Epic Magic Big Thread

[Sepulchrave II]

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).

I know, and I'll probably end up agreeing - there is a pattern of me being a tight-fisted bugger and you convincing me to loosen the constraints. But I think this is a good thing - it curbs your zeal for allowing too much

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.

Oh, probably. I'm not entirely sure how aggregates will work yet, either. Using the lesser of two values in a compound spell will be the default, I think - but I'm agreeing it's desirable to keep ranges as close as possible. Duration might be trickier. If we shoot for 1200 ft. / 200 mins, I think that most seeds can be persuaded to fit - some might need a hammer. I keep forgetting about the availability of exponential mitigating factors for PCs; it's not like I'm being intentionally bloody-minded.

 

[Sepulchrave II]

Re: elemental swarm

Yeah, I'm still on this one. It's been bugging me all day.

If the "maximum hp per HD" clause is worth +1 CR for each elemental across the board - not unreasonable, I think - then the total CR of the group is (sq.rt.) 484 = 22.

An SP24 1-action / 1200-ft / 200 min spell which targets one type of creature (although see below) without the inconvenient wait associated with elemental swarm (major, -10) should snag a CR 14. It raises a number of interesting points.

1) Does the choice from the four elemental types offer any real benefit to the caster?

2) I'm wondering whether we should include a third limitation/flexibilty factor at -/+6, and maybe a fourth at +/-2. The utility of a choice from 12 potential summonees seems too large for simply +4. And +4 feels to punitive for the ability to toggle between two effects (say blindness or deafness) or between the caster's choice of four elemental types in elemental swarm.

3) Is there any way that we can weigh - objectively and with an assigned numerical value - this limitation/flexibility, so that it can apply to all seeds, or does it need to be handled on a seed-by seed basis? Based on investigation so far, I would tentatively suggest the following:

+2 (minor): A choice of up to two effects, or up to four closely-related, thematically-linked effects. E.g. the [summon] seed allowing a choice of up to four different elementals, four different devils, four different angels, four different demons or two unrelated creatures (a coatl and an azer, say); the [afflict] seed rendering a target deaf or blind; the [energy] seed allowing a choice of two energy types.

+4 (moderate): A choice of up to four effects, or up to twelve closely-related, thematically-linked effects. E.g. the [summon] seed allowing a choice from a list of twelve demons or from a list of four unrelated creatures; the [afflict] seed being free to use any of its forms; a choice of any basic energy type in an [energy] spell. The choice of any mental ability to be buffed by [fortify].

+6 (major): A choice of up to (twelve?) effects, or any number of closely-related, thematically-linked effects. E.g. the [summon] seed allowing a choice from a list of any twelve unrelated creatures, or any demon, or any angel; the [energy] seed free to choose any energy type, including typeless (assuming an additional +8 had been paid to allow typeless energy). The choice of any ability score to be buffed by [fortify].

+10 (sweeping): This one is much harder to define. Free use of [summon]. Free use of energy type and shape in [energy].


This may prove a useful guideline, and it may not. I guess as other seeds present options, the criteria will change - I expect there will be a lot of haggling over whether the utility offered by a spell merits a moderate or a major increase in flexibility: this is a good thing. But I'm feeling that restricting ourselves to +4 and +10 will be more problematic in the long run.

Anyway, back to [summon]. This version incorporates my ideas from above. I've dropped the power component as preferred mitigation - this feels better suited to [call]. I've added backlash as preferred mitigation, because the physical act of summoning often seems to leave the caster drained in literature - suggesting that Elric (or whoever) used backlash. Bearing in mind that backlash can be a tad subtler than black fire cascading over the caster.


