Epic Magic Big Thread

[Sepulchrave II]

Random Thoughts

I think that himafaf (what an awful acronym; we need to find something else) - as an approximation - is supported by metamagic in general. It is generally conceded that a spell metamagicked to level X is not as effective as a spell native to level X - although it may shine in one particular area. A maximized fireball enjoys a window where it deals more damage than a dbf (12th-18th level for a wizard), but suffers in terms of its DC. Neither is it delayed - although Delay Spell seems massively overpriced at +3 spell levels.

If there was no delayed blast fireball spell, its effects could only be replicated exactly by an epic level caster using metamagic on fireball: Heighten to 6th (+3), Enhanced by +10d6 (+4), Delayed (+3). This is a 13th level spell; it's an extreme example of the inefficiency of metamagic. It woulld take 7 applications of Improved Metamagic to bring this spell into competition with a regular dbf: perhaps delayed blast fireball was originally contrived by an epic-level sorcerer or wizard of this caliber.

The more metamagic you add, the more inefficient the spell becomes, until you get Improved Metamagic. With greater and greater Improved Metamagic, the inefficiency begins to disappear, until it reaches a point where the metamagicked spell really is equivalent in power to a spell of that level, and finally to a point where it utterly surpasses it: no-one would argue that a native 4th-level dbf wasn't overpowered; it's illegal via the rules (because of the damage cap for a 4th-level spell), but possible for an epic wizard to replicate nonetheless.

Feats which allow an exponential increase in one or more seed parameters do exactly what Improved Metamagic does, but their focus is much narrower (say the range and duration of a particular seed), and their effects much more extreme. Somehow, we need to find a way to balance this extreme focus against the breadth of utility offered by Improved Metamagic. This is tricky.

 

[Pyrex]

There needs to be some kind of restriction, I agree. But I love the smoothness of Leadership = Mitigating Factor. Perhaps something as simple as an enforced period of convalescence for the cabal, after the spell is cast: they cannot participate in further rituals until a number of days equal to their contributed mitigating factor has passed.

What if participating in a Cabal caused stat Damage to [Primary Caster's Primary Stat]?

Sure, the damage can itself be mitigated, but it prevents cabal-a-day-forever simply out of the sheer cost of 50+ Restoration spells to get your cabal back on track for tomorrow.

Granted, it skews stronger for divine cabals, but I don't really have a problem with that.

 

[Cheiromancer]

Today's radical idea

I propose that we eliminate Epic Spellcasting and just use Improved Spell Capacity instead.

I would also make the following changes/additions to the rules:

• an epic spell uses two spell slots instead of one.
• Spell Level is equal to 6 + SP/6; e.g. SP 24 is level 10
• The caster has to meet the Spellcraft Prerequisite to learn the spell.
• An epic spell has an ability prerequisite of 10 + 2 x Spell Level, instead of 10 + Spell Level.
• Each Improved Metamagic feat provides a -2 mitigation to epic spells. Three such feats would reduce an epic spell by one level, to a minimum of 10.
• Automatic Quicken Spell [edit]Multispell[/edit] would only work on non-epic spells, but they could be cast in the same round as a swift action epic spell.
• Base range, duration and area of non-epic spells would be capped at 20th level (in parity with epic spells); so would effects that are not otherwise limited by the spell description.

Other than this, I think most current rules can stay in place; e.g. that epic spells can't be metamagicked. Since factors do everything that metamagic can, anyway, and Improved Metamagic helps epic spells, there is a very small sacrifice. We'd still use the SP system to design epic spells; we'd just assign them a spell level afterwards.

I see the following benefits from this:
• Epic spells (perhaps with a very specific focus) can be added gradually, without making a caster feel they wasted a feat.
• the save DCs of many epic spells would be modestly increased; this is a small step towards addressing the problem of saving throws vs save DCs at higher levels.
• It would moderate the power curve slightly; the caster's best spell can only be cast in one slot, not in each epic spell slot they possess.
• It would reduce overspecialization, since PCs would spend feats on metamagic, Improved Metamagic, Great Ability and Improved Metamagic [edit]Spell[/edit] Capacity instead of just Epic Spellcasting.
• It would ensure that the two kinds of epic wizards (metamagic using and jacobean spellcasters) remain balanced with each other.

