Epic Magic Big Thread

[Sepulchrave II]

I was thinking that a good context for backlash would be when a caster has to improvise some aspect of a spell

Absolutely. Impromptu modifiers to known epic spells at backlash x2. I've been considering this for a long time - I've also thought about restricting it to sorcerers (via a feat, and dropping the x2) and making it a prereq for True Spontaneity (whatever the final version looks like).

I had a question about the "overcome specific resistance or immunity" factor. Do you need a different factor to overcome a [Fire] creature's immunity to fire than a devil's immunity to fire? How about a golem's immunity to magic? I was thinking of adding in this as a factor you could spontaneously add via backlash, but it seems like the kind of thing that would require careful research, not just increased effort.

Feats are the way to go. See post above.

What do you think about adding the "increase saving throw DC" factor? I'm inclined to think it is part of how a spell is balanced when being designed, and so you wouldn't be able to add it on at the end. But it seems an awful lot like overcoming spell resistance or an opposing caster level check. I'm not sure.

I think a set of discrete, preset impromptu modifiers would work best. Assuming a sorcerer w/ relevant feat here:

Increase Spell Save DC by +4: 8 points backlash
No verbal Component: 2 points
Swift Action: 8 points etc.

It might be nice to have a set of sorcerer-specific epic feats which are structured like tactical feats which actually have reduced backlash costs (i.e. below the norm for a factor) but with more limited scope. Structuring these would be a challenge, though.

 

[Sepulchrave II]

Duration
Each reduction in the duration category of an epic spell reduces the final Spellcraft Prerequisite by –4.

If this is stackable, then compel becomes unbalanced - which is why I settled on the original limitations. "Kill Him" (or "Kill Yourself") doesn't take too long.

I've revised my version of the fortify seed taking this factor into account. The base durations that were in minutes have been scaled up to 10s of minutes, but weakened by a factor of 4 SP.

If you want to keep a uniform SP, why not scale back to minutes (rather than 10s of minutes)? I know that you're set on a 200 min anibuff, but that becomes a 1200 min anibuff at +10 SP; this makes me nervous. With ritual mitigaiton this can get nasty. Let's take a Sor 30 (Leadership 40) w/ a relevant power component (say a Cloak of Charisma +6 that he has lying around). SP = 33 (lvl) + 40 (cabal) +7 (cloak). He extends his anibuff to 1600 min (+14 SP) and pumps up his Cha by 26 more (+52 SP) - that's a +34 enhancement bonus to Cha for 26 hrs for 36Kgp.

Says "bye-bye, I'll be back tomorrow morning," to his cabal and goes adventuring.

We're getting into Mostin territory, here - something I'd rather avoid. Note my paranoia regarding the fortify seed is not entirely unjustified.

It is possible, but it would mean

1) Change the way duration factors work or;
2) Make a ruling that fortify is not subject to extending beyond a certain length of time or;
3) Rule that you don't gain access to extra spell slots via long buff spells (ambiguous rules territory); or
4) Limit the way that rituals work with fortify or;

The list goes on. IMHO the duration of Fortify is the problem, not everything else.

 

[Cheiromancer]

I'll get to reponding to other posts in a while - I've gotta get this out there before I lose the thoughts.

* Re: "Overcome Specific Immunity" factor - Maybe we should ditch it altogether...

I think that +10 SP is too cheap for this as a factor - the consistent number (2SP =+1DC) would be +20 (which is what it was in a prior draft). But I think that at +20, the factor would see no use - or would see use in spells tailored only to counter a single specific threat.

+20 SP would be the equivalent of 10 levels of metamagic, wouldn't it? Ironic, considering that in the SRD it actually lowers the level of the spell when it overcome a specific type of immunity.

