Epic Magic Big Thread

[Cheiromancer]

AD LIBITUM SPELLCASTING [Epic][Epic Magic]
You regain your spells at a moment's notice.
Prerequisite: Ability to cast spells at the normal maximum spell level in at least one spellcasting class.
Benefit: You may regain your lowest level spell slots by spending one minute in concentration. Furthermore, if you prepare spells you may use these spell slots to cast any spell of the same level that you know.
Normal: It normally takes 8 hours rest and 1 hour of preparation to regain spell slots. Furthermore, the selection of spells normally has to be made when spells are prepared.
Special: This feat may be taken multiple times. Each time you take the feat, the benefit extends to one higher level spell-slot.

This reduces the book-keeping problem, but I think it might infringe too much on the Sorcerer. Maybe a feat that allows Sorcerers to know an unlimited number of spells? Such a feat should be balanced against Upper_Krust's Improved Spellcasting. Let's see, I'd word UK's feat like this:

IMPROVED SPELLCASTING [Epic][Epic Magic]
You expand the horizons of your spellcasting capabilites.
Prerequisites: Ability to cast spells at the normal maximum spell level in at least one spellcasting class, Spellcraft 25 ranks.
Benefit: You gain two extra spell slots. These can be assigned to any spell level you can cast.
Special: You can gain this feat multiple times and its effects stack. Each time you take it you can cast two more spell slots per day.

Note that this feat doesn't accumulate from the bottom like ALS does; maybe it should. Or maybe ALS should affect any spell-slot, not the lowest. Anyway, a complementary sorcerer feat would be something like this:

INTUITIVE LEARNING [Epic][Epic Magic]
You can keep a spellbook.
Prerequisites: Ability to spontaneously cast spells at the normal maximum spell level in at least one spellcasting class, Spellcraft 25 ranks.
Benefit: You may scribe your lowest level spells in a spellbook, just as a wizard does. Furthermore you may scribe spells of that level from scrolls and other spellbooks, following the rules for a wizard. Your spells known include every spell you scribe in this way.
Special: You may take this feat multiple times. Each time you take it you may scribe spells of the next higher level into your spellbook.

Then a wizard who takes 10 ALS and 10 IS feats (cantrips through 9th level spells) would be mechanically identical to a sorcerer with 10 ALS and 10 IL feats. Except that one would use Intelligence and the other would use Charisma. Both would have a base 6 spells per spell level (plus ability bonuses) and would be able to choose their spells on the fly, and recharge their slots in a nominal amount of time.

I figure that 4 levels of IM should about double a wizard's effectiveness; their spells could be double-empowered, or he could be quickening spells so as to cast 2 per round instead of one; things like that. The big limit is that the wizard has to hold something back in case there is another encounter after the current one.

With enough ALS feats the limitation is removed; the wizard can cast all (or almost all) his spells in one encounter instead of 3 or 4. And so this is tripling (or quadrupling) his effectiveness. That's equivalent to 8 to 12 levels of IM, so the 10 feats required for ALS is right on the money. The main reason for the one minute recharge time is so that it can't be used in combat.

So in theory this should all be fine except for its failure to address Greybar's main objection:

My main goal is to get rid of the fuss of low level spells, ... My concern was that making the piddly spells "at will" was more storytelling/flow benefit than mechanism, so if I made it an independant feat it wouldn't be worth taking.

Certainly the mechanical benefit of taking that first ALS or IL is pretty insignificant. Maybe even the second or third. But after that it starts to become worthwhile. Part of what makes the early feat chain weak is that they have to affect only low level spells. I'd hesitate to remove this "accumulating" property, since then it might be too powerful. Imagine if a 21st level wizard could cast his 9th level spells ad libitum! Maybe the first feat should affect spells up to level 2 or something. Someone might spend a feat slot to cast 1st and 2nd level spells ad libitum, and, once started, start taking the rest of the slots in the feat chain.

