ruleslawyer
Registered User
Two reasons why epic spells don't suck, even at "low epic" levels, by the way.
Incidentally, Kerrick: Any way we might get to see your epic spellcasting system? I'd love a look at this.
Epic Casters, How do you run with the pack?
- Thread starter Telor
- Start date
Two reasons why epic spells don't suck, even at "low epic" levels, by the way.
Incidentally, Kerrick: Any way we might get to see your epic spellcasting system? I'd love a look at this.
The Iron Mark
First Post
The Souljourner said:
Hpw would one create a magic item that adds to your stats with a different kind of bonus?
Victim
First Post
Epic spells are good, but not for normal damage dealing. They're special purpose tools. Create a customized uber-buff spell. Break an army with 1 casting. Etc.
Epic buffing spells seem far more efficient than actually making Epic items. With some weak migitating factors like +10 min casting time, a few dice of backlash, and up to 2000 XP (with the rod reducing XP costs), it's much better to have spells boosting stats than +8 or greater items.
Epic buffing spells seem far more efficient than actually making Epic items. With some weak migitating factors like +10 min casting time, a few dice of backlash, and up to 2000 XP (with the rod reducing XP costs), it's much better to have spells boosting stats than +8 or greater items.
Thresher
First Post
Thanks for the advice Kigmatzomat, though I think it is too late really for me to 'retool' the character as Ive been playing it for some months now and gained a few levels since.
One thing I have noticed with the advice from people, for what it is worth, is that they are all more or less suggesting the same sort of metamagic and feats to be a viable caster. Now, one of the things that attracted me back to D&D was the 3E being advertised/vaunted as being able to build anything, make it personalised and still be ok through the game without worrying about making a mistake in the character's build.
Perhaps at the lower levels it isnt that obvious, at the higher levels if YOU DO NOT HAVE a certain set of feats, then you cease to be a viable character because you just cant crack the hard nuts later on. The problems in the system do seem to become much more amplified at higher levels.
Heh, this sort of detracts from the fact that 'a unique build and still be viable idea' that I probably wrongly believed wouldnt be a problem, which means we havent come that far since 2nd "All Dull & Dumb" edition if Joe Wiz has the same feats as Bob Wiz. (Would have saved a buttload of $$$ on books too!
)
So, basically if I dont have the winning wizard feats I dont get to play with the big kids and natural selection takes care of the rest along the way.
This makes me a little bit sad, same old crap in a new cover.
As for the history of the character I was on a fairly hefty xp penalty prior to the conversion so Im used to being a little behind, it didnt bother me so much back then but it is becomming alarmingly apparent now.
So Ive probably been screwed a few levels there too, overpowered in 2E? I dont think I ever was, the fighter levels where taken so I could weild a few swords, back then, we couldnt get a feat so you had to take them in levels and I liked the idea of a wizard who could use a sword.
Along the way Ive always prided myself on making a system work rather than contributing to the broken bits and annoying a GM overly much with rules. Sadly now Ive found myself looking at ways of making characters tougher, better and meaner, because thats how the system seems to work for now. I dont like that and I dont like thinking like that for a character
May as well just chuck it in the 'too hard bin' and give up, Im not sure if it would be right to go back a redo parts of it over again. Its too much work and its not part of me and its wouldnt be the character Ive had since next to forever.
Thanks anyway, I might go back to running games under a different system Im more comfortable with.
cyas
One thing I have noticed with the advice from people, for what it is worth, is that they are all more or less suggesting the same sort of metamagic and feats to be a viable caster. Now, one of the things that attracted me back to D&D was the 3E being advertised/vaunted as being able to build anything, make it personalised and still be ok through the game without worrying about making a mistake in the character's build.
Perhaps at the lower levels it isnt that obvious, at the higher levels if YOU DO NOT HAVE a certain set of feats, then you cease to be a viable character because you just cant crack the hard nuts later on. The problems in the system do seem to become much more amplified at higher levels.
Heh, this sort of detracts from the fact that 'a unique build and still be viable idea' that I probably wrongly believed wouldnt be a problem, which means we havent come that far since 2nd "All Dull & Dumb" edition if Joe Wiz has the same feats as Bob Wiz. (Would have saved a buttload of $$$ on books too!
)So, basically if I dont have the winning wizard feats I dont get to play with the big kids and natural selection takes care of the rest along the way.
This makes me a little bit sad, same old crap in a new cover.
As for the history of the character I was on a fairly hefty xp penalty prior to the conversion so Im used to being a little behind, it didnt bother me so much back then but it is becomming alarmingly apparent now.
