Epic Magic Big Thread

[Cheiromancer]

Adding or subtracting 10 is too much hassle? You don't have any problem with equal challenge opponents always making their saving throws? (Unless half the USP is devoted to save DC boosts, that is).

 

[Sepulchrave II]

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

Ta. I wasn't sure about the article, either; I guess "Eschatos" would be better if you omit it. Truth be told, I'd rather call it "Herald of [insert cool-sounding synonym for Shiva]," but I can't find any cool-sounding synonyms for Shiva.

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

Epic Spell Focus (at +2DC) could be taken multiple times and made stackable. It would eat heavily into Multispell/Improved Metamagic combos and epic spell slots. An accurate analysis of its impact is way beyond my ability, though.

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.

Good call: I was thinking of their DvR0, but it's DvR1 creatures who are immune to disintegrate.

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.

Righteous might lasts 1 round/level. Owl's Insight lasts 1hr flat; bite of the ... spells last 1 round/level. I think the design parameters for all direct stat-boosting spells were changed in 3.5 in the light of abuse from Persistent Spell. I'm pretty sure that a 400-minute 6th-level spell which grants +5 to all of the caster's subsequent Save DCs at 20th level (with Extend Spell) wouldn't fly. I know what my first spell of the morning would be. And then another one after lunch.

None of the 3.5 revisions were made with the epic ruleset in mind, though.

I'm gonna propose a radical fix to the saving throw problem

Oh, that's radical all right.

 

[Sepulchrave II]

Re: Epic ability-buffing magic items and Save DCs.

Is +12 considered to be the upper limit, or are they assumed to scale ad infinitum?

If one assumes that up to 25% of PC wealth is sunk into the headband of epic intellect, (c.f. the 17th-level NPC wizard in possession of a +6 headband of intellect who has invested 36/100 of his wealth into the item), then a 39th-level character (12.3Mgp) should really be assumed to possess at least a headband of intellect +16: this would translate to a +2 increase to save DCs across the board; also with an Int of 46, access to a bonus 18th-level slot becomes possible.

Assume such a character has invested his epic feats thus: Improved Spell Capacity (x8), Intensify Spell, Improved Heighten Spell, Multispell, Improved Metamagic (x2). He has SF and GSF.

His disintegrate can be heightened to 12th-level and then Intensified (DC 42). He can heighten 1 more disintegrate to 12th-level, Quicken and Maximize it, and shoot it off, followed by a Heightened Quickened Empowered Disintegrate for good measure. 930 points with a DC of 42 seems pretty decent.

60/40 chances of Saving for the median Fort save of your epic selection. If the character has an epic headband of intellect +20 (32% of his wealth) this rises to 50/50.

Anyway, the black slaad might well go down (512 damage average), the atropal goes down (only saves on a 20). Disintegrate isn't the best choice against a 500-foot tall tree, but that shouldn't surprise anyone. Intensified energy drain should knock it down a peg or two, followed by Quickened Heightened finger of death.

BTW, have you been referencing the 3.5 updated stats for monsters in the ELH? I know I haven't. I should probably look at them.

 

[Cheiromancer]

BTW, have you been referencing the 3.5 updated stats for monsters in the ELH? I know I haven't. I should probably look at them.

I have a link in my toolbar to http://wwww.d20srd.org . They look like 3.5 monsters: the format of the DR is /epic instead of /+7.

I'm pretty sure that a 400-minute 6th-level spell which grants +5 to all of the caster's subsequent Save DCs at 20th level (with Extend Spell) wouldn't fly. I know what my first spell of the morning would be. And then another one after lunch.

Hmmm. Your subsequent post about a continuous buff item kinda undercuts your point; either characters should be able to have this kind of bonus available to them all day, or they shouldn't. If the former, then there's nothing wrong with a long-lasting anibuff. If the latter, then you can't base your design decisions on everyone having +16 or +20 anibuff items. I suppose there is room to parse the difference between having +6 at 20th level or +10, but I would think that this is an appropriate benefit, even at 20th level, for expending two 6th level slots each day.

60/40 chances of Saving for the median Fort save of your epic selection. If the character has an epic headband of intellect +20 (32% of his wealth) this rises to 50/50.

