Epic Magic Big Thread

[Sepulchrave II]

The metamagic using 39th level character has no specialized feats at all (except Enhance Spell- but it contributes maybe 5% of the final damage); it's basically all AMC. There is room for all kinds of specialized feats for particular power-ups, but I wanted these ultra-generic casters to be balanced against each other, to have a playing field as level as possible. And to do that there needs to be exponential factors.

This issue will doubtless resurface; it is part of the ongoing debate which makes this exchange so productive. The core issue (for me, at least) is balancing the specialization of the jacobean against the generalism of the AMC conventional caster - without constraining the jacobean too tightly.

I've attached a pic re: how I sorta see it. Red is the power curve offered by the AMC generalist, blue is the feat-intensive jacobean specialist. Feats give a substantive boost above the predicted curve from AMC, but they're specialized. When the power granted by AMC begins to approach the jacobean, he's eligible for another power-up feat to stay ahead of the game - in that specific area.

You're working on the assumption that the epic spell specialist will invest a lot of feats in AMC - you're therefore balancing seed factors on this basis. I'm assuming that a dash or two of AMC might be a fringe benefit for the jacobean who hasn't entirely dumped his conventional spellcasting - most of his epic feats will be groovy "look ma, this spell is ten times as big now" type affairs.

 

[Cheiromancer]

:scratches head:

So you want regular choices of AMC to be a viable choice for a krustean, but not a jacobean? Jacobeans will have to specialize if they want to be competitive? I don't see how this will work, but I'm sure you have a picture in your mind. How many paths (seeds) could a jacobean wizard be competitive on, assuming he takes those specialist feats? If your thought was that a jacobean could be competitive in one area (disintegrating things) but would be way behind everywhere else (the base curve, before it steps up).... well, I'm sure you don't mean that. But I don't know what else you might mean.

Maybe you want a more flavorful diet of feats for the jacobean wizard? I don't really think that a bland diet of feats (all AMC) is necessarily a bad thing. They translate into better epic spells, and there's a lot of fun there. Not that a wizard can't specialize with all kinds of wonderfully named, evocative feats; that's great, too, but I don't think it should be mandatory. And deciding on the benchmarks for those specialist feats; the context has to be what a generalist wizard of the same level can do, doesn't it? In which case it has to be a balanced, viable choice to be a generalist.

 

[Sepulchrave II]

So you want regular choices of AMC to be a viable choice for a krustean, but not a jacobean? Jacobeans will have to specialize if they want to be competitive?

Jacobeans should be better in a specific area with the appropriate feats. They might sacrifice a degree of competitiveness in other areas: striking this balance is the hard part. But how many seeds would actually include exponential factors, anyway? Aside from maximize and empower for [energy] and [destroy] (and maybe [energy drain] and [time]) what is there that would really allow a conventional caster an edge?

The AMC generalist is constrained by metamagic, which has far stricter rules than factors in epic spells. He can't mitigate. He can't invoke big rituals. He can't toggle between area and targeted effects. He can't widen a line cone, or devise a suicidal compulsion with a 1-round duration. And he's limited to the metamagic feats that he knows. Give the guy a break!

 

[Sepulchrave II]

Re-read some of my arguments, which appear self-contradictory, Evidently, I'm having trouble articulating myself. There are different levels of generalism and specialization happening here, and I'm conflating them.

1. First, a conventional caster who takes only AMC and IM feats is not a generalist, but a metamagic specialist. He has no item creation feats. No Great Intelligence. No Spell Opportunity or Spell Stowaway. No Master Staff or Master Wand. No IMC or Epic Leadership etc. etc. If our core assumption is that all wizards will be metamagic specialists - because AMC and IM give by far the greatest returns - then they must, by definition, be broken feats.

2. The metamagic specialist has sweeping discretionary powers when he casts a spell. His combat-effectiveness is very high if his pre-epic feats include Quicken, Empower and Maximize; if he has non-core pre-epic feats (Chain, Twin, Repeat) then things get even worse, because he can sacrifice some IMs for more AMCs. He is still limited by metamagic, however. His dbf can't do force damage. His disintegrate still can't penetrate a prismatic sphere. His greater dispel magic (even his chain dispel or reaving dispel, if you go noncore) isn't working anymore. His finger of death still bounces off of a death ward. His greater planar binding still takes 10 minutes to cast, and he can't summon infernals.

