Balancing a new Warlock Invocation [Archive] - Wizards Community

Balancing a new Warlock Invocation [Archive] - Wizards Community

Post/Author/DateTime Post
Nyax
08-14-07, 03:16 PM To start off with, let me give a background so if anyone completely disagrees with my take on it you can give your own view:

Charles Darwin introduced the scientific concept of "Survival of the Fittest". My character is essentially a novel take on this idea; instead of trying to "cull the herd" by killing off all the unfit members of the human species (i.e., going around and killing off people, justifying it by saying they're 'unfit'), he's basically going to try and make as many people as possible better, thereby improving the species by positive reinforcement as opposed to negative punishment.

To mechanically support this (because, let's face it, having someone who's entire character concept is nagging at people to improve their own lives is boring), I wanted to have a Warlock that has an invocation similar to the Bestow Curse lesser invocation, except completely reversed. I like to call it Bestow Blessing instead of Bestow Curse, because it'd be a bonus to an attribute instead of a penalty, a bonus to saves, etc.

So, in essence (yes, finally down to the actual meat of this post) I'm asking, how could you balance a spell similar to Bestow Curse that applies positives instead of negatives?

My DM and I came up with a kind of basic concept. It has all the flexibility of Bestow Curse, but the power grows linearly with level. At levels 1-8, it can give the equivalent of +2 to an attribute. At level 9 and every three levels thereafter, increase that number by one, so 9-11 it's +3, 12-14 +4, etc. Therefore at level 18 you have the exact opposite of a fully powered level 4 spell.

Discuss, complain, give suggestions. Thanks in advance.

P.S.: Of course you would only be able to have one 'blessing' at a single time. No infinite stat bonuses...
tarkin
08-14-07, 03:46 PM 1. If you want to 'improve the species', it should be MORE powerfull than a mere Bestow Curse. It must in fact make a change of the creature on a fundamental level, being a TRANSMUTATION effect of some kind, to permanelty affect the creature and any offspring it will make.

2. This is just begging for a large XP cost. Consider that granting an inherent bonus to your stat costs you 5,000 xp from a wish, and you want to do something similar but BETTER cause it also makes all your children better too.

The fact that you can only give one blessing is not that big a deal, it is still a major upgrade to the character. You are effectively creating a new race. Granted it might be very similar/almost identical to an existing one, but still.
Witch
08-14-07, 03:56 PM To start off with, let me give a background so if anyone completely disagrees with my take on it you can give your own view:

Charles Darwin introduced the scientific concept of "Survival of the Fittest". My character is essentially a novel take on this idea; instead of trying to "cull the herd" by killing off all the unfit members of the human species (i.e., going around and killing off people, justifying it by saying they're 'unfit'), he's basically going to try and make as many people as possible better, thereby improving the species by positive reinforcement as opposed to negative punishment.
Survival of the Fittest is an automatic mechanism, not one that requires conscious intervention. It's not about "killing off unfit members because they are unfit". It's simply that unfit members tend to die sooner or fail to reproduce. It is in no way a punishment. It is simply a fact of life.

Making the species better will only lead to overpopulation, which will lead to scarcity, which will lead to another struggle for life. Thus goes the cycle as explained by Thomas Malthus.

To mechanically support this (because, let's face it, having someone who's entire character concept is nagging at people to improve their own lives is boring), I wanted to have a Warlock that has an invocation similar to the Bestow Curse lesser invocation, except completely reversed. I like to call it Bestow Blessing instead of Bestow Curse, because it'd be a bonus to an attribute instead of a penalty, a bonus to saves, etc.

So, in essence (yes, finally down to the actual meat of this post) I'm asking, how could you balance a spell similar to Bestow Curse that applies positives instead of negatives?
I'd only have it work on a limited number of people at the same time.

What I suggest is that the invocation be attainable at about level 6. At that level, it applies a +2 enhancement bonus. At level 11, it applies a +4, and at 16, a +6. A total number of these can be spread out equal to twice your warlock level; no creature may be under the effect of more than one of these.