The split DC patch doesn't obviate these items, nor does it require them. Let's assume the wizard has a 30 Intelligence. The pattern of the table would be similar for other scores.

                            Without a headband +20           With a headband +20
saves for a split epic spell           40/20                          50/30
roll needed (+9 base save)              11                             20
roll needed (+14 base save)             11                             16
roll needed (+19 base save)             11                             11
roll needed (+24 base save)             11                             11
roll needed (+29 base save)             11                             11
roll needed (+34 base save)              6                             11
roll needed (+39 base save)              2                             11
roll needed (+44 base save)              2                              6
roll needed (+49 base save)              2                              2

Single digit saves give a good chance to save in the first case, but not in the second. There are a wide range of creatures whose chance of making the save is 50%. Yet the headband gives a benefit vs low save creatures and against high save creatures.

Compare the current system:

                           Without a headband +20           With a headband +20
saves for an unsplit epic spell        30                             40
roll needed (+9 base save)             20                             20
roll needed (+14 base save)            16                             20
roll needed (+19 base save)            11                             20
roll needed (+24 base save)             6                             16
roll needed (+29 base save)             2                             11
roll needed (+34 base save)             2                              6
roll needed (+39 base save)             2                              2
roll needed (+44 base save)             2                              2
roll needed (+49 base save)             2                              2

Here the region where saves are neither trivially easy nor impossibly hard is quite narrow. And the importance of having the best headband you can afford is emphasized to an unhealthy degree. I think this threatens game balance unless encounters are precisely tailored to player's abilities, something that is unrealistic in a free-wheeling epic game.

And so I think the split DC system fulfills these two of your design goals:

• The new system should be fully compatible with the revised Dungeons and Dragons® 3.5 Ruleset, but preserve the original game mechanic as far as is practicable. This makes adaptation to the system relatively painless for players who are already versed with epic spells as they presently exist.
  
• Issues involving game balance should be thoroughly investigated, and solutions to the current imbalances offered.

Yes, the split DCs are a new mechanic, but so is having spells based on skill ranks rather than spell level. The save mechanic is not practicable, imho, so can't be preserved. Rather it can be preserved, but at a certain cost to game balance.

The act of introducing Split DCs won't have any ripple effects that I can see, so I'd be willing to bracket it off from our discussion. Any version of this system that I use could have split DCs and no one would be the wiser. But think about it, will you? Perhaps its charms will grow on you.

[edit]Ah! I see you are online. I'll stop fiddling with the wording. My last change was the intelligence of the wizard; it should be 30 instead of 20.

 

[Sepulchrave II]

Your subsequent post about a continuous buff item kinda undercuts your point; either characters should be able to have this kind of bonus available to them all day, or they shouldn't.

4 x 6th level spell slots (let's go the full 24 hrs) do not require 130% of a character's available wealth for the level (at 20th) - which a headband +10 would. I don't think that's a fair comparison. A ring of epic epic wizardry VI at 360K would alleviate any nagging concerns that 23rd-level wizard might have about his precious 6th level slots.

I think that changing the Save DC structure is too fundamental a mechanical overhaul; although its inclusion as an optional rule wouldn't bother me. I think that by the time this has worked through, we'll have a long list of unconventional potential fixes which we can't yet anticipate. I suspect you're set on it though, so we'll let it pass.

The whole debate does raise some interesting questions about the implicit wealth of epic characters, and the extent to which balance is premised upon gear.

But how do you feel about a stackable Epic Spell Focus (at +2 DC)?

 

[Rackhir]

Ta. I wasn't sure about the article, either; I guess "Eschatos" would be better if you omit it. Truth be told, I'd rather call it "Herald of [insert cool-sounding synonym for Shiva]," but I can't find any cool-sounding synonyms for Shiva.

