Epic Level Spells: Better or Worse than 9th level spells?

Cloudgatherer · Aug 8, 2002

I've been reading over the various seeds for creating an epic spell. It is clear that they are meant to cover the variety of spells presented in the PHB, however, there are a few instances where I stop and say to myself "but a 9th level spell is better...."

Anyone experiencing the same feeling? For instance, the Life Seed. It can't do what True Res can do, but it can do what Resurrection can do. Isn't that a little absurd? An epic spell cannot do what a 9th level spell can do?

Just a thought. Comments welcome!

James McMurray · Aug 8, 2002

The Life Seed can do what the True Resurrection Spell can do. It just requires an ad hoc spellcraft DC adjustment by the DM.

Cloudgatherer · Aug 8, 2002

That's probably true, but it would seem to me that it should be in the Life seed itself. Actually, I expected rules for some kind of mass ressurrection (i.e. bring back 2 or more people at the same time), for an increase in DC.

Arravis · Aug 8, 2002

I agree... most of the example spells given aren't exactly whay *I* would call "Epic". If you are creative, the system allows you to make some fairly Epic style spells, but you have to squeeze it for all it's worth. Overall, I'm dissapointed with it.

Hammerhead · Aug 8, 2002

Some of the non adventuring Epic spells seem pretty good. Raising islands from the ocean or creating entirely new species seems pretty Epic, and you can slap enough restrictions onto the spell to keep the DC down.

On the other hand, making a spell quick to cast involves a huge penalty. If you could use an Epic spell in a fight, it probably sucks or is too expensive.

Cloudgatherer · Aug 8, 2002

I wasn't even considering casting time. I was referring to relative power levels. There aren't too many epic spells I consider "more powerful" or "better" than a 9th level spell.

I think providing a system and example spells to base custom spells off of is great, it allows us to create new spells with less subjectivity toward balance, but when I flat out compare an epic spell to a 9th level spell, I should note a real difference just by reading the spell description....

Hammerhead · Aug 8, 2002

An 8th level spell can create a 6 HD mummy. A relatively easy epic spell can produce a pair of 18 HD mummies. That kind of jump in power seems too big for 1 spell level.

And then there are effects like creating new creatures, or raising islands. Both of those effects seem beyond wish, but can be pretty easy if the right limitations are applied to epic spells.

Epic Mage Armor provides a pretty hefty bonus to AC, and is pretty reasonable.

While Ruin seems pretty junky compared to Meteor Swarm, it has super range. Assuming

Most of these spells look pretty nice. They're expensive to research, but non-Epic spell research is pretty expensive too. The costs are high, but all the Epic prices are sky high. A weapon that both uses an epic weapon enhancement like Fiery Blast and an enhancement bonus large enough to defeat the relatively weak +6 DR costs almost 3 million. Crafting it would take about 1.5 million GP and 120 thousand XP. Getting anything useful requires a huge investment.

Cloudgatherer · Aug 8, 2002

Here's a simple example of what I mean. Take Hellball, for example. It has a DC of 90 (to cast) and does (essentially) 50d6 damage (max damage 300, resistance, immunities, saves all apply).

This spell requires a character in the low 60's to cast. Same character could get a couple of metamagic/spell capacity feats, and use one Intensified Meteor Swarm, which would deal more damage (288), no save, no resistances apply.

Take Vengeful Gaze of God: It needs a DC of 419 to cast, deals 305d6 damage to a foe. This character likely needs to be in the 300's (Wiz300+) to cast the spell. I'm betting a level 300 wizard can dish out more damage without using this spell....

At least where dealing damage applies, Epic spells don't seem worth the trouble (granted, the other stuff is pretty neat, hard to compare against the core spells).

Jondor_Battlehammer · Aug 8, 2002

I think that the limitation on the life seed, and others, is to keep you from making a Fire Ball that Ressurects your allies. By forcing an ad hoc bonus, or say using the same seed twice, you get one very limeted but powerful result.

You should also factor in who is casting the spell that the seed duplicates. Only a powerful Cleric can have True Ressurection. Wizards have acess to the life seed. There is now no difference between a Cleric and a Wizard. Not good.

The life seed gives Wizards versatility without completely infringing on Clerics. Certain aspects are also much more akin to Wizards, such as giving life to inanimate objects, than Clerics. This gives them versatility without infringing to far into the territory of Wizards.

I would either give the spellcaster the benifit of the doubt if the seed(s) are in line with his casting type, or just use the modifiers twice to obtain a more powerful result. Muti-Ress., Ress. with no remains, ect, just like the armor seed can be enhanced.

Mal Malenkirk · Aug 8, 2002

A lot of those DC 70+ spells would be scarier if they were available in the 21-25 level range instead of in the 60s, heh?

That's were magic items that boost the spellcraft skill come in! We just never had any use for them before, that's all.

Hurry, go get your +30 spellcraft ring before the DM realizes what you're up to!