I'd hesitate to make the feat chain less than 8 feats long, though, unless some kind of penalty were built in; e.g. that the number of spell-slots restored ad libitum was one less than if restored by a night's sleep. Then I could see two levels of slots per ALS instead of only 1.

All of this is a bit of a tangent to the thread, since it doesn't affect seed-based spells at all. But it's not entirely off-topic; to balance seed based spells you need to know what the alternative is. And the alternative should be more than just Improved Metamagic.

[edit]I think Arcane Sluice might be overpowered. But I ran the idea of Ad Libitum Spellcasting by Upper_Krust earlier today (in an IM conversation) and he thought it seemed flimsy. So I don't know.

****

I wonder if "seminal" would be a better word for talking about seed-based spells. Uniseminal would be relating to one-root epic spells, multiseminal would be epic spells with compound roots, etc. Greek would be monospermal and polyspermal. Or even a barbaric mixture of these two possibilities; monoseminal and polyseminal, perhaps.

Or maybe drop the "n" and lengthen the vowel to compensate: monosemeial and polysemeial. It sorta straddles the ground between being based on seeds and being based on signs.

Dunno. Sep, you have a good ear for such things; what do you think?

****

Re: the [life] seed.

I don't know that it's *desirable* to limit the remit of true resurrection in this manner...

I think it is easier to use an epic spell to true resurrect a character with 400+ hp than it is to use an epic spell to heal him. Though one could fiddle with the factors to make the equivalence occur far outside of the range we are considering. But it occurred to me that it shouldn't be a trivial action to restore very powerful creatures to life; demon princes, gods, etc.. One way of reflecting this non-triviality is to put true resurrection on a fundamentally different basis; one based on CR.

There would still be difficulties; could you use resurrection instead? So what if Orcus loses a level. Maybe you could patch the rules to say that unique creatures can't benefit from resurrection; they need a CR-based epic spell that true resurrects them. However you do it, I think there is a desirability to making death an inconvenience even at epic levels; not something a quickened componentless spell could accomplish; a momento vitae spell of some sort.

I'm uncertain about x10 increments in the temporal range modifier, as I don't see any precedent for it in the way that duration units are arranged in the core rules beyond the first two increments: 1 round/level -> 1 minute level (x10) -> 10 mins/level (x10) -> 1hr/level (x6) -> 1 day/level (x24).

Those last two steps encompass x144; very close to the x100 that you would expect. Mathematically it's 2.16 steps instead of 2 steps, but that's less than a 10% discrepancy. Comparable to fudging 20 hours to 1 day, which is something I'd not hesitate to do. Months to years is also very close to a x10 progression. You can still use a days, months, years progression; you just have to make one of the steps +3 instead of +2.

If, as you submit, true resurrection employs a different paradigm, then its SP should not be calculated with regard to resurrection at all; I think that invoking a nonepic 6SP/spell level factor might be construed as too much effort in making the numbers fit.

The two paradigms coincide there, so it is a good place to have the spell. But it raises the question of which paradigm to follow into epic levels; I still think the CR-based one is better.

And I've used the 6SP/spell level calculation before; it's a standard tool in my analysis of non-epic spell suites, not something completely ad hoc. But yeah, that's not the only way I could have analysed it.

Still, I like the looks of "the necromantic/healing/creation interface"; it provides an awful lot of theoretical neatness to the system. Still, it is an enthusiasm, and maybe it will pass.

 

[Sepulchrave II]

I wonder if "seminal" would be a better word for talking about seed-based spells. Uniseminal would be relating to one-root epic spells, multiseminal would be epic spells with compound roots, etc. Greek would be monospermal and polyspermal. Or even a barbaric mixture of these two possibilities; monoseminal and polyseminal, perhaps.

Or maybe drop the "n" and lengthen the vowel to compensate: monosemeial and polysemeial. It sorta straddles the ground between being based on seeds and being based on signs.

Dunno. Sep, you have a good ear for such things; what do you think?