3. With 11 doses of AMC, the metamagic specialist's non-damage dealing spells are prompting saves of 30+ relevant modifier through Heighten Spell: this is comparable to the jacobean, who can routinely add +20 factors to a seed to crank up the DC of a spell by this level - maybe he has the Horny and Bad-Tempered feat as well .

I don't know exactly where this is going, except to say that we're measuring versatility on a number of very different levels here. The metamagic specialist can be reflexive, tailoring the specific modification to his spells to meet his immediate needs; the jacobean can devise a spell to meet *very* specific requirements. The only real area where the metamagic specialist shines is in direct-damage dealing spells: you are proposing that the jacobean be on a level playing field in this area; I am proposing that he be intrinsically weaker, but that epic feats can make him stronger.

 

[Cheiromancer]

You're working on the assumption that the epic spell specialist will invest a lot of feats in AMC - you're therefore balancing seed factors on this basis. I'm assuming that a dash or two of AMC might be a fringe benefit for the jacobean who hasn't entirely dumped his conventional spellcasting - most of his epic feats will be groovy "look ma, this spell is ten times as big now" type affairs.

I don't think it's an assumption so much as it is a theorem to the effect that they might as well have invested all their feats in AMC, since all feats are balanced with AMC as the standard. But now that it's stated so baldly, I realize that I might be following different axioms in my analysis and design than you are. It might be appropriate to list some of these axioms to see if we can agree on them, or at least agree on where we disagree. So for seed, factor and feat design I submit the follow axioms for your consideration. They are design goals; their execution may in particular instances be faulty. If some of these axioms necessarily fail to apply, I think it would be very helpful to state the scope and nature of the failure; where don't they apply, why not, and to what degree do they fall short, and why it wouldn't be better to fix things so they do apply. However, I think we can make a system where they all hold, and that it would be best if we did so:

Design Axioms

• There is no essential difference in either power or flexibility between metamagic specialists and seed specialists. Any difference there might be can be attributed to accidental factors such as differences in feat choices, spell choices, equipment, etc., but not to the choice between being a seed specialist and a metamagic specialist.
• Increased power is balanced by decreased flexibility, and vice versa.
• Flavor reasons may prohibit player access certain feats, factors, seeds or other elements which would be permitted on mechanical grounds.
• Metamagic feats generally correspond to factors and vice versa; where feats (or factors) don't exist, they could in principle be developed.
• AMC should be equally beneficial to a metamagic specialist as to a seed specialist; it does not provide different degrees of power or flexibility to different kinds of specialist.
• The value of AMC to a seed specialist is 2 SP; each feat provides an automatic mitigation of -2 SP once per round.
• AMC is the standard to which other [epic magic] feats should be judged. Some feats might give more benefit to a limited number of seeds, but this balance of greater power with loss of generality has AMC as the fulcrum.
• [edit- added in]In seeds, mitigating factors are balanced in power compared to the null case; the advantage of a mitigating factor should be exactly balanced against its drawbacks.

My benchmark spellcasters have all invested heavily in AMC, but that's because they are benchmarks. Any given spellcaster might have a different array of feats, but those feats are all supposed to be balanced in comparison with AMC. So why not use AMC from the get-go?

The AMC generalist is constrained by metamagic, which has far stricter rules than factors in epic spells. He can't mitigate. He can't invoke big rituals. He can't toggle between area and targeted effects. He can't widen a line cone, or devise a suicidal compulsion with a 1-round duration. And he's limited to the metamagic feats that he knows. Give the guy a break!

Another axiom for the list- I've added it to the end as axiom viii.

One consideration that I suspect you are neglecting is that there is still a potentially infinite array of non-epic spells which can be developed and (via metamagic) enhanced into epic scale effects. While the seed specialist is researching epic spells, the metamagic specialist can research non-epic spells (faster and cheaper if the rules are well designed) and do lots of cool things with them. If he wants to research suicidal command he can do so- and then heighten it so its DC will actually be useful. The fact that seeds are based on 10th level spells suggests that 9th level spells can be researched that are almost as good, and which can be made as good with a bit of a metamagic boost.