[sblock=a digression about Control Undead]
You can get some very interesting results comparing the details of control undead with that of charm monster and charm person:

[sblock=Control Undead]Necromancy
Level: Sor/Wiz 2
Components: V, S, M
Casting Time: 1 standard action
Range: Close (25 ft. + 5 ft./2 levels)
Targets: One undead creature
Duration: One day/level
Saving Throw: Will negates; see text
Spell Resistance: Yes

This spell allows you some degree of control over an undead creature. Assuming the subject is intelligent, it perceives your words and actions in the most favorable way (treat its attitude as friendly). It will not attack you while the spell lasts. You can try to give the subject orders, but you must win an opposed Charisma check to convince it to do anything it wouldn’t ordinarily do. (Retries are not allowed.) An intelligent commanded undead never obeys suicidal or obviously harmful orders, but it might be convinced that something very dangerous is worth doing.

A nonintelligent undead creature gets no saving throw against this spell. When you control a mindless being, you can communicate only basic commands, such as “come here,” “go there,” “fight,” “stand still,” and so on. Nonintelligent undead won’t resist suicidal or obviously harmful orders.

Any act by you or your apparent allies that threatens the commanded undead (regardless of its Intelligence) breaks the spell.

Your commands are not telepathic. The undead creature must be able to hear you. [/sblock]

[sblock=Charm Monster]
Enchantment (Charm) [Mind-Affecting]
Level: Brd 3, Sor/Wiz 4
Target: One living creature
Duration: One day/level

This spell functions like charm person, except that the effect is not restricted by creature type or size. [/sblock]

[sblock=Charm Person]
Enchantment (Charm) [Mind-Affecting]
Level: Brd 1, Sor/Wiz 1
Components: V, S
Casting Time: 1 standard action
Range: Close (25 ft. + 5 ft./2 levels)
Target: One humanoid creature
Duration: 1 hour/level
Saving Throw: Will negates
Spell Resistance: Yes

This charm makes a humanoid creature regard you as its trusted friend and ally (treat the target’s attitude as friendly). If the creature is currently being threatened or attacked by you or your allies, however, it receives a +5 bonus on its saving throw.

The spell does not enable you to control the charmed person as if it were an automaton, but it perceives your words and actions in the most favorable way. You can try to give the subject orders, but you must win an opposed Charisma check to convince it to do anything it wouldn’t ordinarily do. (Retries are not allowed.) An affected creature never obeys suicidal or obviously harmful orders, but it might be convinced that something very dangerous is worth doing. Any act by you or your apparent allies that threatens the charmed person breaks the spell. You must speak the person’s language to communicate your commands, or else be good at pantomiming. [/sblock]

Based on these spells you get all kinds of interesting results: like changing duration from hours to days is worth +1 spell level; a restriction to one type of target is worth -3 spell levels; and overcoming a specific kind of immunity (the undead immunity to mind-affecting effects) is worth +1 spell level. Hmmm. The school changed along the way, too, from enchantment/charm to necromancy.

Are there any analogies to this spell that affect only constructs, or only plants, or only vermin? If so, we can probably tie it all together in the control seed. I would be hesitant to follow the pattern too closely (hours to days in only +1 spell level!?), but it might be worth more investigation.
[/sblock]

A suggestion about notation. Let's call a "specific immunity to X" any immunity based on a creature's being a particular kind of thing (either an undead, or a devil, or a [fire] creature or whatever). A "generic immunity to X" includes all the specific immunities to X. So if a spell overcame an undead's immunity to mind-affecting effects but not a vermin's, we'd say it would be overcoming a specific immunity to mind-affecting effects. If the spell could affect undead as well as vermin, constructs, etc., then it would be overcoming a generic immunity to mind-affecting effects. Magical immunity, in turn, would be anything due to a spell or magic item. Am I missing anything? Divine immunity might be handled differently than specific immunity, I'd think. And some categories are more general than species, but are not quite generic; the fire immunity/resistance of fiends would include demons and devils, but not fire elementals. Maybe efreet; depends on whether every evil outsider is a fiend, I suppose.

If this is a good way of describing immunity, I think it makes perfect sense for a feat to be able to overcome specific immunity, and via a CL check, magical immunity. I think Inelutable Necromancy would be a great prototype for a whole family of feats.

