Epic Magic Big Thread

[Sepulchrave II]

Re: Blast

The kernel analysis is 20 fireball + 8 enhanced + 14 heightened = 42. You need 18 more factors to make it a proper 10th level spell. Even the base spell for the current [blast] falls short. Its kernel value is 20 fireball + 12 one and a half enhanced + 14 heightened +4 flexible = 50, which is 10 points low.

Good points. I know that it makes for a weak [blast] seed, and 18 points of factors is a lot to make up. Maybe we should rack it back up to 40d6 (+16, double-enhanced) and include a condition:

Conditions
When [blast] combines as a secondary seed in a spell, it does half of its normal base damage - i.e. 20d6. Factors may be applied to modify this damage as normal.

Gods, you could even triple the seed's base area as well, and still be within the 54-60 zone.

Retrofitting empower into [blast] as a factor would then equate to a +12 SP increase; assuming that the internal +1SP per d6 factor is also retained. If it seems that I'm swinging wildly on this issue, I apologize - I'm trying to find the best average fit which can solve a number of simultaneous problems.

It would look like this:

[Blast]
Evocation [Acid, Cold, Electricity or Fire]

Root Spell: Delayed blast fireball, lightning bolt
Spellcraft Prerequisite: 24
Preferred Mitigation: Backlash
Components: V, S
Casting Time: 1 standard action
Range: 1200 ft.
Area or Effect: A 360 ft. line, or a 60-ft. radius spread
Duration: Instantaneous
Saving Throw: Reflex half
Spell Resistance: Yes

This seed uses whichever one of four basic energy types the caster chooses: acid, cold, electricity, or fire. The caster can cast the energy forth as a line or a spread. The energy type and area are set during spell development.

Factor: To develop a spell which allows the energy type and blast shape to be selected at the moment of casting, increase the Spellcraft Prerequisite by +4.

Factors: The caster may choose to develop a spell which discharges another type of damaging energy. The options and the associated costs are as follows:
• Sonic energy (+4 SP). The spell receives the [sonic] descriptor.
• Slashing, piercing or bludgeoning (+6 SP). This damage bypasses Damage Reduction. To have the spell damage interact with Damage Reduction as a magical weapon of the appropriate type, reduce the SP modifier to +4. If the damage will be treated as a non-magical weapon of the appropriate type, reduce the SP modifier to +2.
• Force damage (+6 SP). The spell receives the [force] descriptor. Force damage affects incorporeal and ethereal creatures, but not objects; to include objects, increase the Spellcraft Prerequisite by an additonal +1.
• Typeless (+8). The spell loses the energy descriptor. The damage is of no particular type, and is not subject to resistance or energy immunity.

A spell developed using the [energy] seed releases a bolt or spread which deals 40d6 points of damage of the appropriate energy type, and all in the spell’s Area must make a Reflex save for half damage. If a line is chosen, it begins at the caster’s fingertips; a spread begins as a pellet of energy which detonates at a distance determined by the caster, unless it strikes some intervening body or barrier, in the same manner as a fireball.

Factor: Delay (special). To delay the effect of the spell, increase the Spellcraft Prerequisite by +1 for every 2 rounds (or fraction thereof) that the spell can be delayed. See delayed blast fireball for details.
Factor:

• To increase the base damage by +1d6, add +1 to the Spellcraft Prerequisite. This factor stacks.
• To increase the base damage by 50%, increase the Spellcraft Prerequisite by +12. This factor stacks.

Conditions

• A ray which includes [blast] as its base seed changes its Saving Throw entry to Fortitude: Half.
• When [blast] combines as a secondary seed in a spell, it does half of its normal base damage - i.e. 20d6. Factors may be applied to modify this damage as normal.

Note: omitted [divine] damage pending further inquiry.

 

[Sepulchrave II]

It occurs to me (utilitarian here), that it might be best to exclude internal mitigating factors from seeds in order to translate them - where possible - to generic mitigating factors which apply to spells. I'm having trouble articulating quite why, however.

 

[Sepulchrave II]

I have some results on the [harrow] seed, particularly the poison (ability damage), disease and energy drain aspects.

Sorry about the lag in responding. I haven't had as much time as I'd hoped this weekend.

I think a point of ability damage is worth about +3 SP. Maybe a trifle less. +2 SP is probably too little, unless you discount non-Con damage somewhat.

This sounds about right. Maybe I'd be more inclined to cost it at +2 given the method of delivery; many creatures are immune to poison damage, or have bonuses to their saves.

