Epic Magic Big Thread

[Cheiromancer]

@Greybar: You need to reduce the SP to 24 for the character to be able to cast it at level 21. It isn't a spellcraft DC he needs to make; he needs that number of skill ranks.

The interesting bit about that spell is the way that it apparently enables a character to increase his CR. That's an awfully dangerous precedent (why merely a lich- why not a vampire? Or even a winterwight?), but like you say, it is possible for spellcasters to become liches, and that means they've increased their CR. I'll have to think about that some more.

@Sepulchrave: I think you have to use half-factors when fiddling with the base spell. And anything you add has to be removable at the same cost. Otherwise you are just making the seeds bloated and inefficient.

For instance, you took the old blindness function of [afflict], with a cost of 8 SP, took away -8 SP in full-factors, and added +24 SP in full-factors (3 other senses, with taste/smell counting as one). If someone wanted to include a blindness effect in a spell, they would remove those extras. But not at -8 each; otherwise the blindness is free. They would get -4 for each sense, so the final effect would cost 12 SP. Compared to the original blindness, they have 8 SP less in effect, at a cost of 4 SP more. That's not a good deal.

What you should have done is just added 16 points in half-factors (3 additional senses at +4 each, long range for +2, +2 something else), and included notes about mitigation (-4 for afflicting one fewer sense). I assume there will be standard (global) mitigation rules for reducing range and similar parameters.

I suspect rays and targets should be weighted equally. Like you say, rays always hit at these levels. In fact, spell turning protects against targetted effects, but not rays; and rays can be critted, can't they? Maybe rays should be more expensive than targets. On the other hand, there is a chance that a ray could miss, with the right kind of deflection bonus or what not. I'd say value them equally.

You should also decide what you want the common parameters to be. I notice that for [afflict] the range is 75 ft., while for [destroy] it is 1200 ft.; that doesn't seem very homogenous to me.

Obviously you will not be able to homogenize some seeds; what would the common parameters of [weather] and [fortify]? But that itself could encode information about what seeds can be combined, and what could be combined only with special rules (like Magical Weather).

But it makes sense that you might have a spell which both damages and blinds a target, so [afflict] and [destroy] should have the same range.

BTW, I added a mitigating factor (restriction to living targets) to my version of [afflict].

 

[Sepulchrave II]

This is really hard to articulate.

Whether or not you use only full factors - i.e. double the value of an equivalent metamagic feat - depends on the other benefits that a spell of level X possesses over a related spell of level X-Y.

These benefits are implicit in the level of the spell - e.g. damage caps or Save DCs. Himafaf is an approximation, which averages the effects of spell level-dependent benefits and metamagic; but if you try to apply it to (say) the difference between fireball and dbf it fails: it takes 10 levels of pure metamagic to replicate the difference (enhanced, delayed, +3 DC) which corresponds to 20 full factors or 10 half-factors. Applying 10 half-factors to the [energy] seed should net you this difference: +10d6 (+5), +3DC (+3), delayed (+3) - like I say, its an approximation.

The problem with epic seeds is that one (or more) of these normally spell-level dependent functions has already been determined - i.e. the save DC (all epic spells are DC 20 + modifier). The way to eliminate this disparity is to assume that all roots are 10th-level spells cast by a 20th-level caster; if the DC is already set as that of a 10th-level spell, so other spell parameters should be. The alternative would be to have a floating DC which is determined by the root spell's effect.

The problem with [afflict] and [destroy] as detailed above is not so much their use of full factors, but the omission of other expected spell-level dependent benefits: [afflict] should have a clause which says "only a wish, miracle or epic spell which uses the [dispel] seed can remove the effects of a target subject to the [afflict] seed" - this would be a predicted benefit of a 10th-level spell. Likewise, a 10th-level spell in the disintegrate family - i.e. the [destroy] seed - should (IMHO) be able to penetrate a prismatic sphere or an antimagic shell: I think that an opposed caster level check would be appropriate in these cases, though.

If these predicted (unweighed) benefits are included, then I think himafaf no longer becomes necessary, and we can use full factors when seed-tinkering. The [dispel] seed is a good example of a seed which already includes unweighed benefits - i.e. it can affect anything, even things not normally subject to dispel magic. But I think that [dispel] would be balanced if its base caster level check was at +20 (+10 full factors) and received some other +4 factor perk (+1 range increment; whatever). At an SP of 24, it really would be a 10th-level spell.

Does that make sense?

 

[Cheiromancer]

Yes, it does. My worries generally revolve around providing minor features of a seed; blinding someone with a [destroy] effect, say. I think your intention is to do this with a descriptive seed; to include a bit of the [afflict] seed in a spell that is mostly [destroy], apply 1/3 the cost of [afflict]; +8 SP if the seeds are standardized at 24 SP. I've been wanting to add the full seed, but with the unwanted effects removed with mitigating factors. Practically it would probably result in much the same thing; around +8 SP to blind someone that you are trying to [destroy]. I'd like to narrow the difference between these two methods by honing the methods whereby factors are applied.

