Epic spells and the Epic Caster (unfair balence of power?)

A

Arravis

First Post

• Jul 15, 2002

• #1

I've enjoyed reading through the Epic Level Handbook so far. Some of the things in there are very well done and balanced, others I think could have been better (seems too reliant on pre-21st lvl min/maxing), but overall I think they did a decent job. My main issue is with the Epic Spells.

All the classes in the ELH gain amazing powers that are awe-inspiring, this is as it should be. But it seems that those that wish to partake in Epic Spellcasting have been given the short end of the stick. Too gain the benefits of their classes, rangers, paladins, monks, etc., do not have to burn massive amounts of Experience Points. An epic fighter with all his awesome feats, powers, etc, doesn't have to burn 15k in XP to pick up one power (much less one that he can only use a few times a day) in addition to the XP needed to level. XP is the single most valuable commodity in D&D, why should it be the one that is wasted by Epic Casters while others do not have to?

Spend time, spend money, spend resources, etc on getting Epic Spells, but why XP? The "price of power" isn't an answer. What's the price of power for psionicists, what's the price of power for fighters, or rangers, etc? They don't have to pay the same and most valuable price that Epic Casters do.

 

Last edited: Jul 15, 2002

log in or register to remove this ad

A

Arravis

First Post

• Jul 15, 2002

• #2

No thoughts on this post guys? Agree or disagree? I would have thought opinions would be flying on this issue.

 

Crothian

First Post

• Jul 15, 2002

• #3

Well, the epic spells can do things that no other class comes close to. So, if you want the power to make gods cry, choose the epic spell path. It's very coistly, and very powerful. The costs balance the power. However, one does not need to go down that path to be powerful spellcaster. Get a few extra level feats, increase the heck out of your casting attribute for even more bonus spells, and load up on met magic spells. The epic caster has the punch of super powerful spells, but the other guy has the verstalitiy of a thousabd and one possibilities.

 

S

Shiv

Explorer

• Jul 15, 2002

• #4

I haven't played the rules yet, but my thoughts are as such:

In many ways, wizards and sorcerers are ultimately going to be the most powerful characters at high levels. Yes, a fighter can swing his sword all day long and deal tons of damage, but a wizard can nullify all the opponents that the fighter would have to deal with, and oftentimes without using a ninth level slot.

So there's the power issue. The XP cost is balancing.

Also, it's my assumption that epic casters aren't going to be running around making epic spells willy-nilly. An epic caster in the twenties (level-wise) may have a couple epic spells, if he has the time and resources. Ultimately, I wouldn't expect an epic caster to have the resources (XP-wise) to develop twenty different epic spells, not until he or she is AMAZINGLY high level.

So again, a balance issue. I'm fine with it, personally.

 

A

Arravis

First Post

• Jul 15, 2002

• #5

Personally, most of the Epic Spells listed as examples aren't that much more powerful then 9th lvl spells, some are actually considerably LESS powerful then 9th lvl spells. Some are much more, but they are basicly unatainable. A 24th lvl caster with Epic Spell's should be considerably more powerful then a 17th lvl caster's 9th lvl spells. Right now, there isn't much difference by the examples given. (Yes, some of them are insanely powerful, but at 200+ DC to cast, no one under 50th lvl is casting them). Power wise, it's not worth the massive XP cost it would seem.

 

Psion

Adventurer

• Jul 15, 2002

• #6

Well, in part, that is why the "take up a collection" variant is introduced. No one wants to get knocked down a few levels from their non-epic spellcasting buddies, much like magic-item making at lower levels. As such, this can be a great teamwork building device in a setting that is otherwise rather mage-centric at these levels.

Also, I think use of the Power Component variant rule in the DMG opens up the doors for REAL epic gaming here just as they did at lower levels. Say you need a certain epic spell, and the DM decides that there is a power component that can cover the cost somewhere out there. Instant adventure, driven by the character's desire to meet a goal vice the DM putting on the thumb screws!

At any rate, it does seem to me that it wouldn't be the greatest idea to screw around with epic spells until at least the late twenties.

 

Blacksad

Explorer

• Jul 15, 2002

• #7

If you're like me, ban the epic spellcasting feat and only use the improved spellcasting feat, and allow the research and availability of level 10, 11, etc... spells

If you do not want to throw away the seed system, find a formula to cap the max DC of spell of a given level.

Personaly I plan to use max DC=(spell level*10 - 40).

If you want to know why:
http://enworld.cyberstreet.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=17632

 

A

Arravis

First Post

• Jul 15, 2002

• #8

That's not a bad idea! Perhaps you can drain powerful magical items, relics or artifacts to cover the XP cost. Hmm... The mechanics wold have to be such that it's less costly (gp wise and so on) to use the XP and that it would take a substantial amount of magical energy in the way of items to use... but it's not a bad idea.

 

BiggusGeekus

That's Latin for "cool"

• Jul 15, 2002

• #9

I dunno. I kind of like it.

Its sort of a "I can save the kingdom ... at great cost to myself" kind of thing.

Besides. They have those 10th and 11th level spell slots for usual stuff like maximized-heightened-enlarged-quickenend-fireballs

 

A

Arravis

First Post

• Jul 15, 2002

• #10

It just seems unfair that Epic Casters are asked to make sacrifices that no one else is. XP being the single most valuable thing they can sacrifice. Sacrificing stat points permanently would be easier then XP, since level is the single most important thing to a player. Falling in levels behind the party can be disastrous.