Epic Magic Big Thread

[Cheiromancer]

@Sep: the old ELH system had a quirk that a cleric with the Animal or Plant domain could max out Knowledge (nature) and cast twice as many spells as other characters; 1 per 10 ranks of Knowledge (religion) and 1 per 10 ranks of Knowledge (nature). I'm wondering if at this stage you are worried about weird boundary-blurring characters who might qualify for multiple feats.

The sorcerer who takes the feat that allows spontaneous casters to prepare spells. Or a wizard who somehow acquires the ability to cast some 9th level spell spontaneously. A nature cleric who gains the wildshape class ability from a prestige class, but retains a certain ability to turn undead. A cleric of a neutral deity who somehow has acquired the ability to channel both positive and negative energy. edit: I see you addressed this multiple meeting of criteria. Ok. Does the final clause of Epic Spell Discovery eliminate epic slots acquired through other feats?

Re: druids.

I agree that [acid] is less natural than the other kinds. Weapon-type damage should have a plant or animal flavor; thorns, teeth, etc.. Bludgeoning could be a kind of thunder effect, which would go well with lightning/electricity. You wouldn't need [sonic], then.

What do you think of [poison] being an energy sub-type? +2 SP, and a creature's save bonus vs. poison applies to the reflex saving throw. And creatures immune to poison are also immune to this damage. I'm thinking that it is like a +6 almost-typeless kind of effect, but basically it only affects living creatures (-4), and not all of them, at that.

@Greybar: I feel the domains are too much of a mish-mash of spells to try to tie them in a coherent way with seeds. I think that clerics should be more narrow than druids in their epic spells. Feats could change this, of course, and the feats might have access to particular domain spells as their prerequisites.

It'd be great, I think, to have characters for the different levels, but the stumbling block appears to be feats. With AMC under suspicion there is no obvious choice for what will fill those feat slots. I think the issue of equipment values is also unresolved; I think UK's cubic formula works best, but the official rule is an exponential progression. If you can resolve the questions of feats and equipment to Sepulchrave's satisfaction, I'd say go for it.

 

[Greybar]

Quick reply:
* My concern is first-blush balance - are epic druids going to be inherently more powerful than clerics if the cleric would have to take three epic feats to match the seed selection of the druid?

* I'll try to scrounge/make lvl20 characters as a starting point, since all of the feats under debate won't be available above that point. At lvl20 the official wealth is 760,000 - which is very close to UK's 800,000 (20^3*100), so we can postpone that discussion I suppose. Too bad the Exodus game on RPOL isn't available anymore or I'd hijack some of those in a hurry - but I bet there are other L20/epic arena games out there I can Google to... (later)

 

[Sepulchrave II]

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?

Not domains, necessarily, but I think I'd like to extend the remit of clerics a wee bit. [Banish] (vs. opposite alignments) is an obvious choice; as is [divine] damage through the [energy blast] seed.

Of course, now that clerics have been stymied, I'm wondering whether [heal] and [life] should simply be nonassociated for wizards...

Input on these matters would be appreciated.

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 think this is an excellent idea, although I don't think we're there yet in terms of adequately shaped feats. Wording them is a grand old pain in the ass.

Re: druids.

I agree that [acid] is less natural than the other kinds. Weapon-type damage should have a plant or animal flavor; thorns, teeth, etc.. Bludgeoning could be a kind of thunder effect, which would go well with lightning/electricity. You wouldn't need [sonic], then.

That's kind of been my thoughts, also. Sonic doesn't really show up on the druid radar, either.

What do you think of [poison] being an energy sub-type? +2 SP, and a creature's save bonus vs. poison applies to the reflex saving throw. And creatures immune to poison are also immune to this damage. I'm thinking that it is like a +6 almost-typeless kind of effect, but basically it only affects living creatures (-4), and not all of them, at that.