I think it would make sense that there be a factor that combines the "overcome specific immunity or resistance" advantage with the "only affects a specific type of creature" disadvantage. Such a spell should be targetted, not an area. (Although targets within an area might work). A targetted holy fire that overcomes a devil's specific fire immunity would be great, even if it could only affect devils. However, it should be possible to modify the spell so it affects fiends (despite their resistance or immunity) but only fiends.

But, unless I am missing something obvious, Music of the Gods doesn't allow anyone to cast mind-affecting epic spells on the undead, does it? And if it is just about bardic music affecting undead, I think there is a feat in a splatbook somewhere that does this already. I'll have to check Complete Adventurer. Or maybe it was in Song and Silence?

[edit]The feat I'm thinking from is from Libris Mortis, but I see MotG affects more than just the undead.

[sblock=Requiem]Your bardic music affects undead creatures.
Prerequisite: Bardic music class feature, Perform (any) 8 ranks.
Benefit: You can extend the effects of your mind-affecting bardic music and virtuoso's performance abilities so that they influence even the undead. All bardic music effects on undead creatures have only half the duration they normally would against the living.
Normal: Undead are usually immune to mind-influencing effects.[/sblock]

Duration
Each reduction in the duration category of an epic spell reduces the final Spellcraft Prerequisite by –4.

If this is stackable, then compel becomes unbalanced - which is why I settled on the original limitations. "Kill Him" (or "Kill Yourself") doesn't take too long.

Good point. Although you could just fiddle with the modifier for suicidal commands; just note there that the "suicide" factor can't combine with the reduced duration factor.

Let's take a Sor 30 (Leadership 40) w/ a relevant power component (say a Cloak of Charisma +6 that he has lying around). SP = 33 (lvl) + 40 (cabal) +7 (cloak). He extends his anibuff to 1600 min (+14 SP) and pumps up his Cha by 26 more (+52 SP) - that's a +34 enhancement bonus to Cha for 26 hrs for 36Kgp.

Says "bye-bye, I'll be back tomorrow morning," to his cabal and goes adventuring.

OK. We really do have to talk about benchmarks. Do you really want USP 80 spells to be available for routine use by 30th level characters?

I think the way to judge this effect is to consider what a 77th level wizard should be routinely capable of. Upper_Krust suggests a wealth formula of level cubed times 100 gp- that would be 45 million gold, and 1/4 of that would buy (drumroll)... a +34 headband of intellect (it would actually be 25.32% of the expected wealth). I'm gonna see if I can extend the tables in the ELH.... 418 million gp, enough for a +100 headband. (Now that's an epic item!)

Either way I don't see that this size of bonus is inappropriate for a 77th level character.

If the problem is that this spell is easily accessible to a 30th level character, then the problem is not with the spell, it is with whatever rules allow the 30th level character to get access to it. The way rituals work is probably what needs fixing. The "routine" aspect of cabal magic what is problematic- there is no massive sacrifice of xp or gold that would make hugely mitigated spells uncommon. Once a cabal assembles, it can cast as many spells as needed, as often as needed. Maybe the rituals should only apply to certain seeds.

****

I think the switch in anibuff durations from 3.0 to 3.5 may have been an over-reaction. Hours/level might have been too long, but minutes/level seems too short. It encourages parties to buff their brains out, go on a quick commando mission, and then rest for the next 23 hours and 45 minutes. It favors offense over defense, and that makes everybody fragile. If buffs (especially protective buffs) lasted for hours, then it would make sense that the villain is buffed when the players charge in. Conversely, it means that the players will be buffed if subjected to a surprise assault. I think longer, stabler buffs makes more sense- perhaps you see it differently?

But anyway, that's a big part of my desire to have longer buffs.

 

[Cheiromancer]

A couple of random observations:

Your polymorph seed is based on dragonshape, which is a swift action to cast. This would be a perfect instance where you could increase the duration two steps to compensate for the -8 for quickening.

Your reveal seed is ambiguous about whether you can both see and hear your target- first it says you can, then it says you can see but not hear. But as you say, that seed needs some work.

