Epic Magic Big Thread

[Cheiromancer]

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.'

I think we agree on 1, 3 and 4. I'm not sure about #2, though. The various alternative base classes (beguilers, necromancer-type classes, etc.) seem to fill the niche of a "thematic spellcaster". Limited spells cast more often: that I can agree on.

 

[Sepulchrave II]

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.

I am sympathetic to your unifying tendencies, but I think that different orders of truth are possible - even desirable - here. Consider epic feats which:

• Allow a caster great freedom in using [Fire] effects from the [Energy] seed.
• Allow the caster wide ranging powers over [Evil] creatures through [Call] and [Summon]

By admitting the possibility of such feats, the seed has already been fragmented. I think that in order to achieve the depth that we need, we can't regard seeds as irreducible quanta - regardless of the hyperbole which I may have attached to them. If certain feats can emphasize certain aspects of seed, then this is really no different to - say - domain choices informing the ease with which certain aspects of seeds are manipulated.

But I don't actually see this as compromising the final integrity of the seed as a magical absolute; it merely reflects the religious lens through which the seed is viewed. Wizards do not suffer from this perspective, of course.

 

[The Forsaken One]

I am sympathetic to your unifying tendencies, but I think that different orders of truth are possible - even desirable - here.

That so made me laugh and wanna read your SH AGAIN haha . I agree on the merits you posted as well above and the themes about the different casters are what I would have to say about it as well.

Unification is very desireable though...

Any call on bard epic spellcasting or classes that dont go to 9th level spells? You require them to first gain access to 9th level spell slots through improved spell capacity or what did you have in mind?

 

[Greybar]

I'd say I'm with Cheiro on the sorcerer - to continue the theme it should be more frequent casting of a more limited selection, but not necessarily theme-based by mechanic. I enjoy SHs where I see that sorcerer's powers are tied to their "blood source" - the standard D&D makes much of a draconic blood, but I remember a epic SH I greatly enjoyed where the lead sorcerer was an aasimar whose power came from the celestial. But that can stay in the power of the GM and player, and not described by the rules explicitly (or by feats that provide benefit for such narrowing).

Further, if we develop a mechanism for sorcerers that stays true to the pre-epic patterns, then that mechanism can be reused for bards, devoted souls, and variant spontaneous druid-analogs.

This leads me to think of the level-based approach to epics again, and merely extending the pre-epic charts, but I know that doesn't seem to be where Sep's heart is.

Otherwise, perhaps something simply like making spontaneous casters pay a 50% surcharge on development of epic spells - describing them as being more inward self-discovery than precise research - and then allowing them to cast an epic spell in one epic spell slot while keeping the double-slot requirement for prepared casters.

 

[Sepulchrave II]

I think we agree on 1, 3 and 4. I'm not sure about #2, though. The various alternative base classes (beguilers, necromancer-type classes, etc.) seem to fill the niche of a "thematic spellcaster". Limited spells cast more often: that I can agree on.

I'd say I'm with Cheiro on the sorcerer - to continue the theme it should be more frequent casting of a more limited selection, but not necessarily theme-based by mechanic.

Sounds fine to me - I was under the impression that Cheiro wanted to have 'suites' available to sorcerers (viz. a modified Magnum Opus type thing). I'm not committed either way at this stage.

I really didn't mean to sound like I as expounding Saizhan a couple of posts ago, but I'm cautious about making any meta-game metaphysical claims about seeds; or the ultimate identity of arcane and divine magic. This is really the kind of thing that I think is campaign-dependent. It would be fine to include a section which addresses different perspectives, but I'd prefer not to make it implicit in the way magic works - we're kind of back to the arcane/divine sacred cow again.

This is also one of the reasons that I'm sceptical of U_K's work, btw.: it frames everything in a kind of neo-Blavatskyan context that I'm uncomfortable with in a rules supplement. That's not to say that one can't steal certain idioms (Aeon, Magnificat - whatever), but I think that to cement a Kosmic hierarchy in the rules forces DMs to either accept the paradigm, or to work hard at modifying it to fit within their campaign.