So Ive probably been screwed a few levels there too, overpowered in 2E? I dont think I ever was, the fighter levels where taken so I could weild a few swords, back then, we couldnt get a feat so you had to take them in levels and I liked the idea of a wizard who could use a sword.
Along the way Ive always prided myself on making a system work rather than contributing to the broken bits and annoying a GM overly much with rules. Sadly now Ive found myself looking at ways of making characters tougher, better and meaner, because thats how the system seems to work for now. I dont like that and I dont like thinking like that for a character
May as well just chuck it in the 'too hard bin' and give up, Im not sure if it would be right to go back a redo parts of it over again. Its too much work and its not part of me and its wouldnt be the character Ive had since next to forever.
Thanks anyway, I might go back to running games under a different system Im more comfortable with.
cyas
Saeviomagy
Adventurer
First up, if all you wanted to do was wield a few swords, then a single level of fighter does you just fine.
Next up, unless your character was a total of 25 levels previously, you were most likely done over on levels for that ECL of yours.
Finally, it really sounds like you dove in at the deep end of 3rd ed, and in a really really bad "there wasn't any water in the pool and I jumped from 5 stories up" way. In your particular predicament, there are certain feats which are superior. The predicament is "I'm 27th level and never had to go through any of the previous levels".
What does that mean? Well, apart from not really knowing the capabilities of your character, you and the players around you were all free to take feats and abilities to succeed at high levels in place of feats and abilities (and items) which you needed as you were going up levels. For certain types of characters, this can mean a huge power boost (ie - if you took item creation feats for your character, but just converted over your old gear, then in this situation, it would be a weaker choice than some other feat).
Incidentally, what is your ECL race?
Finally thresher - if you want to be a specific type of caster (in your case, it seems to be 'generalist wizard damage machine'), then of course there is likely to be a set group of feats which every caster of that ilk should get. If you were aiming for being a master summoner, that would change. In 2nd ed, the two casters would be identical. If both Joe and Bob wiz want to be good at the same exact thing, of course they'll look identical.
Next up, unless your character was a total of 25 levels previously, you were most likely done over on levels for that ECL of yours.
Finally, it really sounds like you dove in at the deep end of 3rd ed, and in a really really bad "there wasn't any water in the pool and I jumped from 5 stories up" way. In your particular predicament, there are certain feats which are superior. The predicament is "I'm 27th level and never had to go through any of the previous levels".
What does that mean? Well, apart from not really knowing the capabilities of your character, you and the players around you were all free to take feats and abilities to succeed at high levels in place of feats and abilities (and items) which you needed as you were going up levels. For certain types of characters, this can mean a huge power boost (ie - if you took item creation feats for your character, but just converted over your old gear, then in this situation, it would be a weaker choice than some other feat).
Incidentally, what is your ECL race?
Finally thresher - if you want to be a specific type of caster (in your case, it seems to be 'generalist wizard damage machine'), then of course there is likely to be a set group of feats which every caster of that ilk should get. If you were aiming for being a master summoner, that would change. In 2nd ed, the two casters would be identical. If both Joe and Bob wiz want to be good at the same exact thing, of course they'll look identical.
Thresher's ECL race is Drow.
The character was a female drow fighter / wizard in my ages old 2e campaign. She has lost a bit of grunt in 3e, while another character (Welverin, the lightning sorcerer) has been boosted considerably. Mostly due to the caster level disparity between the two I think. I (as DM) am going to try to rectify this and recapture the moment through a stylistic change in my DM'ing. See if I can "fix" the problem without altering the old characters beyond any reasonable resemblance to their old selves.
As for the epic spell system, I am very unhappy with it. It just seems to be kinda wonky. I'm toying around with the old 2e high levels book true dweomer system to see if I can come up with something that has a bit more flavour to it.
The character was a female drow fighter / wizard in my ages old 2e campaign. She has lost a bit of grunt in 3e, while another character (Welverin, the lightning sorcerer) has been boosted considerably. Mostly due to the caster level disparity between the two I think. I (as DM) am going to try to rectify this and recapture the moment through a stylistic change in my DM'ing. See if I can "fix" the problem without altering the old characters beyond any reasonable resemblance to their old selves.
As for the epic spell system, I am very unhappy with it. It just seems to be kinda wonky. I'm toying around with the old 2e high levels book true dweomer system to see if I can come up with something that has a bit more flavour to it.
The Souljourner
First Post
Hygric - I just wanted to say, I think it's great you're trying to fix the imbalance (assuming there is one, I'm not there, I can't say for sure).
