Epic Magic Big Thread

[Cheiromancer]

....aggregates ...the cabal contribution

Tease.

I've thought about this, as well - not necessarily half, but some other function of total Spellcraft ranks. I think 50% is overly restrictive.

I still worry about the kamikaze effect. And while players should be able to achieve great things, I think that geometrical factors might be a better route. Geometrical factors and unrestricted mitigation would be a disaster together.

I think if we go this route, there needs to be a pretty solid philosophical justification in the way epic games are handled, though. A lot of people will cry 'foul' and 'overpowered', but, for me, this is exactly the kind of thing epic play should be about.

Well, the folks who cry "overpowered" I will refer to Upper_Krust: We are paddling about in a small pond compared to the mighty ocean that the Immortal's Handbook envisages. And rather than give a philosophical justification, I will refer folks to your Story Hour. Art as the indicator of truth and all that. I don't know if anyone's mentioned it to you before, but Tales of Wyre is pretty good stuff.

 

[Greybar]

Still not being a useful contributor, but I'll be a cheerleader.

I'm really liking this. The animate dead discussion is particularly great for me because I have a story in my head based on a spell that inflicts an undead disease on an area the size of a town. Yup, the setup for a classic zombie flick, I know. I would have been okay with handwaving it since the PCs wouldn't be meant to confront the caster, but I like having a real mechanic even better.

Similarly, a fire-immune baddy who envelops the 2 mile radius around himself in a blast is a great scene if nothing else. Hello capital city - you've been leveled. Can't you see the aerial camera angle as the heroes rush through the air straight for the center, where all of the blasted shadows point towards one maniacally laughing opponent? Ah, shades of Akira...

so thanks and please do keep it firing.

 

[Cheiromancer]

I'm rethinking the 50% mitigation limit: it occurred to me that the binding of Graz'zt might have been impossible for Fillein's cabal unless it were heavily mitigated. If so, then heavy mitigation must stay!

The problem I see with mixing exponential* factors and unrestricted mitigation could be solved by saying simply that exponential factors can't be mitigated. Scorching a battlefield or a county might be campaign backstory, but exponentials increase very quickly. Scorching the whole campaign world might be a bad thing if it could occur at relatively low character levels.

* Calling them "geometric" is a misnomer. They are based on a constant to the nth power, not n to a constant power.

My biggest concern was the precedent (doublings, triplings, quadruplings), which is why I considered a set of static factors e.g.

increase area by 100% +4
increase area by 250% +8
increase area by 500% +12
increase arae by 1000% +20
increase area by 2500% +30
increase area by 5000% +40
increase area by 10,000% +50

or whatever. You get the idea.

I do, and so will lots of people. A table such as this is just as much a precedent as saying "double double is quadruple", just more verbose.

 

[Sepulchrave II]

I'm still thinking of how such things should be kept under control. What I'm leaning toward right now is to say that mitigating factors (including the 50% rule) are applied prior to adding geometrical factors. This would mean that the 160d6 fireball can't be mitigated significantly. They can add in -5 to reduce the base seed, but the +32 can't be touched. The spell has a minimum SP of 37, and so you need a 34th level caster. A 26th level caster can manage an 80d6 fireball, though. 280 hp fire damage seems pretty epic.

160d6 (560 av.) of fire damage is actually quite moderate: a 34th level caster who goes the conventional route can find a dozen ways to match this. I think a dangerous synergy might occur beteween a dedicated epic buffer and the caster who is loaded up with Multispell, Improved Spell Capacity and Improved Metamagic: a +30 bonus to Int will pump up the DCs on a lot of spells, making those Intensified DBFs demand saves in the high forties or low fifties.

*

There are other ways of preventing massive mitigation stacking, though.

1) Limit backlash to 'instantaneous' spells only.
2) Limit rituals to spells with a casting time of 1hr (or even 1 minute) or longer.

This solves the problem of these combining in combat (the most basic premise around which 'balance' is formulated). You still get issues with life, animate dead, conjure and heal.

