Epic Magic Big Thread

[Greybar]

Re: Acid damage.

One argument for treating acid like the other primary four energies is the easy (meaning low-level) availability of the non-epic protection from energy and resist energy. Granted, 120pts of protection might not be such a showstopper versus an epic 40d6+ spell, but it is easy for many targets to get. If I was facing an epic caster known to favor acid, I'd be eager to get acid resistance 30 and protection 120. Now sonic can also be chosen for resist/protect, but I agree that there is a difference between the relative rarity of inherent acid defense and almost unheard of inherent sonic defense.

If we continue down this line of logic, should we give free factors to fire spells, since multiple outsider types/subtypes get free fire resistance, and the opponents for epic spellcasters might be expected to increasingly come from the outsider ranks? On that note, skimming over the entries for angels/archons/demons/devils I see that inherent acid resistance or immunity is pretty common.

In short - that way lies madness. Assume that epic opponents will be knowledgeable and powerful enough to seek buffs (spells, items, etc) to cover popular attack types and let evolution take its course.

I don't know of an divine/profane resist/protect spell offhand, but it does seem logical that there should be celestial/infernally inspired wizards busy researching exactly such a defense for their patrons.

I'm not familiar with the spells that do Piercing/Slashing/Bludgeoning, but I'd agree that once you create physical attacks by a spell effect, then Damage Resistance should come into play, IMHO.

 

[Cheiromancer]

Way more oomph for [summon]

For [summon] I'd take a look at shambler.

Shambler
Conjuration (Creation)
Level: Drd 9, Plant 9
Components: V, S
Casting Time: 1 standard action
Range: Medium (100 ft. + 10 ft./level)
Effect: Three or more shambling mounds, no two of which can be more than 30 ft. apart; see text
Duration: Seven days or seven months (D); see text
Saving Throw: None
Spell Resistance: No

The shambler spell creates 1d4+2 shambling mounds with 11 HD each. The creatures willingly aid you in combat or battle, perform a specific mission, or serve as bodyguards. The creatures remain with you for seven days unless you dismiss them. If the shamblers are created only for guard duty, however, the duration of the spell is seven months. In this case, the shamblers can only be ordered to guard a specific site or location. Shamblers summoned to guard duty cannot move outside the spell’s range, which is measured from the point where each first appeared.

The shamblers have resistance to fire as normal shambling mounds do only if the terrain is rainy, marshy, or damp.

An 11 HD shambling mound is still CR 6; although they are not on the list for summon monster VI they probably could be. Summon monster VIII can summon 1d4+1 creatures from a SM VI list, close enough to 1d4+2. So this is basically an 8th level spell- except for the duration. Rounds ==> minutes ==> 10s of minutes ==> hours ==> days. Sure it's not 20 days, but it is about 10 times as long as 20 hours. Maybe call it a half a step. 3 1/2 steps of duration is +14 SP. And it's medium range instead of short, so another +2 SP. 1 standard action to cast instead of one round, so +2 SP (from the base SM VIII). That's +18 SP. But it's not flexible; it can only summon shamblers. Even if you say -10 SP, the +8 SP total makes it a strong 9th level spell (8 SP / 6 = 1.333, so it is really a 9 and 1/3 level spell). If a summon monster kind of flexibility is worth +4 SP (and so losing it is a -4 SP mitigation) then this is really an epic spell. The fact that they are plants (not outsiders or elementals) isn't a factor, but the fact that they aren't hedged out by a protection from evil probably should be. Heck, it's an epic spell; we'll waive it.

But if they can be hedged out by a protection from evil, that should be a mitigating factor.

Note also that if the shambling mounds are on guard duty, the duration is days ==> weeks ==> months; guard duty appears to be a -8 factor (if each duration step is +4).

A different way of analyzing shambler would calculate that 1d4+2 (average 4.5) CR 6 creatures (and at 11 HD they are almost CR 7) should be a challenge equivalent to that of a CR 13 or 14 creature. (Recall that challenge is the sum of the squares of the CRs). That's like a summon monster XI; then add factors increasing the duration. Crazy stuff.