To amplify this last point: metamagic using wizards who envy their jacobean brothers could imitate them by casting epic spells with their higher level slots, and envious jacobean casters could use non-epic spells metamagicked to higher levels in theirs. Poor feat or spell choices could result in a weaker character, of course, but that has always been true. And of course one would try to make epic spells balanced with the metamagic alternative. However the choice of taking the Epic Spellcasting would not so critical in determining the viability and focus of the character; characters could be as specialized or as generalized as they like.

The motive for taking up 2 slots is so that 1 feat won't get an epic spellcaster 2 epic spells; one from the slot, the other a bonus due to a high ability score (e.g. consider a 21st level character with 16 initial + 5 level + 5 inherent + 6 enhancement = 32). The higher ability score prerequisite ensures the character will actually get the bonus, and so be able to meet the 2 slot requirement. (Have you ever noticed that while fox's cunning won't grant bonus spells, a headband has no such limitation?)

I'm actually thinking that some of the basic mechanics of spellcasting should be tied to spell level; i.e. levels 0 to 9 take 1 spell slot and have a prerequisite of 10 + spell level; levels 10 to 19 take 2 spell slots and have a prerequisite of 10 + 2 x spell level; levels 20 to 29 take 3 spell slots and have a prerequisite of 10 + 3 x spell level, and so on. A level 19 spell is SP 78; level 29 is SP 138. This is based on mathematical neatness, and on the premonition that high SP spells may be getting progressively more powerful and need to be reined in a bit. But I'm not wedded to the notion.

Anyway, that's my current enthusiasm. What do you think?

 

[Nifft]

I really like this idea.

One suggestion: instead of fixing the SP to the slot-level, and instead of fixing the slots to 2, how about 2 is the minimum, but more (and / or higher level) slots can be added, each one counting as a mitigating factor?

Thus, a higher level Wizard with higher spell capacity could cast more Epic spells, or could cast one big one, and a mere 21st level Wizard with his first 2 10th level slots could cast a big one also, but with a lot of pain (backlash, XP, what have you).

Cheers, -- N

 

[Sepulchrave II]

Cheiro, some Questions re. your whimsy of the hour

1) How do you envisage applying a factor which increases a spell's DC? Does it simply stack with the DC which the spell's level affords? If you apply a factor which increases a spell's save DC by +6, you're also raising the level of the spell by +2 as well, right?

2) Do the two spell slots used to fuel the epic spell have to be of the same level?

3) I assume, as with the previous system, that the spells would not be easily transmissible - memento mori developed by a wizard with 12 Improved Metamagics would not be the same level as one developed by another wizard without.

4) How do you derive level = 6 + SP/6? Why not 4 + SP/4?

Automatic Quicken Spell would only work on non-epic spells, but they could be cast in the same round as a swift action epic spell.

Do you mean Multispell?

• It would reduce overspecialization, since PCs would spend feats on metamagic, Improved Metamagic, Great Ability and Improved Metamagic Capacity instead of just Epic Spellcasting.

Do you mean Improved Spell Capacity, or is this a U_K thing?

The motive for taking up 2 slots is so that 1 feat won't get an epic spellcaster 2 epic spells; one from the slot, the other a bonus due to a high ability score (e.g. consider a 21st level character with 16 initial + 5 level + 5 inherent + 6 enhancement = 32).

Does a caster with an ability of 46 effectively get a bonus 10th-level epic spell slot?

To amplify this last point: metamagic using wizards who envy their jacobean brothers could imitate them by casting epic spells with their higher level slots

I don't get this part. Would they use two slots or one?

Musing...

If you allow a factor to increase the Save DC, Memento Mori ([Slay] +Quickened +Still +Silent +10DC) is a USP 50 spell; this is a 15th level epic spell (14.333 actually, I assume you'd round up fractions?). It prompts a Save at 35+ relevant ability, and consumes 2 x 15th-level slots. Without mitigation, you'd need to be 47th level to execute it, and you'd need an Intelligence of 40.

A stilled, silent, quickened, improved heightened (+18) finger of death replicates this effect using conventional metamagic in a regular 31st level slot. A non-jacobean wizard can hit this at level 53 (Improved Heighten, Improved Metamagic x11, Improved Spell Capacity x10) using his single 20th-level slot. The good news is that he'd only need an Int of 30

The jacobean might also have taken Improved Metamagic 11 times, at which point he's using 12th level double-slots instead. Can he use his higher slots to prepare memento mori as well? Personally, I'd have taken Improved Spell Capacity 11 times and garnered another 11 x 10th-15th-level slots to pump up my epic spellcasting. If he's a full jacobean, there's no point in him having 16th-level slots, because that would be a spell with an SP of 60, which he can't learn until he's 57th level anyway - actually 52nd, if you round all fractional spell levels up.