[Summon]
Conjuration (Summoning)

Root Spell: Summon monster suite, elemental swarm
Preferred Mitigation: Backlash, XP Burn
Components: V, S
Casting Time: 1 standard action
Range: 1200 ft.
Effect: Summoned creature or creatures no two of which can be more than 30 ft. apart, whose combined CR does not exceed 15
Duration: 200 minutes (D)
Saving Throw: None
Spell Resistance: No

This seed can summon one or more outsiders or elementals whose combined CR is 15 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.
Major 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; or alternatively to choose from any number of closely-related creatures (such as demons or angels) within the CR limit, increase the Spellcraft Prerequisite by +6.
Sweeping Flexibility: To create a spell which allows the caster to summon any creature of up to CR 15 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.

 

[Cheiromancer]

...there is a pattern of me being a tight-fisted bugger and you convincing me to loosen the constraints. But I think this is a good thing - it curbs your zeal for allowing too much

And conversely I know I don't have to worry too much about whether an idea is overpowered, because you'd shoot it down in a moment if it was.

Still, we should be wary of sliding into a player-DM dynamic. A DM finds it easier to relax a restriction than to impose one, and so he'll give away too little; erring on the side of caution. A player will try to get away with murder, so he'll try to loosen those restrictions. But this is not, in fact, our relationship, and thank goodness; it would be very difficult to design a spell system if such a dynamic existed.

I think that both our goals is to hit the right power level, and regard being underpowered as just as bad as being overpowered. I'll try to curb my inner munchkin, and you'll try to restrain your tight-fistedness.

I was thinking about those anomalous 9th level spells. Shambler would come in as SP 32 if my calculations are correct (and I'm allowed exponential range and duration factors)- +2 for medium range, +10 for two and half duration steps (20 minutes ==> 200 minutes ==> 20 hours => 1 week), -4 for being a CR 14 challenge. Maybe 30 for druids and clerics with the plant domain; a solid 11th level spell.

[edit] with duration factors being reduced in cost, it is a SP 25 spell for druids; still more than the SP 22 that it should be, but not too far off the power-curve. Give it a 1 minute casting time and it's good. [/edit]

What would wish come in as? A 9th level spell with a 5000 xp cost should be SP 32. It can duplicate non-forbidden arcane spells of level 8 (SP 20) or less. If "extreme flexibility" is worth +10, and 250 xp = 1 SP of "raw power" then that would work out quite nicely; a wish would be a strong 9th level spell (4 SP more than it should be); balanced, perhaps, by the possiblity that greedy wishes will be twisted. Huh. I didn't think it would come out so close.

How about a "greater wish" - could you have a SP 39 spell that will duplicate any spell of USP 24 or less? I'm tempted to say that 1 SP of "flex factor" should cost double; so that a spell that duplicates any USP 24 spell should be priced at SP 48. But that 250 xp = 1 SP could be used to reduce the cost. A 2000 xp payment = 8 SP of "flex factor", and the other 16 SP would be priced double; the result would be a SP 32 spell that, at the cost of 2000 xp, could duplicate any USP 24 effect. Does that strike you as reasonable? Arcane access fees would be additional.

This analysis supports the notion of a 1000 xp "arcane access" fee; if 1000 xp are spent on arcane access to a cleric spell, then 4000 xp are left over to be spent on "raw power" - that would be 16 SP, enough for a 6th level spell on another class list. Which is what the description of wish says. Strictly speaking the resurrection of a dead character is anomolous; they shoudn't be able to recreate a SP 26 effect spell that requires an arcane access fee. I'm sure there is some deep insight in here some where about exactly what you can do with pure xp; the fact that the character raised pays a level worth of experience is probably relevant too. I'm just going to set it aside for now.

The example of wish also suggests that the creation of valuable items be linked to the spending of xp at a rate of 5 gp = 1 xp. Although creating magic items at the rate of twice the normal xp would make it better; approaching 12.5 gp = 1 xp for very powerful items. (100 000 gp item, normally costing 4000 xp, instead costs 8000 + 5000 xp = 13 000; about 7 gp = 1 xp). Hmmm.