Would you agree that the [summon] seed has to exceed the shambler spell, even if only by a little, if it is to be an epic spell? Remember: shiver-worthy.

[edit]
I'm thinking CR 11 creature summoned, long range, standard action casting time, duration 20 days. -16 SP in reduced duration would bring it down to 20 rounds, and be a CR 18 monster (or group of monsters whose challenge is equal to a CR 18). That's with no flexibility, assuming that shambler should be an epic spell, and using the challenge method of comparing groups of monsters (so the 4 shambling mounds would be CR 14).

Make the range close range and you could summon marilith for 20 minutes. Wouldn't that be a cool spell? Make it a one round casting time and only 20 rounds (and still close range) and it could be summon pit fiend instead. That would also be very cool.

 

[Sepulchrave II]

Re: Shambler.

I'm always dubious about using 9th-level spells as a baseline; that's not to say I haven't done it, because I have. But the balance of many 9th level spells (even 8th and some 7th level spells) is questionable at best; some do not scale smoothly. I think requiring that [summon] should exceed shambler is odd.

It's also a [creation] spell, not a [summoning] spell, which makes me doubly sceptical. I think if you want to up the CR and duration, you're better off doing it by fiat, rather than attempting to justify it through an anomalous spell. The closest that a nonepic spell comes to this order of power is summon elemental monolith (Lvl 9, concentration (up to 20 rounds), medium range, 1 round casting time, CR 17). On this basis [summon] might stretch to CR 17 if you rate concentration as a -2 half-factor. I had originally upped the CR to 15, but erred on the side of caution.

How [summon] meshes with [call] will be a factor, as will feats which affect these seeds. I also think a baseline which is 6 CRs below that of the summoner (assuming a 21st-level caster) is a good place to start (edit: for a pool of 12 creatures, duh!): it mirrors the difference between a 17th-level caster and most creatures on the summon monster IX list: and the difference in the real power at these CRs is smaller.

Edit: choice from a pool of 12 creatures at CR 15 for 20 rounds would correspond to a specific creature of CR 16 for 20 minutes; a single CR 17 creature for 20 rounds would also correspond to a CR 16 creature for 20 minutes; shambler does the same.

I think that is enough evidence. I'm convinced.

Still think shambler was an odd choice, though.


Re: Acid Damage

Greybar and Cheiro, I think you're both right. At low-levels, it might make a difference, but at the levels we're considering, it won't matter diddly. That said, I like the optional minor factors (+1) for things like combustion, affecting objects, slippery surface etc.

I can't find any iteration of the [energy] seed that I'm entirely happy with. 40d6 is too much. 20d6 leaves a bunch of spare half-factors that have to be allocated with nowhere to put them. I'm half-tempted to make typeless energy the standard, and then mitigate out to named types.

 

[Cheiromancer]

Well, mechanically I was analyzing shambler in terms of the summon monster suite; technically in terms of summon monster VIII, but that's because it replicates summon monster VI, but yielding more monsters. I didn't peg shambler as a 9th level spell that could be a baseline to extrapolate from; in fact, I still think it is an epic spell that somehow got assigned to 9th level. However, an epic summons should be comparable to shambler, in the same way that [energy] should be comparable to meteor swarm. When players consider an epic spell that fits a particular role, they are going to look at what is already available at non-epic levels.

The creation/summoning distinction basically amounts to whether protection from evil hedges the creature out. You can call it what you like, but you are still pulling monstrous allies out of thin air to fight your enemies.

Are we going to standardize the ranges of spells? All the summon monster spells are close, but shambler is medium. If we want the spells to be homogenous, it's desirable that their parameters agree; in the case of range I think that might as well be long. Unless there's some reason why it would be inappropriate for a particular seed. In practice this would result in shorter range mitigating factors being used all the time, which might not be desirable.