Unfortunately, I have been conditioned to view 'seminal' through the lens of gender; it's one of those words I try to avoid now . But I think (like 'television') a barbaric mixture would be acceptable.

FWIW, I've thought about seed semiotics as well - their archetypal nature is almost reminiscent of the major arcana, or planetary symbolism. If these efforts ever came to print, art panels rendering the seeds in terms similar to tarot is very appealing.

I think it is easier to use an epic spell to true resurrect a character with 400+ hp than it is to use an epic spell to heal him. Though one could fiddle with the factors to make the equivalence occur far outside of the range we are considering. But it occurred to me that it shouldn't be a trivial action to restore very powerful creatures to life; demon princes, gods, etc..

Good points. There is an alternative - although it feels something like an admission of failure - and that is to exclude true resurrection from the seed. Perhaps, like wish, miracle, shapechange and gate, true resurrection is beyond the pale. It is another 9th-level spell which 'breaks the rules' so completely that accommodating it is more trouble than it's worth. It's notable that the true resurrection effect isn't included in the [life] seed in the ELH - although that's more likely to be an oversight.

If we exclude true resurrection it does avoid the problem of an arcane caster being able to perform it. This kind of rings true; a degree of divine intervention (like miracle) which it is simply impossible for arcane magic to duplicate. It is beyond the remit of wish. The problem with this is that its just so damn routine to 'true res.' someone at epic levels. It would have been so much better if true resurrection had never been, and a clause added to miracle to replicate the effect: the DM would at least have more latitude in making demands upon the mortal who invokes the gods this way.

Meh.

 

[Sepulchrave II]

I think Arcane Sluice might be overpowered. But I ran the idea of Ad Libitum Spellcasting by Upper_Krust earlier today (in an IM conversation) and he thought it seemed flimsy. So I don't know.

Requiring Innate Spell as a prereq would tone Arcane Sluice down considerably (Innate Spell also requires Quicken, Silent and Still as prereq. feats); to moderate it further, one could make Eschew Materials and Ignore Material Components prereqs as well - this would make the transition to an SLA almost seamless (xp. costs notwithstanding).

I wonder if the impact on the selection of pre-epic feats would be enough to balance it. This is difficult to gauge. You'd need to be 32nd-level to use 5th-level spells at will (with 2 epic feats - Arcane Sluice and Ignore Material Components) dedicated to it. With Eschew, Silent, Innate, Quicken and Still as pre-epic feats, you'd still have room for Maximize and Empower. By 38th-level you'd be casting maximized disintegrates at will: I dunno - a 38th-level Warlock might be only be dishing out 18d6 Utterdark Eldritch Dooms, which seems kind of weak for the class's signature ability. But, of course they wouldn't be, as they'd have a bunch of uber-groovy blast invocations by that level - such as Disintegrating Blast

Warlocks. Now they'd be a challenge to develop an effective epic selection for.

I'm digressing far too far from the SRD, in any case. Innate Spell isn't core, either. I think just barring metamagic from at-will SLAs would make things a lot simpler; the character would have to take 'Quicken Spell-Like Ability' instead.

 

[Cheiromancer]

I figured that an epic wish would start at about SP 40; it would consist entirely of flexible factors (at a 2:1 rate), and so could replicate any effect of SP 20 or lower. In many respects wish would be better; being able to replicate resurrection, for instance, which at USP 26 should be too hard to do with no mitigation. But it is stuff like that which makes wish so troublesome.

You could still true res people until they get to 25th level or so; afterwards you could ret-con some sort of existential debt whose implications take a while to become obvious; the attention of legions of inevitables are attracted or ancient death gods are awakened or something. To avoid these repercussions you need to use the proper 2*CR seed.

