Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Cheiromancer" data-source="post: 3084240" data-attributes="member: 141">I'm cool with that.  I wanted to explore the idea of using 10th+ level slots, but that approach isn't mechanically necessary.  I should point out that if Krustean metamagic is the alternative to the Jacobean system, those epic spells better be pretty powerful.  AMC is the equivalent of 55 levels of metamagic feat- even the comparatively feeble ISC is the equivalent of two 9th level spell slots, each with a level of metamagic.  If Epic Spellcasting is to be shiver-worthy, it has to pack quite a wallop.  My thoughts were converging on the conclusion that [destroy], [energy] and [slay] were all manifestations of the same underlying seed.  So "stepping on each other's toes" is kinda an understatement.  Although the seeds we've been working with are not qualitatively different from non-epic spells.  Except for the aggregates, they are "just more of the same."  Your flexible [energy] seed, for instance, is pretty similar to what a Krustean wizard can do with his spontaneous metamagic.  More flexible in some ways, since a Krustean might not have all the right energy substitution and shaping feats to mold it the way a Jacobean could, but a Krustean would likely Enhance and Empower it to a greater degree than a Jacobean can manage.  It's kinda a wash.His system is designed to scale robustly into stratospheric levels, but I think part of what keeps it balanced is the notion that "there is always something tougher out there".  I admit I don't really know the ins and outs of his system.  I took (Su) as meaning that the feats are magical (which makes sense; they manipulate magic, after all) and that while they are ineffective in an antimagic field (where you can't cast spells anyway) they aren't subject to spell resistance, counterspells, or to being dispelled by dispel magic (who would try to counterspell a feat?).  If you somehow manage to cast spells in an antimagic field, your method will probably allow your feats to work too.  Supernatural (Su) also means the feats don't provoke attacks of opportunity or require Concentration checks, though the associated spells probably do; if the spells didn't for some reason, then modifying them with AMC shouldn't change anything.  Supernatural abilities require a standard action to use unless specified otherwise, but I don't think he means that using those feats is a standard action; if it did, how would spontaneous Quickens work?  You certainly don't need an action to use the feat and another to cast the spell.  Anyway, (Su) is not for balance's sake; it is just a concise way of describing interactions with other parts of the rules.Hey, it's the lingering aroma of your campaign that makes these rules so damn attractive to me.  A certain amount of genericization has to take place to make them work in other people's campaigns; mechanical problems have to hammered out that wouldn't faze a DM like you, but the influence of Wyre shouldn't be excluded.  The final system should certainly be usable with minimal changes in your campaign, or what's the point?And "Two Epic Spellcasting Feats" is better?  <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f61b.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":p" title="Stick out tongue    :p"  data-smilie="7"data-shortname=":p" />  Really, "transvalent" can refer equally well to the spells being past the 9 slots (10 with cantrips) of conventional magic.  And Jacobeans can easily distinguish themselves from the tawdry, flashy manipulations of Krustean spellcasters (though they may be dabblers in Automatic Metamagic themselves).  Given that orthodox Krusteans won't have a single ISC, does it really matter whether you call it "Epic Spellcasting" or "Improved Spell Capacity"?  Sure, ISC will probably give you two slots off the bat.  But recall that in the ELH casters never started with just one epic spell slot; the minimum was two.  Four if you were a cleric with the Animal or Plant domain.  <img src="http://www.enworld.org/forum/images/smilies/paranoid.png"  class="smilie" loading="lazy" alt=":uhoh:" title="Paranoid    :uhoh:" data-shortname=":uhoh:" /> I think the strength of trying to relate the epic spellcasting system to the system of slots and metamagic is in ensuring that it is a realistic option.  Neither overpowered nor underpowered.  Becoming aware of just what repeated AMC feats can actually do - and recognizing that it just does elegantly what IM and ISC (and the Automatic suite) were capable of - helps frame the discussion.</blockquote>

Verification