What I really want is a "break even" rule for the design of seeds. If we base a seed on fireball and then later tinker with it so it has statistics corresponding to dbf we should include mitigating factors that allow players to restore the original seed to a pretty good approximation. Same thing if we make a seed based on blindness and bestow curse; mitigating factors should be made that allow someone to approximate either of those spells for close to the expected SPs. Maybe a spell level will be off a bit (especially outside the 4-7 spell level range), but it should be close.

I think the special effects of [afflict], [destroy], [dispel] and similar seeds should be explicitly priced (at +4 or something). Spells iincorporated as secondary or descriptive seeds (if we do things that way) wouldn't have these benefits. After all, if a debuff spell is mostly the [dispel] seed, but also includes the "do nothing" curse of the [afflict] seed, then the [dispel] should be able to affect things normally immune to dispel magic, but there's no reason that the curse aspect should be removable only by miracle-level magic; it's intended only to temporarily hobble the person being debuffed.

One thing that has been hindering me is the fact that the relationship between SP and spell level varies according to what you are doing. When looking at metamagic, 2 SP = 1 spell level; these are the basis for most full-factors. When looking at non-epic spells, 6 SP=1 spell level. Since half factors are implicitly twice as efficient as full-factors, we have a 4 SP = 1 spell level rule. I get confused all the time about what kind of values I'm supposed to be using, but I can generally sort it out after a while; sometimes I get interesting insights.

For instance, 10 levels of metamagic (from fireball to dbf) is 20 SP, which is 3 and 2/3 levels according to the formula for non-epic spells: a good fit to the 4 levels between fireball and dbf, especially if you think that that [dbf] is a little weak for its level (but too strong for 6th). But if you are trying to tinker with the [energy] seed you would use half-factors and add +4 (enhance damage) +3 (delay effect) to the base 10 SP, and ignore the Heighten effect (since seeds all have the same base DC). This gives 17; again a good fit for a 7th level spell (normally SP 18).

Although if we were players and trying to replicate a dbf from [energy], we'd have to spend +10 SP (for extra damage) + 6 SP (for the delay effect), and then we'd complain that the final cost (26 SP) was too much. Hmmm- such a criticism would be valid, I think.

How about having the [energy] seed do 20d6 for SP 14, and including a delay factor for +3 SP. +1 SP should be +2d6, considering what Empower will do for a dbf. (2.5d6 is too finicky!). This would work well as a mitigating factor, too: -2d6 = -1 SP. Sure you get 12d6 at SP 10 instead of 10d6, but that's OK, I think.

I guess you could make it 40d6 (cost at 24) as long as the -2d6 = -1 SP factor is included. 40d6 seems reasonable for a 10th level spell.

Similarly, a SP 24 [dispel] is fine if it provides a +20 dispel check bonus. The +4 factor could be to do the things that epic dispels can do, that dispel magic couldn't. It can be removed for -4 to SP. But I'd still want to include a -1/-1 factor for less effective dispels. Then people could scale it back to a dispel magic if they felt like it.

I still suspect it's procrustean to take this approach for all the seeds, but I might be wrong; it seems to work all right for [energy] and [dispel] at least.

 

[Cheiromancer]

A draft for SP 24 [afflict], [dispel], and [energy], incorporating my thoughts above.

I am presuming universal mitigating factors for range: long => medium => close are -2 each, and close => touch are -4. (These are the relevant half-factors.) At the very least these numbers will be preferred for these 3 seeds.

This doesn't replicate blindness/deafness very well, but I was worried about the cost of the seed being mitigated to zero and still doing something. I've changed the wording of some factors to allow mitigation as well as enhancement.

[sblock=Seed: Afflict]Necromancy

Root Spell: Blindness/deafness, bestow curse
Spellcraft Prerequisite: 24
Components: V,S; see text
Casting Time: 1 standard action
Range: 1200 ft.
Target: One creature
Duration: Permanent
Saving Throw: Will negates
Spell Resistance: Yes

The [afflict] seed bestows some negative condition upon the target as determined by the caster at the time of casting. The caster can choose from one of five effects:

• Afflict two of the target's senses: sight and/or hearing and/or smell (includes taste) and/or touch and/or special senses that the target possesses. If the target fails its saving throw, the senses selected don't function for the spell's duration, with all attendant penalties that apply for losing the specified senses.
  Factor: Each sense affected changes the Spellcraft Prerequisite by +4.
  
• Afflict one of the target's ability scores with a –6 penalty.
  Factor: Each –1 penalty assessed to the ability score changes the Spellcraft Prerequisite by +1. This seed cannot afflict a character’s ability scores to the point where they reach less than 1.
  Factor: Each ability score affected changes the Spellcraft Prerequisite by +8.
  
• Afflict the target with a –4 morale penalty on attack rolls, ability checks, skill checks and saving throws.
  Factor: Each –1 penalty assessed to all four of these categories changes the Spellcraft Prerequisite by +2.
  
• Afflict the target with either a –4 penalty on caster level checks, a –4 penalty to spell resistance, or a –4 penalty to some other aspect of the target which is specified in the development process.
  Factor: Each –1 penalty assessed to these categories changes the Spellcraft Prerequisite by +2.
  