The point you make about limited feats is a good one. The seed specialist has virtual access to every feat to which a factor corresponds, but the metamagic specialist has to pay for each use. That curtails either the power or the flexibility of the one over the other, and that violates the first design axiom.

I think that some factors should be limited on the basis of what metamagic feats the epic spellcaster possesses; e.g. you can't develop a spell with a swift action casting time unless you know Quicken Spell. For other factors I suggest that a sufficiently high (but not outrageously high) Spellcraft score can substitute for a particular metamagic feat. E.g. Everyone with a Spellcraft score of 24 knows Extend Spell, Enlarge Spell, Rapid Spell, etc. (we'd make a list of the routine factors, and set a prerequisite score of 21+ 3 * level modifier or something). These "techniques" would include mitigating factors, unless we wish to ensure the distinctive flavor of the two paths (axiom iii trumps axiom iv). Casters who already know the feat get an additional perk; maybe they get a -2 SP to any spell it is employed in (or a free level of metamagic), or it has a double effect or something. If a particular feat is so bizarre that it won't fit into a general rule, then maybe seed specialists should not have automatic access to the associated factor without taking the feat first.

This notion of metamagic techniques might have been inspired by the metamartial techniques in the IH:Ascension book of Upper_Krust's. Dunno; it seems an obvious solution to the problem of balancing seed specialists and metamagic specialists, and seems to have compelling in-game reasons too; shouldn't a wizard with 27 ranks in Spellcraft and an Intelligence of 30 be able to use this knowledge to figure out how to Extend the duration of a spell? It's sort of the inverse of axiom four; flavor might demand that mechanical advantages be extended to characters who are technically not entitled to them. And if another axiom justifies and mandates this, well, why wouldn't you do it?

[edit] Didn't see your most recent post until after I submitted this. I think my points still stand, though.

[edit2] I'm thinking that access to techniques might be unlocked by Metamagic Freedom, which all metamagic specialists would take. It gives them some much needed flexibility in comparison with their seedy counterparts. However, even so, there aren't metamagic feats for internal factors (like the CR of a summoned monster), and upon reflection I'm not sure that there always should be. Nor am I sure that in the absence of an appropriate feat there should be a possible non-epic spell that can be developed to match a seed specialist's flexibility. It seems plausible that you should be able to do things with epic spells that can't be matched with non-epic spells and metamagic feats. In other words, I'm waffling on axiom iv, and am interpreting i as true overall, not in each potential area of expertise.

So the power/flexibility relationship will probably require some tradeoffs. In other words, some feat/factors should be withdrawn from seed specialists, or at least less unattractive. The Empower factor in [energy] might be increased from +6 to +8, say. That's the equivalent of an AMC feat for each iteration.

I don't know- but I didn't want to give the impression that I'm totally inflexible in my position.

[edit3] I discovered that my original treatment of Empower as a +6 SP factor was flawed. A different deployment of factors allows a seed specialist to significantly exceed the metamagic specialist. In light of the remarks about relative flexibility and power, that's too good.

Empower at +8 SP and Maximize at +12 SP works better, but I'd go a little further and say that for a spellcaster to use these factors in the seed they'd need to have the feats. Furthermore, they could only use them once per seed. Unless they have Metamagic Freedom.

A 39th level metamagic specialist could use an 8th level slot and 12 AMC to sextuply empower his spell; that ends up quadrupling the base 25d6 for 100d6 of damage. A 39th level seed specialist who has taken Empower at non-epic levels (and has 8 AMC) would, I propose, cast an empowered (+8) 55d6 (+30) inflexible (-4) energy blast (24) for an SP of 58, mitigated down to 42 by the 8 AMC. This would be 82.5d6. Eighty-two percent of the metamagic specialist might be too high; it's about the ratio between d8s and d10s.

Following the logic of the feats, Metamagic Freedom should allow the seed specialist to use multiple instances of Empower. That would be one less AMC, and his best deployment would be a triply empowered (+24) 37d6 (+12) inflexible (-4) energy blast (24) for an SP of 56, mitigated down to 42 by the 7 AMC. This would be 92.5d6. The gap is less than half what it was; but by taking IM he's narrowed the gap between himself and the Metamagic Specialist, so perhaps this is OK.

