Epic Magic Big Thread

[Sepulchrave II]

Assuming AMC is available, we can design a purely theoretical "average mage" who can routinely reach USP 50 at level 36; assume 4 x Epic Spellcasting, 6 x AMC, and 1 other feat. Or one or two fewer AMCs and a few points of mitigation from somewhere. But mid-thirties. This spell will be usable later for a mage with a different specialty, and its effects might be reached earlier by someone with specialized feats, but it is a nice middle ground. If the spell you've calculated to be USP 50 is appropriate for a 36th level character, it's probably well designed.

That's why I like AMC. Whether or not anyone ever takes it, or whether it is even allowed in the campaign, if it helps design seeds that yield spells at appropriate SPs, then it's done its job. At least as far as I'm concerned.

My current position: we should drop AMC from Epic Spellcasting. We could develop an equivalent, stackable jacobean mitigating feat, but using AMC itself makes measurement difficult - the fact that it applies to nonepic magic as well means that the range of possible combinations is too great for the caster who has access to both. Its value is indeterminate, because it always affects both kinds of spells.

I don't know what the value of such a stackable jacobean feat should be (-4?) - nor am I entirely convinced that it is necessary. Whether the 'average mage' can cast spells of USP 39 or USP 50 is only relevant in as far as it offers some goalpost - I just feel that measuring the power of the jacobean against the AMC curve of the metamagic specialist would be a lot easier if AMC itself wasn't implicated in jacobean magic.

I have other issues as well:

I'm not comfortable with the cumulative +3 modifier idea - either for Epic Spellcasting or any other feats. This is partly due to its lack of elegance (or my perception thereof), and partly due to the fact that such a pattern has no precedent, and is not 'recognizable:' I think a certain degree of familiarity is desirable in the way that feats operate, and this is beyond it. At the same time, I can't see an alternative. Various thoughts have occurred to me. They are conflicting:

1) Make the prereqs for Epic Spellcasting Wizard (or Cleric or Druid) Level 21, and only offer Epic Spellcasting feats as bonus wizard feats. This is extreme, but not entirely unprecedented (Weapon Supremacy in PHB II has a Ftr 18 requirement), and although the bonus feat requirement has no parallel that I can think of, it doesn't feel 'unnatural' to me in the way that another restricted progression might - YMMWV. It hoses PrCs; or it rewards characters who stick with a single class (depending on your perspective). For some reason, I find this less disagreeable than the +3 cumulative ranks solution.

2) Restrict Epic Spellcasting to dedicated Epic PrCs only (which we invent). We can do whatever we like, then - make access to epic slots a function of the class, and we can determine their rate of acquisition. This prevents the wild disparity in numbers of epic spell-slots. Such PrCs would be generic.

There was an epic feat which you floated (UK's?) which granted two extra spell slots of any level - I like it. I have trouble reconciling this fact with the idea that sorcerers gain 2 epic slots (however restricted) from a feat. I think

Epic Feat (2 nonepic spell-slots) = Epic Feat (1 epic spell slot)

is kind of elegant, and makes a certain kind of sense.

In brief, I'm generally dissatisfied with things at the moment. I dunno. These feelings will probably pass.

 

[Cheiromancer]

...an equivalent, stackable jacobean mitigating feat

Separate but equal? That could work. There is an asymmetry between casters at low epic levels; the jacobian applies AMC to all spells, but the krustean only to non-epic spells. Is that the concern? The jacobian getting a benefit (a fairly substantial benefit, too) that is not paralleled by the metamagic specialist?

I'm thinking that the various specialization feats generally won't enable hyperspecialization; some increase damage, some increase area, some increase save DCs and ability to penetrate SR, and so on. But if you have 10 such feats I could see that several aspects of a spell in an area of particular focus could be receiving a 40 point boost. Is that where you get the -4 mitigation per goalpost feat?

I'm not comfortable with the cumulative +3 modifier idea...

It sure helps analysis of extreme cases. When you have to wonder if a character might take MF and then only AMC thereafter- you have to see if such a lopsided character is mechanically balanced. Knowing that only half the feats could be spent on AMC (or Epic Spellcasting, or whatever) means you can look at less extreme builds.

To limit the numbers we did consider that perhaps Epic Spellcasting could only be taken with general feats. That would limit the number of such feats to half the total number of feat slots, which is the principal desideratum. There were two objections; one, that Epic Spellcasting seems eminently wizardly, and thus should be available via a wizard's bonus feats. The second is that it is too constraining to PC development to require them to acquire Epic Spellcasting at exactly levels 21, 24, 27, etc.. I.e. if they take a different feat at one of those levels (or ever want to take a general feat) they will be forever behind. An incremental prerequisite gives more flexibility.

