NOW LIVE! Today's the day you meet your new best friend. You don’t have to leave Wolfy behind... In 'Pets & Sidekicks' your companions level up with you!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Cheiromancer" data-source="post: 3139468" data-attributes="member: 141">Even if AMC is not used by the jacobean, we should consider the effect it would have if it were used- it is sort of a proxy for the feats that affect epic magic.  I give a fairly reasonable argument for this in post 327, and a doctrinaire argument in post 325. The "axioms" in 325 are probably too stark, but we need to have a principled way of comparing jacobian and krustean casters.  If you reject the principles enunciated in 325, put something in their place!Basically AMC should give equal benefits to both kinds of spellcasters.  If there are limits (a staggered Spellcraft prerequisite: maybe +3 each time) it should apply to both.  If one can't use it, neither should the other; but that would mean ISC and IM for the metamagic specialist, which would be a step backward, and it would also remove the main theoretical principle ensuring that the two approaches are balanced.I'm disavowing my proposal that [blast] be a 12 SP seed.  It *is* kind of bizarre.  But I think that whatever additional features are there, they should be subject to no-cost buyback such that you could get a fireball at level 21 that does around 30d6 damage.  Maybe 32d6, but around there.  I think there should be Empower factors, if only because the metamagic specialist gets to use them.  The maximum value of such a factor should be +12SP; that's +2 spell levels in kernel analysis, and would indicate that the Empower feat is 100% efficient (as opposed to about 33% efficiency for every other feat).I am still considering the notion that metamagic specialists learn "techniques" to improve their flexibility vis a vis seed specialists.  And if they already know the feat, they get the equivalent of an AMC when using that feat.  All epic casters might know how to Heighten their spells, say; if they already know the feat, they get the first +1 level for free.  It's like how all seed specialists know how to increase the save DC by increasing the SP by +2.I am seriously considering that AMC have a staggered progression (+3 cumulative increase in spellcraft prerequisite).  This would have a disproportionate effect on metamagic specialists, but I'd propose a benefit (not paralleled for seed specialists) that they get free enhance-type effect when they add metamagic feats to spells.  The result would be like post 374, but not so steep, since the number of AMCs would be halved.  The multiplier for 48th level might be 3.5 instead of 6, or about 168d6.I think if we do our jobs right, there should be no need for such a thing.  We certainly shouldn't plan for them at the outset.I'd rather allow folks to use published epic monsters "as is" - maybe assign them different CRs (like Upper Krust does - I'm starting to think that maybe one shouldn't be multiplying by 2/3 after all.  Maybe we have to ban dragonshape.)Here's a notion about save DCs for epic seeds; set them equal to a function of SP.  Like SP +3 or something.  That would be an elegant way of preventing saves being boosted to the stratosphere by mitigating factors.  It would mean that some "save negates" spells would only be appropriate only for casting on opponents of a lower CR.  I think it would clarify design problems a lot.  (Oh, I am also discarding my enthusiasm about split DCs.  Although I may return to it if the saves problem remains intractable).Anyway, a couple of concrete points of reference I'd like to agree on:1. A 21st level seed specialist should do about 30d6 with his [blast].  Assuming no xp costs, increased casting time etc.; cast as a fireball, it should do about 30d6.2. A 50th level metamagic specialist shouldn't do much more than 200d6 damage with his fireball (or dbf, or whatever he's metamagicking).  Maybe it'll only turn out to be 140d6 or 160d6 or so, but 200d6 is kind of an upper limit.  My proposal of 288d6 above is too much.Hmmm.  Seed generalists will do less damage than seed specialists than casters focused on a particular seed; but I think that goes without saying.  Is there anything you'd like to add to these two points of reference?</blockquote>

Verification