Have the duration be 24h.

Then it might be balanced. If it's permanent, it's not.
Nyax
08-14-07, 04:05 PM My mistake, I should have been clearer.

When I say +2 to an attribute, I mean just that: +2 to an attribute. Not +2 to an attribute and crazy DNA manipulation to make them lycanthropic sharks that can take over the world. "Improving the species" is an unrealistic goal, but I'm not trying to play Warlock - The D&D Genetic Engineer. I want to make a guy who basically spends him time going around and improving people.

If I go to a town and there's a guy who just lost his job as a cargo loader for the local passenger ship because he's getting too old (in D&D terms, he's taken his first physical stat penalty due to age) I'd like to be able to have a couple of choices such as:
a) Simply ramp up his STR a bit, allowing him to work for a little while longer
b) Ramp up his INT or WIS (or even CHA) even further, thus allowing him to seek out other job opportunities
c) Something totally "out there" that would also help him but is in the power bounds of this invocation/spell.

To reiterate, there would be no genetic engineering. The concept is not to go around making everyone superhuman lycanthropic sharkmen; it's to subtly improve their lives via a magical effect, to make them more useful to society.

Hope that cleared it up.
Nyax
08-14-07, 04:13 PM Survival of the Fittest is an automatic mechanism, not one that requires conscious intervention. It's not about "killing off unfit members because they are unfit". It's simply that unfit members tend to die sooner or fail to reproduce. It is in no way a punishment. It is simply a fact of life.

Making the species better will only lead to overpopulation, which will lead to scarcity, which will lead to another struggle for life. Thus goes the cycle as explained by Thomas Malthus.

Survival of the Fittest is, indeed, a natural process. However, it is not uncommon for an evil person to justify their actions via the concept "They were unfit and thus deserved what they got."

Conversely, if you are a Darwinist and you go out and find someone who, through their own actions, manages to constantly find themselves out of a job and you help them. You give them food and shelter for a while while they go and find another job. You're preventing the natural process of survival of the fittest. You're taking someone who, by all laws and processes of nature-sans-humans should have died and preserving their genes.

I'm trying for #2, only not just "preserving them", but actually improving them. If, taking our example #2, you had, instead of simply letting the guy loose again, trained him in a profession well enough that he could keep that job and be a productive influence in society you would be working against Survival of the Fittest, but you would not be contributing to the downfall of society.

I know that doesn't make all that much sense; just reading it I get all confused and they're my own ideas. However, I'm hoping that the examples and explanation together make my ideas clear.

I'd only have it work on a limited number of people at the same time.

What I suggest is that the invocation be attainable at about level 6. At that level, it applies a +2 enhancement bonus. At level 11, it applies a +4, and at 16, a +6. A total number of these can be spread out equal to twice your warlock level; no creature may be under the effect of more than one of these.

Have the duration be 24h.

Then it might be balanced. If it's permanent, it's not.
24 hour improvements are directly opposed to my character concept. It's permanent or it's nothing.

Other than that, intriguing suggestions. I find myself suitably impartial given that I'm going to be playing this character (hopefully) and I'd like it to as powerful as possible.
Watsyurname529
08-14-07, 04:27 PM It can't be permanent, that would be way too powerful, unless you add a heavy GP and/or XP Cost. Now, Improving one of your stats by +2, +3, etc. for say 1 or more hours up to 24 horus would be obtainable along with Witch's suggestion of only affecting a limited number of creatures.
spamfiltre
08-14-07, 04:44 PM Based on discussions with WOTC folks on these boards, I'd disagree with this in principle, as the warlock has been defined by the creators of the class as a selfish caster - his invocations should benefit him and/or harm his enemies.

If you really want something like this, I'd make it an alternative available to the eldritch disciple (I think that's the cleric/warlock combo PRC). As an invocation available to any warlock, it goes against the flavor of the class as envisioned by the authors.
Nyax
08-14-07, 04:49 PM Any ideas on how to balance a permanent version of this spell? Permanent is important.