From Wikipedia, for what that's worth

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shiva

The Shiva Purana lists 108 names for Shiva and the Shiva sahasranama lists 1008 names. Each of his names, in Sanskrit, signifies a certain attribute of his. Some of his names are listed below:

* Hara
* Mahādeva (Sanskrit महादेव) - The Supreme Lord : Maha = great, Deva = God - more often than not, the Aghora (fierce) version
* Rudra (Sanskrit रुद्र) - The one who howls or strict and uncompromising
* Maheshwara (Sanskrit महेश्वर) - The Supreme Lord: Maha = great, Eshwar = God
* Rameshwara (Sanskrit रमेश्वर) - The one whom Ram worships: Ram, Eshwar = worships, God; Ram's God
* Mahāyogi (Sanskrit महायोगी)- The Supreme Yogi: Maha = great, Yogi = one who practices Yoga
* Mahābaleshwara (Sanskrit महाबलेश्वर) - God of Great Strength : Maha = great, Bal = strength, Eshwar = God
* Trinetra (Sanskrit त्रिनेत्र) - Three-Eyed One, i.e. All-Knowing: Tri = three, Netra = Eye
* Triaksha (Sanskrit त्रिअक्ष) - Three-Eyed One, i.e. All-Knowing: Tri = three, Aksha = Eye
* Trinayana (Sanskrit त्रिनयन) - Three-Eyed One, i.e. All-Knowing: Tri = three, Nayana = Eye
* Tryambakam (Sanskrit त्र्यम्बकम्) - Three-Eyed One, i.e. All-Knowing: Tri = three, Ambakam = Eye
* Mahākala (Sanskrit महाकाल) - Great Time, i.e. Conqueror of Time: Maha = three, Kala = Time
* Neelakaṇtha (Sanskrit नीलकण्ठ) - The one with a Blue Throat: Neel = blue, Kantha = throat
* Digambara (Sanskrit दिगम्बर) - One who has the skies as his clothes, i.e. The Naked One: Dik = Clothes, Ambara = Sky
* Shankara (Sanskrit शङ्कर) - Giver of Joy
* Shambhu (Sanskrit शम्भु) - Abode of Joy
* Vyomkesha (Sanskrit व्योमकेश) - The One who has the sky as his hair: Vyom = sky, Kesha =hair
* Chandrashekhara (Sanskrit चन्द्रशेखर) - The master of the Moon: Chandra = Moon, Shekhara = master
* Siddheshwara (Sanskrit सिद्धेश्वर) - The Perfect Lord
* Trishuldhari (Sanskrit त्रिशूलधारी) - He who holds the divine Trishul or Trident: Trishul = Trident, Dhari = He who holds
* Dakhshiṇāmurthi (Sanskrit दक्षिणामूर्ति) - The Cosmic Tutor
* Kailashpati (Sanskrit कैलशपति) - Lord of Mount Kailash
* Pashupatinātha (Sanskrit पशूपतीनाथ) - Lord of all Creatures or Pashupati
* Umāpati (Sanskrit उमापति) - The husband of Uma
* Gangādhara (Sanskrit गङ्गाधर) - He who holds the river Ganga
* Bhairava (Sanskrit भैरव) - The Frightful One
* Sabesan (Sanskrit सबेसन्) - Lord who dances in the dais
* Nāgaraja (Sanskrit नागराज) - King of snakes (Lord/Ruler/Controller of snakes)
* Ekambaranatha (Sanskrit एकम्बरनथ) - The destroyer of evil (name used scarcely, mostly in temples)
* Tripurāntaka (Sanskrit त्रिपुरान्तक) - The destroyer of the triplet fortresses, Tripura, of the Asuras.
* Ashutosh

 

[Cheiromancer]

But how do you feel about a stackable Epic Spell Focus (at +2 DC)?

I know that in 3.5 there was a big crackdown on anything that boosts saves. In fact, I was kind of surpirsed that they didn't change the Epic Spell Focus to +1. I suspect it was because the 3.5 team knew there was a problem at epic levels with save bonuses outstripping save DCs. I also know that the system doesn't normally let you take the same feat multiple times to get a stacking bonus. Well, I suppose Toughness is a counterexample- but weapon focus, weapon specialization and so on all have these limits. The higher level versions (greater weapon focus, etc.) have restrictions to ensure they can't be taken too rapidly.

To judge whether Epic Spell Focus needs a similar restriction depends on the play style. If your players are casting spells on targets whose KR is well short of their own, it could be unbalancing if you let people take ESF unrestrictedly. But with equal KR opponents (or opponents higher than their KR) they will need all the help they can get. In fact, +2 might not give enough benefit compared to what else they could take with that feat slot.