I'm half-tempted to make typeless energy the standard, and then mitigate out to named types.

Hmmm. If 20-ft.-radius ==> individual is -6 SP, and the damage is typeless, then we are getting very close to [destroy]. Just have to figure out how to handle the "save for half" vs "save for 5d6" business. And then [slay] could be worked in too, if Death is made its own type.

I don't know if I'm arguing for, or against this idea.

[edit] I discovered a math error in post 216; I've edited the change, and made a consequent change in post 220. Basically I think that divine damage is a +6; this tends to support the view that true typeless damage is +8.

 

[Sepulchrave II]

Hellish horde is interesting: Lvl 9, 10 min casting time (-6), medium range (+2), average combined CR 17 (using challenge method), 10 mins/level (+4).

I think the fact that it can only summon specific devils, and these devils appear at very inconvenient 10 minute increments would qualify it for -10 (extremely limited); these devils have maximum hit points, however - this must be an adhoc +4 half-factor at least; (edit: in fact, an adhoc +4 would also correspond to a descriptive [fortify] - maybe that's stretching the bounds of things a little too far).
(edit/2: if [fortify] were a secondary seed at +6 (i.e. +12SP), this might be closer to the mark)

Anyway, it equates to a specifc CR 17 creature (or specific group, in this case) as a 1-action / 20 round duration spell with an inherent -4 limitation: we're definitley getting a bunch of results in the same ballpark, here.

Here's summon. It might even be the final version.

[Summon]
Conjuration (Summoning)

Root Spell: Summon monster suite
Preferred Mitigation: Power Component, XP Burn
Components: V, S
Casting Time: 1 standard action
Range: 75 ft.
Effect: Summoned creature or creatures whose combined CR does not exceed 16
Duration: 20 minutes (D)
Saving Throw: None
Spell Resistance: No

This seed can summon one or more outsiders or elementals whose combined CR is 16 or less: it is recommended that the challenge method is used when determining the combined CR of a group creatures. They appear where the caster designates and act immediately, on his or her turn. They attack the caster’s opponents to the best of their ability. If the caster can communicate with the creatures, he or she can direct them not to attack, to attack particular enemies, or to perform other actions. The exact type of creatures are determined in the spell development process, or the appropriate flexibility factor included (see below).

When the spell that summoned a creature ends, and the creature disappears, all the spells it has cast which remain in effect expire. A summoned creature may not use any innate summoning abilities it may have or otherwise conjure another creature, nor can it use any innate planar travel or teleportation abilities that it might possess. It cannot cast any spells that would cost it XP, or use any spell-like abilites which would cost it XP if they were spells. When a caster develops a spell with the [summon] seed that summons an air, chaotic, earth, evil, fire, good, lawful, or water creature, the completed spell is also of that type.

Factor: For each +1 CR of the summoned outsiders or elementals, increase the Spellcraft Prerequisite by +2. To summon a creature from another monster type (such as dragons or aberrations) increase the Spellcraft Prerequisite by +4.
Flexibility: To create a spell which allows the caster to choose from a pool of up to any 12 predetermined individual creatures who otherwise fit the spell's criteria, increase the Spellcraft Prerequisite by +4.
Flexibility: To create a spell which allows the caster to summon any creature of up to CR 16 at the moment the spell is cast, increase the Spellcraft Prerequisite by +10.
Special: A character with any summon nature's ally spell on his or her class spell list may summon animals, plant creatures, feys and magical beasts without incurring the normal surcharge for summoning a monster from a type other than outsider or elemental.

Done?

 

[Cheiromancer]

Just out of curiosity, how would you replicate a shambler type spell at epic levels? I.e. a rapid deployment (1 standard action) of monsters who can accompany you for a long length of time (7 days or more) or guard an area for an even longer time (7 months). I can sympathize with not wanting the base duration on [summon] to get too high, or you would have to deal with summonees almost as powerful as the summoner with enough [reduce duration] factors.