(I'd like to point out that this is what I originally asked. I realize that it's slightly powerful, but I think it's an interesting character concept and a 24 hour time limit is a cop out.)

P.S./EDIT: Ah, yes, thank you, spamfiltre, for reminding me. There are a couple things that should be mentioned that are quite relevant and I dropped the ball by not putting them in my original post.

1. In my DM's world, there is no such thing as UMD, so all the UMD features of the Warlock are out the window. Thus, many of the more powerful and useful Warlock features are gone, so some unusually powerful invocation is slightly less ridiculous.

2. In my DM's world, outsiders and demons are far more rare than in vanilla D&D. Thus, we've re-flavored them to be more psionic in nature; their powers come from within, not from some CR 8 demon/outsider.
Sarlax
08-14-07, 05:06 PM Permanently boosting stats is right out; you might envision using it to give small miracles to the down and out, but nothing stops you from also just giving your companions +2 to their key attributes for no cost. It's way too good.

There's a second concern: flavor. Running around doing no-strings favors doesn't fit the warlock.

Here's how I'd handle the power of the ability. You can give an individual a small competence bonus to one skills. For most people, this would mean boosting Craft (Armor) or Profession (Farmer) so that they can get along in their daily lives.

For flavor, the target should pay a cost. If the cost is sufficiently high, you might even get away with attribute boosts. This could fit the flavor of deceptive bargains with fiends or the capricious gifts of the fey.

For instance, the warlock can use the invocation Mixed Blessing to give someone +2 Strength, but at a cost of -2 Dex and -2 Con. In any case, the corresponding penalties should be left up to the DM, not the player, so that there won't be min-maxing to avoid the effects of penalties.
Witch
08-14-07, 05:17 PM Survival of the Fittest is, indeed, a natural process. However, it is not uncommon for an evil person to justify their actions via the concept "They were unfit and thus deserved what they got."
Yes, and they give darwinism a bad name, which is why I commented on it.

24 hour improvements are directly opposed to my character concept. It's permanent or it's nothing.
Then it'll be nothing, I'm afraid. Wish does that - it costs 5,000 XP and requires a seventeenth level caster :)
Nyax
08-14-07, 06:43 PM Any ideas on any similar mechanical ability? I think it's pretty clear what kind of thing I have in mind.
QuietusMeus
08-16-07, 05:10 PM I'm the DM in question, and I'd like to point this out : The bonuses given would not be inherent, but enhancement, most likely. Inherent is far too strong - he'd be able to dole out small benefits which, to a commoner, would be fantastic, but to your average adventurer would just be a cash savings over time. Most adventurers would want an item to cover the boost to their most important stat, since the items they could buy could (well, should) overshadow what this invocation could do at the same level.

Also, as far as flavor goes, Nyax wasn't particularly clear - Warlocks, as written in the books, are different in my world. Outsiders are rare, and as such, Warlocks don't gain their abilities from some demon pact - Nyax had to write up new fluff, and I felt what he came up with was an interesting character concept. So "What Wizards envisioned for the class" really doesn't apply here.

The XP penalty isn't a bad idea as a balancing factor, however. What if he were, say, to be able to have the 24 hour duration free, and pay an XP cost to do it permanently? What's the board's take on the balance of that? Nyax, would that be an acceptable middle ground for you?
QuietusMeus
08-17-07, 04:49 PM No opinions on that at all?
Lafing Cat
08-18-07, 12:54 AM No opinions on that at all?

To chime in for the first time, an invocation granting a 24 hour enhancement bonus to a score is probably allright. Any permanent bonus is of course going to cost XP. Look at the XP cost for making the equivalent stat boost items (i.e. belt of giant strength etc..) and charge at least that much.
QuietusMeus
08-18-07, 03:54 PM That's not a bad idea; So being Unslotted, it'd be what, (Bonus squared x 1000 x 2 for unslotted)/25, so Bonus squared x 80 exp. 320 exp to give a person a +2 unslotted enhancement bonus, up to 2,880 to give them a +6 unslotted enhancement... but that can be dispelled.