I was looking in the ELH for spells- man, are they poorly designed! Verdigris for instance- the most important part of the spell (typeless damage that also affects buildings) is assigned an ad hoc value the same as the energy seed. The conjure seed is totally irrelevant- it is just there for flavor. And the designers are pretending that "effect: 20 cubic feet" is an area- at least that's the only way I can see how they turned the conjure seed into a 20-ft. hemisphere at the cost of only +2 DC. It's a complete mess, yet apparently the designers were proud enough of it that they scaled it up to make verdigris tsunami, whose cost vastly outweighs any possible benefit of casting it.

That conjure seed also gets used a lot in the ELH. From create living vault to eclipse, origin of species and raise island, to those verdigris spells. I'm going to have to look at it more carefully, given all the things that might be expected of it.

I think wall of stone is a more sensible base spell for things like eclipse and raise island. For one thing, it has a volume of 208 cubic feet at 20th level; 10 times that of conjured material. Much easier to justify treating as an area effect. Though this would still not fill up even two 5-ft. cubes. There's no problem with wall of thorns, though- 20 10-ft. cubes is a lot of area. More than a 20-ft. hemisphere, in fact.

So maybe base verdigris off of wall of thorns. That still leaves the damage unexplained. If verdigris is typeless damage that can affect buildings, maybe it can be made as a variation of destroy; one that does less damage (10d6 vs 40d6) but affects an area? The target to area is worth +12, but I don't know how to handle the damage being quartered. Of course, wall of thorns does damage to creatures... but not to buildings. Hmmm.

But anyway, we might want to add a matter seed to go along with energy. Conjure can be primarily for shaped or valuable material. Or just expand the conjure seed to include wall of stone and wall of thorns type applications.

The origin of species spells in ELH I would think best based on a variant of call. The notion being that somewhere in the multiverse is anything you can think of- all you need to do is bring it here, and make this its new home. This would involve changing something's home plane, and probably changing some its traits. I wonder if a variation on summon would be better- I've always thought of summoning as involving the imposition of a form of a creature onto reality, not really the transportation of a creature. You would just need a substrate that would retain the impression of a form indefinitely.

Probably should be an epic spell just to create a simple CR 1 creature. Maybe SP = 20 + (4 x CR) would work? And an xp cost too. Maybe 250 xp per CR? Such a creature would be a native of the plane it was made on, and its statistics would have to be worked out with the DM. That SP might be too low, though a low SP would help explain the great variety of monsters in a D&D world.

 

[Sepulchrave II]

OK. We really do have to talk about benchmarks

Yep.

Do you really want USP 80 spells to be available for routine use by 30th level characters?

That depends largely on the fortify seed. If one removes all strictly combat-oriented seeds from the mix because of casting-time restrictions (afflict, banish, compel, destroy, energy, harrow, slay) then the possible imbalancing effects of a cabal become far less extreme.

Ritual magic is really best for more story-oriented magic, which is why its power curve needs to be steeper than other aspects of epic spellcasting. Unfortunately, it's also impossible to balance anything outside of the immediate combat framework in D&D, so we need to do a lot of guesswork.

I think the way to judge this effect is to consider what a 77th level wizard should be routinely capable of.

77th is stratospheric, by any standards (well, maybe not U_K's). Also 'routinely' would involve the 35+ epic feats which a character of 77th level would benefit from - there are potential synergies here that we can't even begin to comprehend. A 77th level character might routinely be expected to possess a big-ass staff of epic mitigation as well - I'm not being intentionally facetious here, just pointing out that the 'routinely' is a lot more than just 80 ranks in Spellcraft.

At 30th-40th level it's more graspable - more so, because we're the ones drawing the boundaries. It seems kind of nonsensical to gauge the powers of a 40th level character based on the hypothetical abilities of an 80th level character - the quantity of epic feats (most of which are, as yet, unwritten) alone make this an impossible judgement. I think we're better off defining the abilities of a 40th level character and extrapolating from there. I have no objection to the principle of (barely achievable at X = routine at 2X), but we have to understand that we are defining those limits as we go along.

If we return for a moment to the 20 minute base buff (auroch's strength), and really do everything to make it extreme.

