Epic Magic Big Thread

[Sepulchrave II]

Don't forget the notion of clerics using their turning attempts to power epic spells!

I thought, for some reason, that epic wizards got more feats than epic clerics. But checking at http://www.d20srd.org I see this is not the case. Perhaps only arcane classes could be allowed to spend class-specific bonus feats on improving their epic magic?

I think a wide selection of arcane-focussed epic feats can help address part of this problem.

Druids aren't so hot as epic casters (1 bonus feat/4 levels), although arguably their other class abilities more than make up for it. True Spontaneity was originally conceived to give the epic sorcerer an edge - an Impulse, or impromptu epic spell. Still vague about the implementation, though. Likewise with the Magnum Opus for wizards. The specifics of these feats are still numinous, though - their inspiration was as a counterpoint to the benefits offered by divine seeds and [divine] feats for clerics.

I know that the fact that they require a feat to take should not necessarily be weighed against a class benefit. But the fact that the caster has to take a feat to reap the benefits should make them very bloody powerful.

 

[The Forsaken One]

I think a wide selection of arcane-focussed epic feats can help address part of this problem.

Druids aren't so hot as epic casters (1 bonus feat/4 levels), although arguably their other class abilities more than make up for it. True Spontaneity was originally conceived to give the epic sorcerer an edge - an Impulse, or impromptu epic spell. Still vague about the implementation, though. Likewise with the Magnum Opus for wizards. The specifics of these feats are still numinous, though - their inspiration was as a counterpoint to the benefits offered by divine seeds and [divine] feats for clerics.

I know that the fact that they require a feat to take should not necessarily be weighed against a class benefit. But the fact that the caster has to take a feat to reap the benefits should make them very bloody powerful.

Totally agree on your last point. I also concur with Cheiro on the wide selection for arcane focussed epic casters.

Nice solutions you guys had going for several things on the bottom of the last page. Gw.

 

[Sepulchrave II]

I was mulling over the destroy seed and disintegrate again today on the bus. It's not necessarily that I'm fixated on this seed (and the factors which apply to it), but I'm unusually anxious to get it right.

I was considering the respective daily resources available to the conventional disintegrator and the destroy seed specialist, and it occurred to me that, by 39th level - with 13 epic feats under his belt - the destroy seed specialist can be churning out 11 really nasty epic spells per day: assuming that it takes two feats to purchase the 'augmentation' of destroy to its highest power (8d6/+1), and the remaining feats are spent on additional epic spell slots.

[General Edit in view of lousy math]:

These spells won't be (quite) of the magnitude of vengeful gaze of god, but even with no mitigation and an SP of 42 we're still talking up to 11 x 368d6 (1288hp) epic disintegrates. My initial feeling was 'OMG, that has to be way overpowered.' It is somewhat.

In contrast, by level 39, the caster who has decided to go the metamagicked nonepic disintegrate route can now fill 9th through 14th-level spell slots with Intensified disintegrates - this caster has 23 x 480hp disintegrates available through the course of the day. If he switches out one of his Multispell feats for Improved Heighten Spell, he can also match the DC of the epic disintegrate on two of these, and have somewhat more competitive DCs on many more. Or he can Quicken a bunch of them.

[Edit]: This weighs in at 14,168 damage (epic disintegrate vs 11,040 damage (metamagicked nonepic disintegrate).

The conventional caster is burning all of his 9th-level slots to achieve this in addition to his 10th+ slots - which the epic caster is not.

Question: Is the metamagic versatility which the conventional caster enjoys sufficient to offset his consumption of 9th level slots? He can be filling his 8th-level slots with Intensified cacophonic bursts, or Quickened Empowered disintegrates (or whatever). But he can't cast gate or wish.

In other words, I'm [edit: not] satisfied that a feat which allows exponential factors [edit: for the destroy seed] is necessary to make epic spells which deliver damage competitive with metamagicked nonepic spells.

[Edit: Unfortunately, the math just made me revise my position].