 

[Greybar]

Stepping back abit, since I often have trouble getting time to keep up with this thread:

The key to the transmorgrification spells (instantaneous transformations) seems to be here. I don't think LA is relevant, though. A caster's CR doesn't change because of spells he casts (summonings, buffs, etc.); it shouldn't change because of any spells he casts on himself. If his CR doesn't change, I don't see why his LA should change.

I was thinking about this recently, and I think my approach was fundamentally flawed. Measuring a PC by CR is inherently a bad idea. CR is meant to measure how tough an opponent is for a short, intense combat. Outsiders in particularly routine have long lists of at-will abilities at significant spell level and caster level than we would never allow to our PCs as GMs at equivalent ECL.

Consider if I, as a player of a new 1st level character, could talk a GM into letting me take a feat that would allow me to cast cure light wounds, magic missile, mage armor, and true strike at will with CL1. My rationale is that by Upper_Krust's system, each of those is worth 0.005 KR, and a feat is worth 0.2 KR, so I'm still underpowering the feat by a factor of 10! But now I can heal my entire party in minutes, armor myself, and have a ranged weapon better than the archer's bow. In fact, for the CLW alone, I'd find that a good choice of feat probably all the way until I hit epic levels. But yet, if I gave those abilities to the CR1 orc the party was going to fight in a dungeon environment, the 1st level party would still trounce him. He'd use two spells or so before dying - big deal. They did only add 0.02 KR to his ability to challenge a party.

This isn't news to anyone reading this, it's related to why polymorph (and shapechange) can be so powerful - HD is even worse as a measure of PC power than CR.

So we need an entirely different approach for the transmogrification, and I think the fortify seed line is probably a good place to start. My ascension to lich spell should include increasing Int, Wis, Cha by two, gaining DR, the immunities, etc. This also implies something fun (for me anyway) - that perhaps there is a (comparatively) well-known formula that creates the lich as described in the SRD, but an epic-created lichlike transcendance might be significantly different. If I understand recent discussions correctly, we've moved away from "fortify can't be permanent", or at least made it possible that the lich might set themselves up to be that way for 1000 years and then having to recast the "make me a lich for the next millenia" spell. So what's the fortify factor for no longer aging, anyway.

To be really tough - we could eliminate the polymorph seed based on this realization, and say that a polymorph is really an extensive fortification based on the ideal conception of another being. In epic terms, the fact that the meat of your soul's incarnation is reshaped is really rather trivial - after all, these are heroes that are routinely hacked up, burnt, bathed in acid, half-disintegrated and then "get better" and returned to exactly the physical forms they were before. Let's face it, since your wizard's player is going to examine hundreds of published creatures for exactly the combination of powers he wants before choosing what to shapechange into, why not skip the middleman and have him choose the powers. You might offer mitigation as a "package deal" for a predefined sub-optimal set of powers that represent a solar, if you want to keep that flavor.

But, sadly, that isn't feasible, is it? It would require us to define every ability in numbers, much like Upper_Krust's system, except this time with an eye towards PC utility over 5 days rather than Challenge over 5 rounds. A monumental undertaking easily greater than the scope of "lets redevelop epic spells for CL20-40".

 

[Cheiromancer]

Many seeds have an obvious unity, but others seem like an elephant; to a blind man's groping they will seem to have many different parts, but there is really an underlying unity. A religious lens might distinguish sharply between summoning angels and summoning demons, but that is a superficial truth; the deeper truth is that they are part of the same [summon] seed. And an even deeper truth might be that they are aspects of a 2*CR meta-seed. Some domains also exhibit an obvious unity; the Healing domain, for instance, maps very well onto the [heal] domain. I'll call it an elephant, too, since there is a unity even if it is obvious.