40th level character (43). Seed +14. Extend to 24 hrs (+142). Increase bonus to +28 (+36). Cabal Leadership +60 (-60). 1 hour casting (-8). 50,000gp power component (-10). 10,000XP burn (-40). 15 Backlash (-30) (Autoimmolator).

I think that we could both agree that the resource drain here makes this barely achievable (and barely practical). Add an artifact focus, and there is your +33 Cha (I'm 1 short). I could argue that a 24hr +33 buff to a stat should be routine for an 80th level character based on that - i.e. a 20 minute base duration.

The problem with the above is, of course, the massive stacking of mitigating factors - if the buff only lasts 12 hrs, then the bonus to Cha can be inflated to +64, and so on: but given the drain on the caster's resources, is it really an issue?

I think some kind of exhaustion after a cabal is invoked in spellcasting might be in order, though.

 

[Cheiromancer]

I think I see what you mean. Since I am not accounting for the feats and other equipment that a 77th character would have, I'm dramatically underestimating his capabilities. And so I'm pegging the 200 minute base duration as appropriate, while really it is overpowered once you take 77th level feats and equipment into account.

Except that this is all backward. We design feats to make their fireballs ten times as wide, and their disintegrates four times as damaging, because the linear factors are letting us down- they aren't giving us the results that should be appropriate for characters of certain levels. That isn't an argument for crippling the system even more. Same thing for magic items that help epic spellcasting- they are introduced to fix flaws. They aren't justification for adding flaws.

If the fortify seed can be made to scale properly to level 100 and beyond then it doesn't need any feats to enhance it. If you are worried that players won't have enough cool things to spend their feat slots on, you should buy some of U_K's products- he has ideas that will keep them happy for a long, long time.

Similarly, if we are doing the mitigating factors right, then we don't need a rod of excellent magic. A rod of excellent magic is a sign that there is something wrong with the ELH system. Just like those ubiquitous headbands are a sign that there is something wrong with the current saving throw system. Maybe we can live with them, but if we can make a rod of excellent magic superfluous then we should junk it. Just like your system does with those +30 medallions of spellcraft. The fact that they are absent is a sign that you've improved the system significantly.

But suppose you are right, and that 1 minute/level is (for whatever reason) the best duration for auroch's strength, and for the fortify seed. We still have a problem with easy bonuses at low levels:

The 40th level character could make it last 8 hours without any significant mitigation (besides the ritual). And you can do a lot of adventuring in 8 hours. Heck, a 30th level sorcerer (leadership 40) should be able to do 3 hours easily. And that's also a significant chunk of time in a dungeon.
[sblock=Calculations]
40th level. 43 ranks. Seed +14. Extend to 8 hours (+46). Increase bonus to +34 (+48). Cabal Leadership +60 (-60). 10 minute casting time (-8).

30th level. 33 ranks. Seed +14. Extend to 3 hours (+16). Increase bonus to +34 (+48). Cabal Leadership +40 (-40). 10 minute casting time (-8).

If the 40th level sorcerer only wants a 3 hour buff, then he can raise the bonus to +48 pretty easily.
[/sblock]I am not at all sure that the PCs will be doing any more adventuring in 24 hours than they do in 3 hours; so if your worry is that they will have +34 buffs while adventuring, then a 20 minute base duration doesn't address the issue. If the 20 minute base duration doesn't address the issue, then we have to fix a different part of it (probably the ritual casting). And consider other reasons for and against a particular base duration for those buffs.

I've gone over my reasons for why it makes more sense that buffs be all day than for a few hours. I don't have any new arguments, so I'll just refer you to my appended comments in post 153.

 

[The Forsaken One]

This discussion of you 2 is turning gold on this page. Really good stuff. Sadly Im not that deep into this to contribute anything meaningfull heh.

 

[Greybar]

If I can suggest a simplifying concept, which may be hella bad in implementation, vis-a-vis the epic ____ of incredibly boosted ____. This may be a bit talking as I think before I have to post and attend to an active 2.5 yr old.