3) Reword certain feats so that they only offer indirect mitigation - like the suggested Epic Thaumaturgy, above. I think there is a lot to be said for narrowing the focus of feats like this, as it also encourages specialization (and flavour).


*

I'm feeling dubious about your exponential factors, Cheiro. I agree that some mechanism is in order to allow larger scale effects, though. I'm thinking epic feats are the obvious way to go - equivalents of meta-epicmagic feats, which allow the manipulation of seeds to elevate one or more parameters (like area, range etc.) to a higher order of magnitude. Subsequent factors would then be based on this new order. Using the benefit of the feat might even incur a Spellcraft Prerequisite cost, although implicitly 1 epic feat = x amount of mitigation already. It achieves the same effect as an exponential factor, but without upsetting precedent.

Epic-level casters get enough epic feats, and they need something to sink them into.

E.g.

EARTHSCORCHER [EPIC]
Armies flee and cities are abandoned at the rumour of your passing.
Prerequisites: Epic Spellcasting, Spell Focus (Evocation), Spellcraft 30 ranks.
Benefit: When you use this feat to develop an epic spell with the energy seed as its base seed to evoke a [fire] effect, the base range, area and duration (if non-instantaneous) are all multiplied by 10. Any subsequent increases in any of these parameters are calculated from their new base values.

A 200-ft radius fireball can now be enlarged to 2000-ft at +36 SP. If you want to limit the level at which this becomes available, you simply up the number of Spellcraft ranks which are prerequisite for the feat: this achieves the same effect of including a factor which cannot be mitigated against, and doesn't necessitate a mechanical overhaul.

The feat may be too specific, in which case some additional perks might need to be thrown in. Whether this feat is attractive is also very campaign-dependent.

This might not be the best illustration of my case, because I'm tired, but I think YKWIM.

 

[Cheiromancer]

That's an interesting idea, Sep. Effectively the DDQ mechanic will be used in the design of epic feats that improve epic spellcasting. Not in the factors.

I like how the Earthscorcher feat makes a 2000 ft. radius fireball cost about the same as with the DDQ. A little bit cheaper, but a feat as narrowly focused as this should give a good bonus. I'd drop the fire requirement. Otherwise you'd have four feats that do basically the same thing- it'll look like padding. I suppose you could say that the feat could be taken four times, once for each type of energy, but I don't see the harm of a battlefield mage having different elemental spells that all benefit from the same feat.

The weather seed would be another good candidate for a 10-fold increase in duration and area. A bonus to the transport seed to mitigate factors that increase the number of people transported would also be nice.

I wonder how much benefit. For Earthscorcher the best case scenario is that the caster gets 3 1/3 ddq widens, extends and enlarges at the cost of a feat. Theoretically that's +33 USP but tor most spells the caster won't get anywhere near this amount of benefit; instantaneous spells have no duration and so the extends are wasted, and if the target is close by the enlarged range is useless. And in a 50 ft. room who cares if the fireball has a radius of 200 ft.. But even if the caster only gets about 30% of the theoretical maximum value it is still a good feat.

I'd guess that about +10 USP (average benefit) would be about right, as long as the benefit applies to just one seed (or a few related, weak seeds). And use the ddq method to calculate the numerical increase of factors that enhance the appropriate factors.

Let's see. Suppose we design an "Epic Blaster" feat that doubles the damage done by energy spells. Double damage is +8, and should normally provide nearly full value, so not much discount. Maybe add in +2 to caster level checks to apply against SR, dispel effects, and caster level checks. The latter two will be wasted most of the time, so we'll heavily discount them. Require the same prerequisites as Earthscorcher. There's no place for ddq to apply (I don't think it is appropriate for the bonus to caster level), so the feat will only double the base damage of a seed (and thus double the effect of factors; each +1 USP will add +2d6 to the fireball). But it will provide a small edge when overcoming wards, SR and opposing counterspells. I think it'd be a nice little feat.