Epic Spell Focus is not, I don't think, the right tool for the problem.

As a result I think that wizards will naturally steer away from effects that require a saving throw and go towards things that don't: Epic buffs and summonings, maybe conjurations epic ice storm and the like; expecially spells for which spell resistance is not relevant.

I think that by the time this has worked through, we'll have a long list of unconventional potential fixes which we can't yet anticipate. I suspect you're set on it though, so we'll let it pass.

Well, I only thought of the split DCs yesterday. Perhaps my enthusiasm will fade with time. More likely I will just be distracted by the next unconventional idea. Since you are the one ultimately responsible for this document, I am freed to be unconventional, even flighty.

The whole debate does raise some interesting questions about the implicit wealth of epic characters, and the extent to which balance is premised upon gear.

I agree. The issue of the x10 "epic surcharge" on items is lurking in there somewhere too. Otherwise that headband would only be 13% of the wizard's wealth. The fact that +6 is the highest non-epic stat buffing item is part, I think, of the general trend to limit save DCs at non-epic levels; it was too easy in 3.0 for these to get unreasonably high. This problem reverses itself at epic levels, where it is the save bonuses, not the save DCs, that are unreasonably high*. Trying to extrapolate from one side to the other is therefore very difficult. (*I mean the save DCs for the player characters' spells; save DCs based on monster hit dice can be quite unreasonable too.)

I don't think it would be incoherent to say that the auroch's strength spell is impossible, and yet is the basis of an epic spell seed. The realities that constrain spells at non-epic levels might make its expression impossible (although a 1-hour version might be researchable). But this is at the "geometry level" of valent magic. At the "calculus level" of transvalent magic, things are different.

 

[Ciaran]

Ta. I wasn't sure about the article, either; I guess "Eschatos" would be better if you omit it. Truth be told, I'd rather call it "Herald of [insert cool-sounding synonym for Shiva]," but I can't find any cool-sounding synonyms for Shiva.

There's also "Herald of the Kali Yuga". (Alternatively, the "Herald of Kali".)

 

[The Forsaken One]

Meh, Cheiro is the succes % from level 30 up that disastrous then? And if you use alot on +saves how efficient is it and even if you do it where does it leave you in the efficiency department with what the rest of your SC DC leaves you to work with?

(sorry for the awfull sentence but im in a hurry )

 

[Cheiromancer]

Post 98 makes the success % seem pretty dismal. Sep recalculated the save DCs in post 133, assuming a more powerful headband, and now they aren't too bad.

i.e assume a 50 intelligence (base 16, +9 level, +20 headband, +5 inherent bonus) and the base spell DC is 40. Spell Focus and Greater Spell Focus can bring it up to 42, meaning that a young adult force dragon (save +33) fails on an 8 or less.

The 42 USP spell we were considering is just the destroy seed (40d6 at USP 16) with +26 USP additional damage. With Herald of the Eschaton raising the base to 120d6 and giving +6d6 per +1, that came out to 276d6, or 966 hp.

Each +1 to the DC will cost +2 USP, which means 12d6 (42 hp) less damage. But it improves the chance that it will do full damage. Unless I've messed up my math, I think boosting the DC by +8, and reducing the damage to 180d6 (630 hp) would be nearly optimal for a USP of 42 vs force dragons. It'll affect one 80% of the time and do 90% of its average hit points in damage. You could lower the chance of success a little and increase the damage; a +6 DC boost would do it (70% chance of success). Or make it a little more reliable at the cost of less damage. But I'd think that around 12 to 20 of the final USP would have to be in DC heightening factors; it reduces effectiveness by about a third.

The effect of splitting the DC is to make the spell 50% effective against a wide range of DCs. With a split DC of 52/32, anything with a base save between +21 and +41 needs an 11 to save. The higher a creature's save is in this range, the less sense it makes to increase the lower save DC, since the first increases to the DC will only reduce the damage without changing the chance of success. However it will make sense to increase the upper save DC to better affect creatures with saves in the 40s; that's not true of the current system.