The notion that some feat could only be taken with an epic class's bonus feats is similarly constraining. And you can normally take *any* feat as a general feat you qualify for. Reversing that policy would be at least as disconcerting and unprecedented as an incremental prerequisite. (You didn't think the mechanic of incremental prerequisites up all by yourself, did you? I'm sure it is not entirely unprecedented.)

The notion of Epic PrCs... Well, that would mean that they could only take those PrCs to get Epic Spellcasting. That seems too constraining as well. And one of the key notions of the ELH was that epic spellcasting was conveyed by a feat. Not a class ability. We've departed from the basic ELH mechanic in a lot of ways (number of slots not a function of spellcraft ranks, casting a spell not a spellcraft check), so maybe one more departure won't hurt... but I'd rather not go that way.

In brief, I'm generally dissatisfied with things at the moment. I dunno. These feelings will probably pass.

I sure hope it passes. I'm enjoying the process of collaborating with you, and it'd be a shame if this dissatisfaction persisted and rubbed off onto the whole thing.

 

[Sepulchrave II]

Separate but equal? That could work. There is an asymmetry between casters at low epic levels; the jacobian applies AMC to all spells, but the krustean only to non-epic spells. Is that the concern? The jacobian getting a benefit (a fairly substantial benefit, too) that is not paralleled by the metamagic specialist?

Absolutely. Effectively by sacrificing 1 AMC, the jacobean gains an epic spell slot - only one, admittedly - but his nonepic output is only very marginally inferior to his metamagic specialist counterpart, plus he gains the massive versatility offered by being able to tailor-design epic spells, all of which benefit from AMC. I think that such a choice should be substantially more suboptimal.

But if you have 10 such feats I could see that several aspects of a spell in an area of particular focus could be receiving a 40 point boost. Is that where you get the -4 mitigation per goalpost feat?

Actually, no - although it's gratifying that another rationale is possible. My thoughts were:

1) AMC offers a free *spontaneous* level of metamagic; an equivalent jacobean feat's value as a mitigating factor should be more than a predetermined type of metamagic (say Widen), which would be -2 (if 1 level of metamagic = 2SP).

2) It's an epic feat, and at -4 the 2 nonepic: 1 epic ratio (however bizarre and abstract that seems) is maintained

3) If a generic [Epic Magic] feat (say Horny and Bad-tempered) offers +8 to +12 in factors, a universal feat (which offers free factors to any epic spell developed) might offer half of that.

4) The jacobean feat is not constrained by the consideration that it also offers benefits to nonepic magic; I think that this is key to finding its 'natural' balance, because we don't have to worry about overpowering AMC (more?). I'm relatively happy with AMC/MF as a quadratic progression after level 30 or so; lending it additional gravitas in the arena of epic magic makes it the sine qua non for every mage except the pure jacobean single-seed specialist.

You didn't think the mechanic of incremental prerequisites up all by yourself, did you? I'm sure it is not entirely unprecedented.

Actually no, you thought of it.

I sure hope it passes. I'm enjoying the process of collaborating with you, and it'd be a shame if this dissatisfaction persisted and rubbed off onto the whole thing.

Don't worry, it already has - I was feeling kind of negative after work yesterday.

Re: +3 cumulative prerequisite feats -

Not only should we use them, but we should claim them wholeheartedly and use them as a signature balance mechanism. It's by far the best solution to a number of knotty problems. I'm feeling optimistic again this morning

 

[Cheiromancer]

I just realized that I misunderstood how Enhance Spell worked. For some reason I thought it was a non-epic feat - and I also misunderstood how the stacking provision worked:

[edit] I propose a few changes to this feat later in this post. Those changes are suggested here:

ENHANCE SPELL [METAMAGIC][EPIC]
You can increase the power limit on your damage-dealing spells.
Prerequisite: Maximize Spell.
Benefit: The damage cap for your spells increases by 10 dice (for spells that deal a number of dice of damage equal to caster level) or by 5 dice (for spells that deal a number of dice of damage equal to half caster level). An enhanced spell uses up a spell slot four two levels higher than the spell’s actual level. This feat has no effect on spells that don’t specifically deal a number of dice of damage equal to the caster’s level or half level, even if the spell’s effect is largely dictated by the caster’s level.
Normal: Without this feat, use the damage dice caps indicated in the spell’s description.
Special: You may gain this feat multiple times. Each time you select this feat, the damage cap increases by 10 dice or 5 dice, as appropriate to the spell, and the enhanced spell takes up a spell slot an additional four levels higher.

