Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Sepulchrave II" data-source="post: 3140908" data-attributes="member: 4303">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 thinkEpic 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.</blockquote>

Verification