So poison, which does 5.5 Con damage, is worth 17.5 SP. +2 for touch range, +8 for repeated damage in one minute, or 27.5 SP. A solid 4th level spell, halfway to 5th. A non-lethal poison might be a bit cheaper. Maybe not.

Poison damage costed at +2SP/+1 ability damage would come out as a weak 4th-level spell, right (I'm still less than entirely at home in your system). It's Clr 4/ Drd 3, which might fit better.

Random thoughts:

Can we use hold monster as a paralysis model wrt. poison?
Can we use deep slumber as a catatonia model wrt. poison?

I'm going to price contagion on the basis of slimy doom, whose 1d4 Con damage is worth 7.5 points off the bat

Would it be unreasonable to price ability damage from disease at +2SP / point as well? Given various immunities and the relative ease with which it can be cured (heal); we could include an epic proviso along the lines of [afflict] which barred nonepic magic from curing diseases inflicted by [harrow].

+4 for flexibility in the number of diseases possible (7), +2 for touch range, +2 for the one day delay between damage, +8 for it repeating indefinitely, -4 for the subsequent saves being a different (and lower) DC than the original save. I used a +8 indefinite repetition factor in holy aura, and it seemed to work all right. -4 seems appropriate for this downside to the spell. This comes out to 7.5 +4 +2 +2 +8 -4 = 19.5, a 3rd level spell. There's room for a small factor to specify how many saves are required to be cured, and other variations between disease.

Looks good.

Giving a disease the healing resistant effects of mummy rot should be +12 SP (an [afflict] secondary seed).

See suggestion on predicted benefit. Maybe I'm being too generous.

After studying enervation I decided to make 1 negative level also be worth 3 SP; 7.5 SP for the 1d4 levels involved. The range factor is +6 (close). There is no save against these negative levels, and I thought that a constant "no save" factor could be abused. So I decided to double the base cost (USP). The result is (7.5 + 6) * 2 = 27, a 4th level spell. I think the 1 hour/level duration is inherent in these spells, though maybe you could shorten them with exponential mitigating factors after doubling. Though maybe not at non-epic levels; a spell that gave 1d4 negative levels for 1 round per level is potentially a death spell, and so should be at least 4th level.

Doubling the base cost for a no-save is a good solution; I'm a little sceptical about isolating the no-save proviso from the function of enervation itself, though. Do you think that it would be reasonable to have a no-save general factor (x2 USP)? A flat +24 SP would add +12 to the Save DC; maybe they're in the same ballpark. I dunno.

A 10th level spell should be possible that allows the caster's touch to inflict 12 negative levels (no save) that will last for 20 rounds. The kernel formula would be (3 * 10 +6) * 2 - 12 (duration) - 36 (kernels to seeds) = 36 * 2 - 12 -36 = 24 SP. I wonder if the loss of 60 hit points in this way would trigger a save vs massive damage? With a -12 to the save, that could be very dangerous.

Maybe a generous DM would allow the save to be made based on the undrained Con score?

 

[Cheiromancer]

Re: Proposed [Blast]
You don't get to triple the area; after the +16 you only have +2 SP to work with. You could add "cannot be raised" - say that creatures slain by this spell are incinerated- only a few ashes, teeth or fragments of charred bones remain, not enough for a raise dead. Or add a minor bit of flexibility; choosing between an area and a line at the time of casting, say. Or leave it at a kernel value of 58. (damage 4 +8 enhanced +16 double +10 range +6 spread +14 heighten)

There's an order of operations problem with your seed; do you apply the empowering (including the built in empowering) first or last? If first, then logically each +1 SP should give +2d6 off the bat. Last time we went through this, you felt an internally empowered [blast] was too similar to [destroy].

Mind you, [destroy] could use a tiny bit of boosting too.

[Destroy] (damage 4 +8 enhance +4 skew +10 long +14 heightened +8 typeless +1 no raise dead +2 destroys [force] effects +4 epic benefit) = 57

That initial "damage 4" is the kernel of a fireball; 10d6 of damage. This 3rd level base is also where I calculate the heighten effect from; 7 levels to make a 10th level seed. It comes up a lot when I analyze things. I don't remember how I calculated the +2 value of skew, but now I recalculating it based on a measure of damaging spells which takes half the failed-save damage plus the whole successful-save damage. For Reflex: half spells this comes out to the number of dice involved. It makes the change from enhanced fireball to disintegrate the equivalent of +5d6. This is half of an enhance, so +4.