The "special" provision allows the spell to be taken multiple times, but this should be unnecessary with MF, shouldn't it?

It would be nice if, as an epic feat, it were more efficient. Though +4 spell levels would work great as a non-epic feat, an epic feat should be stronger. Say it was only +2 spell levels to raise the cap of a fireball by 10, and the feat's special provision were waived by Metamagic Freedom. It would simplify the damage equations a lot, because the metamagic specialist would always try to expand the cap so he could use his full caster level. [edit] I think I'll propose that as an official amendment.

We should also extend it to the +2d6/spell level cases (i.e. disintegrate). Maybe later. [/edit]

Furthermore, if the Empower factor was priced at half the base damage dice (+10 SP if the base damage were 20d6) then the optimal choice for a seed specialist would be to divide the SP equally between +1d6s and Empowers. As equally as the granularity permits, of course. This would mean that a feat that doubles the damage of a [blast] would be the equivalent of +20 SP. If it doubled the damage of both [blast] and [destroy] it would be +40 SP. This would be the case even if Empower were not actually allowed as a factor for a seed user- but only as a benchmark for feat design. It would introduce a natural parallism to the way that seed users and metamagic users would weight the components of their spells; both would try to get the two components to approximately balance.

The [blast] seed would have to do only 20d6 damage, but could have internal mitigation that could free up 10 or so SP; this would enable a 30d6 (or so) fireball at level 21. What's our factor for Widen? It's at +6, isn't it? Buyback at -3, then... How about 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: Up to a 480 ft. line, or up to a 80-ft. radius spread; see text.
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. At the moment of casting the caster may choose to reduce the size of the size of the blast area to a minimum of a 120 ft. line or a 20-ft. radius spread.

If a spell is developed which has a smaller blast area, decrease the Spellcraft Prerequisite by 3 for every 120 ft. the line is shortened or for each 20 ft. the radius is reduced. If the size of the blast cannot be changed at the time of casting, decrease the Spellcraft Prerequisite by 2. These changes to the Spellcraft Prerequisite stack.

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 20d6 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 damage by 50%, increase the Spellcraft Prerequisite by +10. This factor stacks.

Conditions

• A ray which includes [blast] as its base seed changes its Saving Throw entry to Fortitude: Half.

I'm unsure of how to word it so that it's clear that the Empower factor doesn't actually increase the base damage (or else we have a double-double = quadruple).

Oh, and UK's feat is missing some words in the IH:Ascension beta, but it's basically 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.

This would be attractive to a metamagic specialist, since it means more high level spells for him to use AMC on. I'd really like to presume that a metamagic specialist wouldn't spend more than half his feats on AMC- perhaps this feat would make that assumption a reasonable one.

Likewise I'd like to be able to assume that the seed specialist will spend no more than half his feats on any one feat (whether it be -4 goalpost feats, or Epic Spellcasting feats, or whatever).

I think there is enough synergy between AMC and Improved Spellcasting, and between Goalpost and Epic Spellcasting, to say that we don't need to add an incrementing prerequisite to any of these feats; rational self-interest will make players allocate their feat slots in a balanced way.

 

[Cheiromancer]

Re: +3 cumulative prerequisite feats -

Not only should we use them, but we should claim them wholeheartedly and use them as a signature balance mechanism. It's by far the best solution to a number of knotty problems. I'm feeling optimistic again this morning

lol. My college room-mate and I would have this kind of huge, good-natured discussion all the time. We were both stubborn and articulate, and liked to debate things. A common phenomenon was that each of us, upon reflection, would be persuaded of the correctness of the other's position. Consequently the argument would resume the next day, with each of us defending the opinion he opposed the day before.

I can see traces of the same thing going on here. I'm ready to disavow the escalating prerequisite because I'm persuaded that you've got grounds to dislike it; that's the very moment when you come out enthusiastically for it. I propose a higher base damage for [blast] and you demur; now you want a higher base damage and I'm solidly for it doing 20d6. It's kinda funny, really.

I'm glad you are more optimistic this morning. A good night's sleep will often do that.

 

[Sepulchrave II]

I agree that Enhance Spell is screwy, although I'm not sure what the best fix is for it: at +2 levels, 50th level caster (Enhance, AMC x 18, MF) can quintuple-enhance quintuple empower his dbfs for 245d6, which is pretty high.

I wonder if Enhance would be better as a stackable [General] feat, which didn't change the level of the spell. Each time you took it, you'd gain 10 more dice.