• Afflict the target's capacity to act. Each turn, the subject has a 50% chance to act normally; otherwise, it takes no action.
  Factor: To reduce the chance of action to 25%, increase the Spellcraft Prerequisite by +8.

You may also invent your own curse using these options as guidelines. The effect of a specialized curse must be specified during spell development.

Special: Only a wish, miracle or epic spell which uses the [dispel] seed can remove the effects of an [afflict] seed from the target.
Mitigating factor: Remove this special feature to decrease the Spellcraft Prerequisite by -4.
Mitigating factor: If you restrict the target to living creatures, reduce the Spellcraft Prerequisite by -4; if you do this you may change the saving throw to Fortitude: negates.[/sblock]
I increased the range of [dispel] just by fiat, to make it congruent with other seeds.

[sblock=Seed: Dispel]Abjuration

Root Spell: Dispel magic (special; see text)
Spellcraft Prerequisite: 24
Components: V, S
Casting Time: 1 standard action
Range: 1200 ft.
Target: One creature, object, or spell
Duration: Instantaneous
Saving Throw: None
Spell Resistance: No

This seed can end ongoing spells that have been cast on a creature or object, temporarily suppress the magical abilities of a magic item, or end ongoing spells (or at least their effects) within an Area. A dispelled spell ends as if its duration had expired.

The [dispel] seed can dispel (but not counter) the ongoing effects of supernatural abilities as well as spells, and it affects spell-like effects just as it affects spells. One creature, object, or spell is the target of the [dispel] seed. The caster makes a dispel check against the spell or against each ongoing spell currently in effect on the object or creature. A dispel check is 1d20 + 20 against a DC of 11 + the target spell’s caster level. If targeting an object or creature that is the effect of an ongoing spell, make a dispel check to end the spell that affects the object or creature. If the object targeted is a magic item, make a dispel check against the item’s caster level. If successful, all the item’s magical properties are suppressed for 1d4 rounds, after which the item recovers on its own. A suppressed item becomes nonmagical for the duration of the effect. An interdimensional interface is temporarily closed. A magic item’s physical properties are unchanged. A character automatically chooses the result of the dispel check against any spell that he or she cast him or her self.
Factor: Each +1 on the dispel check changes the Spellcraft Prerequisite by +1.
Special: The [dispel] seed can defeat all spells, even those not normally subject to dispel magic; furthermore, any creature, object, or spell is potentially subject to the [dispel] seed, even the spells of gods and the abilities of artifacts.
Mitigating factor: Remove this special feature to decrease the Spellcraft Prerequisite by -4.[/sblock]
I'm not satisfied with the wall provisions of the energy seed; I also want to add a chain lightning kind of effect. But here's a start:

[sblock=Seed: Energy]Evocation [Acid, Cold, Electricity, Fire or Sonic]

Root Spell: Delayed blast fireball, lightning bolt
Spellcraft Prerequisite: 24
Components: V, S
Casting Time: 1 standard action
Range: 1200 ft.
Area or Effect: A 120 ft. line, or a 20-ft. radius spread
Duration: Instantaneous
Saving Throw: Reflex half
Spell Resistance: Yes

This seed uses whichever one of four energy types the caster chooses: acid, cold, electricity, or fire. The caster can cast the energy forth as a line or a spread.
Factor: The caster may choose sonic energy by increasing the Spellcraft Prerequisite by +4.

• A spell developed using the [energy] seed releases a bolt or spread which deals 40d6 points of damage of the appropriate energy type, and all in the spell’s Area must make a Reflex save for half damage. If a line is chosen, it begins at the caster’s fingertips; a spread begins as a pellet of energy which detonates at a distance determined by the caster, unless it strikes some intervening body or barrier, in the same manner as a fireball.
Factor: Each 2d6 points of damage dealt changes the Spellcraft Prerequisite by +1.
Factor: To delay the effect of the spell by up to 5 rounds, increase the Spellcraft Prerequisite by +3. See delayed blast fireball for details.[/sblock]
For purposes of congruence (and enhancing the base spells) I'm thinking that the [creature <==> 20-ft.-radius spread] factor should be +12/-6. That's based on invisibility ==> invisibility sphere for 1 spell level (6 SP), and widened (6 SP). It's in the ballpark of the ELH +10 DC (target to area) and your +15 SP.

Some seeds (e.g. the f-word) would have to incorporate a 1 creature/level factor at +6 SP in order to benefit from target => area enhancement. Either that or the effect will be confined to the emanation; like how creatures become visible when they leave an invisibility sphere. Making a fireball selective would probably have a similar cost. Note that some 1 creature/level effects aren't selective; they affect the nearest creatures to the centre of the spread (cf. wail of the banshee). The default seems to be that you can choose; if you can't, perhaps that's a mitigating factor.