Other feats could help the dispel, reflect and/or ward seeds, providing about a +10 USP benefit. That should be enough to allow certain defensive spells to be cast as an immediate action. Ooh- a DDQ feat that extends the duration of divinations would be nice. Make an all-day foresight. Then you wouldn't need quickened defensive spells- you'd have a round's notice (as I understand the spell) to take the appropriate action.

160d6 (560 av.) of fire damage is actually quite moderate: a 34th level caster who goes the conventional route can find a dozen ways to match this. I think a dangerous synergy might occur beteween a dedicated epic buffer and the caster who is loaded up with Multispell, Improved Spell Capacity and Improved Metamagic: a +30 bonus to Int will pump up the DCs on a lot of spells, making those Intensified DBFs demand saves in the high forties or low fifties.

I wonder if there should be a way for a USP 37 spell to do 160d6 damage. Might need another feat to double the damage yet again; a caster with epic blaster I and II could do 148d6. That's not bad.

About the metamagic caster who gets an epic buff: even if everyone fails their save, that's basically equivalent to doubling the damage. Two characters together should be at least twice as effective as one. I agree it is powerful, but I'm not sure that it is more powerful than it should be, considering the power of teamwork. An intensified disintegrate with an impossible save would sure be scary, though. Typeless damage! 2d6/caster level!

And then there is problem is in deciding how to play characters with an intelligence in the high 50s.

Speaking of disintegrate - should the Enhance Spell feat add 20d6 to the cap? As written it provides no benefit since the damage is neither 1d6 per level nor 1d6 per 2 levels. And do you allow Enhance Spell to work with Intensify Spell, or is Enhance Spell an example of a "feat that affects the variable, numeric effects of a spell"?

 

[Sepulchrave II]

An intensified disintegrate with an impossible save would sure be scary, though. Typeless damage! 2d6/caster level!

I've been thinking over the disintegrate profile from level 21-40, looking at builds for 1-round delivery - primarily as a gauge for scaling the SP of spells which use the destroy seed. There are lots of combos. They all get pretty nasty.

e.g.

Assumes Maximize, Empower and Quicken are taken pre-epic. Average damage on failed saves at the end of each entry.


Int requirements are very modest in this build until Lvl 38.

Lvl 21: Int 30, Improved Spell Capacity (10th): 1 x Maximized + 1 x Quickened (380hp)
Lvl 23: Int 30, Multispell: 1 x Maximized + 2 x Quickened (520 hp)
Lvl 24: Int 30, Improved Spell Capacity (11th): 1 x Empowered Maximized, 2 x Quickened (590hp)
Lvl 26: Int 34, Improved Spell Capacity (12th): 1 x Empowered Maximized, 2 x Empowered Quickened (730hp)
Lvl 27: Int 34, Improved Metamagic (-1): 1 x Empowered Maximized, 2 x Quickened Maximized (790hp)
Lvl 29: Int 34, Intensify Spell: 1 x Intensified, 2 x Quickened Maximized (960hp)
Lvl 30: Int 34, Improved Metamagic (-2)
Lvl 32: Int 36, Improved Spell Capacity (13th): 1 x Intensified, 2 x Quickened Empowered Maximized (1100hp)
Lvl 33: Int 36, Improved Metamagic (-3).
Lvl 35: Int 38, Improved Spell Capacity (14th): 1 x Intensified, 2 x Quickened Intensified (1440hp)
Lvl 36: Int 38, Improved Metamagic (-4)
Lvl 38: Int 44, Multispell: 1 x Intensified, 3 x Quickened Intensified (1920hp) [Headband +12, +9 Level, +5 Inherent, +2 racial: A Grey Elf with a starting Int of 16 can make this]
Lvl 39: Int 44, Multispell: 1 x Intensified, 4 x Quickened Intensified (2400hp)

And I'm not suggesting this build is optimized, either - it probably isn't. But I would suggest:

1) Vengeful Gaze of God should be available by about 40th level;
2) It should do about 600d6 of damage on a failed save. This is conservative.