 

[Sepulchrave II]

Just out of curiosity, how would you replicate a shambler type spell at epic levels?

[Call] ?
[Call] + [compel] ?
[Origin of Species] + [compel]?

I guess any of these could work.

 

[Cheiromancer]

[Summon] is good, but I'd lower the base CR and increase the duration by a few steps. I'd also add a factor to make it a Conjuration (Creation) effect; i.e. not subject to protection from evil; maybe +2? I gather we're *not* standardizing range for the purposes of homogeneity.

The relationship between [summon] and [call] intrigues me. It strikes me that the payments required for long term service (longer than 20 rounds) are much like power components; mitigating factors for additional duration factors. That xp cost also looks like a mitigating factor. I wonder if these seeds can be harmonized.

Metaphysically, I always think of summonings as being magical constructions (cf Horn of Valhalla), not creatures plucked from some other plane. A temporary addition to the world, not a transfer of a creature from one region to another. A calling *is* a transfer, however. Maybe that is enough for it to be a separate seed, but I doubt it.

******

I've been thinking about the energy/destroy relationship:

One of the constraints on non-epic spells is that the rate that direct damage improves is generally 1d6 per caster level. If you track the results on a failed save separately from the results on a successful save, you can express this constraint by weighting the changes at a ratio of 0.5 to 1. For example, +2 caster levels improves the damage of a fireball by 2d6 on a failed save, and 1d6 on a successfull save. 0.5 * 2d6 + 1 * 1d6 = 2d6. The rate of improvement of a disintegrate also obeys the constraint when expressed in this way. +2 caster levels improves the damage on a failed save by 4d6, but doesn't affect the result of a successful save. 0.5 * 4d6 + 1 * 0d6 = 2d6.

The damage done by a spell usually follows the 1 caster level = 1d6 rule (weighted across saves as in the previous paragraph) but discrepancies could be paid for at the rate of +1d6 = +1 SP, as in the [energy] seed. For instance, the weighted damage of a 12th disintegrate is 0.5 * 24d6 + 1 * 5d6 = 17d6, which is 5d6 too high; we can assume a +5 SP factor in the cost of disintegrate to compensate.

If "Double damage" is a factor worth +8 SP, (based on two Empowers) then we could devise a "Minimal" mitigating factor that causes the damage on a successful save to be calculated on the minimum (base) value of the seed; in the case of the [energy] seed, the base value is 10d6, and the save for half makes it 5d6. I'm not quite sure what the value of the Minimal factor; I'd think at least -4 but no better than -8.

If you model disintegrate as a double damage (+8) enhanced (+8) extra damge (+5) heightened (+6) typeless (+8) individualized (-6) medium range (-2) minimal (-X) fireball, you get a net improvement of 27 - X SP, which at 6 SP per spell level should equal 3 spell levels (the difference between fireball and disintegrate). If X is 8, then the total of 27 - X SP is just above the target of 18; or just below, if you think that it being a ray rather than a targetted spell is worth -2 at non-epic levels. But X could also be 4 and the spell would still be just shy of 7th level. Dunno; maybe splitting the difference at -6 would be best. The special effect (destruction of the body) is probably worth a point; maybe two.

Ice storm can also be seen as a spell modified to affect the role of the saving throw. If you double the damage done on a successful save, you've effectively changed a save for half spell to a no save spell. Ice storm does 5d6 damage either way, and 0.5 * 5d6 + 1 * 5d6 = 7.5 d6, just a bit over the amount expected for a spell cast by a 7th level caster. Part of this damage is effectively typeless (3d6 bludgeoning) and there is also a special effect: reduced movement speed in the area of effect. The 1 round duration means that extending it will double the damage, which definitely an advantage, though not enough, I don't think, to make up for the fact that the damage fails to improve with caster level. I wonder if the cap was lowered to 5d6 (a reverse form of Enhance Spell, perhaps?). All in all it is a very complicated spell, and I haven't finished unravelling it.