The +6 SP is based on CLW ==> mass CLW (and the mass anibuff spells). Damaging spells reduced to affect an individual through the +12/-6 factor would probably lose the [reflex half] and gain [fortitude negates], though. [edit] Or maybe [fortitude half][/edit] Dunno if horrid wilting should be the paradigm, or wail of the banshee. And I still dunno what to do with rays.

[edit]
************
I was trying to balance this [energy] seed against [destroy], and found that the following assumptions worked well;

• That reducing [energy] to affect an individual is a -6 SP mitigating factor;
• That [energy] is balanced on the assumption of energy resistance 20;
• That everyone has a 50% chance of saving.

Using these assumptions allows you to assign a damage rating to each seed, and so compare seeds. Thus a SP 18 [energy] seed does 40d6, which is 140/70 depending on whether the save is made, or an average damage of 105 if you assume a 50% chance. Which is 85 after energy resistance is taken care of. An SP 18 [destroy] seed does 44d6, which is 154/17.5 depending on whether the save is made, or an average damage of 85.75 on a 50% chance. Which is awfully close to the [energy] seed.

I also think that you can model finger of death as a [destroy] seed limited to living targets (-4) and medium range (-2); use the -6 mitigation factor to Maximize the spell (this is a specialized ad hoc factor- see below) This simplification works alright for equal (or lower) KR monsters that a 15th to 20th level sorcerer might attempt either to disintegrate or finger of death. Most monsters seem to run about 12 hp or so per KR up to KR 20, so if finger of death is essentially a maximized disintegrate it will do 240 hp on a failed save at level 20, 12 hp/KR. And of course the save damage on finger of death, 30.5 hp, is almost the same as the maximized save damage of disintegrate (5d6). Or empower 1.5 times; the averages are very similar.

At higher levels, when hp/KR starts to get higher, is when feats like Metannihilator should come into play; then [slay] will still function like a maximized [destroy].

It's interesting that someone who is slain by death magic can't be raised; they need a resurrection. Which is the same as someone who is slain by a disintegrate, too. I think we could include a death magic factor in the [destroy] seed. It would normally be offset by the living targets only restriction, but wouldn't have to be. Something like this might work:

• To do maximum damage against creatures vulnerable to death magic, increase the spellcraft prerequisite by +6. Any effects that enhance death magic or necromancy are effective against targets affected by this enhancement of [destroy].

The second half refers to things like Spell Focus: Necromancy; a creature vulnerable to death magic would have to save vs a higher DC. The wording could be clearer. I'm thinking that a death ward would prevent against the maximization of the damage, but not against the standard 40d6 (or whatever it is). If you added the restriction of living creatures only, then it would be appropriate to change the school to necromancy and add a [death] tag. But a conditional maximization like this- I don't know best to implement it.

[another edit]
My version of the [energy] seed does 40d6; 140/70. It is pretty close to an enhanced, maximized fireball, which is level 10 and does 120/60. So I'm happy with it.

The 50/50 rule depends partly on my enthusiasm for the split DCs optional rule, but is grounded on the notion that saves should be neither an auto-fail or an auto-succeed. I don't know what save percentages are assumed in the design process, but 50% seems an obvious choice.

The energy resistance 20 I got from the +4 factor to make something sonic instead of acid, cold, electricity or fire. If +4 represents 8d6 (according to my revision of the seed), then that's 28/14 damage, or 21 if you assume a 50% of saving. So call it 20. If doing 20 points less damage is balanced, then the design assumption must be that after resistance/immunity/vulnerability is all averaged out, your targets will have an average energy resistance of 20 against acid, cold, electricity and fire.

The fact that these assumptions seem to support each other is encouraging to me. I hope they are helpful.

[yet another edit]

If sonic is +4, what would force, divine damage etc., be? +6? +8? Force damage can affect incorporeal or ethereal creatures; less than the benefit of Complete Arcane's Transdimensional Spell (+1 level or +2 SP; TS can also affect creatures in extradimensional spaces). And so force should be at least +1 SP higher than sonic. I don't know if it is truly typeless; magic missiles don't work against inanimate objects; is this a common weakness of force damage? spiritual weapon and mage's sword both specify opponents, but don't rule out inanimate targets. Blade barrier says that it affects creatures- can we infer it doesn't affect objects? Explosive runes affects the object it is written on; no mention is made of nearby objects. Dunno. "Creature only" wouldn't be a very big mitigating factor for an energy spell; in an area effect it might actually be an enhancement.

Horrid wilting is an interesting benchmark. Basically it is an enhanced (+4), heightened (+5) typeless(+X), widened(+3), fireball that affects only living targets (-2). 10+X levels of metamagic, +20 + 2X SP, which should come out to +30 for the 5 levels of difference (6 SP per spell level for non-epic spells). Suggesting that "typeless damage" is a +5 metamagic enhancement, or +10 SP full-factor.

 

[Sepulchrave II]

Actually, i've screwed up pretty badly - a lot of my calculations have been based on the fact that dbf is a 6th-level spell; in fact it's 7th (duh!). All of my metamagic arguments are wrong. I need to rethink.

I get confused all the time about what kind of values I'm supposed to be using, but I can generally sort it out after a while;

Me too.

sometimes I get interesting insights.