Actually, what worries me most about the 2*CR meta-seed is Greybar's Ascent to Lichdom. While one can quibble about details (the phylactery, the conditional/delay aspect, etc.) the 2*CR meta-seed guarantees that one can, in principle, turn yourself into a creature with a higher CR. What is especially troubling is that you can't rule out this kind of thing. The precedent for becoming a lich already exists; furthermore a character could easily arrange being transformed into a vampire. Just be killed by a captive vampire, and have it killed before you arise into unlife. And if it can be done by non-epic characters it seems unreasonable to make it a USP 100 effect (or something equally difficult to achieve).

But if you can increase your CR with some kind of epic necromantic spell, why not increase your CR by some kind of draconic apotheosis spell, which grants the half-dragon template? Or celestial/infernal apotheosis which makes you a half-celestial or half-fiend? Etc.. I'm in that horrible existential state of not wanting to allow it, but not wanting to rule it out, either.

****

I wonder if it might be better to say that, at some level of abstraction, there is no difference between clerical and arcane magic. Or between the different kinds of spellcasters. Thus at high levels (or with the appropriate feats) the different types of casters are mechanically equivalent.

In my previous post I sketched out some feats that could narrow and even eliminate the difference between sorcerers and wizards. I feel that there is already very little difference between wizards and clerics. Where the difference exists, it is mostly in favor of the cleric. Which troubles me; there are a lot of advantages (hit dice, BAB, armor proficiencies, turning) that clerics have that wizards don't- do they have to be superior in epic spells as well?

I wonder if you've given this any thought? Perhaps, given that a cleric's power flows from his god, the power of the cleric's epic spells should be capped based on the divine rank of the deity he worships/serves, and that to exceed this cap would be fairly feat intensive. Those extra feats would serve to accentuate that epic magic is something that arcane casters do best. I was thinking that the cap might be hit fairly soon; maybe in the mid-twenties. Perhaps a SP of 20 + divine rank might be the cap?

For clerics that do not worship a deity, a rank would have to be assigned based on the generality (i.e. lack of utility) of their domains. Someone with boring domains like Good and Protection might have a virtual DR of 20 (the maximum possible), while a twinked-out character with Elf and Travel or something might be deemed to virtually worship a demigod (DR 5, capping spells at SP 25). A feat could raise this cap by +4 or something. Or a cleric could just mitigate the spells down to the permitted zone.

[edit] Let's not bring warlocks into the mix! If we have a system that fits everybody else, I'm sure we'll find a place for them.

I wonder if it is helpful to think of casting time and spell-slot as eliminable components to a spell, along the lines of somatic, verbal and material components. Still Spell eliminates somatic components, Silent Spell eliminates verbal components, Eschew Material Components eliminates material components (well Ignore Material Components does, anyway), and Quicken Spell eliminates the casting time as well. A spell so modified is naked and could be studied to see how to eliminate the spell-slot as well. This spell-slot-component-removing metamagic feat would have the other component-removing feats as prerequisites, of course.

Now how many levels of metamagic would eliminating the cost of a spell-slot? That is, how many levels of Improved Metamagic would it make sense to lose if it meant ensuring that the spell-slots are not expended? I'd say between 8 and 12; that's based on my theorizing with Ad Libitum Spellcasting. But I would hate to make this feat (Amaranthine Spell, let's call it) just an epic metamagic feat; that would cement the hold of IM on the conventional caster, not erode it.

Hmmm. If Amaranthine Spell is a +10 metamagic feat that eliminates the spell slot, the +10 levels cost is kind of irrelevant; an amaranthine spell is effectively of zero size, and so you can pack any number of them into a 10th level spell slot. It's analogous to having Eschew Material Components; it makes a tiny bit of bat guano enough for any number of fireballs. Which means you can apply Amaranthine Spell to all the cantrips you know, and they will all fit inside your 10th level slot with enough room left over for a 10th level spell. And if you have an 11th level slot you can pack all your 1st level spells in that one, and so on.