[edit]Your revised [summon] seed makes the shambler effect come in as only SP 26 (24 + 6 for 1.5 duration steps, -2 for medium, -2 for CR 14). Which seems fair; shambler is unusually powerful for a 9th level spell, but maybe not SP 30 powerful. It should probably take a minute to cast (-4 mitigating factor) or something.

I like it. The different lines of reasoning seem to be converging on the same point.

 

[Cheiromancer]

As unusual as it is for me to say this: what you've posted is too strong. At short range (-4) and 20 rounds duration (-8), you could get a CR 21 creature; a max hp Pit Fiend, say. Which is too much for a 21st level character to be able to summon on a moment's notice; I think that having a 17 CR creature at this range and duration should be about the best you could get.

I wonder if we are pricing the staggered-interval feature correctly; it seems that normally you'd much rather pay the +10 SP cost than have to wait around for the monsters to show up.

 

[Sepulchrave II]

At short range (-4) and 20 rounds duration (-8), you could get a CR 21 creature

At the risk of banging this drum again, I'm also wondering whether duration increment half-factor should be +/-2, not +/-4: equivalent to +2 metamagic levels. This would pare the CR to 19 - which I think is reasonable (c.f. elemental monolith), or CR 16 with 12 potential summonees (at +6 half-factors). I think the +5CR difference between [caster] and [one of 12 potential summonees] (c.f summon monster IX is a sound basis.

 

[Cheiromancer]

It'll certainly make the factors easier to remember; both the range and the duration factors would be -2 per step. And it matches the feat structure; both enlarge spell and extend spell are +1 level, so this modification preserves the parallelism. Although I'm not sure the parallelism should exist, since an increase in a range factor represents a four-fold increase; an increase in duration represents a 10-fold increase. Maybe the improvement in utility would be the same; presumably that's what the granularity of the game mechanics is intended to represent. I'll have to think about it.

Anyway, a CR 19 monster at SP 24. It could still be a Pit Fiend if the wizard were a specialist in conjuration (-2 mitigating factor for special expertise). But a small gap in CRs would still exist between summoner and summonee. As the wizard goes up in level the gap will tend to widen; since each +1 in CR takes +2 SP, CR rises only half as quickly as caster level. Although Improved Metamagic feats (or AMC, or whatever we use) will narrow the gap; and an epic wizard gets 2 feats every 3 levels so it will narrow quickly. But a heavy feat investment should pay off in better spells... except that IM/AMC improves all spells, and don't represent a special commitment to summoning.

I'm torn. I think I'd vote for CR 13 in the seed you give, rather than CR 15.

Also, how were you thinking of pricing minor changes to spells? If a character knows a SP 24 version of a spell, how difficult, expensive and time consuming would it be for him to research a slight upgrade (i.e. a SP 26 version to get max hit points on that pit fiend? Or a SP 24 version that will use an IM feat to get the max hit points?)

[edit] You aren't testing me, are you? Proposing overpowered material to see if I'll bite?

[edit2] Summon can't be mitigated down to touch, can it? Or that would be worth another couple of points for our min-maxing munchkin. I'll assume the answer is "no."

[edit3] Ok, with the new duration factors, the various proposals floating around come out the following CRs for a 20 round, short range summoning of a particular creature:

Post 218 (Sep): 14
Post 222 (Cheiro): 17
Post 225 (Sep): 17
Post 232 (Sep): 19
this post (Cheiro): 17

Unless I've miscalculated something, that is. Selecting from a group of around 12 creatures would have a CR of 3 less (to make up for the +6 SP that corresponds to major flexibility).

[edit4] Interesting thread here: Problemchild Buffs: Wardings and Boosts. Basically suggests that buffs should either last all day, or they should only last for an encounter. Food for thought for when we reconsider [fortify].