Without any use of the Empower factor, the seed specialist would do a 43d6 (+38) inflexible (-4) energy blast (24). This is 43% of the metamagic specialist's capacity, and I think it might be too little. It's like d8s compared to d20s. It seems like too much of a reduction of power. [edit]I'm innumerate, apparently. 63d6. Which is not bad. It's the ratio of d6s to d10s. In light of this the following suggestion is unnecessary; it is also futile, for reasons given in the 4th edit. The error may be instructive, so I won't delete it entirely.

Rather than reduce the seed specialist's power so drastically (even if it is only with energy spells), perhaps the flexibility of the metamagic specialist can be increased a little. If the metamagic specialist gets access to various metamagic emulating techniques by virtue of Metamagic Freedom, they would greatly increase his options of what can be added on the fly. Some of these might be mitigating factors, and provide a boost in AMC slots when he uses them. These factors wouldn't have to be designated when the spell is prepared, much less when it is designed, but only when cast. It would represent a kind of tactical flexibility that the seed specialist couldn't emulate. By making the list of available techniques sufficiently long, the degree of flexibility could be increased as desired. Enlarge, Extend, Heighten and the factors which increase and decrease casting time should be there. Perhaps the factor for adding (or eliminating) power components as well. This might infringe on Ignore Material Components, but IMC doesn't require one to spend 3 metamagic slots to eliminate a 25,000 gp power component.

Any feat not on the metamagic specialist's list of techniques would be a candidate for restriction; seed specialists could only use the assocated factor if they had the appropriate feat. Quicken would be a good choice, I think. Empower and Maximize should be restricted, if they are allowed, and their SP value would be as given above. This would curb the power and flexibility of the seed specialist at the same time that the metamagic specialist was being increased a little. The balance point between the two classes might be within reach using these techniques.

Anyway, I should wait for you to respond before I develop these ideas further.

[edit4] It occurs to me that many of the factors I cited to help the metamagic specialist also help the seed specialist, and thus the effect is a wash. Even if it were needed, which I am not convinced of anymore. The notion of techniques may or may not be worth pursuing, but if the metamagic specialist gets them by taking Metamagic Freedom, the seed specialist who takes MF can get most of the benefits; not quite, since they'll be behind in AMC slots, but a lot. Similar considerations apply to the remarks about researching non-epic spells; the seed specialist can research them too, so they aren't very significant in the final analysis.

So basically it's back to either disallowing Empower and Maximize as seed factors, or make them pretty expensive, even if the seed specialist knows the feats. If 82.5% (92.5% with MF) is a too high (and 63% too low), then perhaps pricing Empower at a greater price would be better. Each +2 in the cost of Empower reduces the final damage by 3d6. I.e. At SP 10 it's 79.5d6, at SP 12 it is 76.5d6 and so on. Down to 64d6 (at SP 20). Any more than that he won't take the Empower Factor. At least not at 39th level. But the linear factor is not that bad for someone who hasn't taken any specialist feats to improve their ability to blast things.

I think I'm done now.

 

[Sepulchrave II]

There is no essential difference in either power or flexibility between metamagic specialists and seed specialists. Any difference there might be can be attributed to accidental factors such as differences in feat choices, spell choices, equipment, etc., but not to the choice between being a seed specialist and a metamagic specialist.

As I've mentioned previously, flexibility is being measured on a number of levels, here; there is an essential difference, as seeds can cause effects that metamagicked conventional spells cannot. Penetrating immunities, the scope of many seeds ([call] etc.). There is also overlap, of course. Maybe not apples and oranges; certainly apples and pears. Surely that is one of the points of epic magic - to address contingencies that conventional magic cannot?

Increased power is balanced by decreased flexibility, and vice versa.

In theory, yes. I submit that measuring power and flexibility in seeds is our greatest challenge, however.

Flavor reasons may prohibit player access certain feats, factors, seeds or other elements which would be permitted on mechanical grounds.

Yes.

