Epic Magic Big Thread

[the Jester]

Ohh snap.

Thanks, Sep! I'm looking forward to this thread!

 

[Quartz]

Three quickies:

Why can't characters make items which hold Epic Spells? Why not let the mage make that World Devastator sword?
Why does the saving throw ignore the class level?
With regard to Runesong, the bard tops out at 7th levels spells; does your Special note mean that the bard can take it without the normal prerequisites?

 

[Jack Simth]

With regard to Runesong, the bard tops out at 7th levels spells; does your Special note mean that the bard can take it without the normal prerequisites?

I imagine that a Bard would simply have to take the Improved Spell Capacity[Epic] feat two or three times, so that he's got a 9th level spell slot.

 

[Quartz]

I imagine that a Bard would simply have to take the Improved Spell Capacity[Epic] feat two or three times, so that he's got a 9th level spell slot.

Yes, but then why make a special note about it? I hope Sep will clarify it.

As a further note, I feel that the basic Epic spellcasting thing fails those classes that don't have 9 levels of spells. Why shouldn't there be Epic paladin spells? Why shouldn't there be Epic bard spells? I mean a 4th level spell for one class is not necessarily a 4th level spell in another class.

 

[Jack Simth]

In my opinion, at least, Epic spells should be, well, Epic - the best of the best of spells. A Paladin, while able to qualify for Epic spellcasting once sufficiently Epic (requires 6 epic feats - five to get a 9th level spell slot, one for Eipc Spelcasting) is not primarily a spellcaster. He's more a warrior-protector. As part of that, he has some spellcasting he can do - but his spell list is in support of being a warrior-protector, not something that's particularly "da bomb" seperate from that. As far as Paladin spells go, a 4th level Paladin spell that's on someone else's list (those in the PHB, anyway) don't go over 5th level for anyone else. For Ranger spells (again, PHB), those on other classes' lists as well don't go over 5th level spells. For 6th level bard spells, with three exceptions in the PHB, they don't go over 7th level spells for anyone else (exceptions: Greater Shout, Irresistable Dance, and Mass Charm Monster - even then, only 8th level spells for other classes).

Thematically, does it make sense that someone who has minor spellcasting ability (Paladin, Ranger) or moderate spellcasting ability (Bard) should suddenly be able to keep up with the best of the best spells of the full spellcasters (Sorcerer, Wizard, Cleric, Druid) at 21st?

 

[Al the Absentminded]

For the Feats, I notice that certain feats provide a -20 mitigating bonus.

I might consider allowing these bonuses to be applied before research time, cost, and xp cost are all calculated, because these are areas where the caster is specifically empowered to be better at this type of magic.

-Albert the Absentminded

 

[Vrecknidj]

I'm looking forward to this.

Dave

 

[Gideon]

channelling

I really like the idea of feats that utilize the ability to channel energy. However, I would recommend not automatically requiring all of the attempts for that day. The number of turning attempts is not a specific number for all channelers. It can benefit from both feats (Extra Turning) and high ability scores (charisma).

A different system would be the use of a static mitigating factor/turning attempt. I can't recommend a value because I haven't seen the spellcraft requirements or the other mitigating factors. The mitigating factor (# of turn attempts) from energy expenditure would be a required part of the spell.

Another possible method would be to require a specific amount of channeled energy to be expended. The amount of channeled energy would be symbolized by the channeler's level +cha bonus. The channeler could spend multiple turning attempts to build up the required amount of energy. A discreet amount of energy would give a discreet mitigating factor. (i.e. 30 energy levels/-1 spellcraft DC)

I would also recommend being able to utilize channeling energy during rituals.

I realize both of these methods might add an extra layer of intricacy but I believe they could add value to a game. A similar method could be added for bardic music.

 

[Sepulchrave II]

I'll try to stay on top of questions as they come.

Why can't characters make items which hold Epic Spells? Why not let the mage make that World Devastator sword?

The precedent set in the ELH is that only artifact-level items might be capable of holding epic magic. I'm not confident about devising an entirely new set of mechanics in order to cover this kind of thing, although others might be.