That seems a bit much for something that can be dispelled... but... hm. The exp cost for Permanency is 500 per spell level, and the "Animal affinity" line of abilities is level 2, so a +4 bonus is 1,000 exp. Easiest way to handle it would be to make it a linear advancement, XP cost of (Bonus granted x 250). That doesn't seem too out of line, to me.

Thoughts?
Sarlax
08-18-07, 03:58 PM To chime in for the first time, an invocation granting a 24 hour enhancement bonus to a score is probably allright.
Is it? It frees up an incredible amount of gold for everyone. A +2 enhancement bonus is worth 4,000 GP - another 16,000 GP for a regular party if each character only gets one boost. It doesn't matter that it's "only" 24 hours. For a warlock, that's the same as permanent. Even a 1 hour duration effect from a warlock is effectively permanent.

Charging the warlock or target the XP cost of crafting such an item doesn't limit it, either. First, it still frees up all the gold that would've been spent crafting or purchasing the item. Second, XP isn't actually a limiting factor by itself: if you actually spend so much XP that your level falls behind the rest of your party, you get a lot more XP; IE, you're all at 5th but the warlock spends so much that when everyone else gets t 6, he's still at 5th. The next several rewards will be bigger for him, since he's facing encounters as a level 5 character while everyone else is at level 6.

A DM measured trade is the only way to do it if you want to preserve something close to existing balance.
Grendal
08-18-07, 07:35 PM Ya know, another possibility would be more along the lines of a Geas/Quest. The target has to want to improve itself to gain these bonuses, the target would have to be actively trying to fulfill certain criteria (set by the caster)to recive the mentioned '+n to stat'. If the target chooses not to improve itself for a sufficient amount of time those bonuses either disapear or become negatives and ensure that it will not be contributing to the the gene pool.

Also consider limiting the number of HD the target can have for it to effect them (target must have less than 4(random number) HD to gain the benifits of this ability), this would limit PC abuse(above fourth lv. anyway).

Meh, my two cents.
P.S. This is actually similar to a concept I'd come up with a while ago but never got to fully develope.
QuietusMeus
08-18-07, 11:11 PM So what's the difference, Sarlax, between a Warlock being able to Spider Climb and Fly all day for free, and him being able to apply a cheap enhancement bonus? At low levels, yes, it will make a significant monetary difference. At high levels, it won't matter at all, and most players will want an item to do the job for them anyhow, in case something happens to the Warlock.

Grendal, the Geas idea isn't a bad one - one thing Nyax and I threw around a bit was the idea of him strictly limiting it by choice, through roleplay, to those that would actually make good use of that ability. Making it a mechanical benefit isn't a bad idea at all, I think, though that would fall strongly into the realm of DM fiat, and I'm not sure Nyax would like that so much. =P
Sarlax
08-19-07, 10:33 PM So what's the difference, Sarlax, between a Warlock being able to Spider Climb and Fly all day for free, and him being able to apply a cheap enhancement bonus?
Nothing. But this is about applying those bonuses to every single creature the warlock interacts with. He can only make himself fly - he can't give that ability to everyone he likes. With this ability, we're talking about giving enhancement bonuses to everyone - everyone in the party, every summoned creature, etc.
Lafing Cat
08-19-07, 10:52 PM Nothing. But this is about applying those bonuses to every single creature the warlock interacts with. He can only make himself fly - he can't give that ability to everyone he likes. With this ability, we're talking about giving enhancement bonuses to everyone - everyone in the party, every summoned creature, etc.

Hmmm. Some limitation against that such as A) limiting how many active he can have at a time or B) limiting the duration to say, 1 min/level like the stat boost spells. Is probably in order.
Tedronai
08-20-07, 12:14 AM Permanent effects should cost a great deal when they provide bonuses, and that cost should scale exponentially with the size of the bonus, as it does in all other sources.
I would suggest having the recipient pay the cost, though (if it's something that is going to be used even moderately often), as they're the ones receiving the benefit, and it could be easily enough explained in the flavour as redirecting the power they already have to a more focused purpose.