Would disintegrate be balanced as a 7th level spell? I know I forgot to include the anti-forcefield effect in previous analyses, so my kernel estimate of 37 is probably low; it should be 39 with the anti-forcefield stuff, +41 with the recalculated skew; it could either be a really high 6th or (with another +2 heighten) a low 7th.

****

Oh, and it appears that a ray spell that has its USP doubled doesn't allow a saving throw. Which tends to support the result of my harrow analysis of energy drain. It would be nice if the numbers came out a little closer, though:

E.g. polar ray: (damage 4 + 12 enhanced + 6 close) * 2 = 44. A 7th level spell. Which indicates that it is underpowered as an 8th level spell.

E.g. scorching ray (damage 4 + 6 close) * 2 = 20. A 3rd level spell. Which indicates that it is overpowered as a 2nd level spell. The fact that fire resistance counts against each bolt might be worth a small mitigation, but it also enables a wizard to attack multiple targets, so I don't know.

If polar ray is too weak for its level and scorching ray is too strong, then this analysis would seem to give reliable results.

 

[Sepulchrave II]

You don't get to triple the area; after the +16 you only have +2 SP to work with.

I'm getting confused.

20 (fireball) +16 (double enhance)

Each enhance adds 10d6, right?. So that should be 30d6.

Edit: I see what you're saying. I was confused about how you got there.

 

[Sepulchrave II]

If polar ray is too weak for its level and scorching ray is too strong, then this analysis would seem to give reliable results.

Excellent. No-save rays are a-go.

 

[Cheiromancer]

Sorry about the lag in responding. I haven't had as much time as I'd hoped this weekend.

It was a crazy week for me (giving and marking midterms and other assignments, calculating freshmen mid-term grades), but my week-end is free. I'm happy as a clam combining two of my favorite activities; math and D&D. I'm such a nerd.

I think a point of ability damage is worth about +3 SP. Maybe a trifle less. +2 SP is probably too little, unless you discount non-Con damage somewhat.

This sounds about right. Maybe I'd be more inclined to cost it at +2 given the method of delivery; many creatures are immune to poison damage, or have bonuses to their saves.

Good point, and I just realized that I forgot to account for the inherent Heighten of non-epic spells. I'm going to arbitrarily make a 2nd level spell the base, and change the analysis of poison to

1d10 Con damage 11 +2 for touch range, +8 for repeated damage in one minute, +4 for heightened save (2nd to 4th) = 25 SP.​

Still doesn't explain the druidic expertise in the area- actually it does. 2 points lower and one less heighten would be 21, a nice 3rd level spell.

Random thoughts:

Can we use hold monster as a paralysis model wrt. poison?
Can we use deep slumber as a catatonia model wrt. poison?

I knew that this repeated save business reminded me of something! Hold monster should be able to be reverse engineered to a poison model. Switching a spell between being a poison effect and being a [mind affecting] compulsion doesn't change its overall utility much; they are both broadly resisted effects. In fact, the same sorts of creatures resist both types; constructs, undead, etc.. I'll do some work on it and tell you what I find.

Would it be unreasonable to price ability damage from disease at +2SP / point as well? Given various immunities and the relative ease with which it can be cured (heal); we could include an epic proviso along the lines of [afflict] which barred nonepic magic from curing diseases inflicted by [harrow].

I think the two should be priced the same. Using the totally arbitrary base of 2nd level as the standard for the save DCs, the analysis for slimy doom becomes

1d4 Con damage 5 +4 flexibility +2 touch +8 repeated damage +2 day delay -4 subsequent save DCs are easier +2 heighten = 19.​

Still 3rd level. Kernel analysis is an art, not a science; I find wishful thinking still plays too great a role.

Giving a disease the healing resistant effects of mummy rot should be +12 SP (an [afflict] secondary seed). In case of mummy rot the caster level check is fixed at a rather low value of DC 20; count that as a -4 mitigating factor. Maybe -6.

See suggestion on predicted benefit. Maybe I'm being too generous.

So +4 instead of +8? That would make sense; mummy rot prevents natural healing; an epic version should prevent non-epic magic from working. Tying some other 14 SP effect could be a way to model an epic curse or disease. Including the effect of Heighten (which I totally forgot yesterday) we get

2d6 ability damage 14, damage is repeated after one day +2, damage can be indefinitely repeated +8, heighten +6, uses a flat DC for subsequent saves, -4, Range touch +2, curse effect +4, for a total of 32.​

A 5th level spell, just like it should be. I'm amazed at the accuracy of your intuition, Jim.

