Epic Level Spellcraft DCs

[RangerWickett]

Am I the only one

Nope. You are not alone.

 

[silentspace]

Epic spellcasting isn't overly well thought-out.

Complicated, yes. Well thought-out, no.

 

[CRGreathouse]

From a logical standpoint, the possibility of a +12 item being broken is slim. Take the least offensive stat, Strength. A +12 Strength is about the same as a +6 weapon. Now, of course the strength gives you more flexibility since it helps a few skills and applies to any weapon, but a +5 weapon is 50,000. All epic x10 cost multipliers aside, a +6 weapon oughta cost 72,000. Compare this to 256,000 for a +12 Strength item, and it ain't so bad, especially when even a 20th level PC should top off at 760,000gp.

This is an odd comparison -- a +6 weapon with no Str increase vs. a nonmagical weapon with a +12 Str increase. The better comparison, perhaps, is the cost of a +12 weapon compared to the cost of a +6 weapon and a +12 Str increase. Admittedly, the Str increase is better (two-handed damage, skills, carrying capacity, Str checks, etc.), but they're closer -- a Str item effectively enhances whatever items you have.

 

[Verequus]

Sorry, that I'm so late - RL succeeded in preventing me from making any post...

No; now I like this "EoM" even less. IT sounds, to me, like a VERY badly-thought-out idea that I would never even consider allowing at my table. No offense, mind.

"This EoM"... It seems to me that you never saw the tidbits of its rules, which have been published so far - otherwise you wouldn't push away the system metaphorically. You are the first person, too, who don't like the rules - A LOT of people have exactly the opposite opinion as you. So it looks to me, that you don't want EoM because you want rules which give more or less the same result like the core rules - personally, I don't know a (point-based or slot-based) magic system, which makes the wizard a spontanous caster, keeps the spells as they are AND is good, too (I don't know Unearthed Arcana's system, so it is excluded from this statement). If I had to choose a system, which is most similar to the core rules, then I would take Arcana Unearthed (which nonetheless eliminates the distinction between arcane and divine).

So my last words on this topic are: Look at the teaser of EoM (see link on http://www.enworld.org/enpublishing/) and if you still don't like it, then don't buy the revised psionics, too. Why? Because both rulesets evolved somewhat parallel - one can use the new psionic feats on EoM, too, for example, although the Psionics don't go so far as EoM. And I doubt, that the psionic item creation rules are really compatible with their magical equivalents (as long those rules aren't artificial castrated).

 

[Pax]

"This EoM"... It seems to me that you never saw the tidbits of its rules,[...]

Correct.

[...]which have been published so far - otherwise you wouldn't push away the system metaphorically.

Um. From what I've been told here, I don't like the sounds of the "EoM", and to me, it sounds like something I wouldn't likely allow IMC.

You are the first person, too, who don't like the rules -[...]

I sincerely doubt it. The first person you have heard from who doesn't like it? Sure. But I truly doubt that everyone else in the world likes it. *shrug*

[...] A LOT of people have exactly the opposite opinion as you.

"A LOT" != "all".

So it looks to me, that you don't want EoM because you want rules which give more or less the same result like the core rules [...]

Um, well ... yes, actually, when playing with the core rules, I want to keep to things which are compatible with same.

[...] - personally, I don't know a (point-based or slot-based) magic system, which makes the wizard a spontanous caster, [...]

And why should I want to make the Wizard a spontaneous caster? The Sorceror already fits that bill, and does it just fine, thanks!

[...] keeps the spells as they are AND is good, too (I don't know Unearthed Arcana's system, so it is excluded from this statement).

I don't like point-system adaptations of AD&D's magic at all, regardless of where from.

If I had to choose a system, which is most similar to the core rules, then I would take Arcana Unearthed (which nonetheless eliminates the distinction between arcane and divine).

No, it doesn't. Where did you get that? Even the UA/Spellpoint system preserves class spell lists. It just uses spell-points to cast them.

[...] and if you still don't like it, then don't buy the revised psionics, too. [...]

I've already decided to avoid the XPH, actually - largely because it is a spell-point-based system.

 

[Verequus]

The first person you have heard from who doesn't like it? Sure.

Yes, I meant that.

And why should I want to make the Wizard a spontaneous caster? The Sorceror already fits that bill, and does it just fine, thanks!

The true goal for point-based systems is to provide the wizard the flexibility of sorcerors, while maintainíng the availability of the spells (and that in a balanced way, too). This makes the sorceror superfluous with such systems.

If I had to choose a system, which is most similar to the core rules, then I would take Arcana Unearthed (which nonetheless eliminates the distinction between arcane and divine).

No, it doesn't. Where did you get that? Even the UA/Spellpoint system preserves class spell lists. It just uses spell-points to cast them.

I said Arcana Unearthed, not Unearthed Arcana. Those are two different books. There are certainly reviews on the net, if you want more information.

I don't like point-system adaptations of AD&D's magic at all, regardless of where from.

And why is that? No, I don't want to persuade you anymore - you made your stance very clear and I won't waste my time on trying to change it (although EoM isn't really AD&D magic). It is simple a personal interest.

 

[Pax]

Yes, I meant that.

Then either

• you must live a very sheltered life;
• you associate almost exclusively with people who share remarkably similar tastes and opinions to your own;
• not that many people have looked at the EoM, or at least the parts of it which have been described here.

The true goal for point-based systems is to provide the wizard the flexibility of sorcerors, while maintainíng the availability of the spells (and that in a balanced way, too). This makes the sorceror superfluous with such systems.

IOW, to re-invent the wheel - IMO, a wasted effort.

And why is that? No, I don't want to persuade you anymore - you made your stance very clear and I won't waste my time on trying to change it (although EoM isn't really AD&D magic). It is simple a personal interest.

Because D&D 3.X - and by extension, all of d20 - is a class-based system. What you can do is more determined by yoru class(es), than by your skill(s).

Point-based spell mechanics fit better, IMO, in truly skill-based systems. GURPS, for example.

 

[Verequus]

Then either

• you must live a very sheltered life;
• you associate almost exclusively with people who share remarkably similar tastes and opinions to your own;
• not that many people have looked at the EoM, or at least the parts of it which have been described here.

Or

• I made simply a mistake by being human...

Personally, I don't know, why you had to comment my answer in such a way - I didn't do anything to you. I discussed a topic, where it seemed that a poster was misinformed and after discovering his entire opinion of this topic I simply backed down, for cooling the temperature down. You seem to have ignored this.

To the last point: I don't know, how many people looked at the teasers, but there are more than the usual posters in the EN Publishing forum - PlaneSailing mentioned EoM once, IIRC.

Because D&D 3.X - and by extension, all of d20 - is a class-based system. What you can do is more determined by your class(es), than by your skill(s).

Point-based spell mechanics fit better, IMO, in truly skill-based systems. GURPS, for example.

I eventually plan to make my home game classless, so EoM fits perfectly. Kind of GURPSy D&D. Last words said.