 

[Cheiromancer]

You can't quintuply enhance the spell; or rather you could, but it would be a waste; the base damage can't be higher than the caster level. Still, a triply enhanced septuply empowered dbf (using a 9th level slot) would do 225d6, which is higher than our goal of 200d6. At least it's *my* goal; you haven't endorsed it yet. But if it were only sextuply enhanced it would hit the goal of 200d6 on the dot. Surely we can tempt him to take two fewer AMCs, can't we?

Making Enhance a stackable general feat would make things worse; right now it takes 6 AMCs to triply enhance the dbf. That's a commitment of 7 slots: six AMCs plus the slot for Enhance. If he could take 3 general feats instead, that would free up 4 AMCs that could be used to pay for two more empowers.

A 50th level jacobean generalist can manage SP 54, and (using my proposed seed) 11SP worth of internal mitigation for 65SP total. 20d6 base (24SP) + 21d6 (21SP) + double empower (20SP) = 82d6 of damage. About 40% of a pretty dedicated metamagic specialist.

If he could use AMC, he would have 97SP to use on [blasts]. E.g. 20d6 base (24SP) + 33d6 (33SP) + quadruple empowered (40SP) = 159d6. 80% of the comparable metamagic specialist.

With 16 "goalpost" feats (at 4SP each) he'd have 129SP to play with. Say 20d6 base (24SP) + 55d6(105SP) + quintuple empower (50SP) for 262d6. That's 31% more than the metamagic specialist with 16 AMC. I don't remember if the Goalpost feats were proxies for HotE or not; if a HotE build is more than about 20SP more than this (340d6) then the result may be unsatisfactory.

Will this do, or does it need more tinkering? These characters are pretty specialized; normal characters would do less damage with each spell but be more versatile; more spells per day and epic crafting feats and leadership and such.

 

[Sepulchrave II]

Making Enhance a stackable general feat would make things worse; right now it takes 6 AMCs to triply enhance the dbf. That's a commitment of 7 slots: six AMCs plus the slot for Enhance. If he could take 3 general feats instead, that would free up 4 AMCs that could be used to pay for two more empowers.

Yeah - I thought of this as I was walking out the door this morning. Enhance is odd - and now I've got a bee in my bonnet that it should originally have been a general feat. It kind of reminds me of Augment Summoning. Not that that helps us much.

The more I think about it, the more I realize that I've got the same problem with Enhance's redundancy with Empower that I had with the factor which increased the die size in the ELH epic spell system - it seems made to circumvent a more predictable progression by doing pretty much the same thing as another feat/factor.

Other Possibilities for Enhance Spell:

What if we just ditched it altogether? Is it really necessary, if we have Empower? A 50th-level metamagic caster who empowers dbf 10 times does 120d6 - which isn't too shabby. Disintegrate does 240d6.

What if we make it a non-stackable [general] feat. 50th-level metamagic man can dish out a 9 x empowered dbf in a 9th-level slot for 165d6 - this is bang on my "sweet spot." Yours is a little higher, maybe. His disintegrate (assuming that it benefits; I think it kind of has to, really) a tidy 330d6: if the single-seed specialist is dealing 50% more, we're comfortably in routine VGG territory. Much more than that, and it gets kind of crazy.

The simplicity of either of these is appealing. If our main objective is to moderate the power curve of the AMC/metamagic specialist, why not? At what point does +15d6 per 3 levels cease to be viable as damage output?

I'm still digesting your [blast] - I had a similar idea regarding a flexible area provision, but not including the discounted buyback. I was concerned that it might make combination w/ other seeds too complicated, which is why I shied away from it.

 

[Cheiromancer]

I agree with you that Enhance is close kin to Empower. There's precious little difference whether you're a 30th level spellcaster casting an enhanced dbf or an empowered dbf; one does 30d6 of damage, the other does 20d6 * 1.5 of damage. Once you make it +2 levels the similarity is even more striking.

The same thing holds with the empower factor at 10SP; a jacobian can pay 10SP to do 30d6 of damage, or he can pay 10SP to do 20d6 * 1.5 of damage. Decisions, decisions.

Incidentally, UK seems to allow all kinds of things with his Empowers. Want to power word someone with twice the normal hit point limit? Double Empower it. Want to call a planar ally with four times the normal hit dice? Quadruple Empower it. For us it would triple the hit dice, since we use the standard double double = triple progression, not double double = quadruple.