Me too. Unfortunately, sometimes mine are bogus because they are predicated on false assumptions.

Can we agree on (have we already agreed on?) a common set of half-factors for seed tinkering before we move on? If you can answer each point in succession it would help, as I'm getting confused here.

Predicate: Metamagic (and hence factors which modify seeds during spell development) is inefficient. When balancing seed construction, half-factors (which generally correspond to the mitigating factor value) more accurately portray the real value in the differences in seed parameters.

Half-factor values:

1) Changing from a ray to a targeted effect should be a free toggle.

2) Range increment half-factors should be +/-2.

3) Duration increment half-factors should be +/-4.

4) Other metamagic effects should simply use their equivalent metamagic value - e.g. increase damage by 50% = +2.

5) Changing the [target = creature touched] to an [area = 20 ft. radius emanation centered on a creature touched] half-factor should be +/-6.

6) There is no half-factor based upon changing a seed's Save DC. (The Save DC is always 20 + relevant modifier).

7) A half-factor which represents a special condition of a seed based on its projected power as a 10th-level spell has a half-factor value of +/-4. These include:

• The ability of the [dispel] seed to counter a wide range of effects not normally subject to dispel magic.
• The resistance of the [afflict] seed to nonepic attempts to counter it (wish and miracle notwithstanding).
• The ability of the [destroy] seed to affect an antimagic shell or prismatic effect upon a successful caster level check.
• The ability of the [reveal] seed to penetrate both epic and nonepic attempts to foil it upon a successful caster level check (mind blank, I'm looking at you).
• The ability of the [conceal] seed to infallibly counter all nonepic attempts to penetrate it (including discern location). Epic magic using the [reveal] seed (possibly [foresee] as well) is entitled to an opposed caster level check.
• The ability of the [delude] seed to infallibly counter all nonepic attempts to penetrate it. Epic magic using the [reveal] seed (possibly [foresee] as well) is entitled to an opposed caster level check.

8) Other flexibility and limitation half-factors which provide a substantive increase or restriction of utility should be +/-4.

My feeling has always been that the opposed caster level check should assume more significance when seeds come into conflict with one another, and with nonepic effects which can't otherwise be trumped.

I know that we're using different notation here (+/-4 vs. +8/-4)

 

[Sepulchrave II]

My feeling is that [force] effects should be +8 - as you point out, it's not truly 'typeless.' +8 would also correspond to a descriptive [force] seed appended to the [energy] seed...

 

[Cheiromancer]

Can we agree on (have we already agreed on?) a common set of half-factors for seed tinkering before we move on? If you can answer each point in succession it would help, as I'm getting confused here.

Predicate: Metamagic (and hence factors which modify seeds during spell development) is inefficient. When balancing seed construction, half-factors (which generally correspond to the mitigating factor value) more accurately portray the real value in the differences in seed parameters.

Agreed. However, I will sometimes extract the values of factors by comparing non-epic spells. I will express the difference in metamagic levels, convert to SP (by doubling) then divide by 6. For example: fireball + heighten (+4 levels) + enhance (+4 levels) + delay (+3 levels) = delayed blast fireball; +11 levels = +22 SP, divided by 6 is approximately +4. So dbf is +4 levels higher than fireball, but is a little weak for its level. It would make a strong 6th level spell. The point is that I am not using half-factors, but one-third-factors. This is in a specialized research context- identifying the values of factors, not applying them. With that caveat, I agree completely with your predicate.

Half-factor values:

1) Changing from a ray to a targeted effect should be a free toggle.

Tentatively yes. The problem is if you allow switching a [Save: Reflex half] to a [Save: None] by requiring a ranged attack roll. That is a significant enhancement; I'd guess about +6.

2) Range increment half-factors should be +/-2.

Yes, although [touch <==> close] should be +/-4.

3) Duration increment half-factors should be +/-4.

4) Other metamagic effects should simply use their equivalent metamagic value - e.g. increase damage by 50% = +2.

Some metamagic values are safer than others. Enhance (+4) is safe, and often doubles the damage of a seed; use it if you can. Half of it (+2) mimics going from 10d6 to 15d6, and can be useful when analyzing non-epic spells. Maximizing is not very safe. Empowerings, especially in multiples, aren't very safe either.

5) Changing the [target = creature touched] to an [area = 20 ft. radius emanation centered on a creature touched] half-factor should be +/-6.

6) There is no half-factor based upon changing a seed's Save DC. (The Save DC is always 20 + relevant modifier).

The only time I use Heighten is when I'm comparing non-epic spells; usually to extract the value of unknown factors. My analysis of horrid wilting above is typical. I'm also assuming that the spells I'm comparing are benchmarks. If they are over- or under-powered then my numbers will be off. Ideally I will have more than one benchmark, but that's not very common.