I think that the versatility offered by the conventional caster's feat selection above (which extends far beyond disintegrate) should not be paralleled by a narrow selection of feats focussed around the destroy seed. That would be penalizing the epic caster too much. Using DDQ, two epic feats (one to increase damage to 4d6 per +1SP, and another to 8d6 per +1SP) could deliver a VGG-type effect at a USP of 71. It'd be nice to change it from a ray to a target (+4) (I think this factor is sound). That would leave 33 points of mitigation to find for a 39th-level caster: 17 points of backlash could do it for an Autoimmolator. As long as you make one of the prerequisites for the second feat 42 ranks in Spellcraft, it would work. (Edited, my math sucks)


Edit: The ruin suite of spells becomes:

Ruin: deals 60d6 damage - USP 30: +16 (base) +4 (target) +10 (+20d6). Entry-level spell, with advantage over maximized disintegrate of no ranged touch attack. 6 points backlash brings it within range of a 21st lvl character.

Greater Ruin: deals 120d6 damage, requires an epic feat w/30 ranks Spellcraft - USP 30: +16 (base) +4 (target) +10 (+40d6). 120d6 at 27th-level not too shabby. 10 points Backlash will net you another 40d6 (Autoimmolator 80d6). I think that whatever epic feat is required here, it should have a wider application than just 2d6 -> 4d6.

Vengeful Gaze of God: - as above. The prerequisite feat should be narrow in scope.

You're right about mitigating factors, though. Need to be careful with them.


Edit: I'm not sure how much the ranged touch attack requirement of disintegrate should inform the progression of the destroy seed - which can be changed to a straight targeted effect. I guess it depends on the deflection/luck/insight AC bonuses of the opposition. And rays can crit, of course. This might require some number crunching, but my gut feeling is that 600d6 at lvl 39 is OK.

 

[Cheiromancer]

Disintegrate used to be a save-or-die spell, but then it got changed to do massive amounts of damage on a failed save, and a fairly insignifcant amount of damage on a successful save.

As far as I can tell, the spells you are basing on the destroy seed inherit this feature. So VGG will do 2100 hp on a failed save, and 17 points on a successful save.

Am I wrong?

Now given the role of epic buffs to intelligence, the question of successful saves might be academic. Should we balance these spells under the assumption that the saving throw will almost certainly be failed?

Oh, and casters will probably do their best to include the "overcome immunity" factor. If you use a blasting spell, you want it to be reliable.

 

[Sepulchrave II]

Now given the role of epic buffs to intelligence, the question of successful saves might be academic. Should we balance these spells under the assumption that the saving throw will almost certainly be failed?

Oh, and casters will probably do their best to include the "overcome immunity" factor. If you use a blasting spell, you want it to be reliable.

Fort Save of Some KR 35-50 Monsters

Atropal (KR 50) +22
Dream Larva (KR 42) +31
Infernal (KR 43) +31

Ignore these, abominations aren't affected by transmutations. Also see below.

Young Adult Force Dragon (KR 40) +33
Young Adult Prismatic Dragon (KR 42) +36
Primal Earth Elemental (KR 49) +60
Black Slaad (KR 43) +30
Elder Treant (KR 36) +45
Prismasaurus (KR 40) +41

I'm inclined to say that creatures with DvR shouldn't be subject to the 'overcome specific immunity' factor - this would give abominations some room. Perhaps a surcharge on the factor to penetrate divine immunities is in order.

The 39th-level conventional disintegrate specialist (let's give him SF and GSF (Transmutation) as well) prompts a Save with DC of 35. The black slaad might get unlucky - if he misses 2 saves out of 5, he's gone. No problem for the other guys.

VGG will demand a Save at DC 39 - barring factors used to increase the DC. The black slaad is 40% toast.

An Epic Buff which grants +30 Int will have a USP of 54 (your version) or 60 (my version). This will jack the Save DC up by another 9 points to 48 for VGG. Things are looking pretty sketchy, now. It will take another 28 factors (to either the buff or the VGG DC) for the primal elemental to even break a sweat.