The main effect of allowing both Enhance and Empower is that it makes the damage curve quadratic, not linear. I suspect the toughness of opponents will increase in a non-linear fashion, though maybe more slowly than the damage curve that follows from my suggestion above. Oh well; we could always add in another non-stackable feat for when fireballs seem to be falling short (some time after 50th level). Replace the percentage increase (50%) with your caster level, perhaps.

What if we make it a non-stackable [general] feat. 50th-level metamagic man can dish out a 9 x empowered dbf in a 9th-level slot for 165d6 - this is bang on my "sweet spot." Yours is a little higher, maybe. His disintegrate (assuming that it benefits; I think it kind of has to, really) a tidy 330d6: if the single-seed specialist is dealing 50% more, we're comfortably in routine VGG territory. Much more than that, and it gets kind of crazy.

I'm fine with that. The seed generalist (no feats) will still be doing 82d6, and the guy with the goal-post feats will be doing 262d6? With [blast] I mean; twice that for disintegrate.

Speaking of disintegrate, Have you considered the point about tying the save DC to the seed DC? E.g. save DC = SP+3, with no modification for high ability scores. After all, high ability scores don't yield bonus spell slots, nor are they required to cast very difficult epic spells. Why should they continue to be tied to saving throws? I'm thinking that +1 DC = +2SP would still be a factor- it would push the save DC a bit higher than the SP would indicate. Feats would still work the same way. High ability scores would give bonuses for non-epic spells. Just that epic spells would be different.

The main advantage of this plan would be that it would allow us not to worry as much about epic buffs and what kind of epic head-band of intellect a character of a given level could afford.

I'm still digesting your [blast] - I had a similar idea regarding a flexible area provision, but not including the discounted buyback. I was concerned that it might make combination w/ other seeds too complicated, which is why I shied away from it.

The smaller area trumps the larger, doesn't it? I'd imagine that the result would normally end up being a 20-ft. radius sphere when combined with other seeds, or smaller. Which would be good; that means that the seed "really" costs 13SP, so it's not a huge deal if people pay only 12SP for its benefit.

BTW, self-compounding will add +20d6 at the cost of 12SP. This is rate of return is appropriate in a single seed spell an Empower factor has already been used in the seed; then you'd expect 12SP to yield +18d6, which is close enough. (Empower is added per seed, right?) This, in turn, would happen around USP 44. I'm wondering if 30th level might be too soon to compound spells. 40th level seems too late, but you could compound any number of seeds then.

Just a thought. Level 21 = epic spells. Level 41 = compound spells. Level 61 = aggregate spells? Although mitigation could let people try compound or aggregate spells earlier.

 

[Sepulchrave II]

Speaking of disintegrate, Have you considered the point about tying the save DC to the seed DC? E.g. save DC = SP+3, with no modification for high ability scores. After all, high ability scores don't yield bonus spell slots, nor are they required to cast very difficult epic spells. Why should they continue to be tied to saving throws? I'm thinking that +1 DC = +2SP would still be a factor- it would push the save DC a bit higher than the SP would indicate. Feats would still work the same way. High ability scores would give bonuses for non-epic spells. Just that epic spells would be different.

Maybe; this would make low epic spells marginally subpar compared to AMC-heightened nonepic spells: consider the jacobean using the [slay] seed (DC 27) against the conventional caster (1 x AMC at 21st; Int 30) who prepares finger of death as a 9th-level spell (heightened to 10th), Save DC 30 - both would benefit from the relevant focus feats. Given that [slay] probably has some internal mitigation which can be freed up, I think this works rather well.

By 50th level, the jacobean would prompt a save of DC 56; metamagic specialist can heighten his finger of death to 27th-level - if he can scrounge up an Int of 48 (and he should), he can match this.

I think if we go this route we should be wary of the factor which allows the DC to be increased; it might beho(o)ve us to make it more expensive. If that requires departing from the normal metamagic pattern, then that's just too bad. I'm guessing +1DC per +4SP might be closer to the mark. Assuming that goalpoast is hypothetical at the moment (Hypothetical Universal Mitigating Factor - Humf is kind of appropriate), we should take care with feats that might push DCs over the top.

Without delving too deeply into the ugly question of character wealth again, it's not quite so incumbent for the pure jacobean to get his greedy mits on the headband +12 - although his nonepic spells still benefit. The caster who splits his resources between metamagic and jacobean casting is still going to want one as soon as poss.


Edit: actually, I'm concerned that this might stiff the metamagic specialist. All of those factors can be used by the jacobean to empower/widen whatever his [blast], and he still gains the benefit of a high save. The metamagic specialist has to pump all of his AMCs into Heighten, just to get a competive DC on his dbf.