7) A half-factor which represents a special condition of a seed based on its projected power as a 10th-level spell has a half-factor value of +/-4. These include:

• The ability of the [dispel] seed to counter a wide range of effects not normally subject to dispel magic.
• The resistance of the [afflict] seed to nonepic attempts to counter it (wish and miracle notwithstanding).
• The ability of the [destroy] seed to affect an antimagic shell or prismatic effect upon a successful caster level check.
• The ability of the [reveal] seed to penetrate both epic and nonepic attempts to foil it upon a successful caster level check (mind blank, I'm looking at you).
• The ability of the [conceal] seed to infallibly counter all nonepic attempts to penetrate it (including discern location). Epic magic using the [reveal] seed (possibly [foresee] as well) is entitled to an opposed caster level check.
• The ability of the [delude] seed to infallibly counter all nonepic attempts to penetrate it. Epic magic using the [reveal] seed (possibly [foresee] as well) is entitled to an opposed caster level check.

Yes.

8) Other flexibility and limitation half-factors which provide a substantive increase or restriction of utility should be +/-4.

I've been using "only affects living creatures = -4" a lot, and it seems solid. I think that a narrower effect, like "only affects incorporeal and ethereal targets" is probably a -10. Increases in utility might be more expensive than +4. Something that overcame a specific immunity to mind-affecting spells might be +4, but overcoming a generic immunity should be more expensive (+10, and will often require a caster-level check). These aren't common in non-epic spells that are made into seeds, but are good to keep in mind.

I agree with the points quoted without comment.

My feeling has always been that the opposed caster level check should assume more significance when seeds come into conflict with one another, and with nonepic effects which can't otherwise be trumped.

Yes. And I think this is a promising route for dealing with immunities.

I know that we're using different notation here (+/-4 vs. +8/-4)

I tend to screw up range modifiers; maybe I wouldn't if I used a better notation. I'm getting better at remembering what I'm doing even when factors are expressed tersely; either that or I am getting better at ignoring my mistakes.

My feeling is that [force] effects should be +8 - as you point out, it's not truly 'typeless.' +8 would also correspond to a descriptive [force] seed appended to the [energy] seed...

I think you are right, though I'm unsure about including the "can affect incorporeal and ethereal creatures" clause. And the "objects can't be targetted" clause. Maybe make them both factors: +1 for the first, -1 for the second? There's room for a little fine-tuning here.

Divine damage would be similarly valued (+6 to +8) though it will have to be watched to ensure that it is not merely a cheap way of getting typeless damage. Or something better than typeless damage; making it do no damage to good creatures but full damage to evil creatures (cf Purify Spell) would be about +4 or so. If it was effectively typeless as well...

 

[Cheiromancer]

Sep,

Do you own a copy of the Immortal's Handbook: Ascension? Currently Beta 1.0 is available from ENGS. I rather imagine that Upper_Krust's work will become the standard for epic level gaming (No offense to Dicefreaks!), so it wouldn't be the worst thing in the world if our seed system harmonized with it. I was looking at his take on epic level metamagic and think these two feats are especially worth looking at. These are OGL, and if we use them your OGL declaration will have to include "COPYRIGHT NOTICE “Immortals Handbook: Ascension ©2006, Craig Cochrane.”" The following are taken almost word for word from Ascension:

AUTOMATIC METAMAGIC CAPACITY [EPIC] (SU)
You can cast spells that exceed the normal limits of spellcasting.
Prerequisties: Ability to cast spells at the normal maximum spell level in at least one spellcasting class, four metamagic feats.
Benefit: When you select this feat you gain one free level of metamagic per round, which you may spontaneously apply to any spell you can cast.
e.g. A wizard with Automatic Metamagic Capacity could spontaneously apply the Enlarge Spell feat (or any other metamagic that increases the level of the spell slot required by one) once per round to any spell he casts, without increasing the level of the spell slots required. It also stacks with existing metamagic deployment.
e.g. A wizard with Automatic Metamagic Capacity feats could spontaneously apply the Enlarge Spell feat to a previously prepared empowered delayed blast fireball in a 9th-level spell slot.
Special: You may choose this feat multiple times. Its effects stack; each time you choose this feat you gain one free level of metamagic per round.
e.g. A wizard with 3 Automatic Metamagic Capacity feats could spontaneously apply the Maximise Spell feat to a previously prepared empowered delayed blast fireball in a 9th-level spell slot.

This feat is suggested as the replacement for the following epic feats: Automatic Quicken Spell; Automatic Silent Spell; Automatic Still Spell and Improved Spell Capacity. The various Automatic Quicken/Silent/Still spell feats are unbalanced. Improved Spell Capacity becomes more pedantic the higher in power you become, while in addition progressively alienating more and more lower level spells. e.g. A wizard with Automatic Quicken Spell (x2) and Improved Spell Capacity (x3) should replace them with Automatic Metamagic Capacity(x5).