I think I'd like to keep poison in [harrow] - although expanding its scope would be nice. Opening up the poison and disease aspects of [harrow] to druids is definitely attractive. It may be that [harrow] (or some aspects of it) is ultimately folded with [afflict] - we haven't really got to it yet, but there's a lot of crossover.

Repeat Spell might be an interesting pointer on the way poison works. +6SP, save or take the damage again - seems kind of cheap, though.

***


I've been thinking a lot about AMC; it seems slippery, in terms of efforts to gauge its power. 26th level seems a particularly 'sweet spot' for the epic caster who has taken AMC x4. Four hits can potentially embrace all of the following official feats:

Automatic Still Spell (1-3)
Automatic Still Spell (4-6)
Automatic Still Spell (7-9)
Automatic Silent Spell (1-3)
Automatic Silent Spell (4-6)
Automatic Silent Spell (7-9)
Automatic Quicken Spell (0-1)
Automatic Quicken Spell (2)
Automatic Quicken Spell (3)
Automatic Quicken Spell (4)
Automatic Quicken Spell (5)
Automatic Quicken Spell (6)
Automatic Quicken Spell (7)
Automatic Quicken Spell (8)
Automatic Quicken Spell (9)
Improved Spell Capacity (10)
Improved Spell Capacity (11)
Improved Spell Capacity (12)
Improved Spell Capacity (13)
Sudden Maximize (any number of times per day)
Sudden Empower (")
Sudden Quicken (")
Sudden Still
Sudden Silent
Sudden Empower
Sudden Widen
Sudden Extend
Improved Metamagic (1)
Improved Metamagic (2)
Improved Metamagic (3)
Improved Metamagic (4)

Obviously, there is a great degree of redundancy amongst many of these feats, and limitations exist due to the number of metamagic feats that the caster actually knows; nonetheless the versatility of AMC is staggering. I'm concerned about sorcerers, whose natural bent for metamagic is less pronounced than wizards; I think that AMC will probably only exacerbate the gap between the two classes. If the sorcerer wants to capitalize on AMC, I suspect he will be up to 10 levels behind the wizard as he takes nonepic metamagic feats at epic levels to expand his versatility in an attempt to bring it up to par.

The curious thing (to me, at least) is that AMC feels more like a sorcerer feat than a wizard feat in its execution - it resembles sudden metamagic, more than anything else. It might actually be balanced as a sorcerer-only feat, because of the restriction on pre-epic metamagic which sorcerers suffer. It's really no better designed than Sudden Quicken or Auto Quicken for a sorcerer, in that he sill has to 'waste' a feat on Quicken Spell in order to benefit from it. And the number of spells which a sorcerer can cast per day becomes less of an issue at epic levels: bonus spells due to high ability scores account for an increasing percentage of any caster's spells per day.

I wonder if we can design something better?

 

[Sepulchrave II]

Totally Random Aside

It occurs to me that the rather ugly Automatic Quicken Spell suite and its relatives spring more naturally from sudden metamagic than from regular metamagic. Unfortunately, the sudden feats aren't OGL, so they're not much good to us.

That aside, I wonder if a better progression for Auto Quicken would have been

Quicken (+4 spell levels) -> Improved Quicken [Epic] (+2 spell levels) -> Automatic Quicken (+0 spell levels) [Epic]

The prerequistes for Improved Quicken could have been tooled to make it available at, say, level 24; Auto Quicken at level 30.

Auto Still and Auto Silent wouldn't require the intermediate ("Improved") feat; they're nice and all, but even if they were available at level 21 and extended to all spells, I still doubt anyone would take them.

 

[Cheiromancer]

bonus spells due to high ability scores account for an increasing percentage of any caster's spells per day.

But high ability scores don't give bonus epic spells, do they? Also, you only need 3 Automatic Quicken feats for 9th level spells, not 9. While AMC is extremely versatile, it could also be that these official feats just suck.

Repeat Spell might be an interesting pointer on the way poison works. +6SP, save or take the damage again - seems kind of cheap, though.