Post/Author/DateTime	Post
Nyax 08-14-07, 03:16 PM	To start off with, let me give a background so if anyone completely disagrees with my take on it you can give your own view: Charles Darwin introduced the scientific concept of "Survival of the Fittest". My character is essentially a novel take on this idea; instead of trying to "cull the herd" by killing off all the unfit members of the human species (i.e., going around and killing off people, justifying it by saying they're 'unfit'), he's basically going to try and make as many people as possible better, thereby improving the species by positive reinforcement as opposed to negative punishment. To mechanically support this (because, let's face it, having someone who's entire character concept is nagging at people to improve their own lives is boring), I wanted to have a Warlock that has an invocation similar to the Bestow Curse lesser invocation, except completely reversed. I like to call it Bestow Blessing instead of Bestow Curse, because it'd be a bonus to an attribute instead of a penalty, a bonus to saves, etc. So, in essence (yes, finally down to the actual meat of this post) I'm asking, how could you balance a spell similar to Bestow Curse that applies positives instead of negatives? My DM and I came up with a kind of basic concept. It has all the flexibility of Bestow Curse, but the power grows linearly with level. At levels 1-8, it can give the equivalent of +2 to an attribute. At level 9 and every three levels thereafter, increase that number by one, so 9-11 it's +3, 12-14 +4, etc. Therefore at level 18 you have the exact opposite of a fully powered level 4 spell. Discuss, complain, give suggestions. Thanks in advance. P.S.: Of course you would only be able to have one 'blessing' at a single time. No infinite stat bonuses...
tarkin 08-14-07, 03:46 PM	1. If you want to 'improve the species', it should be MORE powerfull than a mere Bestow Curse. It must in fact make a change of the creature on a fundamental level, being a TRANSMUTATION effect of some kind, to permanelty affect the creature and any offspring it will make. 2. This is just begging for a large XP cost. Consider that granting an inherent bonus to your stat costs you 5,000 xp from a wish, and you want to do something similar but BETTER cause it also makes all your children better too. The fact that you can only give one blessing is not that big a deal, it is still a major upgrade to the character. You are effectively creating a new race. Granted it might be very similar/almost identical to an existing one, but still.
Witch 08-14-07, 03:56 PM	To start off with, let me give a background so if anyone completely disagrees with my take on it you can give your own view: Charles Darwin introduced the scientific concept of "Survival of the Fittest". My character is essentially a novel take on this idea; instead of trying to "cull the herd" by killing off all the unfit members of the human species (i.e., going around and killing off people, justifying it by saying they're 'unfit'), he's basically going to try and make as many people as possible better, thereby improving the species by positive reinforcement as opposed to negative punishment. Survival of the Fittest is an automatic mechanism, not one that requires conscious intervention. It's not about "killing off unfit members because they are unfit". It's simply that unfit members tend to die sooner or fail to reproduce. It is in no way a punishment. It is simply a fact of life. Making the species better will only lead to overpopulation, which will lead to scarcity, which will lead to another struggle for life. Thus goes the cycle as explained by Thomas Malthus. To mechanically support this (because, let's face it, having someone who's entire character concept is nagging at people to improve their own lives is boring), I wanted to have a Warlock that has an invocation similar to the Bestow Curse lesser invocation, except completely reversed. I like to call it Bestow Blessing instead of Bestow Curse, because it'd be a bonus to an attribute instead of a penalty, a bonus to saves, etc. So, in essence (yes, finally down to the actual meat of this post) I'm asking, how could you balance a spell similar to Bestow Curse that applies positives instead of negatives? I'd only have it work on a limited number of people at the same time. What I suggest is that the invocation be attainable at about level 6. At that level, it applies a +2 enhancement bonus. At level 11, it applies a +4, and at 16, a +6. A total number of these can be spread out equal to twice your warlock level; no creature may be under the effect of more than one of these. Have the duration be 24h. Then it might be balanced. If it's permanent, it's not.
