Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Cheiromancer" data-source="post: 3076968" data-attributes="member: 141">I'd probably write it as a imposing a penalty to the saving throw.  Like how feeblemind makes arcane spellcasters save at -4.  That's only a notational difference, though.  And yeah, you are "double dipping" when you do this.  You get +8 DC for +2 spell levels, while a conventional caster would have to spend +8 spell levels for the same effect.  You have to spend two of those higher level spell slots, though, so maybe it's not such a bargain.Upon reflection, no; as long as neither is lower than the required level they could be combined.  In the current system 1 feat = 1 epic spell slot.  I want the new system to work pretty much the same way.  Since you can pretty much assume bonus spells for high abilities, I am arbitrarily ruling that they have to double up; otherwise 1 feat = 2 epic spell slots, which is too good.  Though this introduces a few wrinkles (you still get bonus spell slots with very high ability scores; the slots have differing values, unlike those acquired through Epic Spellcasting) it is pretty close.The question of transmitting spells (or revising currently known spells) has not yet come up in our discussion.  The ELH system had that immensely impractical x2 DC to scribe a spell on a stone tablet; I don't know how you were thinking of doing it.  I don't know how difficult it is for an epic wizard who goes up a level and wants to add +1 SP factor to his ruin spell.  Suppose he also wants to increase the save DC and add a little backlash?  Suppose he just acquired a relevant feat?  I've been assuming he could tinker a little for free, but I hadn't thought about whether he could teach spells to others, and what disparity in feats between student and teacher might mean.This is a fuzzy area.  Upper_Krust says that ELH spells can be converted to spell levels according to the formula 7 + DC/10 (so a DC 30 spell is really 10th level).  Many of the numbers you use are smaller than the ELH, (smaller base seeds, faster base casting time, and so on, but also lower mitigation factors), and I had estimated the difference as almost half.  It turns out that DC * 3/5 + 6 converts well between DC 30 and SP 24, so I ran with it- this corresponds to a formula of SL = 6 + SP/6.It's a provisional dial, though, based on the estimate of an estimate.  One could fiddle with it if it turns out that this is a little too good (or too weak).  I am assuming fractions are dropped, or else SP 24 spells are 10th level and SP 25 spells are 11th level, which I don't want.  If SP 24 to SP 29 spells are all the same level, then an epic wizard can have a variety of different spells of about the same power to fit into that first spell slot he gets.Your analysis of delayed blast fireball also provided supporting evidence for the notion that 6 SP = 1 spell level.  A 3rd level spell needing 10 levels metamagic (20 SP) to match a 6th level spell.  I'd bet that there are lots of cases that would count as evidence against my equation, but I found it heartening that your example provided support for an intuition I had had previously.I meant Multispell and Improved Spell Capacity.  I've noticed I sometimes substitute words when I'm talking about feats like Automatic Quicken Spell, Improved Spell Capacity and/or Improved Metamagic; in the case of Improved Metamagic I also sometimes make it a Three Letter Word feat.  Upper_Krust does have an Automatic Metamagic feat which allows wizards to add metamagic feats on the fly; that also slips out sometimes.  I apologize for the confusion.Yes.  Suppose he's casting up to SP 54/15th level spells.  Instead of (say) 6 epic slots all of which can be filled with a SP 54 spell, he has 7 slots which can be filled with 2x10, 1x11, 1x12, 1x13, 1x14, and 1x15 level spells.  I thought that insofar as there was a difference between these two arrays, it was better to have the second than the first; the first is a little more powerful and specialized (all six could be the same spell, while the second will have different spells), and I would rather err conservatively. They'd have to devote two slots to it.  Again, it's the presumption that one's 10th level slot will probably have a bonus spell due to high ability scores; if you want 1 feat to equal 1 epic spell slot, then you have to double them up.It's always more flexible.  You can't research an epic spell at the drop of a hat, but you could customize your array of metamagicked spells every time you prepare spells (or, with U_K's Automatic Metamagic, when you cast them).  And you will probably have various metamagic feats from levels 1-20; it's nice to be able to use them in high level slots; you couldn't do this with the slots you got from Epic Spellcasting. The idea is to try to narrow the gap between jacobean and conventional casters.  To eliminate the arbitrary split between practitioners of one way over the other, with the consequent problems of ensuring balance.  The easiest way to make the Epic Spellcasting Feat have the same value as Improved Spell Capacity is to make it the same feat.  The easiest way to ensure that Improved Metamagic isn't too good for conventional casters is to make it work as well for jacobean casters.  The easiest way of preventing one style of spellcasting from being hosed down the road was to enable casters to switch styles if that is the best strategy at a particular stage of the game.That's the main intuition.  Some of the variant rules are just implementations of this idea, and ways to improve consistency.  If it were to seem better for all epic spells to have a base save DC of 20 instead of 10 + spell level, then we could do it that way.  But I wouldn't want to introduce an unnecessary discrepancy in the DC formula for conventional and epic spells; and I am also alert for ways of improving save DCs at epic levels.Similarly, I like the idea that duration, range etc. for conventional spells be capped at 20th level (except for spells that cap certain effects higher; like polar ray's 1d6/level damage out to a maximum of 25d6).  It makes the static values of the seeds more intelligible.  And also provides a quick fix to blasphemy.  But this is peripheral.However, one could easily drop the harsher ability prerequisite formula.  It more or less ensures that there will be an ability bonus, and so ensures that the 2-slot rule can be obeyed.  But really it makes sense to have the 2 slots be of different levels; if you use a higher level slot, that would be fine.  And so you don't need a different ability prerequisite formula.  In fact, consider my proposal so amended.The disparity between double-slotted epic spells and single-slotted conventional spells is hard to digest.  But if you take Improved Metamagic out of the picture (by having it give it the same benefit to both sides) then the reduced value of metamagic makes it necessary to provide some other method of leveling the playing field.  Otherwise it's the discrepancy of your fireball/delayed blast fireball example played out at higher and higher levels. Is one 20th-level spell slot worth two 15th-level spell slots?  Prima facie it doesn't seem unreasonable.It might be tempting to not allow Improved Metamagic to benefit epic spells.  But we were working with feats that provided a specific benefit to a particular seed, a benefit of about +10 SP.  Maybe more.  It seems to me that a feat which gave a generic +2 SP benefit to all seeds would be appropriately powered.  And that is exactly what Improved Metamagic provides.  Rather than have a separate feat, just allow the same feat to do double duty.Besides, suppose a conventional caster takes Improved Metamagic 10 times.  What 10 feats is the jacobean caster taking?  How can we ensure that these 10 feats are balanced with Improved Metamagic?  Having both casters taking the same feat and the same benefit seems to simplify the problem enormously.A common pool of feats reduces the need to have the two systems perfectly balanced.  If conventional casters were effectively a separate class than jacobean casters (and a commitment to one body of feats over another is almost as serious as committing to one class over another), then fairness would demand that the two approaches be equally effective.  But if either caster could metamagic feats to high levels, or research epic spells, then it would be ok for one style to sometimes be dominant over another.  Casters could gravitate to whatever style suits their playing style and the style of the campaign without being hosed for a decision made 10 or 20 levels previously.There are problems with this proposal (e.g. I am not quite sure of the 6+SP/6 formula), but at the moment it seems a promising route both for ensuring that jacobean casters are appropriately powered in relation to their conventional kin, and for making the question of their relative power less urgent.</blockquote>

Verification