All of this is anecdotal - I don't have the time or mathematical savvy for an in-depth analysis. But most creatures' saves scale far quicker than the DCs of spells used to hit them. At first glance, I'd actually say that epic spells redress the balance somewhat.

I'm agreeing that controlling mitigating factors is vital, though. I think there should be 3: no more.

XP burn.
Backlash.
Rituals (folded with extended casting time).

How these three combine should be tightly regulated. All epic feats which currently affect the Spellcraft Prerequisite directly should be restructured to offer indirect mitigation - some by changing seed parameters. If we go this route, we need lots of them.

The DM might allow ad hoc mitigating factors, but they should be nonstandard.

 

[Cheiromancer]

But most creatures' saves scale far quicker than the DCs of spells used to hit them. At first glance, I'd actually say that epic spells redress the balance somewhat.

If exponential factors need to be introduced to make area, damage and duration increase quickly enough (even if they are used only in feat design) then I suppose it makes sense that other variables might also fail to increase quickly enough. I wouldn't suggest that one make the spell DC an exponential factor, but in hindsight it makes sense that it needs a bit of a boost.

I'm agreeing that controlling mitigating factors is vital, though. I think there should be 3: no more.

XP burn.
Backlash.
Rituals (folded with extended casting time).

How these three combine should be tightly regulated. All epic feats which currently affect the Spellcraft Prerequisite directly should be restructured to offer indirect mitigation - some by changing seed parameters. If we go this route, we need lots of them.

The DM might allow ad hoc mitigating factors, but they should be nonstandard.

Hmmm. No power components? I think the trick with all this is to make it so that things *look* powerful- you want players to drool over getting access to these spells and feats- but to have their actual impact be somewhat less spectacular. By the time players realize this, though, something even more droolworthy is on the horizon.

Presentation plays a big role in this. A feat that increases area, range and duration 10-fold is a "wow!" kind of feat. Even if it is only for the energy seed. The exponential rule for factors would wow someone for a while, but after you get used to it its impact is lessened.

I am feeling the need for some benchmarks. Actually, for a system of estimating benchmarks. For example, say that a PC can do casually (no mitigating factors) at level 50 what can only be done with great difficulty at level 25. Then we would something to base the "exponential feats" on, as well as the mitigating factors. At level 50 you don't have to consider the mitigating factors- you just have to figure out what kinds of feats (with about 10 points of exponential factors each) that you need to create the desired effect. At level 25 you don't worry about the exponential feats (low level casters can't meet their prerequisites), you just have to fiddle with the mitigating factors to ensure that it is (barely) possible for a caster at that level to achieve.

The challenge formula can handle that, I think. An overwhelming encounter at level X is an average encounter at level 2X. A spell that uses all available resources at level X should be a routine effect at level 2X.

 

[Sepulchrave II]

Ritual Factors

As originally envisaged, the progression of ritual factors was founded upon the increasing size of a cabal which the Epic Leadership feat provided.

In the section on 'Exceptional Followers' (ELH, p.37) it states that:

• Adept or Aristocrat followers count as followers two levels higher than their actual character level.
• Characters with levels in a PC class count as followers three levels higher than their actual level.
• Characters with any levels in a PrC count as followers five levels higher than their actual level.

It then goes on to show an example where a character has a 6th-level adept follower, who counts as a 7th-level follower. Nice to see that this was proof-read. I've always ignored the example, and gone by the rules text which precedes it.

I'm going to ignore adepts for the moment, because they throw a spanner in the works. I also think that adepts are unsuitable as permanent cabal members for flavour reasons – their magic is too wild and undisciplined etc. Arguably, this could be extended to sorcerers as well - their magic is innate, rather than formulaic. Ironically, sorcerers make the best cabal leaders with their high Charisma - all of those lowly wizard drones feeding into the transcendental ego of a sorcerer actualizing his Will is a compelling idea, though.

If one substitutes all of a character's NPC-classed followers of 4th-level or higher with PC-classed followers 3 levels lower, you get the following followers for a Leadership score of 25:

4 x 1st-level; 2 x 2nd-level; 2 x 3rd-level ; 1 x 4th-level; plus one 17th-level cohort.