Nyax 08-14-07, 04:05 PM	My mistake, I should have been clearer. When I say +2 to an attribute, I mean just that: +2 to an attribute. Not +2 to an attribute and crazy DNA manipulation to make them lycanthropic sharks that can take over the world. "Improving the species" is an unrealistic goal, but I'm not trying to play Warlock - The D&D Genetic Engineer. I want to make a guy who basically spends him time going around and improving people. If I go to a town and there's a guy who just lost his job as a cargo loader for the local passenger ship because he's getting too old (in D&D terms, he's taken his first physical stat penalty due to age) I'd like to be able to have a couple of choices such as: a) Simply ramp up his STR a bit, allowing him to work for a little while longer b) Ramp up his INT or WIS (or even CHA) even further, thus allowing him to seek out other job opportunities c) Something totally "out there" that would also help him but is in the power bounds of this invocation/spell. To reiterate, there would be no genetic engineering. The concept is not to go around making everyone superhuman lycanthropic sharkmen; it's to subtly improve their lives via a magical effect, to make them more useful to society. Hope that cleared it up.
Nyax 08-14-07, 04:13 PM	Survival of the Fittest is an automatic mechanism, not one that requires conscious intervention. It's not about "killing off unfit members because they are unfit". It's simply that unfit members tend to die sooner or fail to reproduce. It is in no way a punishment. It is simply a fact of life. Making the species better will only lead to overpopulation, which will lead to scarcity, which will lead to another struggle for life. Thus goes the cycle as explained by Thomas Malthus. Survival of the Fittest is, indeed, a natural process. However, it is not uncommon for an evil person to justify their actions via the concept "They were unfit and thus deserved what they got." Conversely, if you are a Darwinist and you go out and find someone who, through their own actions, manages to constantly find themselves out of a job and you help them. You give them food and shelter for a while while they go and find another job. You're preventing the natural process of survival of the fittest. You're taking someone who, by all laws and processes of nature-sans-humans should have died and preserving their genes. I'm trying for #2, only not just "preserving them", but actually improving them. If, taking our example #2, you had, instead of simply letting the guy loose again, trained him in a profession well enough that he could keep that job and be a productive influence in society you would be working against Survival of the Fittest, but you would not be contributing to the downfall of society. I know that doesn't make all that much sense; just reading it I get all confused and they're my own ideas. However, I'm hoping that the examples and explanation together make my ideas clear. I'd only have it work on a limited number of people at the same time. What I suggest is that the invocation be attainable at about level 6. At that level, it applies a +2 enhancement bonus. At level 11, it applies a +4, and at 16, a +6. A total number of these can be spread out equal to twice your warlock level; no creature may be under the effect of more than one of these. Have the duration be 24h. Then it might be balanced. If it's permanent, it's not. 24 hour improvements are directly opposed to my character concept. It's permanent or it's nothing. Other than that, intriguing suggestions. I find myself suitably impartial given that I'm going to be playing this character (hopefully) and I'd like it to as powerful as possible.
Watsyurname529 08-14-07, 04:27 PM	It can't be permanent, that would be way too powerful, unless you add a heavy GP and/or XP Cost. Now, Improving one of your stats by +2, +3, etc. for say 1 or more hours up to 24 horus would be obtainable along with Witch's suggestion of only affecting a limited number of creatures.
spamfiltre 08-14-07, 04:44 PM	Based on discussions with WOTC folks on these boards, I'd disagree with this in principle, as the warlock has been defined by the creators of the class as a selfish caster - his invocations should benefit him and/or harm his enemies. If you really want something like this, I'd make it an alternative available to the eldritch disciple (I think that's the cleric/warlock combo PRC). As an invocation available to any warlock, it goes against the flavor of the class as envisioned by the authors.