Possible Solution:

Metannihilator [Epic][Epic Magic]
Prerequisites: Epic Spellcasting, (Maybe Empower Spell), Spellcraft 30 ranks, Spell Focus (Transmutation), ability to cast disintegrate as an arcane or domain spell.
Benefit: Your base damage when devising and casting epic spells which contain the destroy seed is increased to 80d6. If you use factors to further increase the damage of the spell, you gain +4d6 to the damage delivered by the spell for each +1 increase in the Spellcraft Prerequisite. [Other benefits?]


Herald of Eschaton [Epic][Epic Magic]
Prerequisites: Epic Spellcasting, Metannihilator, (Maybe Empower Spell), Spellcraft 42 ranks, Spell Focus (Transmutation), ability to cast disintegrate as an arcane or domain spell.
Benefit: Your base damage when devising and casting epic spells which contain the destroy seed is increased to 120d6. If you use factors to further increase the damage of the spell, you gain +6d6 to the damage delivered by the spell for each +1 increase in the Spellcraft Prerequisite.


Other possible solutions:

1) Increase the prerequisite ranks for Herald of Eschaton (probably 48), and retain the 160d6 +8d6/ +1SP.
2) Keep the base damage at 80d6 for Herald of Eschaton, but change the factor to +8d6/+1SP.
3) Stiffer prerequisite feats for Herald of Eschaton (another epic feat, at least)
4) Screw it. 368d6 without mitigation is too cool. Let's do it anyway.

 

[Cheiromancer]

I'm not sure that epic casters would be using these spells; as you mentioned previously, saving throws of epic opponents outstrip the save DCs. And so these spells aren't doing 368d6 damage, but 5d6. Which is much less cool.

This seems to be a more significant issue to address than whether the max damage at USP 42 is 368d6 or 276d6. Creatures who will fail the save will be killed either way, and creatures whose hit dice and Con are so high that they will always succeed just won't care.

What do you think of metannihilator raising the base damage to 60d6 (+3d6 per +1) but changing the save to: Fort 1/2? Herald of Eschaton could then double this damage (it would remain as written).

Very cool name, btw, on that last one.
[edit]Though I find myself putting in an extra "the". But that sounds good too.

Then it's worthwhile considering the effect of this spell on opponents. Let's see

Young Adult Force Dragon (KR 40)     +33    700 hp
Young Adult Prismatic Dragon (KR 42) +36    838 hp
Primal Earth Elemental (KR 49)       +60  1,392 hp
Black Slaad (KR 43)                  +30    536 hp
Elder Treant (KR 36)                 +45  1,025 hp
Prismasaurus (KR 40)                 +41    870 hp

If you don't want the Black Slaad to be killed by a failed save, then you pretty much have to limit Herald of the Eschaton to 120d6 +6d6 per +1. That's 483 damage at USP 42 (276d6). 368d6 does 644 on a failed save, and that might be a little too much. I guess it depends- how many of these spells should it take to slay an Elder Treant or a Primal Earth Elemental?

Few equal CR monsters can be killed by a damaging attack on a failed save, even with a wizard's best spell. So I think it is safer to go with the 6d6 version of Herald of the Eschaton.

 

[Cheiromancer]

One other thought- would you allow non-epic mages to research spells of levels 10 and higher to cast with their higher spell slots? If we use the (somewhat arbitary) rule of Spell level = 6 + (USP/6) it means that 42 USP translates to a 13th level spell. Although the base save DC would be 23+ability mod instead of 20+ability mod, the spell would be otherwise identical.

My thought is that if Jacobean spells are better than conventional casters' metamagicked spells, that might just mean that conventional casters have to research a spell rather than rely on metamagic. Which is far from unprecedented; an 8th level spell is often better than a 4th level spell metamagicked to fit an 8th level spell slot, so why shouldn't the same be true at spell levels above 9th?

[edit]

Upper_Krust has floated the idea that the ability prerequisite for epic spells should be 10 + 2 * level, and you need to have at least 2 HD per spell level. So to cast a 13th level spell you'd need to have at least 26 HD (no problem) and a 36 Intelligence (difficult, but possible). You need feats to get spell slots above 9th, of course.