I dunno. Maybe there would be rare instances where metamagic is better.

 

[Cheiromancer]

Cheiro, some Questions re. your whimsy of the hour

1) How do you envisage applying a factor which increases a spell's DC? Does it simply stack with the DC which the spell's level affords? If you apply a factor which increases a spell's save DC by +6, you're also raising the level of the spell by +2 as well, right?

I'd probably write it as a imposing a penalty to the saving throw. Like how feeblemind makes arcane spellcasters save at -4. That's only a notational difference, though. And yeah, you are "double dipping" when you do this. You get +8 DC for +2 spell levels, while a conventional caster would have to spend +8 spell levels for the same effect. You have to spend two of those higher level spell slots, though, so maybe it's not such a bargain.

2) Do the two spell slots used to fuel the epic spell have to be of the same level?

Upon reflection, no; as long as neither is lower than the required level they could be combined. In the current system 1 feat = 1 epic spell slot. I want the new system to work pretty much the same way. Since you can pretty much assume bonus spells for high abilities, I am arbitrarily ruling that they have to double up; otherwise 1 feat = 2 epic spell slots, which is too good. Though this introduces a few wrinkles (you still get bonus spell slots with very high ability scores; the slots have differing values, unlike those acquired through Epic Spellcasting) it is pretty close.

3) I assume, as with the previous system, that the spells would not be easily transmissible - memento mori developed by a wizard with 12 Improved Metamagics would not be the same level as one developed by another wizard without.

The question of transmitting spells (or revising currently known spells) has not yet come up in our discussion. The ELH system had that immensely impractical x2 DC to scribe a spell on a stone tablet; I don't know how you were thinking of doing it. I don't know how difficult it is for an epic wizard who goes up a level and wants to add +1 SP factor to his ruin spell. Suppose he also wants to increase the save DC and add a little backlash? Suppose he just acquired a relevant feat? I've been assuming he could tinker a little for free, but I hadn't thought about whether he could teach spells to others, and what disparity in feats between student and teacher might mean.

4) How do you derive level = 6 + SP/6? Why not 4 + SP/4?

This is a fuzzy area. Upper_Krust says that ELH spells can be converted to spell levels according to the formula 7 + DC/10 (so a DC 30 spell is really 10th level). Many of the numbers you use are smaller than the ELH, (smaller base seeds, faster base casting time, and so on, but also lower mitigation factors), and I had estimated the difference as almost half. It turns out that DC * 3/5 + 6 converts well between DC 30 and SP 24, so I ran with it- this corresponds to a formula of SL = 6 + SP/6.

It's a provisional dial, though, based on the estimate of an estimate. One could fiddle with it if it turns out that this is a little too good (or too weak). I am assuming fractions are dropped, or else SP 24 spells are 10th level and SP 25 spells are 11th level, which I don't want. If SP 24 to SP 29 spells are all the same level, then an epic wizard can have a variety of different spells of about the same power to fit into that first spell slot he gets.

Your analysis of delayed blast fireball also provided supporting evidence for the notion that 6 SP = 1 spell level. A 3rd level spell needing 10 levels metamagic (20 SP) to match a 6th level spell. I'd bet that there are lots of cases that would count as evidence against my equation, but I found it heartening that your example provided support for an intuition I had had previously.

Do you mean Multispell?

Do you mean Improved Spell Capacity, or is this a U_K thing?

I meant Multispell and Improved Spell Capacity. I've noticed I sometimes substitute words when I'm talking about feats like Automatic Quicken Spell, Improved Spell Capacity and/or Improved Metamagic; in the case of Improved Metamagic I also sometimes make it a Three Letter Word feat. Upper_Krust does have an Automatic Metamagic feat which allows wizards to add metamagic feats on the fly; that also slips out sometimes. I apologize for the confusion.

Does a caster with an ability of 46 effectively get a bonus 10th-level epic spell slot?

Yes. Suppose he's casting up to SP 54/15th level spells. Instead of (say) 6 epic slots all of which can be filled with a SP 54 spell, he has 7 slots which can be filled with 2x10, 1x11, 1x12, 1x13, 1x14, and 1x15 level spells. I thought that insofar as there was a difference between these two arrays, it was better to have the second than the first; the first is a little more powerful and specialized (all six could be the same spell, while the second will have different spells), and I would rather err conservatively.