However, I think adding a "Skew" factor to [energy] might be worth pursuing. Combine Double Damage and Minimal at a total cost of, say, +2 SP. (Treating Minimal as -6 SP). It doubles the base damage and effects of modifiers on a failed save, but the damage on a successful save is calculated from the base, unenhanced value of the seed (5d6). A little extra bonus is that the body of a creature killed by a skewed spell is totally destroyed, and can't be raised; a resurrection or better is needed.

The "Death" factor could then maximize the damage done by a skewed spell against targets who are subject to death magic.

With these two factors in addition to the ones we have already (especially typeless at +8 and individualized at -6) the [destroy] and [slay] seeds would become redundant.

 

[Sepulchrave II]

[Summon] is good, but I'd lower the base CR and increase the duration by a few steps. I'd also add a factor to make it a Conjuration (Creation) effect; i.e. not subject to protection from evil; maybe +2? I gather we're *not* standardizing range for the purposes of homogeneity.

I'd considered increasing the range to 300 ft. and the duration to 200 mins and lowering the CR to 15 - this brings it in line with elemental swarm and its various relations in the SC. BTW, the original standardization I was looking for was in terms of SP, not range.

At present, I'm actually thinking of paring back the duration to 20 rounds again: the spirit of the summon monster suite is definitely combat-oriented, and I think I'd like to retain that. It serves to further differentiate it from [call] as well.

I also feel that summonings aren't *real,* in the sense that a called creature is real. They don't really die. They can't teleport etc. One argument for the mechanism of summonings that I like is that the target creature is somehow forced to astrally project a body onto the prime while its body remains in a protected temporal stasis for the duration. If one were to contrive an epic spell which duplicated this, the cost would be astronomical: a [remote manifestation] involving an irresistible [compel] coupled with [transport] and [time] - the mitigating factor which prevented the use of innate summoning or teleport abilities would be peanuts compared to this.

However it works, I think that there is sufficient difference between [summon] and [call] for them to merit different seeds. Ability versus inability to use a wide range of powers. Susceptibility to antimagic and protection from evil. Discrete duration versus instantaneous duration. [Calling] versus [summoning]. You could add clauses to [summon] which turn it into a [calling] spell, which make its duration instantaneous, which allow creatures to use their teleport abilities etc. I think it's easier to simply go with a separate seed.

I think I'd actually prefer to use greater planar ally as the basis of [call], though. Gate is too whacky - it's a 9th-level spell, and like wish and miracle its effects lie partly in the region of DM discretion: as such, it's probably unsuitable as the basis for extrapolation.

The big problem with gpa is that it's HD-based and not CR-based. I think I'd hand-wave this and simply retool it based on CR (which the planar ally/planar binding spells should always have been, anyway). Bearing in mind that a gpa can call a pit fiend, CR20 would be the obvious place to start. +2SP/+1 CR would be a factor it shared with [summon], and presumably [animate dead] as well.

Here's a start, mainly to see if it's viable. If the (deity's choice) requirement is rated as a minor flexible factor, this [call] is actually pretty weak without significant mitigation. I haven't swapped out the payment for equivalent power component mitigation yet, but the same thing had occurred to me.


[Call]
Conjuration (Calling) [see text]

Root Spell: Greater planar ally
Preferred Mitigation: Extended Casting Time, Ritual, Power Components
Components: V,S
Casting Time: 1 standard action
Range: 75ft.
Effect: Called elementals or outsiders of CR 14 or less
Duration: Instantaneous
Saving Throw: None
Spell Resistance: No

A spell incorporating this seed calls extraplanar creatures to serve you. If you know an individual creature’s name, you may request that individual by speaking the name during the spell.

You may ask the creature to perform one task in exchange for a payment from you. Tasks might range from the simple to the complex. You must be able to communicate with the creature called in order to bargain for its services.