[edit2]
Hmmm. Though I suppose someone would have to be a Herald of the Eschaton in order to research one of those spells. Why don't you drop Epic Spellcasting from the prerequisites so that valent spellcasters can get easier access to it?

 

[Sepulchrave II]

I'm not sure that epic casters would be using these spells; as you mentioned previously, saving throws of epic opponents outstrip the save DCs. And so these spells aren't doing 368d6 damage, but 5d6. Which is much less cool.

I think your intial 1/8 damage on a failed save (i.e. 140/16.5) might work - although I'm tempted to say 1/10, just for ease of eyeballing.

The other thing to consider is the epic buff - this applies equally to the conventional caster, who only has to swap out one of his numerous Multispells for Epic Spellcasting in order to gain the benefit (at least for 20 mins/day). The +12 item is standard at this level, and a USP 54 buff is going to hurt for a 39th-level caster - a USP 42 (say +24 Int) spell will net him an additional +6 to the DC above and beyond that offered by the headband of epic intellect +12. I'm assuming auroch's strength as the root here. Even with Epic Spell Focus and Improved Heighten he's only going to be forcing saves in the low- mid forties.

As an aside, the 'Overcome Specific Immunity' factor might get problematic with the slay seed.

Whilst I'm reluctant to think about epic feats which directly relax the fortify seed at present, I've been giving Syneresis some more thought as a means of indirectly mitigating epic spells.


Syneresis [Epic][Epic Magic]
You may combine your epic spell slots to power a single epic spell.
Prerequisites: Int 25, Epic Spellcasting, Knowledge (arcana) 27 ranks, Spellcraft 27 ranks, ability to prepare and cast 9th-level arcane spells.
Benefit: You may prepare and cast epic arcane spells as syneretic spells, empowering them with additional epic spell slots. For each additional epic spell slot which you commit to a syneretic epic spell, you gain one of the following benefits when you cast it:

* Increase the Save DC of the spell by +5
* Increase your caster level by +10 for the purpose of ovecoming Spell Resistance
* Increase the area of the spell by 250%
* Increase the range by 500%
* Increase the duration of the epic spell by 250%

The benefit or benefits are chosen at the time when you prepare the epic spell, and you may only apply a specific benefit once.


Not sure whether the area, range and duration should be based off of base parameters or those modified by factors. Might get problematic with exponential increases.

 

[Cheiromancer]

I'm thinking about what someone should be able to do against an equal KR monster who fails the save. Say we are talking about level 12, when a wizard has a 24d6 disintegrate (84 hp damage). Save DC 22 or thereabouts.

KR 12 Monsters - Fort save and hit points

Glabrezu                  +18  174 hp
Young Gold Dragon         +12  133 hp
12-headed Cry/pyro Hydra  +13  129 hp
Nightshade (Nightwing)    +9   144 hp
Noble Salamander          +12  112 hp
Elder Xorn                +13  130 hp
Colossal Spider           +20  208 hp

On the one hand, a 12th level wizard has a fair chance of affecting these equal-KR monsters. Average fort save is just under +14, so he affects them 35% of the time. Unfortunately, a failed save is not as significant. 84 hp done to a creature with an average of 147 hp is 57%. 17.5 damage (from 5d6 on a successful save) is only 12%. Mean damage is 41.25 (~28%) since the creatures will save more than half the time.

893 hp is the average hp for the epic monsters mentioned above. A 276d6 attack does 966 on a failed save and 483 if the creature takes half damage. 483/893 is 54%. This looks too high; it's like a 12th level wizard always doing full damage with a disintegrate.

While this is not an exhaustive analysis, it looks to me like 1/4 damage on a failed save would be balanced. The mean damage will be about 25% the hit points of an equal KR opponent, which is about what a 12th level wizard could expect (on average) against KR 12 opponents. (The epic mage will do a little more, since the opponents will fail occasionally- but I don't think that will be much more).

Suppose that an additional benefit of Metannihilator would be to raise the save from Fort: 1/8 to Fort: 1/4. And suppose that an epic wizard also takes Herald of the Eschaton. Then it looks to me as if he could do about as well with his destroy spells as a generic 12th level wizard could do with his disintegrate.

