|
4 months ago ::
Feb 03, 2013 - 10:04PM
#1
|
Date Joined:
Jun 28, 2006
|
One thing I miss from 2nd edition is reversible spells. For example, transmute rock to mud and transmute mud to rock weren't separate spells. You prepared transmute rock to mud and could cast it either way. The same was true of enlarge/reduce person, haste/slow, flesh to stone/stone to flesh, etc. Not only did that help consolidate alot of spells, I thought they were alot of fun.
How about you? Do you want to see reversible spells return in 5th edition?
|
|
|
|
4 months ago ::
Feb 03, 2013 - 10:12PM
#2
|
Date Joined:
Jan 29, 2012
|
I too would like to see spells used this way. It sucks when you have to take non traditional combat spells, so why not make them a little more flexible? I don;t think it would break the game to go to this reversible spell concept.
|
|
|
|
4 months ago ::
Feb 03, 2013 - 10:30PM
#3
|
Date Joined:
Mar 19, 2004
|
It all depends on how those spells interact with spell level scaling. If, for instance, enlarge person were to increase the size of a creature per spell level (and/or add creature types to target), it might provr too powerful and cumbersome to have it also be reverseable and scaleable the other way.
|
|
|
|
4 months ago ::
Feb 03, 2013 - 11:31PM
#4
|
Date Joined:
Nov 21, 2012
|
I think rock to mud/mud to rock, flesh to stone/stone to flesh, and the like should just be consolidated into one reversible spell instead of two opposite spells, but enlarge person and reduce person should require different spells because combining them would be a bit overpowering.
|
|
|
|
4 months ago ::
Feb 03, 2013 - 11:32PM
#5
|
Date Joined:
Jun 28, 2006
|
but enlarge person and reduce person should require different spells because combining them would be a bit overpowering.
Why?
|
|
|
|
4 months ago ::
Feb 03, 2013 - 11:37PM
#6
|
Date Joined:
Nov 21, 2012
|
but enlarge person and reduce person should require different spells because combining them would be a bit overpowering.
Why?
Just the way I think of it. I guess because they are for different strategies, it would be one spell that could provide two different kinds of buffs. At least it would have been in 3rd edition. Since there don't seem to be universal size modifiers in this game, it actually might not be overpowered at all, it would mainly have tactical applications and not make you very strong or very hard to hit. I didn't consider that.
|
|
|
|
4 months ago ::
Feb 03, 2013 - 11:41PM
#7
|
Date Joined:
Jun 28, 2006
|
Just the way I think of it. I guess because they are for different strategies, it would be one spell that could provide two different kinds of buffs. At least it would have been in 3rd edition. Since there don't seem to be universal size modifiers in this game, it actually might not be overpowered at all, it would mainly have tactical applications and not make you very strong or very hard to hit. I didn't consider that.
I see where you're coming from, but I don't remember them being a problem in 2e when they were a single spell. Even if they keep 3e-style size bonuses, I don't think it would be a problem since the two buffs are mutually exclusive. Of course, if they did reintroduce reversible spells, we'd have plenty of chances to playtest them and see if there's any problems.
|
|
|
|
4 months ago ::
Feb 04, 2013 - 12:04AM
#8
|
Date Joined:
Nov 21, 2012
|
Just the way I think of it. I guess because they are for different strategies, it would be one spell that could provide two different kinds of buffs. At least it would have been in 3rd edition. Since there don't seem to be universal size modifiers in this game, it actually might not be overpowered at all, it would mainly have tactical applications and not make you very strong or very hard to hit. I didn't consider that.
I see where you're coming from, but I don't remember them being a problem in 2e when they were a single spell. Even if they keep 3e-style size bonuses, I don't think it would be a problem since the two buffs are mutually exclusive. Of course, if they did reintroduce reversible spells, we'd have plenty of chances to playtest them and see if there's any problems.
We should get a chance to playtest them, it's worth experimenting with.
|
|
|
|
4 months ago ::
Feb 04, 2013 - 1:48AM
#9
|
Date Joined:
Dec 19, 2007
|
Reversible spells would be cool.
Enlarge and Reduce will never be spot on for weight/height/stat mods, we have the older versionsof the spells, we can put them in and playtest it, put it in the game and if required DM can house rule it by situation, same as everything else.
How far do you want to take Reversable though? eg could Summon Monster 1 be used to Dispel a monster from Summon Monster 1?
Other spells : Bestow/Remove Fear, Detect/Hide Undead, Daylight/Darkness, Read/Disguise Magic, Comprehend/Confuse Language, Invisibility/Visibility, Haste/Slow...
|
|
|
|
4 months ago ::
Feb 04, 2013 - 5:59PM
#10
|
Date Joined:
Jun 28, 2006
|
How far do you want to take Reversable though? eg could Summon Monster 1 be used to Dispel a monster from Summon Monster 1?
No, only spells that have exact opposite effects, like stone to flesh and flesh to stone.
|
|
|