If you use Amaranthine Spell in this way, you can't mitigate its cost with Improved Metamagic. That's because Improved Metamagic can only be applied once per round per feat, and only for a moment; not enough to keep the spells at zero size indefinitely. However, if you knew Amaranthine Spell and had 10 levels of IM you could cast one spell per round without expending it from its slot. If you had a size zero Amaranthine Spell hidden in a high level ISC slot then it could be modified by other IM spells, though. Why not? It'd still be a true spell, though, not a SLA.

Kinda nifty. I wonder if it is overpowered, though; if it is, it might not be by much. Amaranthine might be +12 instead of +10, say. But aside from this tweaking I think it looks good.

 

[The Forsaken One]

--

For the cleric side of things, the limiting it to divine rank is something I really like. And I totally agree that these "restrictions" should be felt very early on in epic levels, if not immediately when entering epic levels. You might also or just instead of want to make the possible spells dependant on the gods domains.

Kinda like tying seeds to domains to limit your options of casting for clerics... Just a thought . Like making a bunch of seeds "general" seeds castable by everyone and others linked to domains.

And on the Metamagic stuff, I have no bloody idea what would be a balanced increase in spellslot cost hehe.

The things to allow with that epic wish opens a whole new can of worms. Seems its the kinda thing best left to DM discretion OR to find and distil a basic line/formula in the transformation process and apply it. Or make a Wish Seed and set limits in it just as with the normal wish spell. (Which could be increased and expanded offcourse with increasing the SP required for the spell). Epic wishes should be VERY dangerous to use since even the smallest possible oversight in the wording of the wish could have the most dire of consequences if you are looking at the amount of power being wielded. It would require a boatload of wisdom and intelligence to get the wording and stuff right and get an accurate view of the possible consequences of the wish.

Did you guys decide what to do with bard epic spellcasting btw...?

 

[Sepulchrave II]

You might also or just instead of want to make the possible spells dependant on the gods domains.

I like it. It's simple. Drop the Specialist Mitigating factor (paralleling wizards' school specialty), and instead impose a non-domain penalty factor for clerics. Say +6, if they're using a seed (or even better, a function of a seed) from a nonassociated domain. Associated domains: (?)

Air -> [Energy] (lightning); [Call] or [Summon] ([air] creatures only)
Animal -> [Polymorph] (animals only); [Summon] (animals or celestial/infernal animals only; waive the +4 non-ousider)
Chaos -> [Call] or [Summon] (chaotic creatures only)
Death -> [Slay]; [Animate Dead]
Destruction -> [Destroy] (duh)
Earth -> [Energy] (acid); [Summon] ([earth] creatures only)
Evil -> [Call] or [Summon] ([evil] creatures only)
Fire -> [Energy] (fire); [Call] or [Summon] ([fire] creatures only)
Good -> [Call] or [Summon] ([good] creatures only)
Healing -> [Heal] or [Life]
Knowledge -> [Foresee] and [Reveal]
Law -> [Call] or [Summon] ([lawful] creatures only)
Luck -> ?
Magic -> Additional factor for all domains is reduced to +4
Plant -> [Polymorph] and [Summon] ([Plant] creatures only; waive the +4 for non-outsiders)
Protection -> [Ward]
Strength -> [Fortify Creature]
Sun -> ?
Travel -> [Transport]
Trickery -> [Conceal]; [Delude]
War -> ?
Water -> [Call] or [Summon] ([water] creatures only); [Energy] (cold)

Something like that?

 

[Cheiromancer]

It would require a boatload of wisdom and intelligence to get the wording and stuff right and get an accurate view of the possible consequences of the wish.

Well, you are talking about characters with scores in the 30s or 40s. That's awfully smart. Besides, the reason that wish is twisty is because it is over-powered for its level. Making an epic wish that simply reduplicates other epic spells is pretty dull, and I can't see it is overpowered.

You might also or just instead of want to make the possible spells dependant on the gods domains.

I like it. It's simple. Drop the Specialist Mitigating factor (paralleling wizards' school specialty), and instead impose a non-domain penalty factor for clerics. Say +6, if they're using a seed from a nonassociated domain.