Nyax 08-14-07, 04:49 PM	Any ideas on how to balance a permanent version of this spell? Permanent is important. (I'd like to point out that this is what I originally asked. I realize that it's slightly powerful, but I think it's an interesting character concept and a 24 hour time limit is a cop out.) P.S./EDIT: Ah, yes, thank you, spamfiltre, for reminding me. There are a couple things that should be mentioned that are quite relevant and I dropped the ball by not putting them in my original post. 1. In my DM's world, there is no such thing as UMD, so all the UMD features of the Warlock are out the window. Thus, many of the more powerful and useful Warlock features are gone, so some unusually powerful invocation is slightly less ridiculous. 2. In my DM's world, outsiders and demons are far more rare than in vanilla D&D. Thus, we've re-flavored them to be more psionic in nature; their powers come from within, not from some CR 8 demon/outsider.
Sarlax 08-14-07, 05:06 PM	Permanently boosting stats is right out; you might envision using it to give small miracles to the down and out, but nothing stops you from also just giving your companions +2 to their key attributes for no cost. It's way too good. There's a second concern: flavor. Running around doing no-strings favors doesn't fit the warlock. Here's how I'd handle the power of the ability. You can give an individual a small competence bonus to one skills. For most people, this would mean boosting Craft (Armor) or Profession (Farmer) so that they can get along in their daily lives. For flavor, the target should pay a cost. If the cost is sufficiently high, you might even get away with attribute boosts. This could fit the flavor of deceptive bargains with fiends or the capricious gifts of the fey. For instance, the warlock can use the invocation Mixed Blessing to give someone +2 Strength, but at a cost of -2 Dex and -2 Con. In any case, the corresponding penalties should be left up to the DM, not the player, so that there won't be min-maxing to avoid the effects of penalties.
Witch 08-14-07, 05:17 PM	Survival of the Fittest is, indeed, a natural process. However, it is not uncommon for an evil person to justify their actions via the concept "They were unfit and thus deserved what they got." Yes, and they give darwinism a bad name, which is why I commented on it. 24 hour improvements are directly opposed to my character concept. It's permanent or it's nothing. Then it'll be nothing, I'm afraid. Wish does that - it costs 5,000 XP and requires a seventeenth level caster :)
Nyax 08-14-07, 06:43 PM	Any ideas on any similar mechanical ability? I think it's pretty clear what kind of thing I have in mind.
QuietusMeus 08-16-07, 05:10 PM	I'm the DM in question, and I'd like to point this out : The bonuses given would not be inherent, but enhancement, most likely. Inherent is far too strong - he'd be able to dole out small benefits which, to a commoner, would be fantastic, but to your average adventurer would just be a cash savings over time. Most adventurers would want an item to cover the boost to their most important stat, since the items they could buy could (well, should) overshadow what this invocation could do at the same level. Also, as far as flavor goes, Nyax wasn't particularly clear - Warlocks, as written in the books, are different in my world. Outsiders are rare, and as such, Warlocks don't gain their abilities from some demon pact - Nyax had to write up new fluff, and I felt what he came up with was an interesting character concept. So "What Wizards envisioned for the class" really doesn't apply here. The XP penalty isn't a bad idea as a balancing factor, however. What if he were, say, to be able to have the 24 hour duration free, and pay an XP cost to do it permanently? What's the board's take on the balance of that? Nyax, would that be an acceptable middle ground for you?
QuietusMeus 08-17-07, 04:49 PM	No opinions on that at all?
Lafing Cat 08-18-07, 12:54 AM	No opinions on that at all? To chime in for the first time, an invocation granting a 24 hour enhancement bonus to a score is probably allright. Any permanent bonus is of course going to cost XP. Look at the XP cost for making the equivalent stat boost items (i.e. belt of giant strength etc..) and charge at least that much.
QuietusMeus 08-18-07, 03:54 PM	That's not a bad idea; So being Unslotted, it'd be what, (Bonus squared x 1000 x 2 for unslotted)/25, so Bonus squared x 80 exp. 320 exp to give a person a +2 unslotted enhancement bonus, up to 2,880 to give them a +6 unslotted enhancement... but that can be dispelled. That seems a bit much for something that can be dispelled... but... hm. The exp cost for Permanency is 500 per spell level, and the "Animal affinity" line of abilities is level 2, so a +4 bonus is 1,000 exp. Easiest way to handle it would be to make it a linear advancement, XP cost of (Bonus granted x 250). That doesn't seem too out of line, to me. Thoughts?