Hmmm. With the change of duration factors, it is now easier, with exponential factors, to make a spell last all day (rounds => minutes => tens of minutes => hours is only +6) than to quicken it (+8). Assuming we allow exponential factors to go that far. It would seem peculiar from a resource management angle: You can only cast one quickened action in a round, but you could have any number of spells going from the morning. Well, except for the scarcity of Epic spell slots, that is; maybe the commitment of that slot is worth the decreased cost. However if [fortify] were 200 minutes long, then the short term buff would get +4 to spend, and the all-day buff would have -12 (to pay for a 600% increase in duration) A day-long bull's strength would thus be 8 less than a 20 round buff. Items would almost certainly be cheaper, and they wouldn't burn up precious epic spell slots.

Definitely food for thought. I don't know what would be best.

 

[Sepulchrave II]

Assuming:

1) Duration increment is a +/-2 half-factor;
2) A choice of 12 targets is a +6 half-factor, and we have a spell which is specific;
3) 'Concentration' merits a +2 half-factor;

4) We have a 1 action/20-round duration 75-ft. spell;

The various summon spells as potential roots would yield the following CR results:

summon monster IX: CR16; top end (see below).
elemental swarm: CR19
summon elemental monolith: CR17
hellish horde: CR17

I've just thought of a problem - the utility of summon monster IX is even greater than I've been figuring. Not only can you summon one of twelve creatures on the IX list, but you have all of those options from I-VIII as well! If we give it almost-sweeping flexibility (+8), then a 1-action epic spell which summons a specific creature should net a CR 16 - no more.:

I'm thinking the elemental swarm is aberrant - yet another example of a 'weird druid thing' (shambler, bombardment).

In brief, I concur with your assertion that [summon] should be lower; although my reasoning is different.

Whilst it might seem trivial to be haggling over a difference of +1CR, I would actually advocate a CR 14 for the seed at this point - not 13 or 15. Strictly speaking, 13 might be more representative but I would appeal on these points:

1) A specialist can oh-so-very almost summon a balor or pit fiend without mitigation at lvl 21. I like the carrot which dangles temptingly close - it stretches the caster to push the boundaries. Who wouldn't want to taste those 2 points of backlash? This is more of a gamer's psychology argument than anything else.

2) Elemental swarm exists, even if it's an epic spell in nonepic guise.

3) A little extra something-something for the incremental jump of nonepic-->epic isn't necessarily a bad thing.

4) Pure aesthetics. 14 is nicer than 13.

Also, how were you thinking of pricing minor changes to spells?

My original idea was to to simply price (in time, cash and XP) the difference in the spell SP - this was to include all modifications.

For example, say a caster develops his hellish servitor epic spell at an USP 26 / SP 24 (including 2 points of backlash). Later, when he's 25th level, he modifies it by upping the HD of the outsider to 30 (+6 CR for an outsider at +1CR/+2HD), which is a deviation of 12 factors. He brings it down to an SP 28 spell by including another 8 points of backlash (a deviation of another 8 factors) - the total is a 20-factor deviation from the original spell. Let's say he calls it Nessian Enforcer.

These 20 factors would be priced as if for an independently researched spell i.e. 20,000gp/20 days/800 xp - still much less than if he had developed an original USP 38 spell. The caster would now have both spells (original and modified) within his repertoire.

Magnum Opus was to address this directly:

1) The caster only pays half the associated costs for modifying a spell which he designates as his magnum opus;
2) The caster simply prepares his magnum opus in an open epic slot; when he comes to cast the spell, he can choose any variation of the spell from his magnum opus suite.

I'm sure additional controls need to be put in place, but that's the bones of it. As all spells in the suite count as the magnum opus, then the caster could subsequently modify his Nessian Enforcer and it would still remain within the suite - maybe when he's 30th-level he wants to Quicken it.

Edit: Suggested Control: Maybe the magnum opus should only contain 5 variants of a spell at any one time; as the suite evolves, so the older ideas fall by the wayside.

Edit: Maybe we should double development costs.