To amplify this last point: metamagic using wizards who envy their jacobean brothers could imitate them by casting epic spells with their higher level slots

I don't get this part. Would they use two slots or one?

They'd have to devote two slots to it. Again, it's the presumption that one's 10th level slot will probably have a bonus spell due to high ability scores; if you want 1 feat to equal 1 epic spell slot, then you have to double them up.

Musing...

If you allow a factor to increase the Save DC, Memento Mori ([Slay] +Quickened +Still +Silent +10DC) is a USP 50 spell; this is a 15th level epic spell (14.333 actually, I assume you'd round up fractions?). It prompts a Save at 35+ relevant ability, and consumes 2 x 15th-level slots. Without mitigation, you'd need to be 47th level to execute it, and you'd need an Intelligence of 40.

A stilled, silent, quickened, improved heightened (+18) finger of death replicates this effect using conventional metamagic in a regular 31st level slot. A non-jacobean wizard can hit this at level 53 (Improved Heighten, Improved Metamagic x11, Improved Spell Capacity x10) using his single 20th-level slot. The good news is that he'd only need an Int of 30

The jacobean might also have taken Improved Metamagic 11 times, at which point he's using 12th level double-slots instead. Can he use his higher slots to prepare memento mori as well? Personally, I'd have taken Improved Spell Capacity 11 times and garnered another 11 x 10th-15th-level slots to pump up my epic spellcasting. If he's a full jacobean, there's no point in him having 16th-level slots, because that would be a spell with an SP of 60, which he can't learn until he's 57th level anyway - actually 52nd, if you round all fractional spell levels up.

I dunno. Maybe there would be rare instances where metamagic is better.

It's always more flexible. You can't research an epic spell at the drop of a hat, but you could customize your array of metamagicked spells every time you prepare spells (or, with U_K's Automatic Metamagic, when you cast them). And you will probably have various metamagic feats from levels 1-20; it's nice to be able to use them in high level slots; you couldn't do this with the slots you got from Epic Spellcasting.

The idea is to try to narrow the gap between jacobean and conventional casters. To eliminate the arbitrary split between practitioners of one way over the other, with the consequent problems of ensuring balance. The easiest way to make the Epic Spellcasting Feat have the same value as Improved Spell Capacity is to make it the same feat. The easiest way to ensure that Improved Metamagic isn't too good for conventional casters is to make it work as well for jacobean casters. The easiest way of preventing one style of spellcasting from being hosed down the road was to enable casters to switch styles if that is the best strategy at a particular stage of the game.

That's the main intuition. Some of the variant rules are just implementations of this idea, and ways to improve consistency. If it were to seem better for all epic spells to have a base save DC of 20 instead of 10 + spell level, then we could do it that way. But I wouldn't want to introduce an unnecessary discrepancy in the DC formula for conventional and epic spells; and I am also alert for ways of improving save DCs at epic levels.

Similarly, I like the idea that duration, range etc. for conventional spells be capped at 20th level (except for spells that cap certain effects higher; like polar ray's 1d6/level damage out to a maximum of 25d6). It makes the static values of the seeds more intelligible. And also provides a quick fix to blasphemy. But this is peripheral.

However, one could easily drop the harsher ability prerequisite formula. It more or less ensures that there will be an ability bonus, and so ensures that the 2-slot rule can be obeyed. But really it makes sense to have the 2 slots be of different levels; if you use a higher level slot, that would be fine. And so you don't need a different ability prerequisite formula. In fact, consider my proposal so amended.

The disparity between double-slotted epic spells and single-slotted conventional spells is hard to digest. But if you take Improved Metamagic out of the picture (by having it give it the same benefit to both sides) then the reduced value of metamagic makes it necessary to provide some other method of leveling the playing field. Otherwise it's the discrepancy of your fireball/delayed blast fireball example played out at higher and higher levels. Is one 20th-level spell slot worth two 15th-level spell slots? Prima facie it doesn't seem unreasonable.

It might be tempting to not allow Improved Metamagic to benefit epic spells. But we were working with feats that provided a specific benefit to a particular seed, a benefit of about +10 SP. Maybe more. It seems to me that a feat which gave a generic +2 SP benefit to all seeds would be appropriately powered. And that is exactly what Improved Metamagic provides. Rather than have a separate feat, just allow the same feat to do double duty.

Besides, suppose a conventional caster takes Improved Metamagic 10 times. What 10 feats is the jacobean caster taking? How can we ensure that these 10 feats are balanced with Improved Metamagic? Having both casters taking the same feat and the same benefit seems to simplify the problem enormously.

