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: 3125140" data-attributes="member: 141">I agree. I think the question about AMC ultimately comes down to deciding what difference there is in flexibility and power between a level of spontaneous metamagic each round and an epic spell slot.  There is no doubt that epic seed magic can do things that spontaneous metamagic can't; but a seed spell, when cast, is gone.  Spontaneous metamagic works all day, potentially affecting every spell that's cast in a great many ways.  That's also a lot of power and flexibility.  Different, but possibly equal.*******Upon further reflection, I have decided you are probably right about the proposed Empower and Maximize factors.  They may make the seed specialist's energy blasts only 60% as effective as a metamagic specialist's, but the metamagic specialist's calls and summons will be much less effective than the seed specialist's.  The seed specialist might need even further restrictions on the use of factors.I rather doubt that UK has worried too much about the precise balance of levels 20 to 30.  That's only a small fraction of the gamut he designs for.  And he is a theorist (as am I, of course).  Your first three points reinforce this point.  I think the boring nature of the feat is part of its attractiveness to UK; if you are statting out a 320th level wizard, you really don't want to pick (or design) 200 flavorful, unique feats.  And to try to figure out the metamagic configuration of each and every spell?  An Intelligence 40 wizard could figure it out, but its hard for the rest of us.  The spontaneous application of metamagic is what makes it such a time-saver for folks who might like to play metamagic specialists. That would be its biggest selling point to me; to make high level wizards easier to play.  The complexity is already awfully high; a few boring feats could be just what is needed.  I think that when designing a seed AMC provides some much needed stability.  You determine that a particular effect can be achieved at USP 50.  Is it too good?  Too weak?  It'd be nice to know at what level such a spell will be routinely cast; level 47 or earlier.  How much earlier?  Is there going to be a feat available that will allow someone to cast the spell at level 21?  A feat could, we're thinking, provide a +30 SP benefit, easily enough to bridge a gap of 26 levels.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.However, the question keeps arising whether a feat slot spent on Epic Spellcasting yields as much (in power and flexibility) as a feat slot spent on AMC.  How, besides playtesting, could we answer this?  An elegant system with multiple symmetries is more likely to pass the test than one that isn't, but elegance isn't the whole story.You know, it might be helpful to think of "dials" that can be used to adjust the balance between these two systems.  Making available the Empower and Maximize factors would be a way of powering up Jacobean spellcasting.  Limiting the Quicken factor to characters with the Quicken Spell feat would power them down a trifle.  Requiring Spell Focus in a particular school to access certain obscure seeds would power them down a little too.  You could make spell research cheaper and faster, or slower and more expensive.  All sorts of things.I'm getting tired.  I'm sure we'll talk about this question some more.***AMC gives +1 metamagic level to each of a 20th level wizard's 50 or so non-cantrip spells.  What are these worth?  Half as much as a real level?  1/3 as much when averaged over all the spells?  (A wizard won't be using them all, and so much of this numeric benefit will go to waste).  So maybe 17 or 18 levels worth of power and flexibility.UK suggests that an epic feat should be able to grant two bonus 9th-level spell slots.  This seems reasonable; ISC would grant 2 10th level slots if the caster's spellcasting ability score was high enough.  I find the 18 spell levels this represents gratifyingly close to 1/3 of 50.  The increased number of top-drawer spells certainly increases the caster's options, and therefore both power and flexibility.A seed when it is first acquired is just a little bit more powerful than a 9th level spell, but has more degrees of freedom in its augmentations, and especially in its possible mitigations.  Would I say that it is twice as good as a 9th level spell?  I'm not sure.  But I think that the seeds we have are pretty good- its how fast their power should increase by SP increases that is a little tricky.I think we are agreed that a seed specialist's energy blast should increase in power at a slower rate than a metamagic specialist's.  They'll both start out about the same, but the seed specialist will gradually fall behind as the metamagic specialist's curve starts to steepen.  I think the version that omits Empower and Maximize factors is good.Without AMC I don't know what the curve of the metamagic specialist would look like.  We'd have to use ISC and IM I think- but I think AMC is preferable to these.  But we kinda need to know the metamagic specialist's power curve in order to decide if the [energy blast] seed scales appropriately.  And design the power-up feats that enhance [energy blast].</blockquote>

Verification