[PrC] The Blood Mage [3.5]

[DonQuixote]

Blood Bond (Kin) already specifies that spell effects are shared regardless of any member's creature type.  Though I suppose that it's not actually on the lower-level effect.

Regardless, you might want to specify that effects like alter self are still restricted by type.

[dman11235]

I'm just concerned that there are many potential abuses if you allow Personal spells to be shared.  I can't think of any, but as long as you considered it, it should be fine.  As long as only a couple spells are abusable, it should be fine.  As I'm not as familiar with specifics for casters, I'll have to yield to you guys for this.  I'm just bringing up a potential abuse.  As for the "free spells" thing, it's not much of a problem, but I think you might want to increase the permanent HP cost and introduce an HP cost for each spell cast.  Maybe.  Maybe just the HP cost/spell cast.  It's certainly a powerful feature, but it's not to the point of "OMG broken" by far.  I mean, Twin Spell is a +4 or so MM feat, right?  So this is a "free" +4 MM feat a number of times, but the cost goes down for each additional creature, and it's restricted.  So let's call it a total "+4" for being any range and only on willing creatures (so basically only buffs).  Then you pay a permanent HP cost per creature affected.  That should take care of at least half of the cost.  That's kind of why I think an HP cost/spell would be nice, since you get more benefit from each spell cast through it, but with this you'll get a cost as well.  Maybe a 1 or 2/spell level?  If used on pre-combat buffs, this cost goes away by the time combat hits.  I'm just musing, don't take this stuff as a hard and fast "do it" advice.

[veekie]

On Personal spells, pretty much its down to type-locked buffs like Alter Self for potential abuses. Nothing you couldn't do with the spell already.

[Agita]

I'm just concerned that there are many potential abuses if you allow Personal spells to be shared.  I can't think of any, but as long as you considered it, it should be fine.  As long as only a couple spells are abusable, it should be fine.  As I'm not as familiar with specifics for casters, I'll have to yield to you guys for this.  I'm just bringing up a potential abuse.  As for the "free spells" thing, it's not much of a problem, but I think you might want to increase the permanent HP cost and introduce an HP cost for each spell cast.  Maybe.  Maybe just the HP cost/spell cast.  It's certainly a powerful feature, but it's not to the point of "OMG broken" by far.  I mean, Twin Spell is a +4 or so MM feat, right?  So this is a "free" +4 MM feat a number of times, but the cost goes down for each additional creature, and it's restricted.  So let's call it a total "+4" for being any range and only on willing creatures (so basically only buffs).  Then you pay a permanent HP cost per creature affected.  That should take care of at least half of the cost.  That's kind of why I think an HP cost/spell would be nice, since you get more benefit from each spell cast through it, but with this you'll get a cost as well.  Maybe a 1 or 2/spell level?  If used on pre-combat buffs, this cost goes away by the time combat hits.  I'm just musing, don't take this stuff as a hard and fast "do it" advice.

Maybe a HP cost per spell and creature other than you affected?
Still fiddling with the math for HP costs in general too. That's probably something that requires actual playtesting to really fine-tune.

[dman11235]

Yeah, I think it might be a bit hasty to say anything hard about balance.  Those statements are a "best guess", and I'm even more unsure than usual, by a lot.  Huge margin of error.