Doubling the base cost for a no-save is a good solution; I'm a little sceptical about isolating the no-save proviso from the function of enervation itself, though. Do you think that it would be reasonable to have a no-save general factor (x2 USP)? A flat +24 SP would add +12 to the Save DC; maybe they're in the same ballpark. I dunno.

The problem with a flat factor is that it becomes trivial when you have very powerful effects and lots of mitigation. Doubling and tripling will be significant for a long time. I thought of restricting this modifier to damage and flat penalties. Maybe I'm just too paranoid about no-save dominations and such. The power word mechanic is another way of getting no-save effects. I don't understand the blasphemy suite well enough to generalize it in any useful way.

Maybe a generous DM would allow the save to be made based on the undrained Con score?

I looked up the rules and I don't think that a massive damage save is triggered:

If you ever sustain a single attack deals 50 points of damage or more and it doesn’t kill you outright, you must make a DC 15 Fortitude save. If this saving throw fails, you die regardless of your current hit points. If you take 50 points of damage or more from multiple attacks, no one of which dealt 50 or more points of damage itself, the massive damage rule does not apply. ...

A creature takes the following penalties for each negative level it has gained:

-1 on all skill checks and ability checks.
-1 on attack rolls and saving throws.
-5 hit points.
...

So a negative level is not an attack that deals damage; rather the creature takes a hit point penalty. The massive damage rule doesn't trigger. We could run the question by Hypersmurf if there is any doubt; I don't recall him ever being wrong.

 

[Cheiromancer]

You don't get to triple the area; after the +16 you only have +2 SP to work with.

I'm getting confused.

20 (fireball) +16 (double enhance)

Each enhance adds 10d6, right?. So that should be 30d6.

Edit: I see what you're saying. I was confused about how you got there.

The kernel value of the ordinary 3rd level fireball has been calculated to be 20. Enhance it by +8 and the cap is raised to 20d6. Double empower it for +16 and heighten it to 10th level for +14 (for 7 levels increase) and you have 58.

If polar ray is too weak for its level and scorching ray is too strong, then this analysis would seem to give reliable results.

Excellent. No-save rays are a-go.

Sweet. Disease and poison could be delivered by ray, too. As well as enervations (but that's no surprise).

Would the epic benefit of [harrow], the feature that the condition cannot be healed by non-epic means, extend to protections as well? I'd think there should be a level check vs the caster level of the death ward, heroe's feast or whatever. How about class derived immunities?

 

[Sepulchrave II]

I hope a solution to rays is within sight - the original ELH costed the change from a targeted to a ray effect at +4 DC, and automatically replaced the save w/ a ranged touch attack. Given the reliability of ranged touch attacks at these levels, it was a no-brainer for most spells.

Maybe rays should be restricted to [blast], [harrow] and [destroy] no matter what. With x2 USP on a no-save version which would normally prompt a save. They're not 100% fool-proof (ranged touch), even then. And I think that no-save spells should be restricted to rays - barring esoterica such as power word and blasphemy. If a feat were required to unlock the potential of these esoteric seeds, we could be pretty generous about provisions within them.

I see what you're saying about the order of operations in [blast]. Let's go with +2d6/+1SP (it only took me a month to get there!). We could use one of your suggested techniques to limit access to the exponential factor:

e.g. Factor (restricted): If you have 30 or more ranks in Spellcraft, you may empower a spell develpoed with this seed to deal 50% more damage than the base damage. Increase the Spellcraft Prerequisite by +8. This factor stacks.

C.f. a suggested general ruling regarding seed combinations, maybe implied rather than explicit (I don't remember):

A compound spell has a minimum Spellcraft Prerequisite of 24 plus 6 for each additional seed which it contains beyond the first.

There is a resonance here. Level 27 becomes a definite break-point. As it does for the pure AMC caster: 5 free metamagic levels is equal to empower+maximize any spell at will.

If level 33 becomes the next break-point, and it does - AMC-man can now automaxempowerquicken his spells, access to a 3rd seed in a spell is gained for the jacobean - then another technique could be added to [blast]:

Factor (restricted): If you have 36 or more ranks in Spellcraft, you may maximize spells with this seed so that each die of damage deals maximum damage. To maximize a spell developed with [blast], increase the Spellcraft Prerequisite by +12. Each additional 100% of the base damage increases the Spellcraft Prerequisite by +12.

I also think we should remove the cumulative +3 Spellcraft Prerequisite from the basic feats. I sense they are sufficiently balanced without. Assuming AMC is OK.