One aspect I like in some suggested variants which push these boundaries is that gear becomes less and less important compared to the inherent power of the beings. To drive it all the way to the divinities, the description of a battle god doesn't show him tripped out with cloaks of resistance, girdles of strength, and horns of morale-boosting beer. Any such items tend to be exceptional in power, or irrelevant and only for flavor. If the epic rules headed in the buff/permanency direction of assuming that beings were perma-buffed, then perhaps it would be easier to balance. Further, what if we consider that the being's own mortal capacity to be infused with such energy is limited? This could might explain why non-epic headband of intellects cap out at +6.

So, here's a base proposal to be picked apart and destroyed (constructively, I hope).

Base attributes of a character have a limited amount of boosting they can sustain.
* They can be optimized within their own natures using inherent increases (which as wish, manuals, etc.) equal to KR/2 in total, but only KR/4 for a specific attribute. (Design: working backward from +5 inherent limit in non-epic ruleset)
* They can be enhanced further, but with decreasing returns (nonlinear)
* Other boosts (insight, sacred, profane, etc.) combined can contribute as much as the enhanced bonuses.

The idea being that a 20th level wizard might have Int18+5(lvls)+5(inherent)=23 on a permanent basis, plus another +6 from a headband for Int29. But as he gets to higher levels the limitations on the items/temp-boosts becomes a smaller and smaller portion. By the time we hit deific levels, the items and temporary boosts become effectively irrelevant.

Now, might we still want it possible for a character to swell their attributes beyond those limits? Sure. Pushing their corporeal natures past their limits is what heroes do. But it is a punishing and dangerous thing, perhaps causing backlash of some kind that racks the hero during the entire duration, and rising in intensity as the duration continues. For instance, boosting your Int to 110% of its limit for 10 rounds to fight a combat scene might merely have hit point consequences, while trying to keep your Int at 150% for a hour might end with the caster writhing in pain and 6 negative levels, or some ability damage that can only be healed by time.

So, Mostin can raise his intellect into incredible realms to manipulate the web of motes, but trying to sustain that level might fracture the very abilities he is trying to boost.

By limiting our upper range, we are also then able to balance things by making the SV bonuses more of a known quanitity.

useful or too much limitation/complication?

 

[Sepulchrave II]

If the fortify seed can be made to scale properly to level 100 and beyond then it doesn't need any feats to enhance it. If you are worried that players won't have enough cool things to spend their feat slots on, you should buy some of U_K's products- he has ideas that will keep them happy for a long, long time.

Similarly, if we are doing the mitigating factors right, then we don't need a rod of excellent magic. A rod of excellent magic is a sign that there is something wrong with the ELH system. Just like those ubiquitous headbands are a sign that there is something wrong with the current saving throw system. Maybe we can live with them, but if we can make a rod of excellent magic superfluous then we should junk it. Just like your system does with those +30 medallions of spellcraft. The fact that they are absent is a sign that you've improved the system significantly.

Philosophically, I agree 100% with this sentiment. The problem is that the rest of the system does not support it - balance is predicated on the possession of obscene amounts of gear and the escalation of abilities dependent upon feats. This is also the reason why it is close to impossible to detach one aspect of D&D (for example, epic spellcasting - or even more basically, armor as DR) without undermining the whole, teetering edifice.

A 20th-level fighter without his min/maxed stats, gear and feat combinations isn't going to last long against the tempest-dervish-whatever with twin +1 speed flaming frost shock acidic thundering holy human bane scimitars. Okay, so they ditched the tempest in 3.5, but you know what I mean.

As much as it irks me, I think that it's necessary to assume that gear and feats are part of the balance equation - as much for epic spellcasting as any other aspect of the system. If you detach epic spellcasting from the equation - if you were to design a system that scaled perfectly ad infinitum - without reliance on those aspects, you then have the problem of the 100th-level caster who is balanced before feats and gear are considered still buying the +50 headband (or whatever) and gaining an unfair advantage over the caster without.

Base attributes of a character have a limited amount of boosting they can sustain.
* They can be optimized within their own natures using inherent increases (which as wish, manuals, etc.) equal to KR/2 in total, but only KR/4 for a specific attribute. (Design: working backward from +5 inherent limit in non-epic ruleset)
* They can be enhanced further, but with decreasing returns (nonlinear)
* Other boosts (insight, sacred, profane, etc.) combined can contribute as much as the enhanced bonuses.