There's probably flaws in this argument, but it looks to me like the epic wizard needs a bit of a boost; about two feat-equivalents worth.

[edit]This analysis goes out the window entirely if changes are made to how saving throws work. For instance, if the split DC proposal is accepted for epic spells then things look a lot better for the epic wizard. At least the two feats he spent improving his destroy spells now result in considerable improvement over equal-KR threats, compared to the benchmark set by a generalist 12th level wizard against KR 12 threats. The epic wizard actually has a chance of killing an equal KR opponent.

[edit2]You know, based on the reasoning in post 119, I can't help but think that the duration of auroch's strength is too low. If this were an actual spell, it would probably last 10 minutes per level.

 

[Cheiromancer]

...abominations aren't affected by transmutations.

"Abominations are immune to polymorphing, petrification, or any form-altering attack." (ELH 157) I don't see the immunity to transmutations. In fact, the wording seems similar to that of a lich, against which a disintegrate is a good tactic.

Atropal (KR 50)                       +22
Black Slaad (KR 43)                   +30
Dream Larva (KR 42)                   +31
Infernal (KR 43)                      +31
Young Adult Force Dragon (KR 40)      +33
Young Adult Prismatic Dragon (KR 42)  +36
Prismasaurus (KR 40)                  +41
Elder Treant (KR 36)                  +45
Primal Earth Elemental (KR 49)        +60

Let's see. 39th-level wizard with an Int of 42 (16 base + 9 level + 12 cloak + 5 inherent). Save about 36 (20 + 16). Maybe a few more points due to SF and GSF.

Quite a span of fort saves. Median is +33, which means the save on a 3. Even an atropal has a fair chance of making the save.

This problem is bigger than just the destroy seed. The problem of saves outstripping save DCs. I wonder if there's another solution.

 

[Cheiromancer]

Split DCs

I'm gonna propose a radical fix to the saving throw problem: assign two different save DCs to each epic spell. One DC (the higher one) will be used when the saving throw roll is a 1 to 10. The other DC (the lower one) will be used when the saving throw roll is an 11 to 20. Just add +10/-10 to the base DC.

So an epic spell with a save DC of 36 in the current system will become a save DC of 46/26. If the target rolls high, they have to beat the 26. If they roll low, they'll have to beat the 46. This will give low level characters a chance to save against the villain's epic spells, and it will also give characters a chance to affect creatures with huge save bonuses.

I think that saving throw mechanics are balanced on the assumption that there's about a 50% chance of a saving throw being made. This assumption breaks down at epic levels, but having split DCs helps repair the breach.

A further fix: instead of +2 USP for a +1 Save DC, it will be +1 USP for a +1/+0 or +0/+1 to the split save DC. So you could make the split wider, or narrower, at additional cost.

This can be the "double" in the "Jacobean Double".

So whaddya think?

 

[The Forsaken One]

I'm gonna propose a radical fix to the saving throw problem: assign two different save DCs to each epic spell. One DC (the higher one) will be used when the saving throw roll is a 1 to 10. The other DC (the lower one) will be used when the saving throw roll is an 11 to 20. Just add +10/-10 to the base DC.

So an epic spell with a save DC of 36 in the current system will become a save DC of 46/26. If the target rolls high, they have to beat the 26. If they roll low, they'll have to beat the 46. This will give low level characters a chance to save against the villain's epic spells, and it will also give characters a chance to affect creatures with huge save bonuses.

I think that saving throw mechanics are balanced on the assumption that there's about a 50% chance of a saving throw being made. This assumption breaks down at epic levels, but having split DCs helps repair the breach.

A further fix: instead of +2 USP for a +1 Save DC, it will be +1 USP for a +1/+0 or +0/+1 to the split save DC. So you could make the split wider, or narrower, at additional cost.

This can be the "double" in the "Jacobean Double".

So whaddya think?

I think split DCs are awfull Too much hassle imho and for the rest I personally dont have any problems with the current DCs. Epic spells give more then enough oppertunities to boost saves and give a + to SR for example.