Repeat Spell seems akin, to me, to Empower and Maximize; it's actually a double Empower (+4 levels), though at a bit of a discount because of the one round delay. +3 levels is the same as Maximize, which would be +12 SP if it were allowed. Maybe make it +10 SP for the difference from 1 round => 1 minute? Kernel analysis for the clerical version of poison is (X + touch +2 + repeat in one minute +10 -4 only affects living creatures = 24) indicating that 1d10 Con damage is worth 16 points. d10 is such a strange number, though. Maybe the true kernel is 1d6 Con damage = 12 points, and each increase in die size is worth +2? Well, up to d12, of course. Or maybe 1 point of Con damage = +3 SP? Then d10 (5.5) should really be 17.5... bah. Somewhere in there.

Are there any other spells around that do poison damage? Figuring out the mechanics from one spell is like trying to reconstruct [energy blast] by extrapolating acid arrow.

Of course, now that clerics have been stymied, I'm wondering whether [heal] and [life] should simply be nonassociated for wizards...

I think that would be a good idea. Sacred cows, and all.

I wonder if we can design something better?

We could write a "Spontaneous Metamagic" feat that allows +0 level metamagic feats to be added on the fly, and which wizards would have to take before the could take AMC. Sorcerers already have this ability, of course, so they would satisfy the new prerequisite (e.g. "must be able to spontaneously apply metamagic to spells as they are cast").

This would help curb the immediate attractiveness of AMC for a low epic caster, addressing your concern that it might be broken in the 21 to 30 range, and would also give an edge to sorcerers, again addressing a concern of yours.

I'm rather cool on the idea of your reinvention of the Automatic Blah family of feats. But then again, I don't have your reservations about AMC.

***

Although even I have reservations about UK's use of the feat, especially in the context of Empower. However I do find that some of his results coincide with mine, which pleases me.

It turns that in UK's system, double Empowering something changes the base value of the spell. So a double double is a quadruple, not a triple. And if there is not a random variable, he allows it to apply to a constant in the effect. His example was a 17th level power word: kill which could affect a creature with 400 hp or less. My little formula was (6 x 7 + (400 / 6) - 45 = 42 + 66 - 45 = 63 = level 16.5 according to SL = 6 + (SP/6)). Though that's just coincidence; my method progresses linearly, not exponentially.

His method, applied to a hypothetical 8th level spell that does 25d6 damage would be to get a 12th level spell (SP 36 in my system) that does 50d6 damage, and a 16th level spell (SP 60 in my system) that does 100d6. That's very close to my own analysis. (With MF and Empower at +8, a triply empowered (+24) 40d6 (+15) inflexible (-4) energy blast (24) for an SP of 59 would do exactly 100d6).

There's no mitigation in his system, except for AMC of course, and the fine detail is lacking; his direct damage spells also outstrip hit points at higher levels, which UK admits might be broken. But still, I feel that he's got a good intuitive grasp on what should be available up through the teens (SP 24 to 78 or thereabouts) that the system we are crafting is intended to cover. I'm pleased that although our methods are different, we can get to approximately the same place. There really is a logical extensions of non-epic magic into the epic range, though perhaps the exact formulation is capable of being defined in different ways.

 

[Greybar]

This is a nitpick, but I realized last night that druids and clerics can fulfill this (I think)

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.

Since they can spontaneously cast healing/summon natures ally spells. Perhaps defining it by a negative (does not prepare spells) would be better.

 

[Cheiromancer]

This is a nitpick, but I realized last night that druids and clerics can fulfill this (I think)

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.

Since they can spontaneously cast healing/summon natures ally spells. Perhaps defining it by a negative (does not prepare spells) would be better.

But then a sorcerer who takes the Spell Preparation feat would be disqualified. Do you think it would be bad if a druid or cleric decided to "play sorcerer" at epic levels? They do have to spend a feat on it.

 

[Sepulchrave II]

Also, you only need 3 Automatic Quicken feats for 9th level spells, not 9. While AMC is extremely versatile, it could also be that these official feats just suck.