But some domains seem like constellations; there is a pattern in their arrangement, but the pattern is an accident of perspective, not a sign of underlying unity. From a different point in the galaxy those stars don't make any kind of pattern. Consider the Good domain:

[sblock=Good Domain]
1. Protection from Evil: +2 to AC and saves, counter mind control, hedge out elementals and outsiders.
2. Aid: +1 on attack rolls, +1 on saves against fear, 1d8 temporary hp +1/level (max +10).
3. Magic Circle against Evil: As protection spells, but 10-ft. radius and 10 min./level.
4. Holy Smite: Damages and blinds evil creatures.
5. Dispel Evil: +4 bonus against attacks by evil creatures.
6. Blade Barrier: Wall of blades deals 1d6/level damage.
7. Holy Word: Kills, paralyzes, slows, or deafens nongood subjects.
8. Holy Aura: +4 to AC, +4 resistance, and SR 25 against evil spells.
9. Summon Monster IX*: Calls extraplanar creature to fight for you.[/sblock]

I see [ward], [fortify], [dispel], direct damage (in the [energy] seed, most likely), [afflict], [summon]. There are only 9 spells, but between them they touch on at least 6 seeds, some in rather complicated ways. The [good] descriptor is a common feature, but not universal. Is this an elephant or is it a constellation? Is there a real, though concealed unity, or is it just a superficial thematic connection?

Domains that are elephants could be made into special clerical seeds. Each domain spell would be the basis of the sub-seed of an overarching [domain] seed; there would be up to 9 basic functions (one for each domain spell) each with its relevant factors. Between the 22 domains in the SRD we have most of the spells that would be needed. Assuming the domains are all elephants.

For example, clerics with the Good domain could apply factors to make a magic circle against evil that protects a town for a hundred years. (It would involve lots of exponential factors, and maybe with the 6 SP = 1 spell level till 10th level). Or an epic holy smite or holy word (I suspect holy word is an anomaly, though, overpowered for its level, and hard to scale up). The summon monster IX would turn into a version of our [summon] seed, one that is restricted to summoning good creatures. And so on.

But is the Good domain an elephant? Is there a [Good] seed that corresponds to it, all of whose sub-seeds have a Good domain spell as their base? I doubt it, and I am not at all it is worth the effort to try to pursue this route with all the domains. The result would be an epic spell system that would be somewhat more cumbersome than the current one, certainly more repetitious.

But if you really wanted to make seed access domain based, I'd suggest this:

Look at the 9th level spell of a domain, and see if it corresponds to a domain. If it does, then that is what the cleric gets access to. If there are restrictions on the spell (like only summoning good creatures), then that restriction is inherited. If the 9th level spell is problematic (miracle in the case of the Luck domain) then look at the 8th level spell.

The reasoning is that the highest level domain spells represent the fullest expression of the domain, and represent the key to the relevant seed. Maybe a key that can only unlock part of a seed (as in the [energy] and [summon] seeds) but this is the exception. There are lots of elemental swarm and summon monster IX spells on those lists, so [summon] would be a common seed.

Furthermore, give all clerics access to [heal] and [life]. If they have the Healing domain, then they get a +2 bonus. Clerics with an elemental domain should also get the relevant aspect of the [energy] seed.

This will give all clerics access to 3 to 6 seeds; two domain based seeds plus [heal] and [life] and maybe an aspect of [energy] and [summon]. If that is not enough, then repeat the analysis for the 8th or 7th level spells of a domain. Or allow the PC to choose a seed whose base spell he can cast; [fortify], say, or [foresee]. Or allow a feat to give access to new seeds; 2 seeds per feat if the base spells (or most of them) are clerical, 1 seed per feat if it is not.

Outside of these favored seeds, impose some restrictions. Maybe they can only use 3/4 of their SP towards these other seeds. So they can't cast a SP 24 spell until 29th level. Or they can't use the seeds at all. Or their access is capped, or something.

Druids. I'd give them [summon], except that the only outsiders they can summon are elementals. [weather], [energy] and whatever awaken belongs to. Reincarnation should get folded into that, but I wouldn't give them the life seed per se. Is that enough, or should druids get more?

 

[Greybar]

quick note for Cheiromancer:
For negative-energy wielding clerics, perhaps [harrow] and [necromancy] ?

 

[Cheiromancer]

Measuring a PC by CR is inherently a bad idea. CR is meant to measure how tough an opponent is for a short, intense combat. Outsiders in particularly routine have long lists of at-will abilities at significant spell level and caster level than we would never allow to our PCs as GMs at equivalent ECL.