The creature called requires a payment for its services. This payment can take a variety of forms, from donating gold or magic items to an allied temple, to a gift given directly to the creature, to some other action on your part that matches the creature’s alignment and goals. Regardless, this payment must be made before the creature agrees to perform any services. The bargaining takes at least 1 round, so any actions by the creature begin in the round after it arrives.

A task taking up to 1 minute per caster level requires a payment of 100 gp per HD of the creature called. For a task taking up to 1 hour per caster level, the creature requires a payment of 500 gp per HD. A long-term task, one requiring up to one day per caster level, requires a payment of 1,000 gp per HD.

A nonhazardous task requires only half the indicated payment, while an especially hazardous task might require a greater gift. Few if any creatures will accept a task that seems suicidal (remember, a called creature actually dies when it is killed, unlike a summoned creature). However, if the task is strongly aligned with the creature’s ethos, it may halve or even waive the payment.

At the end of its task, or when the duration bargained for expires, the creature returns to its home plane (after reporting back to you, if appropriate and possible).

Note: When you use a calling spell that calls an air, chaotic, earth, evil, fire, good, lawful, or water creature, it is a spell of that type.

Factors: For each additional +1CR of the called creature, increase the Spellcraft Prerequisite by +2.
Limitation: If you devise a spell which waives your exact choice of called creature and calls a creature of similar alignment instead, reduce the Spellcraft Prerequisite by -4.


Relevant half-factors: reduce casting time 3 steps (+6), reduce target CR by 7 (-14), determine specific target creature (+4), incorporate native XP cost (+2).

 

[Cheiromancer]

However it works, I think that there is sufficient difference between [summon] and [call] for them to merit different seeds. Ability versus inability to use a wide range of powers. Susceptibility to antimagic and protection from evil. Discrete duration versus instantaneous duration. [Calling] versus [summoning]. You could add clauses to [summon] which turn it into a [calling] spell, which make its duration instantaneous, which allow creatures to use their teleport abilities etc. I think it's easier to simply go with a separate seed.

I dunno. Make up a quality, "noumenal", say, for creatures that are anchored to reality; they have a self, they don't have a duration, they can burn xp (or use abilities that normally require xp); they have the "leverage" to conjure other members of their kind, or to teleport. As opposed to "phenomenal", which is the set of contrary properties. [Summon] gives you a phenomenal creature, while [call] gives you a noumenal creature. I think the distinction is relevant when you look at simulacrum, btw.. It may also help explore the gap between reality and illusion, such as that bridged by the Reified Vision aggregate.

Anyway, the noumenal/phenomenal switch represents a difference of +8 SP; the difference between the CR 16 of [summon] and the CR 14 of [call]. That's on a [summon] duration of 20 minutes; if you assume that casters will reduce the duration by two steps (to the minimum of 1 round) then you would make the noumenal factor +16 SP to compensate.

But yeah, basing the spell on the planar ally suite (retooled to a basis of CR) is much more sensible than using gate. It automatically addresses the anomaly whereby templated creatures cost the same as non-templated creatures, as long as the template leaves the HD untouched.

edit: I agree that [summon] will normally be used in combat. But I wished to address the need for maximal flexibility by increasing the duration with exponential factors at the expense of CR. This could be undone (according to the break even rule) by a PC through the use of reduced-duration mitigating factors. If someone wished to extend the duration beyond the limits set by the speed, they would use the normal factor based on Extend Spell (+2 SP per 100% increase of the base duration).

The alternative to this is either to allow unrestricted use of exponential duration factors by PCs (which is problematic because of the f-word), or to arbitrarily limit the flexibility and utility of the seed. I don't see why you would want to do this.

edit2: The reason I thought that parameters like range and duration should match is if you want to do multiple things with a spell; if you want to [dispel] a creature's protections, [afflict] his constitution and also attempt to [destroy] him, it seems to me that you would want the ranges of the different spells to match. Similarly if you want to [fortify] a creature you summon, and so on. I guess I don't really understand how aggregates are going to work.