[Epic] Gaining Spells

[GuardianLurker]

Does it bother anyone else that an epic-level spellcaster can only improve their spells/day by one/feat?

Another way of saying this: the only epic feat I've found that improves spells/day is Improved Spell Capacity which gives you those high level slots. And it only gives you one slot for a level beyond your maximum. So it is impossible (barring bonus slots) for a wizard's spell progression to look like : 4/6/5/4/4/4/4/4/4/4/2/1.

This seems silly, and awfully harsh.

What problems can you forsee with replacing Improved Spell Capacity, as it currently exists with these two feats?

Improved Spell Maximum
(This is the current Improved Spell Capacity feat, essentially.)
Benefit: Exactly as Improved Spell Capacity in the ELH, but all spell slots must be above the class's normal maximum spell level.
Special: You can gain this feat multiple times. Its benefits stack.

Improved Spellcasting Ability
Prereq: Maximum spell-casting capability for one of your spell-casting classes.
Benefit: You gain a number of spell "points" equal to the highest level spell you can currently cast. You can use these points to increase the number of spells per day you can cast, at a cost of one spell point/level of the slot. (E.g. a 5th level slot costs 5 spell points.) 0-level spells cost as much as first level spells. You can only buy multiple slots if they are of different levels. (E.g. You can buy a 1st, 3rd, and 5th level slot, but not 3 3rd level slots.) Higher level spells cannot have more slots the the spell levels below them. (E.g. If you add a 5th level slot (for a total of two), spell levels 4 and below must have at least that many (two or more) slots.) You can only buy spell slots of level 9 or lower. You cannot bank these spell points, though you do not have to spend all that you gain. Spell slots gained through this feat count as bonus spell slots, and are not multiplied by items such as a Ring of Wizardry.
Special: You can gain this feat multiple times. Its benefits stack.

[Edit: Incorporated feedback.]

 

[Crothian]

Personally, I like the way they have it. I think your second feat will greatly give spellcasters a huge advantage in spell output. You should note that their are two easy ways to increase spells perday. The first is increase your spellcasting stat which the spellcaster is going to want to do anyway. The second is through magical items. I don't see why you can't have a ring of wizardry that doubles 1st-4th level spells. Sure it would cost about 380,000 but that's very doible for someone of this level.

How is Improved Spell Capacity different from Improved Spell Maximium? The only difference I see is ISM is easier to get.

Improved Spellcasting Ability is just way to versatile. I'd either limit it in someway or throw on some prerequites that are not automatic for classes.

 

[GuardianLurker]

Personally, I like the way they have it. I think your second feat will greatly give spellcasters a huge advantage in spell output.

Yeah, I was aware of it; what I'm not sure is if it pushes it over or not. It just seems silly that, no matter how skilled or experienced a spellcaster I become, I can't be any better than a non-epic caster who's just as smart as me (barring taking the Improved Spell Capacity feat).

As for the rings (and other items), the new feats represent both a slower (and more flexible) approach to gaining low level capacity. Here's the point - under the existing system, if he take ISC three times, a wizard's base spells/day progression is 4/4/4/4/4/4/4/4/4/4/1/1/1. The epic-level wizard can cast exactly three spells more than a 20th level wizard and is at least 24th level. Moreover, those high-level slots will probably be used for high-level meta-magic spells, not memorizing another "Prestidigitation" cantrip.

How is Improved Spell Capacity different from Improved Spell Maximium? The only difference I see is ISM is easier to get.

It isn't; I've essentially renamed it - I developed these feats a while back (before the ELH [and haven't had a chance to use them yet, and will soon]), and ISA was (in my original version called ISC). I had to change something to avoid confusion. I'll have to double check, but I'm probably just going to use the ELH's ISC feat. As for the prereqs, I have neither my books or my notes with me right now. That will change when I get back home tomorrow.

Improved Spellcasting Ability is just way to versatile. I'd either limit it in someway or throw on some prerequites that are not automatic for classes.

I'm not sure what other limitations I could put on it (since I don't allow 2 slot jumps in a single level, or permit banking), though I'm certainly open to suggestions. And tighter prereqs are definitely welcome, though the feat should be accessible to 21st level single-class characters.

 

[Angelsboi]

dont forget, you also get spells based n Knowledge Arcana and Knowledge Religion

 

[GuardianLurker]

dont forget, you also get spells based n Knowledge Arcana and Knowledge Religion

Only if you take Epic Spellcasting, and that still doesn't help you with casting more cantrips, as you can only use those slots for Epic Spells.

ELH, pg. 7:The only way to gain additional spells per day (other than the bonus spells gained from a high ability score) is to select the Improved Spell Capacity feat.

Oh, and Crothian - the Improved Spell Maximum feat differs from the ELH's ISC, by only allowing spell slots higher than the current maximum. I'm a little happier with the ELH's version now that I've noticed that, but I still think 1 slot/feat is awfully slow.

 

[GuardianLurker]

*ka-bump*

Actually, I have thought of a few more restrictions I could place on the ISA feat.