I dunno. There are lots of domains, and I am not sure how to match them up with the different seeds, of which there are also lots. A standard deity has what, three or four domains?

Here's the list of SRD domains. What seeds would go with each?

• Air Domain
• Animal Domain
• Chaos Domain
• Death Domain
• Destruction Domain
• Earth Domain
• Evil Domain
• Fire Domain
• Good Domain
• Healing Domain
• Knowledge Domain
• Law Domain
• Luck Domain
• Magic Domain
• Plant Domain
• Protection Domain
• Strength Domain
• Sun Domain
• Travel Domain
• Trickery Domain
• War Domain
• Water Domain

And how would you generalize to cover domains like Elf or Time or what-not? My proposal would require a big judgement call in the case of clerics without divine patrons, but usually the DR would be available. This method... well, maybe there's an obvious answer that I just can't see right now.

 

[The Forsaken One]

Well on the vague ones as Elf etc you can pick quintessential ones that fit such as certain nature and perhaps travel ones. If you need a further indication you could take a look at the spells that are granted by the domains which should give a decent picture. Especially if there are seeds based off some of the spells granted by the domain.

And if this is the route to take it seems prudent to keep it on hold till most of the seeds are finished. From then on its cross referencing which should hardly take any time at all compared to the effort put into this as a whole. I wouldn't mind to give it a basic look and try to see where it lands. You guys got a preliminairy list of the available seeds somewhere or should I take the ELH and distill them from this thread for the rest?

And Id aim at a general list of cleric seeds and link the rest at domains. It was just a thought and I had no real implementation behind it. But it certainly seems worth a look. I'll give it a peek tomorrow or on monday when I get back at my appartment and got most of my stuff laying around.

At first thought it seems really simple, but it involves a load of work to cross reference if it is the road to take. But after its compiled it should be really easy to use in game. For the rest, as you said Sep, a +6 seems to be a nice one with the current system you are creating here. I was hanging more towards +4 but then again, I have no feel at all for the current SP ranking system you got going .


To Cheiro~: I'd definately aim for a combination of the systems. Theres no reason not to and it would actually symbolize and flesh out the difference in deific power when entering the epic realm. I really like the DR limits the max SP you can cast. (Personally I have no problems at all with judgement calls on the ALs though so that would work fine to).

[EDIT: Today I was prodding around and modifying an Unseelie Nymph to turn it into a matriach type something for my Darkhidden race, or just as the females of that race. Still undecided as of this moment... But then I kinda got off track and started toying with some feats and abilities that grant you bonusses or penalties against a certain sex.

Would be funny to turn out a "Venus" seed or feat or something to impose penalties against males or gain benefits against them [/EDIT]

 

[Cheiromancer]

I don't really want to fragment the seeds. If a seed represents a fundamental building block of magic, then a character should either be able to get it, or not; they shouldn't be able to get part of it. They may appear fragmentary in how they manifest at pre-epic levels, but they represent a deeper unity that is discovered by very advanced spellcasters.

Maybe we say that a LG cleric could [summon] a demon if he wished, but that this would be a huge alignment violation and so he shouldn't do it. Similarly an Air cleric could cast an acid spell, but that this would displease their patron deity.

But take the Luck domain. What seeds map up to this conglomeration? I see [ward], [fortify], [dispel], [delude], [reflect], [foresee] and whatever miracle belongs to.