METAMAGIC FREEDOM [EPIC] (SU)
You may stack the same metamagic feat multiple times.
Prerequisties: Four metamagic feats, Spellcraft 24 ranks.
Benefit: You may apply the same metamagic feat any number of times to the same spell, provided you have a spell slot of adequate level or sufficient free levels of metamagic from Automatic Metamagic Capacity.
e.g. With this feat you could use a 9th-level spell slot to triple empower a fireball spell (for +150% damage).
Normal: Without this feat you may only apply the same metamagic feat once to a single spell.
Special: To cast more than one quickened spell in a round you must use the free levels of metamagic granted by Automatic Metamagic Capacity to quicken the second and subsequent quickened spells. In any given round, you may cast one spell that is not quickened, one spell that is prepared as quickened, and any number of spontaneously quickened spells; each spontaneously quickened spell will use 4 free levels of metamagic from your Automatic Metamagic Capacity quota for that round. Multiple quickened spells happen simultaneously, so you cannot teleport to a location, cast a spell and then teleport away again.

In the wake of this feat the following feats become redundant: Improved Heighten Spell; Intensify Spell and Multispell. It is also suggested that you remove the Improved Metamagic feat altogether. Improved Heighten Spell should be unnecessary if you already have Heighten Spell. Intensify Spell is simply a combination of two applications of empower spell and one application of maximise spell. Multispell is simply two (or more) applications of quicken spell. The first of the above feats should be replaced with Metamagic Freedom and any others by Automatic Metamagic Capacity.

First of all, Automatic Metamagic Capacity would work like Improved Metamagic, and so provides a -2 mitigation to all epic spells. It would also be the obvious choice for a conventional caster.

ISC is ineliminable in our system, since we need it to provide epic spell slots. It requires a little thinking to see that it continues to have value for conventional casters. Improved Metamagic (let alone AMC) looks very attractive in comparison: Consider a 21st level generalist wizard with an intelligence of 32 (16 base + 5 level + 6 headband +5 inherent). He has 55 non-cantrip spells he can prepare every day (36 regular, and 19 bonus spells from high Intelligence). IM or AMC will add +1 level of metamagic to each spell, gaining +55 spell levels. Or he can get ISC, which will yield two 10th level spell slots (one from the feat, +1 ability bonus) for +20 spell levels. It looks like ISC is greatly inferior, but remember that the quality of metamagic is lacking compared to real spells. The caster might be better off with having 2 more 9th level spells to cast than having +1 metamagic on each of his existing 55 spells. But it's a tough call.

I'm sort of wondering about having epic spells take up 2 spell slots. Is one 10th level spell worth two ninth level spells? If it is, then fine. If not, then maybe the simpler rule of 1 slot = 1 spell should be adopted. Even if that means discarding the 1 feat = 1 epic spell rule. I'm not sure.

 

[Sepulchrave II]

I like U_K's feats a lot - the varous iterations of Automatic xxx Spell have been bothering me for ages, and it would be nice to dump them. Subsuming Multispell into a more generic feat is also attractive.

I'm sceptical about them being (Su) effects, and would be interested in seeing the rationale.

I'd be comfortable eliminating ISC; I'm not necessarily working on the assumption of conventional slots being used to power epic magic - I'm kind of attached to the idea that Epic Spellcasting should be qualitatively different, anyway. There seems to be too much of a requirement of a level of objective parity for spells of - say - 15th level: I don't know if two spells (one highly mitigated, the other not) would necessarily be digestible if their effects were wildly disproportionate in power. This is more of an aesthetic objection than anything else - I recognize that mitigation is already implicit in some nonepic spells. But the extremes which would be possible under an epic magic system - even a tightly regulated one - might stretch it too far.

I also like the idea of retaining Epic Spellcasting as a specific feat, as it serves to distinguish those who practice it: thematically, I've always enjoyed the notion of it being reserved for those initiated into a mystery. I like the idea that sometimes the fruits of this mystery take a long time to mature, as well - although obviously not as long, and in such unbalanced, haphazrard manner as the ELH system. Somehow - irrational as it might seem - I feel that reducing epic magic to a levelled system which uses slots is doing it a disservice; like trying to contain the numinous within bounded language. It's transvalent IMC. I know that the rules that we are considering are not my campaign, but it's impossible for me to not be informed and influenced by it to some degree.

One thing we haven't considered yet is epic PrCs who would require Epic Spellcasting as a prerequisite feat. A prerequisite of "able to cast 11th level divine spells" just isn't the same.

I dunno. I guess it's just because it's epic spellcasting. It should send a shiver down your spine, and make you go 'wow.' It's paradigmatically different from regular magic. A caster can still dip into it, or devote a great part of his energies to it.

Apparently, I feel more stongly about this than I thought


Anyway, wrt. the feat itself - and the issues which surround overspecialization - there are a number of possible fixes, none of which seem particularly 'natural' in the pattern of feats in general. I'm conflicted about this, because it would be relatively simple to add a caveat something like this:

[Epic Magic] Feats: A character can only possess one feat with the [Epic Magic] tag for every three ranks in Spellcraft which he or she possesses above 21 ranks.

But now I'm wondering if we do admit Automatic Metamagic Capacity and Metamagic Freedom, whether such a stipulation would become redundant. These feats are flexible, attractive but possibly unbalanced - I'd have to play around a bit with them to determine that. I'm guessing, in fact, that the (Su) type is more of a balancing tool than anything else.