Metamagic feats generally correspond to factors and vice versa; where feats (or factors) don't exist, they could in principle be developed.

I think that this is stating the correspondance too starkly. I am reluctant to go further than to say "the pattern of metamagic informs the structure of factors." I think to tightly constrain ourselves to the framework of metamagic will ultimately prove inhibiting to creativity, and epic magic.

AMC should be equally beneficial to a metamagic specialist as to a seed specialist; it does not provide different degrees of power or flexibility to different kinds of specialist.

I am having huge reservations about AMC for a whole variety of (sometimes contradictory) reasons. In brief, these are:

• I seriously doubt its balance at low epic levels. It may scale 'robustly' from level 30 onwards, but the massive access to free spontaneous metamagic which occurs from levels 24 to 29 may be too much.
• I have never personally seen it in play.
• It is unplaytested to any meaningful degree. I mean no disrespect to U_K (he has produced some outstanding work), but he is ultimately a game theorist, not a gamer.
• I am sceptical about tying it to epic spellcasting in any fashion, and concerned that my previous acceptance of it as a potential mitigating factor was a mistake - although, if I recall, that was IM, not AMC.
• I am extremely reluctant to use it as a benchmark; it may be useful as an external reference point, but not the internal fulcrum upon which the progression of epic magic is predicated.
• Like you pointed out, it's kind of boring.

I do think that AMC is preferable to the ELH alternative. I am far from sold on it, however.

 

[Cheiromancer]

I submit that measuring power and flexibility in seeds is our greatest challenge, however.

I agree. I think the question about AMC ultimately comes down to deciding what difference there is in flexibility and power between a level of spontaneous metamagic each round and an epic spell slot. There is no doubt that epic seed magic can do things that spontaneous metamagic can't; but a seed spell, when cast, is gone. Spontaneous metamagic works all day, potentially affecting every spell that's cast in a great many ways. That's also a lot of power and flexibility. Different, but possibly equal.


*******

Upon further reflection, I have decided you are probably right about the proposed Empower and Maximize factors. They may make the seed specialist's energy blasts only 60% as effective as a metamagic specialist's, but the metamagic specialist's calls and summons will be much less effective than the seed specialist's. The seed specialist might need even further restrictions on the use of factors.

I am having huge reservations about AMC for a whole variety of (sometimes contradictory) reasons. In brief, these are:

• I seriously doubt its balance at low epic levels. It may scale 'robustly' from level 30 onwards, but the massive access to free spontaneous metamagic which occurs from levels 24 to 29 may be too much.
• I have never personally seen it in play.
• It is unplaytested to any meaningful degree. I mean no disrespect to U_K (he has produced some outstanding work), but he is ultimately a game theorist, not a gamer.
• I am sceptical about tying it to epic spellcasting in any fashion, and concerned that my previous acceptance of it as a potential mitigating factor was a mistake - although, if I recall, that was IM, not AMC.
• I am extremely reluctant to use it as a benchmark; it may be useful as an external reference point, but not the internal fulcrum upon which the progression of epic magic is predicated.
• Like you pointed out, it's kind of boring.

I do think that AMC is preferable to the ELH alternative. I am far from sold on it, however.

I rather doubt that UK has worried too much about the precise balance of levels 20 to 30. That's only a small fraction of the gamut he designs for. And he is a theorist (as am I, of course). Your first three points reinforce this point.

I think the boring nature of the feat is part of its attractiveness to UK; if you are statting out a 320th level wizard, you really don't want to pick (or design) 200 flavorful, unique feats. And to try to figure out the metamagic configuration of each and every spell? An Intelligence 40 wizard could figure it out, but its hard for the rest of us. The spontaneous application of metamagic is what makes it such a time-saver for folks who might like to play metamagic specialists. That would be its biggest selling point to me; to make high level wizards easier to play. The complexity is already awfully high; a few boring feats could be just what is needed.

I think that when designing a seed AMC provides some much needed stability. You determine that a particular effect can be achieved at USP 50. Is it too good? Too weak? It'd be nice to know at what level such a spell will be routinely cast; level 47 or earlier. How much earlier? Is there going to be a feat available that will allow someone to cast the spell at level 21? A feat could, we're thinking, provide a +30 SP benefit, easily enough to bridge a gap of 26 levels.