One is "Special: This feat may only be aquired as a spellcaster's bonus feat."
This would dramatically slows down the spell progression overall, though you'd still get large discrete jumps (though not as large a a Ring of Wizardry).

Or possibly: "Special: No spell-level may have more spell slots than the spell-levels below it."
This would both smooth the progression, and force lower-level slots to be raised before higher level slots.

Or (with a slight modification to the ISM feat): "(ISA)Special: This feat may only be applied to 9th level and lower spells. (ISM):Benefit: This feat adds one spell slot to any spell level above the caster's normal maximum spell level, with a maximum possible level of one spell level higher than the caster's current maximum spell level. (E.g. for a wizard this would add slots of levels 10 to N+1, where N is the current maximum spell level.)"
This keeps the epic-level slots advancing at the ELH's slow rate, while allowing the non-epic slots to progress at a rate closer to the PHB's.

But all of those are just ideas for peer review...

 

[Crothian]

Re: *ka-bump*

One is "Special: This feat may only be aquired as a spellcaster's bonus feat."
This would dramatically slows down the spell progression overall, though you'd still get large discrete jumps (though not as large a a Ring of Wizardry).

While it would slow down things, it goes against the epic feat rules. No other feat has such a restriction. There are many great Epic Feats. If they want to load uyp on one ability, it means they don't get another. So, I wouldn't be to worried about it being choosen many times. However, I would stipulate htat these are bonus spells, thus a Ring of Wizardry would not double them.

Or possibly: "Special: No spell-level may have more spell slots than the spell-levels below it."
This would both smooth the progression, and force lower-level slots to be raised before higher level slots.

I like this one and I'd add it to the feat. With this restriction I think you might want to allow them to selcet 2 spell slots of the same level as long as that level is at least half of their highest spell level. So, if 9th level is your highest spell level, then you can select up two spell levels slots of 4th or lower at the PCs option.

Or (with a slight modification to the ISM feat): "(ISA)Special: This feat may only be applied to 9th level and lower spells. (ISM):Benefit: This feat adds one spell slot to any spell level above the caster's normal maximum spell level, with a maximum possible level of one spell level higher than the caster's current maximum spell level. (E.g. for a wizard this would add slots of levels 10 to N+1, where N is the current maximum spell level.)"
This keeps the epic-level slots advancing at the ELH's slow rate, while allowing the non-epic slots to progress at a rate closer to the PHB's.

But all of those are just ideas for peer review...

I think bonus spells of 10+ spell levels is designed for high spell attribute. I think that's why you can take a feat to increase any stat, and make items that increase stats up to amazing levels. I was able to get my 24th level Bard a Charisma of 40. Granted he only has spells up to 6th level, but you get the point.

 

[GuardianLurker]

Re: Re: *ka-bump*

However, I would stipulate htat these are bonus spells, thus a Ring of Wizardry would not double them.

Now, that's a great idea, and something I had completely missed. Consider that restriction added!

I like this one and I'd add it to the feat. With this restriction I think you might want to allow them to selcet 2 spell slots of the same level as long as that level is at least half of their highest spell level. So, if 9th level is your highest spell level, then you can select up two spell levels slots of 4th or lower at the PCs option.

Hnn. It's a nice idea, but even with your other suggestion I think this would be too fast. Even in the rapid non-epic levels, I can't think of any time when a caster gains two slots in a level. OTOH, feats are much slower than levels, so maybe this isn't a problem.
Gotta number crunch it, I guess.

I think bonus spells of 10+ spell levels is designed for high spell attribute. I think that's why you can take a feat to increase any stat, and make items that increase stats up to amazing levels. I was able to get my 24th level Bard a Charisma of 40. Granted he only has spells up to 6th level, but you get the point.

So is that a vote for ISA only applying to spell levels 9 and below? And should ISM then need to be restricted to higher than normal maximum? Or should ISA be limited only to normal maximum or lower (rather than 9 - bard is case in point)?

 

[Crothian]

It's a vote for ISA only applying to levels 9 and lower. Sometime you just forget to type the final conclusion.

The numbers may yield that it should be a restricted feat. was just going with my gut and not really looking or figureing out what this could do.

 

[GuardianLurker]

Number Crunching Update

Well,

I've crunched the non-epic numbers. All of the classes show something approaching a linear gain in slots (Usually one per level.)The gain in spell levels is a lot more varying, however.

BTW, wizards GOT THE SHAFT! A wizard's spells/day is strictly worse than the sorceror's spells known.

Oh, and for whomever amy be interested - there'll be charts freely available at the end of this.

---
All right I've crunched a limited set of the epic numbers (the classes with 9 spell levels).

As currently written, and assuming the player takes nothing but the ISM and ISA feats, and limiting it to just 9th level, here's the spell table at 40th and 60th.

-----0--1--2--3--4--5--6--7--8--9
40--4--4--2--2--2--2--2--1--1--1
60--7--6--6--5--5--5--4--4--4--4

It's still roughly linear. BTW, if it isn't limited to 9th and lower, the character ends up getting 2 of every spell level above 9.

And now, I really must go to bed. More number crunching tomorrow night....