Sarlax 08-18-07, 03:58 PM	To chime in for the first time, an invocation granting a 24 hour enhancement bonus to a score is probably allright. Is it? It frees up an incredible amount of gold for everyone. A +2 enhancement bonus is worth 4,000 GP - another 16,000 GP for a regular party if each character only gets one boost. It doesn't matter that it's "only" 24 hours. For a warlock, that's the same as permanent. Even a 1 hour duration effect from a warlock is effectively permanent. Charging the warlock or target the XP cost of crafting such an item doesn't limit it, either. First, it still frees up all the gold that would've been spent crafting or purchasing the item. Second, XP isn't actually a limiting factor by itself: if you actually spend so much XP that your level falls behind the rest of your party, you get a lot more XP; IE, you're all at 5th but the warlock spends so much that when everyone else gets t 6, he's still at 5th. The next several rewards will be bigger for him, since he's facing encounters as a level 5 character while everyone else is at level 6. A DM measured trade is the only way to do it if you want to preserve something close to existing balance.
Grendal 08-18-07, 07:35 PM	Ya know, another possibility would be more along the lines of a Geas/Quest. The target has to want to improve itself to gain these bonuses, the target would have to be actively trying to fulfill certain criteria (set by the caster)to recive the mentioned '+n to stat'. If the target chooses not to improve itself for a sufficient amount of time those bonuses either disapear or become negatives and ensure that it will not be contributing to the the gene pool. Also consider limiting the number of HD the target can have for it to effect them (target must have less than 4(random number) HD to gain the benifits of this ability), this would limit PC abuse(above fourth lv. anyway). Meh, my two cents. P.S. This is actually similar to a concept I'd come up with a while ago but never got to fully develope.
QuietusMeus 08-18-07, 11:11 PM	So what's the difference, Sarlax, between a Warlock being able to Spider Climb and Fly all day for free, and him being able to apply a cheap enhancement bonus? At low levels, yes, it will make a significant monetary difference. At high levels, it won't matter at all, and most players will want an item to do the job for them anyhow, in case something happens to the Warlock. Grendal, the Geas idea isn't a bad one - one thing Nyax and I threw around a bit was the idea of him strictly limiting it by choice, through roleplay, to those that would actually make good use of that ability. Making it a mechanical benefit isn't a bad idea at all, I think, though that would fall strongly into the realm of DM fiat, and I'm not sure Nyax would like that so much. =P
Sarlax 08-19-07, 10:33 PM	So what's the difference, Sarlax, between a Warlock being able to Spider Climb and Fly all day for free, and him being able to apply a cheap enhancement bonus? Nothing. But this is about applying those bonuses to every single creature the warlock interacts with. He can only make himself fly - he can't give that ability to everyone he likes. With this ability, we're talking about giving enhancement bonuses to everyone - everyone in the party, every summoned creature, etc.
Lafing Cat 08-19-07, 10:52 PM	Nothing. But this is about applying those bonuses to every single creature the warlock interacts with. He can only make himself fly - he can't give that ability to everyone he likes. With this ability, we're talking about giving enhancement bonuses to everyone - everyone in the party, every summoned creature, etc. Hmmm. Some limitation against that such as A) limiting how many active he can have at a time or B) limiting the duration to say, 1 min/level like the stat boost spells. Is probably in order.
Tedronai 08-20-07, 12:14 AM	Permanent effects should cost a great deal when they provide bonuses, and that cost should scale exponentially with the size of the bonus, as it does in all other sources. I would suggest having the recipient pay the cost, though (if it's something that is going to be used even moderately often), as they're the ones receiving the benefit, and it could be easily enough explained in the flavour as redirecting the power they already have to a more focused purpose.