[sblock=Luck Domain]
1 Entropic Shield: Ranged attacks against you have 20% miss chance.
2 Aid: +1 on attack rolls, +1 against fear, 1d8 temporary hp +1/level (max +10).
3 Protection from Energy: Absorb 12 points/level of damage from one kind of energy.
4 Freedom of Movement: Subject moves normally despite impediments.
5 Break Enchantment: Frees subjects from enchantments, alterations, curses, and petrification.
6 Mislead: Turns you invisible and creates illusory double.
7 Spell Turning: Reflect 1d4+6 spell levels back at caster.
8 Moment of Prescience: You gain insight bonus on single attack roll, check, or save.
9 Miracle: Requests a deity’s intercession.[/sblock]
If being able to cast a base spell of a seed gives access to a seed, then many seeds will be clerical. That's because most spell seeds have many base spells, and these are divided among both clerical and arcane lists. If you require multiple spells in a seed to get access you have a problem with seeds like [reflect], that have only one base seed.

We haven't been very careful about listing all the base spells for the seeds. [Foresee] lists divination, but commune, vision and legend lore should be there too. I don't think moment of prescience is modeled by any current seed, but it would probably end up in [foresee].

But whatever kind of unity a domain might have, I don't think it reflects or reveals the unity of the seeds. So domains shouldn't influence what seeds characters have access to. A possible exception might be [life] and [heal]; these only have divine base seeds, so these aspects of magic might be accessible only by divine casters.

I still like the notion of capping the system on the basis of divine ranks. I'm thinking of U_K's Immortal's Handbook system, where the first divine ranks are as follows:

Disciple: 1
Prophet: 2
Hero-deity: 3
Quasi-deity: 4
Demi-deity: 6
Lesser deity: 8
Intermediate deity: 12
Greater deity: 16
Elder one: 24
Old one: 32
First one: 48
Demiurge: 64 to 128
Time Lord: 200
High Lord: 400
etc.

Disciples and prophets can't grant clerical spells. Basically you have to be a demi-deity or better to grant 9th level spells. So a cap of 20 + DivR would mean that any cleric who can cast 9th level spells would be able to cast epic spells too; the earliest they would run into the cap would be with SP 26.

Clerics with no divine patron would treat the divine rank of their patron as 0. Then have a series of feats:

Divine augmentation I: Pre-requisite: Spellcraft 24. Increase patron's effective Divine Rank by +4 (or to Divine Rank 8, whichever is greater).
Divine augmentation II: Prerequisite: Divine Augmentation I, Spellcraft 30. Increase patron's effective Divine Rank by +8 (or to Divine Rank 24, whichever is greater). This replaces Divine Augmentation I.
Divine Augmentation III: Pre-requisite: Prerequisite: Divine Augmentation I and II, Spellcraft 42. Increase patron's effective Divine Rank by +16 (or to Divine Rank 48, whichever is greater). This replaces the Divine Augmentation I and II.

I think the subsequent bonuses should be +32, +48, +64 etc. The fixed values are to gradually eliminate the difference between characters who started out with patrons of different divine ranks. When you are 40th level you won't be drawing your power from a piddly demi-god anyway.

Those are the lines I'm thinking of.

[edit]Instead of Spellcraft, it should be Knowledge (Religion). Or Knowledge (Nature) for druids.

 

[Sepulchrave II]

I wonder if we can agree on these ideas in principle:

1) Wizards should exhibit the most versatility wrt. the development of epic magic. They would be able to develop spells to cover most contingencies, but would be limited in the frequency with which any spell could be cast.

2) Sorcerers should have a more limited selection of epic spells, but be able to cast them more often. Preferably, sorcerers would have several minor variations on a theme within their repertoire; additional themes would somehow be purchased through epic feats. Sorcerers can only cast epic spells within a chosen theme.

3) Clerics should resemble wizards in their epic spellcasting, but should be limited by either their chosen domains, their deity's possible granted domains, the portfolio of their deity, their deity's divine rank, or some combination of these factors. If they develop spells beyond this narrow remit, they suffer additional factors in their spellcasting efforts. These factors should be heavily punitive, but might be offset by relevant feats.

4) Druids should also resemble wizards in their epic spellcasting, but their efforts should revolve primarily around the 'Natural World;' this phrase should be described in fairly broad terms. They cannot cast epic spells which lie beyond the purview of the 'Natural World.'