Sorry it's taken so long for me to reach here, I needed multiple points of corroboration. I think we should apply special scrutiny every 6th level above 21st, to determine balance issues. We can engineer a lot of mechanics to bring things back into line (or a measured distance ahead of it) with regard to the AMC curve: namely access to exponential or special factors, and access to feats with Spellcraft Prerequisites of 30, 36 and 42.

Hopefully we can keep the seed generalist, the seed specialist and the metamagic specialist all on the same page.

 

[Cheiromancer]

The irritating thing about the ELH entry is that it also costs +4 to change the effect from a ray to a target. At the moment I think it is a good idea that there is a free toggle between them. There are various subtle factors (related to concealment, spell turning and/or good touch AC) that might make a person go from one to another.

Maybe rays should be restricted to [blast], [harrow] and [destroy] no matter what. With x2 USP on a no-save version which would normally prompt a save.

I could see rays being restricted to seeds that normally have reflex or fortitude saves. The x2 USP no-save version could be restricted to those three seeds. And [afflict] - think ray of enfeeblement.

I don't know of any rays that offer a reflex save; they are usually no-save (like scorching ray, polar ray or enervation), but disintegrate is exceptional in that it offers a fortitude partial save. I was just about to say that the flavor of the save should change to Fortitude, but that the type should remain unchanged (half, negates, etc.). But it occurs to me that there should be some compensation for braving a miss chance, and that if you are hit with a ray *something* should happen. Perhaps the Save: negates spells could become Fortitude: partial, with the target being sickened for 1 round even on a successful save. Making your enemy have -2 to weapon damage and most d20 rolls is a worthwhile result from a spell- better than nothing, anyway, but I don't think it is broken. Whereas daze would be broken.

You can also score criticals with a ray; I don't think there is a defined effect if the spell is not a damaging one, is there? Perhaps a penalty to the saving throw equal to the critical multiplier (normally -2 unless something strange is going on).

Would that be enough to balance the vagaries of high touch AC, concealment, etc.? Too much?

****

Clouds are weird. I was looking at cloudkill and incendiary cloud and they don't come out well at all. If they allowed SR it might be doable, but I don't know how to handle the disallowance of SR. And I don't know why cloudkill isn't the same level as incendiary cloud; 1d4 points of Con damage per round (save for half) should be worth at least as much as 4d6 fire, and the cloudkill lasts longer.

****

Re: AMC

Were you going to have a "Spontaneous metamagic" feat to blunt the effect of AMC on metamagic specialists? It could include access to some minor "metamagical techniques" in case they didn't know any +0 spell level metamagic feats.

The Empower and Maximize factors aren't a problem as long as the jacobeans aren't stocking up on AMC; if a generalist optimizes their choices, they'll get results close to what the equations in post 360 predict.

Seed specialists will eventually outstrip the metamagic specialist if they have unrestricted use of AMC and the Empower factor. That's only with AMC providing a 2 point mitigation to each spell, though. Rather than putting in limitations on Empower and similar factors (I'm not enthusiastic about this category of restricted feats), I'd suggest changing the benefit of AMC so that a jacobean caster can get a 1 point mitigation up to twice per round. This is not necessarily to the player's detriment; quickened and immediate action spells are liable to become important at higher levels, and it might be a good idea to ensure that PCs don't find themselves short of mitigation.

At level 110 and AMC=1, the seed specialist would be throwing around 663d6 blasts; the metamagic specialist would do 1000d6. Oh, and the generalist has to content himself with puny 333d6 blasts. But if AMC=2, the seed specialist is throwing around blasts in excess of 1100d6. And the metamagic specialist should be better than the seed specialist. (This is also assuming that the metamagic specialist doesn't buy any other metamagic feats instead of AMC- if he does he'll fall further behind, sooner. Enhance Spell is a must!)

Hopefully we can keep the seed generalist, the seed specialist and the metamagic specialist all on the same page.

That's a good goal- are the eventual ratios (333, 663 and 1000) too divergent? That's how far they've grown at 111th level; at lesser levels they are closer together.

[edit] I'm getting myself confused by the math here. If we are including a double empower in the base seed to make it 40d6, what happens if we add another double-empower factor (at +16)? Do we get 80d6, or do we get 60d6? I.e. is a double double a quadruple, or is it a triple (of the underlying 20d6). I think my numbers above are screwed up; I was treating the seed as if it did 40d6 base, each +1 SP was +1d6, and an empower would add 20d6.

My brain is kinda fuzzy right now, or I'd try to work out new equations.