A common pool of feats reduces the need to have the two systems perfectly balanced. If conventional casters were effectively a separate class than jacobean casters (and a commitment to one body of feats over another is almost as serious as committing to one class over another), then fairness would demand that the two approaches be equally effective. But if either caster could metamagic feats to high levels, or research epic spells, then it would be ok for one style to sometimes be dominant over another. Casters could gravitate to whatever style suits their playing style and the style of the campaign without being hosed for a decision made 10 or 20 levels previously.

There are problems with this proposal (e.g. I am not quite sure of the 6+SP/6 formula), but at the moment it seems a promising route both for ensuring that jacobean casters are appropriately powered in relation to their conventional kin, and for making the question of their relative power less urgent.

 

[Kaodi]

There Be Some Good Thinkin' Here

I find the notion of converting epic spells to normal slots in quite interesting, and I find a lot of merit in the argument that both types of spellcasters should be able to use many of the same feats for different effect.

On a side note though, who wouldn't want to conjure a fortress every day?

Throw in a 1 hour casting time, for -15, consume a Daern's Instant Fortress for -11, maybe -4 or -10 for a limited function if the spell only creates nearly identical edifices (conservatively I'd say -4, but you guys would seem better to make that call) and -2 backlash for flavour. Most would probably throw in a cabal, but there is something appealing about the image of the lone wolf preparing to cast an epic spell to create a tower in the middle of nowhere.

Did I mention I am really eager to see what you have planned for Magnum Opus? Unless of course you already posted it and I missed it...

 

[Greybar]

My two cents - I like the level conversion. It seems simpler and more straightforward. I have not yet played an epic character, but I'd hate to have to choose between the two routes. For NPCs I usually have a narrower focus, but even then I hate having to choose sometimes if they're major background people. If one of them is focusing towards being able to create a new species or turn an entire town into undead then I don't want them to absolutely be terrible in a heads-up contest of magical combat, which they would if they had to spend all their "research" working on their longer term goal.

 

[Sepulchrave II]

It seems that the issue here is primarily one of preventing massive overspecialization via an epic spellcasting route, and reducing the possible overinvestment in Epic Spellcasting and feats which apply to it.

I am not necessarily averse to the double-spell idea ( in fact, the more oblique references to 'double' the better) - seriously though, in terms of moderating the power curve, I think it has a lot of merit.

I do think that the potential for extreme specialization is a good idea, though - just that it needs to be slowed down somewhat. I also think that the fact that the original system is 'level-less' is a good thing - it distinguishes epic spellcasting qualitatively from conventional magic. I'm not sure about the knots which your system proposes via 6 +SP/6

This has been touched on before, but a quick fix to the current issues with the system might also be:

1) Give the Epic Spellcasting feat the [Epic Magic] tag. Give all feats which pertain to it the [Epic Magic] tag.

2) Feats which have the [Epic Magic] tag can only be taken as general feats, never as bonus feats gained by virtue of a character's class. This will slow progression by 50%, and force more conventional feat choices as well.

3) Allow Improved Metamagic to offer a -2 mitigating factor to epic spells per feat. I agree Improved Metamagic should synergize with both conventional and epic magic.


Dbf and the pumped up finger of death are actually poor illustrations of my point, because of the emphasis on spell-level dependent functions (Save DC and/or increased damage). It occurred to me on the bus yesterday (I think on the bus a lot), that if we work backwards from dbf we have a 6th-level spell which deals 20d6 (standard for a 6th-level spell) and forces a save of 16 + modifier (standard for a 6th level spell).

The question should therefore be what other benefit should dbf offer which fireball doesn't - apparently this is the 'delay' aspect (+3 levels). If this is true, then a swift, stilled, silent 25d6 fireball should be balanced as a 9th-level spell. With two level-dependent functions removed from the metamagic equation, this actually works pretty well. The problem is gauging things without these clear-cut functions.

 

[Cheiromancer]

@Nifft: Your suggestion sounds like the syneresis feat- each epic spell slot sacrificed is a -10 mitigating factor. Here, since an epic slot is two regular slots, it would be one slot is a -5 SP reduction.

@Kaodi: I don't know if the world really needs that many fortresses. I wonder if aggregate spells could have a factor that only permits the spell to be cast on infrequent occasions. A Reified Vision that is "Built by Moonlight" could only be cast at night, under a full moon, while "Midsummer Night's Dream" has to be cast at the summer solstice, say. Or you could have an insane wizard building dungeons on a daily basis; that would explain a lot, actually.