This is conceptually profound, although mechanically I have no idea whether it would work. But the idea of simply abandoning enhancement bonuses altogether, and scaling the power of characters based upon their innate abilities (with which, for whatever reason enhancements do do not stack - or maybe stack in a very limited fashion) is very appealing. Implementation would be very challenging.

 

[Cheiromancer]

Hi Greybar! Flavor-wise I'm all for reducing the amount of gear that players carry around. Your other suggestions I am not so sure about- I'll need to give it more thought.

One aspect I like in some suggested variants which push these boundaries is that gear becomes less and less important compared to the inherent power of the beings. To drive it all the way to the divinities, the description of a battle god doesn't show him tripped out with cloaks of resistance, girdles of strength, and horns of morale-boosting beer. Any such items tend to be exceptional in power, or irrelevant and only for flavor. If the epic rules headed in the buff/permanency direction of assuming that beings were perma-buffed, then perhaps it would be easier to balance.

Great idea! To implement this I would create a whole category of "intrinsic goods" that are priced like ordinary items (also known as "extrinsic goods") and count toward treasure limits, but are part of the character's essence.

Intrinsic armor and weapons depend on their owner having physical armor and weapons. Though I suppose someone could use skin (armor bonus = natural armor bonus = 0) as a substitute for armor, (the shield bonus would also be 0), and use their fist as a weapon. The enhancement bonus would apply to whatever they were wielding/wearing, and this bonus would overlap (not stack) with whatever the item(s) already had. Other items don't require any physical manifestation; a wizard with an intrinsic headband of intellect +10 can be bareheaded and still enjoy the bonus.

Intrinsic items are considered supernatural effects. I don't know if they should be costed at a premium; you want players to take them, after all, which they won't do if it is too difficult or expensive. My first instinct is to make them available to epic characters without a feat, and at the same cost as items. Though it is good flavor to say that a distinctive, signature item can't be made intrinsic.

[edit] Intrinsic items can't be traded or sold, but nor can they be stolen (at least not easily). I wonder if they could be disjoined, like other magic items? Mage's disjunction is so broken it might be better just to ignore it. In general the difference is mostly flavor, not mechanical, and is based on a fairly abstract notion of treasure.[/edit]

Intrinsic goods can be upgraded if PCs are below their treasure limit when they level up. This is like crafting or buying items, and so is subject to the DM's adjudication. A common requirement would be that a character have access to the magic item he wishes to internalize. Access to rituals and payments of xp are also possible, although upgrading a straightforward item (like an intrinsic belt of giant strength) shouldn't have any special requirements.

Most intrinsic goods would use up item slots (or "chakras"), and so can't be used if that slot is already occupied. I would recommend a feat that allows the player to "redeploy" one intrinsic item at will- pushing it to a different, unoccupied slot. So if the character wished to use magical headgear, he could temporarily redeploy the helm to the belt slot (if it is unoccupied). Or to one of the ring slots, or wherever. Since the intent is to reduce the amount of gear, I wouldn't allow Additional Magic Item Space; just Redeploy Intrinsic Magic Item.

Redeploy Intrinsic Magic
You can harmonize your essence with that of magical items
Benefit: Choose any intrinsic magic item you possess that occupies an item slot (such as a ring or belt). You may have this item occupy a different item slot instead. Redeploying an item is a standard action that does not provoke an attack of opportunity, and is effective until you redeploy that item again.
Normal: Without this feat, a character cannot benefit from an intrinsic item if another magical item is occupying its slot. The 13 slots are: headband, hat or helmet; eye lenses or goggles; cloak, cape, or mantle; amulet, brooch, medallion, necklace, periapt, or scarab; suit of armor; robe; vest, vestment, or shirt; pair of bracers or bracelets; pair of gloves or gauntlets; two rings; belt; pair of boots.
Special: You can gain this feat multiple times. Each time you take the feat, it allows an additional intrinsic magic item to be redeployed.

Thanks for the idea!