With regard to Runesong, the bard tops out at 7th levels spells; does your Special note mean that the bard can take it without the normal prerequisites?

This will probably come up later, but there are basically three schools of thought regarding Bards and epic magic, and it depends on whether the prerequisite ability to cast 9th-level spells is read as:

a) A 6th-level (or lower) spell which is metamagicked to 9th-level qualifies, or

b) It must be a "genuine" 9th-level spell (like wish or gate for a wizard).


So, as far as bards and epic spellcasting go, either;

1) They can't get it;

2) They have to take Improved Spell Capacity three times (granting them access to 9th-level slots) and are then eligible for Epic Spellcasting, or;

3) They take ISC three times and Spell Knowledge 3 times. At each spell level (7th, 8th and 9th), spells must be independently researched by the bard (there are no extant bard spells of these levels). When a bard is capable of casting "real" 9th-level spells, he is eligible. It would be possible to port spells from other lists (wail of the banshee springs to mind), although arguably they'd still have to be researched.

Aesthetically, I'd argue that option 3) has the most merit, but I favour option 2), which allows a bard to take Epic Spellcasting at 26th level at the earliest. A five-level lag compared to the primary spellcasting classes is sizeable, and the bard delays access to other epic feats (Hindering Song, Reactive Countersong, Music of the Gods) as a result.
And few people would argue that the bard is overpowered.


The "special" note after the feat is simply part of the feat description: many feats have such notes, which describe special circumstances which pertain to them.

 

[Cheiromancer]

I am really excited to see this project come to light, Sep. I know you've been working on it for a while. Your design insights are brilliant- I really like the replacement of hit point damage with Constitution damage in the backlash factor. (You haven't listed the factors yet, but you've alluded to this one). It prevents some of the heal cheese that standard backlash can involve. The use of *all* turning or bardic music instead of a specified number also prevents min-maxing cheese. Some comments/questions on the seeds:

Re Animate Dead:

• I find the wording confusing. The various exceptions and conditions relating to the number of HD that can be controlled take a few readings to assimilate.
  
• I don't know what the "similar" in "For each additional 2HD of similar undead created" means.
  
• I wonder why the CR of exotic undead is not included in the formula. A powerful (nontemplated) undead with relatively low hit dice could have one cost. Then if a template is reversed engineered the cost might suddenly increase.
  I have drafted a variation in a subsequent post.

Re Call

• I am eager to see how this works in Bind Graz'zt. As it is it seems that "unique creatures with great status (such as demon princes) may ignore the calling effect of this spell altogether if they so choose." Which makes it kind of useless.
  
• I don't know if the Special entry overrides this ability to ignore a call. I suspect it does, or the reference to the reveal seed doesn't make much sense. Does the +60 factor implicitly include the compel seed?

Re Destroy

• I would suggest that the damage after a successful save be 1/8 the damage if the save is failed. That way a +20 to the spellcraft prerequisite has approximately the same effect as just taking the seed twice. A way of boosting only the damage on a failed save would be nice. It could be a way of making a "no save" damaging effect; one that would be quite expensive, of course. Maybe +2 DC to increase the save damage by 1d6? To make a 40d6 no save disintegrate would then cost a whopping +92.

Re Divination

• I think the "For each additional question posed, increase the Spellcraft Prerequisite by +2." in the third bullet point is superfluous.
  My mistake: I misread the ability.

Re Fortify

• I don't know what you mean by "the final Spellcraft Prerequisite". Is this the mitigated or unmitigated spellcraft prerequisite? Do you count other factors too?

Re Summon

• Can you use this to call unique creatures? What happens if you summon Graz'zt and he is killed? (I had always thought of the spell as creating a temporary instance of the creature, not actually plucking it from where it was. More like creation than calling. )

Re Polymorph

• I notice that if a humanoid is polymorphed into another humanoid, all his gear merges with his new form. That seems odd.
  I guess it *does* piggyback on the revised polymorph, but it is still odd!

I am eager to see the rest of the chapters!

[edit]I have expanded on (or retracted) a few comments above, in italics