Oh, they suck all right. And check out the Auto Quicken suite in Complete Arcane - it's been nerfed to 1 feat/spell level. Now they suck even more.

As I've said, AMC is definitely preferable to the ELH alternative. How it combines with IM is less of a concern to me than the spontaneous versatility that AMC alone offers in the 20s.

Edit: this was before I realized that empower + empower = x 2.25.

Are there any other spells around that do poison damage? Figuring out the mechanics from one spell is like trying to reconstruct [energy blast] by extrapolating acid arrow.

Not that I can think of. Prismatic green is save or die. Psychic poison and pox (BoVD) are poison-type effects, but they're - well - BoVD. Enough said.

I think 1d10 is all we've got; given its redundancy with [afflict], we might be better off dropping it and folding poison damage into [energy] as straight hp damage as you suggest (for druidic happiness). As [harrow] was originally intended as a carrier for energy drain, I'm not gonna cry about it.

That said, it would be nice to have a spell which could deal enough Con damage to actually kill someone - [afflict] is limited to the 'cannot reduce a score below 1' of bestow curse. Major flexibility to [afflict]? You still get a save, after all.

Edit: maybe we should change the name of [energy blast] to just [blast]. Or [zap] or [smite] or something. It's looking pretty bloated, and it subsumes a whole variety of effects that are only marginally [energy].

 

[Sepulchrave II]

This is a nitpick, but I realized last night that druids and clerics can fulfill this (I think)

Quote:
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.


Since they can spontaneously cast healing/summon natures ally spells. Perhaps defining it by a negative (does not prepare spells) would be better.

I'd actually decided to remove the divine and nature provisions again, making it an explicit sorcerer (and bard) feat. I think that we don't need to pander to the FS (which is noncore) at this stage; it would be pretty simple to design an analogous feat.

 

[Cheiromancer]

Oh, they suck all right. And check out the Auto Quicken suite in Complete Arcane - it's been nerfed to 1 feat/spell level. Now they suck even more.

I hadn't noticed that. Yikes.

As I've said, AMC is definitely preferable to the ELH alternative. How it combines with IM is less of a concern to me than the spontaneous versatility that AMC alone offers in the 20s.

Edit: this was before I realized that empower + empower = x 2.25.

Well, unless you are inordinately fond of fractions, it'd probably be better to group them like UK does, i.e. empower + empower = x 2. Though I was planning on keeping double double = triple unless given a really good reason otherwise.

I think 1d10 is all we've got; given its redundancy with [afflict], we might be better off dropping it and folding poison damage into [energy] as straight hp damage as you suggest (for druidic happiness). As [harrow] was originally intended as a carrier for energy drain, I'm not gonna cry about it.

That said, it would be nice to have a spell which could deal enough Con damage to actually kill someone - [afflict] is limited to the 'cannot reduce a score below 1' of bestow curse. Major flexibility to [afflict]? You still get a save, after all.

Edit: maybe we should change the name of [energy blast] to just [blast]. Or [zap] or [smite] or something. It's looking pretty bloated, and it subsumes a whole variety of effects that are only marginally [energy].

If you don't mind that there is no precedent for direct damage with the [poison] tag, it's OK with me. I'll have to give some thought to the [afflict] issue. And as for renaming the seed, [blast] sounds good. I like it when the seeds have one word names.

Re: Spell Revelation

A wizard could have taken Spontaneous Spell; that would allow him to acquire the feat. Though it would be kind of a wash, since it would still be two feats for two spellslots, and only with one seed. Still, if his interests were narrow, it might be worth pursuing. And thereafter he would get 2 spell-slots per feat. Furthermore, he could also take Epic Spellcasting if he found the increasing Spellcraft Prerequisite too constraining.

A sorcerer with Spell Preparation (is that the name of the feat?) and do something similar. Except Spell Preparation isn't an epic feat. Lots of tricks are possible.