Thresher - not *EVERY* character concept can be viable. It just so happens that fighter/wizard combinations are not very good in 3e. It's not like 2nd edition where every wizard was exactly the same. You can focus on different things. However, I do think that there are a couple feats you *must* have to be viable at high levels. Spell Penetration and Greater Spell Penetration should be no brainers. Spell Resistance is your bane. Empower spell is essential for bumping up the damage of your spells such that they're still effective (and really, how else are you going to use those 11th level slots?) And las t but not least, heighten spell is actually really useful once you get that high. A lot of the utility type spells (slow, hold monster, etc) are low-ish level, and need the extra DC bumpage to be effective. One more should be quicken, because at epic levels, you can afford to spend the 4 levels, and casting extra spells in a round is really useful (btw quickened True Strike is damn useful for hitting those impossible to hit things with ray attacks).
That's 5 feats, 4 of which could have come from your wizard's list of bonus feats. Now you get 6 more from levelling... I hardly think that you are pigeonholed into one archetype if you can freely choose more than half your feats to be whatever the heck you want.
I think the problem is that you jumped into third edition without any experience, and you're hurting because of it. Wizards take some skill to use well in third edition. You can't just hurl delayed blast fireballs around and assume you're going to win. I think if you had had experience playing through the levels, you would be much more wise to the wizardly ways, and would be more effective, even given your effective 4 level loss.
Granted, no amount of finagling is going to make you stand toe to toe with a sorcerer 4 levels higher than you, but you should be able to hold your own.... the real problem is that your 2 fighter levels are almost entirely useless.
I kind of agree with the epic spell system, but kind of don't. I think the problem is twofold:
1.) The XP cost is exorbitant, and a real detriment to the system. Why should a 21st level caster spend 15,000 XP to get a single spell that is barely on par with something like a 7th level spell? To get anything really earth shattering, you have to cheese out all the negative modifiers, which bring me to my second point.
2.) The system seemingly encourages cheesing out the negatives. The cost to make a spell a single action casting time is ridiculous. What use is a spell that takes a minute to cast? Well, if it lasts all day, then it's fine for a prep spell. But obviously if a minute casting time is fine, why not 10 minutes? And why not take a crapload of D6's worth of damage while you're at it? One Heal will fix you right up (only 150 points, I know, but at 21st level you can take up to 42d6, which happens to average out to almost exactly 150 damage) and I know from experience, 6th level spells are a dime a dozen at 21st level. so for prep type spells, you can get -60 to the spellcraft DC with the expenditure of one 6th level spell and 10 minutes. Now compare that to a damage type spell, where you have to add 20 DC to make it castable as a single action. That's a difference of 80 DC!! Add in ritual casting, and you can easily make a prep spell that lasts a week and has an effective DC above 100. Compare that to a battle type spell that has an effective DC of about 25. Not exactly balanced, is it?
Ok, that was more of a rant than I had intended, but a good thought exercise nonetheless.
-The Souljourner
Thresher - not *EVERY* character concept can be viable. It just so happens that fighter/wizard combinations are not very good in 3e. It's not like 2nd edition where every wizard was exactly the same. You can focus on different things. However, I do think that there are a couple feats you *must* have to be viable at high levels. Spell Penetration and Greater Spell Penetration should be no brainers. Spell Resistance is your bane. Empower spell is essential for bumping up the damage of your spells such that they're still effective (and really, how else are you going to use those 11th level slots?) And las t but not least, heighten spell is actually really useful once you get that high. A lot of the utility type spells (slow, hold monster, etc) are low-ish level, and need the extra DC bumpage to be effective. One more should be quicken, because at epic levels, you can afford to spend the 4 levels, and casting extra spells in a round is really useful (btw quickened True Strike is damn useful for hitting those impossible to hit things with ray attacks).
That's 5 feats, 4 of which could have come from your wizard's list of bonus feats. Now you get 6 more from levelling... I hardly think that you are pigeonholed into one archetype if you can freely choose more than half your feats to be whatever the heck you want.
I think the problem is that you jumped into third edition without any experience, and you're hurting because of it. Wizards take some skill to use well in third edition. You can't just hurl delayed blast fireballs around and assume you're going to win. I think if you had had experience playing through the levels, you would be much more wise to the wizardly ways, and would be more effective, even given your effective 4 level loss.
Granted, no amount of finagling is going to make you stand toe to toe with a sorcerer 4 levels higher than you, but you should be able to hold your own.... the real problem is that your 2 fighter levels are almost entirely useless.
I kind of agree with the epic spell system, but kind of don't. I think the problem is twofold:
1.) The XP cost is exorbitant, and a real detriment to the system. Why should a 21st level caster spend 15,000 XP to get a single spell that is barely on par with something like a 7th level spell? To get anything really earth shattering, you have to cheese out all the negative modifiers, which bring me to my second point.