Spell modifications should include only 3 degrees of freedom - i.e. only 3 components (CR, duration, backlash etc.) can be modified; any more would require the development of a new spell.

Summon can't be mitigated down to touch, can it? Or that would be worth another couple of points for our min-maxing munchkin. I'll assume the answer is "no."

NO, no, no, no.

[edit4] Interesting thread here: Problemchild Buffs: Wardings and Boosts. Basically suggests that buffs should either last all day, or they should only last for an encounter. Food for thought for when we reconsider [fortify].

Will check it out.

Hmmm. With the change of duration factors, it is now easier, with exponential factors, to make a spell last all day (rounds => minutes => tens of minutes => hours is only +6) than to quicken it (+8).

Quicken would only be +4 as a half-factor; you're conflating it with it's full-factor value. I do this all the time too. I'm also working on the assumption that PCs won't be using exponential factors (except mitigating factors) - they're just tools that we're using to balance seeds,

 

[Sepulchrave II]

Re: duration half-factors (again)

I keep coming back to a hypothetical metamagic feat which would allow the caster to increase the duration of a spell by one increment, and +2 levels seems right: I think +4 would be far too high.

Persistent Spell in 3.0 allowed (a limited selection of) spells to be extended for a whole day, regardless of their base duration, for +4 levels (overpowered); this was modified to +6 levels in 3.5 (nerfed). As metamagic-derived factors have wider applications than their true metamagic counterparts - e.g. a factor which widens a spell is not limited to the shapes that the Widen Spell must abide by - I don't think it's entirely out of line to draw a comparison with Persistent Spell.

To use Persistent Spell on a 20-round duration spell incurs a +6 level charge (in 3.5); with a +/-2 half-factor, a 20-round epic spell can be extended to 20 hours at +6 half-factors: +12 half-factors just seems way too high. If Persistent Spell could extend to any non-instantaneous effect, it would mean a +12 level adjustment - which seems a tad much.

 

[Cheiromancer]

I would actually advocate a CR 14 for the seed at this point - not 13 or 15. Strictly speaking, 13 might be more representative but I would appeal on these points:

1) A specialist can oh-so-very almost summon a balor or pit fiend without mitigation at lvl 21. I like the carrot which dangles temptingly close - it stretches the caster to push the boundaries. Who wouldn't want to taste those 2 points of backlash? This is more of a gamer's psychology argument than anything else.

2) Elemental swarm exists, even if it's an epic spell in nonepic guise.

3) A little extra something-something for the incremental jump of nonepic-->epic isn't necessarily a bad thing.

4) Pure aesthetics. 14 is nicer than 13.

I'm very doubtful about the proposal for [summon]. This is how I see your argument: Summon monster IX can get a CR 13 monster, and if the +8 major flexibility of the spell is turned into increased CR that would be CR 17; add +1 CR (to make it a 10th level spell) and you have CR 18. Which, at long range and 200 minutes duration, would be CR 14. Which is allegedly a prettier number than 13.

Thing is, the CR 13 monster from SM IX is a fiendish monstrous spider, not a glabrezu or gelugon. If you look at the true fiends, the spell summons a barbed devil (CR 11), hezrou (CR 11), bebilith (CR 10) or a night hag (CR 9). If you used these monsters, the base CR for your summon spell might be CR 12. Which is a much nicer number than 14; it goes very neatly into 24, and fits smoothly with the +1 CR = +2 SP. Or this USP 24 spell could summon a specific CR 16 monster. Again, a nice number (2/3 of 24).

A PC's summon monster X (1 action/20-round duration/75-ft. spell) could have a cherry picked list of 12 CR 13 monsters, which I think would be quite an improvement over summon monster IX; in this selection you'd have the epic jump. The cherry picking alone would be worth about a +2 CR, (cf the CR 5 djinni in summon monster VII).

I don't think elemental swarm provides as much support for your position as you say; assuming a 1 action/20-round duration/75-ft. spell with a specific target, I get CR 17 extrapolating from elemental swarm, not CR 19.