Assuming AMC is available, we can design a purely theoretical "average mage" who can routinely reach USP 50 at level 36; assume 4 x Epic Spellcasting, 6 x AMC, and 1 other feat. Or one or two fewer AMCs and a few points of mitigation from somewhere. But mid-thirties. This spell will be usable later for a mage with a different specialty, and its effects might be reached earlier by someone with specialized feats, but it is a nice middle ground. If the spell you've calculated to be USP 50 is appropriate for a 36th level character, it's probably well designed.

That's why I like AMC. Whether or not anyone ever takes it, or whether it is even allowed in the campaign, if it helps design seeds that yield spells at appropriate SPs, then it's done its job. At least as far as I'm concerned.

However, the question keeps arising whether a feat slot spent on Epic Spellcasting yields as much (in power and flexibility) as a feat slot spent on AMC. How, besides playtesting, could we answer this? An elegant system with multiple symmetries is more likely to pass the test than one that isn't, but elegance isn't the whole story.

You know, it might be helpful to think of "dials" that can be used to adjust the balance between these two systems. Making available the Empower and Maximize factors would be a way of powering up Jacobean spellcasting. Limiting the Quicken factor to characters with the Quicken Spell feat would power them down a trifle. Requiring Spell Focus in a particular school to access certain obscure seeds would power them down a little too. You could make spell research cheaper and faster, or slower and more expensive. All sorts of things.

I'm getting tired. I'm sure we'll talk about this question some more.

***

AMC gives +1 metamagic level to each of a 20th level wizard's 50 or so non-cantrip spells. What are these worth? Half as much as a real level? 1/3 as much when averaged over all the spells? (A wizard won't be using them all, and so much of this numeric benefit will go to waste). So maybe 17 or 18 levels worth of power and flexibility.

UK suggests that an epic feat should be able to grant two bonus 9th-level spell slots. This seems reasonable; ISC would grant 2 10th level slots if the caster's spellcasting ability score was high enough. I find the 18 spell levels this represents gratifyingly close to 1/3 of 50. The increased number of top-drawer spells certainly increases the caster's options, and therefore both power and flexibility.

A seed when it is first acquired is just a little bit more powerful than a 9th level spell, but has more degrees of freedom in its augmentations, and especially in its possible mitigations. Would I say that it is twice as good as a 9th level spell? I'm not sure. But I think that the seeds we have are pretty good- its how fast their power should increase by SP increases that is a little tricky.

I think we are agreed that a seed specialist's energy blast should increase in power at a slower rate than a metamagic specialist's. They'll both start out about the same, but the seed specialist will gradually fall behind as the metamagic specialist's curve starts to steepen. I think the version that omits Empower and Maximize factors is good.

Without AMC I don't know what the curve of the metamagic specialist would look like. We'd have to use ISC and IM I think- but I think AMC is preferable to these. But we kinda need to know the metamagic specialist's power curve in order to decide if the [energy blast] seed scales appropriately. And design the power-up feats that enhance [energy blast].

 

[Sepulchrave II]

Still playing around with possible combinations, here. I think I'm getting there.

Epic Spell Discovery [Epic][Epic Magic]
You have penetrated one of the mysteries of epic magic. This knowledge may arise from personal insight, or through revelation by a powerful magical sponsor or deity.
Prerequisites: Spellcraft 24 ranks, Knowledge (arcana, nature or religion) 24 ranks, ability to spontaneously cast 9th level arcane or divine spells.
Benefit: Choose one seed: you have intuited or have been granted an understanding of its inner workings, and have gained a single epic spell which uses this seed as its base seed. You do not need to spend time or pay any development costs to acquire the spell; you may develop further spells which use this seed as their base seed, but need commit only half of the time and resources normally required in this process. Whether an epic spell is arcane or divine depends on your nonepic spellcasting ability: if you meet more than one set of prerequisites, you may choose whether an individual spell is arcane or divine in nature.
Special: This feat may be taken multiple times. Each time you take it, you gain insight into another seed and gain an epic spell associated with that seed. Each time you take this feat, the number of prerequisite Spellcraft ranks increases by +3.
Special: You may develop compound spells (epic spells which manipulate more than one seed) provided that you possess the Epic Spell Discovery feat with regard to all of the seeds involved.
Special: You always have a number of epic spell slots equal to twice the number of Epic Spell Discovery feats which you possess. You may cast any epic spell that you know with an open epic spell slot.

vs.