Say we eliminate all restrictions on [Epic Magic] feats - they can be taken at any time. If we admit AMC into the fold, by 28th-level (with five doses of AMC) a conventional wizard can be freely empowering and maximizing every spell of 9th-level or less; or freely quickening and enlarging every spell of 9th-level or less. This is spontaneous metamagic. It's almost as though removing the restrictions on [Epic Magic] feats becomes necessary; a chance of specialization to counterpoise the massive utility offered by U_K's feats.

I'm concerned that this feat (AMC) might be overpowered - I'm also aware that other people have doubtless shared this feeling. I'd be interested in seeing U_K's refutation of their objections, but there are too many threads to trawl through.

 

[Sepulchrave II]

Fireball
Evocation [Fire]

Level: Sor/Wiz 3
Components: V, S, M
Casting Time: 1 standard action
Range: Long (400 ft. + 40 ft./level)
Area: 20-ft.-radius spread
Duration: Instantaneous
Saving Throw: Reflex half
Spell Resistance: Yes

A fireball spell is an explosion of flame that detonates with a low roar and deals 1d6 points of fire damage per caster level (maximum 10d6) to every creature within the area. Unattended objects also take this damage. The explosion creates almost no pressure.

You point your finger and determine the range (distance and height) at which the fireball is to burst. A glowing, pea-sized bead streaks from the pointing digit and, unless it impacts upon a material body or solid barrier prior to attaining the prescribed range, blossoms into the fireball at that point. (An early impact results in an early detonation.) If you attempt to send the bead through a narrow passage, such as through an arrow slit, you must “hit” the opening with a ranged touch attack, or else the bead strikes the barrier and detonates prematurely.

The fireball sets fire to combustibles and damages objects in the area. It can melt metals with low melting points, such as lead, gold, copper, silver, and bronze. If the damage caused to an interposing barrier shatters or breaks through it, the fireball may continue beyond the barrier if the area permits; otherwise it stops at the barrier just as any other spell effect does.


Delayed Blast Fireball
Evocation [Fire]

Level: Sor/Wiz 7
Duration: 5 rounds or less; see text

This spell functions like fireball, except that it is more powerful and can detonate up to 5 rounds after the spell is cast. The burst of flame deals 1d6 points of fire damage per caster level (maximum 20d6).

The glowing bead created by delayed blast fireball can detonate immediately if you desire, or you can choose to delay the burst for as many as 5 rounds. You select the amount of delay upon completing the spell, and that time cannot change once it has been set unless someone touches the bead (see below). If you choose a delay, the glowing bead sits at its destination until it detonates. A creature can pick up and hurl the bead as a thrown weapon (range increment 10 feet). If a creature handles and moves the bead within 1 round of its detonation, there is a 25% chance that the bead detonates while being handled.


Lightning Bolt
Evocation [Electricity]

Level: Sor/Wiz 3
Components: V, S, M
Casting Time: 1 standard action
Range: 120 ft.
Area: 120-ft. line
Duration: Instantaneous
Saving Throw: Reflex half
Spell Resistance: Yes

You release a powerful stroke of electrical energy that deals 1d6 points of electricity damage per caster level (maximum 10d6) to each creature within its area. The bolt begins at your fingertips.

The lightning bolt sets fire to combustibles and damages objects in its path. It can melt metals with a low melting point, such as lead, gold, copper, silver, or bronze. If the damage caused to an interposing barrier shatters or breaks through it, the bolt may continue beyond the barrier if the spell’s range permits; otherwise, it stops at the barrier just as any other spell effect does.


Chain Lightning
Evocation [Electricity]

Level: Air 6, Sor/Wiz 6
Components: V,S,F
Casting Time: 1 standard action
Range: Long (400 ft. + 40 ft./level)
Targets: One primary target, plus one secondary target/level (each of which must be within 30 ft. of the primary target)
Duration: Instantaneous
Saving Throw: Reflex half
Spell Resistance: Yes

This spell creates an electrical discharge that begins as a single stroke commencing from your fingertips. Unlike lightning bolt, chain lightning strikes one object or creature initially, then arcs to other targets.

The bolt deals 1d6 points of electricity damage per caster level (maximum 20d6) to the primary target. After it strikes, lightning can arc to a number of secondary targets equal to your caster level (maximum 20). The secondary bolts each strike one target and deal half as much damage as the primary one did (rounded down).

Each target can attempt a Reflex saving throw for half damage. You choose secondary targets as you like, but they must all be within 30 feet of the primary target, and no target can be struck more than once. You can choose to affect fewer secondary targets than the maximum.


Polar Ray
Evocation [Cold]

Level: Sor/Wiz 8
Components: V, S, F
Casting Time: 1 standard action
Range: Close (25 ft. + 5 ft./2 levels)
Effect: Ray
Duration: Instantaneous
Saving Throw: None
Spell Resistance: Yes

A blue-white ray of freezing air and ice springs from your hand. You must succeed on a ranged touch attack with the ray to deal damage to a target. The ray deals 1d6 points of cold damage per caster level (maximum 25d6).

Just wanted them handy.