Oh, and I haven't seen anything about Magnum Opus yet, either.

*****

I was thinking about the feats that a conventional caster would take at low epic levels vs. the feats that a jacobean spellcaster would take.

When a conventional caster takes Improved Metamagic (IM), it is like all his spell slots are moved one step to the right. When he takes Improved Spell Capacity (ISC) it adds a slot to the right of his other slots; one slot plus any bonus spells from high ability scores. I think that a conventional caster would get a little more utility from IM as opposed to ISC, at least at first. If he is going to get a bonus spell he might take ISC, but otherwise his feat choices will be heavily weighted towards IM. That and additional metamagic feats. The IM feats will enable him to cast good epic spells, but he won't have many slots to cast them with.

A caster who intends to take the jacobean route has to take ISC or he can't cast any epic spells at all. He may also find that his ability score is not quite high enough to get a bonus 10th level spell, and so even if he takes ISC he won't be able to cast an epic spell. So it makes more sense for him to take IM as an epic feat; jacobean magic can wait until he's 24th level or so. Then he'll have another +1 to his prime ability, and probably enough wealth to get the tomes and headband needed for a 30 ability score. The IM won't go to waste; it will increase the range of SP that can occupy that 10th level slot.

What next? Say he's a wizard. If his Intelligence is high enough to provide a bonus 11th level spell, he can double his number of epic spells with another ISC. If it's not, he can either buy Great Intelligence or else use IM to get access to epic spells whose SP is 2 higher. IM would also help him when he's acting as a conventional caster. The cost to research epic spells (xp, gp and time) might be significant, so he might want to take the conventional route. It's doubtful a jacobean spellcaster would take many metamagic feats, but he might take specialized feats to help him with particular seeds. He'll have IM and ISC that will help his conventional magic, but the mix will not be optimal for someone who wishes to specialize in conventional spells metamagicked to a great degree. In fact, I think he will lean heavily toward ISC over IM, while a conventional spellcaster will do the opposite.

It looks to me that there is room for diversity in feat choices, particularly in the ratio between IM and ISC. Each benefits both styles of casters, but to different degrees. It also looks to me like there will be a strong lure towards conventional magic (and lots of IM) early on. Conventional mages can use lots of metamagicked spells, and so IM has high utility. A jacobean caster with one epic spell can't do much. When he has 10 epic spells it's a different story, but how does he survive until then? This is Greybar's point, I believe.

This reasoning seems to be consistent with the impression I'm getting that at higher levels jacobean magic is superior; it should require some early sacrifices in order to reap later rewards. But it also suggests that the two styles of magic are balanced somewhere in between, and aren't unacceptably disparate near this "crossing point".

I predict that a character who develops organically and doesn't think too far ahead (i.e. tries to optimize his character's development over the next few levels) will veer towards conventional magic early in his epic career, but later on will adjust course and incorporate more and more jacobean magic. The result will be different from a character who was optimized for jacobean magic from the outset. And this is not even considering feat choices that don't contribute to either conventional or jacobean spellcasting; feats devoted to crafting epic magic items, say. Each such feat means one less ISC or IM.

I would predict that characters will stay near the crossing point (where conventional and jacobean spellcasting are equal) for quite a while. My intuition tells me that they will need more than a dozen feats between IM and ISC before the crossing point is even reached, and that early flirtations with conventional magic will delay considerably the time when jacobean magic is brokenly more powerful than conventional magic. At those levels there will be no pure jacobean or pure conventional casters, but characters who are mixtures of each.

This will parallel the situation at sub-epic levels, where some characters might use lots of metamagic, and other characters very little. Even the metamagic characters will still know 8th and 9th level spells, even if they usually use those slots for metamagic. And characters who rarely use metamagic will probably still have a quickened, silent dimension door in case of emergencies.

There are other routes of possible character development besides conventional (metamagic) and jacobean. Several iterations of Automatic Quicken Spell (AQS) + Multispell could work very nicely as a character concept, especially if buttressed by a custom epic ring of wizardry that doubles multiple spell levels. Might be a bit of a dead end, developmentally, though it could be supplemented by feats that let you quicken items- that and the feats to make those items. A very dangerous character, albeit not one with staying power. But one who could turn a battle around very quickly.

Dunno. It doesn't look too bad. Of course, it has only been a day. My whims rarely last very long; perhaps I will dislike the idea tomorrow.