Epic Spellcasting (Arcane) [Epic][Epic Magic]
You may develop, prepare and cast epic arcane spells.
Prerequisites: Knowledge (arcana) 24 ranks, Spellcraft 24 ranks, ability to prepare and cast 9th-level arcane spells.
Benefit: You gain 1 epic spell slot. You may develop epic arcane spells using any combination of seeds (except esoteric seeds) without penalty. Epic spells which you develop are prepared in the same way as a wizard, but you do not require a spellbook.
Special: This feat may be taken more than once. Each time you take it, you gain another epic spell slot. Each time you take this feat, the number of prerequisite Spellcraft ranks increases by +3.

vs.

Epic Spellcasting (Divine) [Epic][Epic Magic]
You may develop, prepare and cast epic divine spells.
Prerequisites: Knowledge (nature or religion) 24 ranks, Spellcraft 24 ranks, ability to prepare and cast 9th-level divine spells, turn/rebuke undead or wildshape class ability.
Benefit: You gain 1 epic spell slot. You may develop epic divine spells using any combination of seeds without penalty, provided that those seeds are considered associated for you. You may also develop spells which incorporate nonassociated seeds, but using a nonassociated seed always incurs a +20 modifier to the spell's Spellcraft Prerequisite. Whether a seed is considered asscociated or nonassociated, is dependent on your nonepic spellcasting ability:

If you can prepare and cast 9th level divine spells, possess 24 or more ranks in Knowledge (religion), and use positive energy to turn undead, then the following seeds are considered associated for you:

• [Summon] and [Call], provided that they target creatures of your alignment, your deity's alignment, or creatures otherwise directly associated with your deity.
• [Life], [heal] and [create]

If you can prepare and cast 9th level divine spells, possess 24 or more ranks in Knowledge (religion), and use negative energy to rebuke undead, then the following seeds are considered associated for you:

• [Summon] and [Call], provided that they target creatures of your alignment, your deity's alignment, or creatures otherwise directly associated with your deity.
• [Afflict], [harrow] and [slay]

If you can prepare and cast 9th level divine spells, possess 24 or more ranks in Knowledge (nature), and the wildshape class ability, then the following seeds are considered associated for you:

• [Awaken], [fortify creature] and [weather].
• [Call], [compel] and [summon], provided that they target animals, magical beasts, feys, plant creatures, vermin or elementals.
• [Polymorph],provided that it effects a transformation into an animal, magical beast, fey, plant creature, vermin or elemental.
• [Energy], provided that it is an [acid], [cold], [electricity] of [fire] effect.

If you meet more than one set of criteria, then you consider any seeds for which you meet the criteria as associated for the purposes of developing epic spells.

Special: This feat may be taken more than once. Each time you take it, you gain another epic spell slot. Each time you take this feat, the number of prerequisite Spellcraft ranks increases by +3.


Edit: maybe drop acid for druids (that sounds bad, doesn't it?) and add slash/pierce/bludgeon and divine. They get flame strike (and as a 4th level spell), and weapon-type damage seems 'natural.'

 

[Greybar]

quick note: Is it your thought to also add seeds based on domains as discussed before, bringing the total number of seeds between clerics and druids back into line?

I like where this is going.

 

[Greybar]

Separate post for a separate query:

A couple times the idea of benchmark characters has come up. Would it help to have (perhaps in a parallel thread) a bank of characters at levels 21,25,30,35,40? I've been meaning to create somesuch for my own purposes on the intrinsic gear concept (yes, I'm still working on and off on that idea, just nothing ready to post yet).

Edit: something like:

Each of the below at Levels 21, 25, 30, 35, 40

Priority 1 - The Basics - Wizard, Cleric, Druid, Sorcerer
Priority 2 - Blended - Mystic Theurge
Priority 3 - LowerMax - Bard, Paladin, Eldritch Knight