Regarding elemental swarm:

2d4 large elementals     5 x 6 x 6 = 180
1d4 huge elementals    2.5 x 8 x 8 = 160
1 greater elemental    1 x 10 x 10 = 100
Total challenge                      440
= CR 21

I'm boosting the CRs by +1 for the max hit dice. The spell includes minor flexibility (+2), medium range (+2), 200 minutes (+4), 10 minute casting time (-6), great inconvenience (-10), area of druidic expertise -2; a net of -10, the equivalent of -5 CR. So this could yield a single, specific CR 16 monster at 9th level; extrapolating to SP 24, it would be a 17. If you use Upper_Krust's numbers, you get

2d4 large elementals       5 x 8 x 8 = 320
1d4 huge elementals    2.5 x 14 x 14 = 490
1 greater elemental      1 x 17 x 17 = 289
Total challenge                       1099
= CR 33 => KR 22

A trifle less, actually, since the +3.5 hp per hd is less than +0.7 CR in his system, not +1 CR. Anyway, it's more like CR 17 or *maybe* 18, not 19. Even if it wasn't kinda anomolous.

Maybe you could say that elementals and fiendish/celestial animals and vermin all are treated as one CR lower (unless this would reduce the CR to below 4)? That makes the spell match elemental swarm and elemental monolith a lot better.

I don't think the system should cater to the desires of 21st level spellcasters. Who knows if they'll even take Epic Spellcasting right off the bat? They might take AMC instead. Or if they take Epic Spellcasting, who says they would research [summon]? If they wait till 23rd level, they'll have an AMC to provide a -2, and another 2 ranks of spellcraft. That's CR 18 right there, and CR 20 is just within reach. Why shouldn't the prospect of summoning a balor tantalize a 23rd or 24th level caster?

Re: Magnum Opus

I like the "spontaneous suite" kind of thing. I would recommend that this be how spontaneous casters perform epic magic; each epic spell slot comes with an epic spell, and they can cheaply research changes to it, and develop a very flexible suite. But only casters who prepare spells can research radically different spells to cast with their single epic spell slot; if a spontaneous caster wants to develop a different sort of spell, they have to take another feat.

This will parallel the flexibility of wizards over sorcerers into epic levels. Wizards can have any number of spells to potentially prepare in a spell slot, but sorcerers have very few.

Re: Persistent

I like the coincidence that +6 (from Persistent Spell) matches the cost for +3 steps from rounds to hours. I say we go for it.

However, I would like some way of making very short duration spells that are a *lot* more powerful than 20 round buffs; certainly more than +6 in factors better than an all-day buff. Things that will last one or two rounds, can be cast as swift actions, but which are very powerful. Two, three or four times as powerful as an all-day buff. I would also like a way that an all-day buff could be dismissed in exchange for a one-round boost; not as big as a swift spell designed for the purpose, but pretty big.

 

[Sepulchrave II]

Here's another [call], this time incorporating the mitigatation up front instead of paying the creature at the end of service: it's in the 'factors' entry, and it's kind of clunky. I'm wondering if the original payment from greater planar ally should stand - it's far more discriminating in terms of hazardous duties, ethical sympathies etc: it's really hard to translate this into an elegant factor because it scales off of another variable (creature HD). Anyway:

[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: 1200ft.
Effect: Called elementals or outsiders of CR 10 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.

Creatures called by use of the [call] seed serve you for 20 days, and will perform complex tasks which you assign to them. 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). If you wish to extend the creature's service beyond this time, you must negotiate an additional payment with it.

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; for each +10CR above 10 of the called creature, increase the Spellcraft Prerequisite by an additional +2: these factors are cumulative.
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 10 (-20), extend range by 2 increments (+4), determine specific target creature (+4), incorporate native XP cost (+2), incorporate equivalent CR20/20-day payment as equivalent power component mitigation (+4).