In any ritual that you perform, you could therefore draw on 6 x 1st-level slots, 3 x 2nd-level slots and 1 x 9th-level slot – this assumes a fully optimized spread (i.e. the 3rd-level characters are wizards, clerics or druids – not sorcerers). 21 spell levels.

Rather than reject the Epic Leadership feat as a source of mitigation through followers, I'd rather integrate it into the assumptions about how ritual magic works. The total number of spell levels which can be contributed by a fully optimized spellcasting PC-classed group of followers (including an epic-level cohort when the Leadership score reaches 32) are therefore:

Leadership Score……………………Spell Levels Contributed

25……………………….............................…21
30................................................….27
35….................................................50
40….................................................81
45…................................................118
50…................................................149
55…................................................177
60…................................................219
65................................................…249
70…................................................283
75…................................................318

A Leadership score of 60 is achievable for a 39th-level sorcerer (or bard) with a Cha of 41 (15 base + 9 level + 12 cloak + 5 inherent), who has a reputation of great renown (+2), fairness and generosity (+1), and special power (+1); and a stronghold (+2).

A Leadership score of 75 is barely achievable for a 50th-level character who can pump his Cha to 48. This is a big cabal – 230 members including the primary caster and his 42nd-level cohort. Note that the Great Charisma epic feat starts to look more attractive, as it now informs mitigating factors as well as Save DCs and bonus spells/day.


Deriving a Mitigating Factor Progression

This is the tricky part. If we go a nonlinear route with factors (or factors modified by feats), then a simple linear equivalence is out of the question (I had originally pegged it at –1 per spell level contributed).

But I want the Cabal Master feat to remain competitive against the opportunist cabalist (say a regular 50th-level sorcerer, who pulls together a ritual involving 10 x epic-level casters = 100 spell levels).

And I want it to be simple. At this point (having just worked through the whole process again on my keyboard), I'm tempted to reword the Cabal Master feat so that it no longer has the clause "which only includes spellcasting followers gained by the Leadership and Epic Leadership feat" – i.e., it would not have to be exclusively composed of followers to gain the benefit.

Say 1/4 the total number of levels contributed act as a mitigating factor – i.e. 10 x epic casters will provide a –25 mitigating factor. The 50th-level Cabal Master would therefore gain a –79 mitigating factor (which still seems kind of high) – he could also enlist 20 x epic-level casters (he has the Ritual Adept feat as well) and augment his cabal for a further –50. Is –129 too way out there? We're talking one big mother of a ritual here.

Any ideas?

Some things that have occurred to me at various times:

1) Ditch the Ritual Adept feat and let rituals only be achieved by characters with the Cabal Master feat.

2) Have some kind of 'ritual inefficiency' - the bigger the cabal, the more inefficient it becomes.

3) Ignore the rules text in the ELH and come up with something else - it's an optional rule in an optional supplement, after all.

4) Use the example as precedent - i.e. a PC-classed character counts as a follower two, not three, levels higher. Calculate mitigating factors based on the new progression.

5) Familiarization. NPC casters can't just pop up and contribute an epic spell slot, they must be familiar with the ritual proceedings. This strikes me as entirely logical. Depending on how long this process takes may make hiring them very expensive. I think a week is not unreasonable. This cost wouldn't apply to your cabal via Leadership, of course.


Demographics, willingness and availability notwithstanding, I am inclined to preserve the base costs for hiring NPC casters and translate them to assembling rituals which don't involve followers - i.e. 10gp x caster level x spell level: hiring a 21st-level NPC to contribute a 10th-level slot will therefore cost the caster 2100 gp. Because a ritual involves additional inconvenience for the NPC, I had assumed and additional 100gp/level/day: the best case scenario for 10 epic casters (at 1/4 spell levels = -mitigating factor) would therefore be 42K -> -25 Spellcraft Prerequisite. If you make them spend a week familiazing themselves with the ritual, however, the cost jumps to 168k: this seems perfectly OK to me.