
Perhaps adept the persistent spell feat to such. Allow it to be taken more than once to allow for for spells to be affected by it? Change persistent spell to permanent spell or something and work from there. Allow it to be taken like 2-4 times each time increasing the types or spells it could affect. Starting with what it is now with just spells that affect the caster, then take it to spells that affect other characters positively, spells that improve stats (eg. bulls, mnemonic, slink, etc.), and then move it to spells that affect other characters negatively?
However, I think the spell slot value would need to be decreased a tad, 4 spell slots for a single persistent spell seems a bit much.
Just my thoughts,
-Kyle
However, I think the spell slot value would need to be decreased a tad, 4 spell slots for a single persistent spell seems a bit much.
Just my thoughts,
-Kyle