Consider if I, as a player of a new 1st level character, could talk a GM into letting me take a feat that would allow me to cast cure light wounds, magic missile, mage armor, and true strike at will with CL1. My rationale is that by Upper_Krust's system, each of those is worth 0.005 KR, and a feat is worth 0.2 KR, so I'm still underpowering the feat by a factor of 10! But now I can heal my entire party in minutes, armor myself, and have a ranged weapon better than the archer's bow. In fact, for the CLW alone, I'd find that a good choice of feat probably all the way until I hit epic levels. But yet, if I gave those abilities to the CR1 orc the party was going to fight in a dungeon environment, the 1st level party would still trounce him. He'd use two spells or so before dying - big deal. They did only add 0.02 KR to his ability to challenge a party.

At will true strike and cure light wounds items could be game breakers at low levels. I am not at all sure that they would be game breakers at level 20+. So UK might be wrong about conflating ECL and CR, but not where it counts; at epic levels.

If CR = ECL at epic levels, then you can use CR as the basis for polymorphing and fortifying and all sorts of other stuff. Some things might be miscalculated as a CR. Boss monsters are often under-CRed, for instance, but that's not U_K's fault. Other creatures might be thought of as combat fodder, but not as behind-the-scenes villains, and thus have their CR wrongly estimated. Again, that's not UK's fault.

So I'd try to hold onto this presupposition of UK's as much as possible. As you point out, the alternative is an awful lot of work.

I was under the impression that Cheiro wanted to have 'suites' available to sorcerers (viz. a modified Magnum Opus type thing). I'm not committed either way at this stage.

That would be one way of getting the know-less/cast-more mechanic, but it's not a burning priority with me. And if we go that way, then a sorcerer would have one theme per feat. Maybe more, depending on how he tinkered with the seed, and how abstract the seed was in the first place.

re: UK's Kosmology

I didn't really like the identification of higher levels of immortals with planar layers, planes, groupings of planes, etc.. Although I kind of like the notion that a plane is a dreamscape of an immortal (kind of a Dream of the Red King kind of thing); still, something about it is unsatisfying. The different levels of power in a campaign should be separated by a veil of ignorance.

Probably the way to do this in UK's framework is to clear one or more levels of power of active immortals. Have there be nothing in the CR 64 to CR 256 gap, say. Outsider monarchs and gods would be the only thing you'd have to worry about for quite some time. Only after that level of play was more or less old hat would higher levels become revealed; and even then, maybe ending the campaign would be preferable to adventuring at a much higher level.

Quick note for Cheiromancer:
For negative-energy wielding clerics, perhaps [harrow] and [necromancy] ?

Absolutely. In place of [heal] and [life]. Good catch.

 

[Sepulchrave II]

Re: Liches and Transmogrifications

I think that any transmogrification spell has to be an aggregate: i.e. it must break the normal rules of epic spellcasting. It must be instantaneous - either that, or it will be subject to [Dispel], which might be kind of frustrating.

Based on what we've discussed so far, I'd peg a transmogrification something like this:

[Polymorph] - the base seed. You're changing into something else.
[Life] - a secondary seed. Its duration (instantaneous) is a dominant parameter.
[Fortify] - a descriptive seed. You're fortifying/solidifying an effect to make it real.

Plus, maybe:

[Foresee] - a descriptive seed. You're accurately changing into something which you have a prior conception of.

Of course, with a lich [Animate Dead] might be better than [Life] as a secondary seed, but I'm thinking about transmogrifications in general here.

This would peg any transmogrification as a base SP 48 effect (assuming we include [Foresee]).

As far as assuming a creature with a higher LA goes, we have a number of options:

1) The new form sheds as many class levels as necessary to balance the new ECL with the old. If your 30th-level elven bard transmogrifies into a lillend, she becomes a 17th-level lillend bard.

2) We institute an LA buyback system (c.f. Unearthed Arcana)

3) The character incurs a flat XP debt which must be paid before he or she can advance.

I think that each of the above might have merit in different circumstances, and that a combination of these options might also be possible in certain circumstances. There might need to be different break-points for the various options. Unfortunately, this is the kind of hard mechanics that makes me go "uh?"