2.) The system seemingly encourages cheesing out the negatives. The cost to make a spell a single action casting time is ridiculous. What use is a spell that takes a minute to cast? Well, if it lasts all day, then it's fine for a prep spell. But obviously if a minute casting time is fine, why not 10 minutes? And why not take a crapload of D6's worth of damage while you're at it? One Heal will fix you right up (only 150 points, I know, but at 21st level you can take up to 42d6, which happens to average out to almost exactly 150 damage) and I know from experience, 6th level spells are a dime a dozen at 21st level. so for prep type spells, you can get -60 to the spellcraft DC with the expenditure of one 6th level spell and 10 minutes. Now compare that to a damage type spell, where you have to add 20 DC to make it castable as a single action. That's a difference of 80 DC!! Add in ritual casting, and you can easily make a prep spell that lasts a week and has an effective DC above 100. Compare that to a battle type spell that has an effective DC of about 25. Not exactly balanced, is it?
Ok, that was more of a rant than I had intended, but a good thought exercise nonetheless.
-The Souljourner
Not all character "builds" are going to be equally effective in all situations. You could after all design an 8th level character with Run, Endurance, and Fleet of Foot as its only feats. The character is really good at running marathons, but that's not going to come up much in a typical D&D campaign.Thresher said:One thing I have noticed with the advice from people, for what it is worth, is that they are all more or less suggesting the same sort of metamagic and feats to be a viable caster. Now, one of the things that attracted me back to D&D was the 3E being advertised/vaunted as being able to build anything, make it personalised and still be ok through the game without worrying about making a mistake in the character's build.
Perhaps at the lower levels it isnt that obvious, at the higher levels if YOU DO NOT HAVE a certain set of feats, then you cease to be a viable character because you just cant crack the hard nuts later on. The problems in the system do seem to become much more amplified at higher levels.
Heh, this sort of detracts from the fact that 'a unique build and still be viable idea' that I probably wrongly believed wouldnt be a problem, which means we havent come that far since 2nd "All Dull & Dumb" edition if Joe Wiz has the same feats as Bob Wiz. (Would have saved a buttload of $$$ on books too!
So, basically if I dont have the winning wizard feats I dont get to play with the big kids and natural selection takes care of the rest along the way.
This makes me a little bit sad, same old crap in a new cover.
Part of the problem that your character is facing, I think, has to do with the way SR has been assigned to monsters. It seems to me that typically, SR is set at a level where it is difficult for a regular single-class spellcaster to get past it, which makes life almost impossible for a multi-class caster that is from an ECL race. The Spell Penetration feats help make up the difference, which is why everyone is suggesting them. A lot of people think that the magic system is broken because a character can't beat SR unless it's single-class, no ECL, etc., but I think it's less of a problem with multi-classing and more of a problem with the specific SRs that high-level monsters have (not to mention their saves, although that's always been an issue in high-level D&D).
Not every wizard is going to necessarily have the feats that everyone is suggesting, those feats are just obvious choices to help overcome your perceived weaknesses for your character. Although the Spell Penetration feats are also good choices for a single-class caster, especially once you start fighting epic-level monsters. Again, I think this is more of a problem with the epic monsters than it is with multi-class casters.
Souljourner: thanks for the compliment, but the way I look at it, that's the DM's job. As for him not having any experience with a wizard, much in 2e, but limited in 3e.
Just as a question, did savage species change the ecl of drow? They seem just a little weak for a +2 race is all.
Spatula: You are right. SR's get kinda wierd at high level. I'm gonna fudge them a bit I think. My prob is that I have Thresher's character with a spell pen of about 25, and the sorcerer / elemental savant with a spell pen (using his favoured lightning spells) of about 35. Both are pretty much pure spell casters (in action, if not on paper), so I need a bit of balance somewhere. Maybe some lightning immune critters might bring the lightning sorc down a notch or two. 
As for him not having any experience with a wizard, much in 2e, but limited in 3e.Just as a question, did savage species change the ecl of drow? They seem just a little weak for a +2 race is all.
Spatula: You are right. SR's get kinda wierd at high level. I'm gonna fudge them a bit I think. My prob is that I have Thresher's character with a spell pen of about 25, and the sorcerer / elemental savant with a spell pen (using his favoured lightning spells) of about 35.
Both are pretty much pure spell casters (in action, if not on paper), so I need a bit of balance somewhere. Maybe some lightning immune critters might bring the lightning sorc down a notch or two. Similar Threads
