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: 3141143" data-attributes="member: 141">Separate but equal?  That could work.  There is an asymmetry between casters at low epic levels; the jacobian applies AMC to all spells, but the krustean only to non-epic spells.  Is that the concern?  The jacobian getting a benefit (a fairly substantial benefit, too) that is not paralleled by the metamagic specialist?I'm thinking that the various specialization feats generally won't enable hyperspecialization; some increase damage, some increase area, some increase save DCs and ability to penetrate SR, and so on.  But if you have 10 such feats I could see that several aspects of a spell in an area of particular focus could be receiving a 40 point boost.  Is that where you get the -4 mitigation per goalpost feat?  It sure helps analysis of extreme cases.  When you have to wonder if a character might take MF and then only AMC thereafter- you have to see if such a lopsided character is mechanically balanced.  Knowing that only half the feats could be spent on AMC (or Epic Spellcasting, or whatever) means you can look at less extreme builds.  To limit the numbers we did consider that perhaps Epic Spellcasting could only be taken with general feats.  That would limit the number of such feats to half the total number of feat slots, which is the principal desideratum.  There were two objections; one, that Epic Spellcasting seems eminently wizardly, and thus should be available via a wizard's bonus feats.  The second is that it is too constraining to PC development to require them to acquire Epic Spellcasting at exactly levels 21, 24, 27, etc..  I.e. if they take a different feat at one of those levels (or ever want to take a general feat) they will be forever behind.  An incremental prerequisite gives more flexibility.The notion that some feat could only be taken with an epic class's bonus feats is similarly constraining.  And you can normally take *any* feat as a general feat you qualify for.  Reversing that policy would be at least as disconcerting and unprecedented as an incremental prerequisite.  (You didn't think the mechanic of incremental prerequisites up all by yourself, did you?  I'm sure it is not entirely unprecedented.)The notion of Epic PrCs... Well, that would mean that they could only take those PrCs to get Epic Spellcasting.  That seems too constraining as well.  And one of the key notions of the ELH was that epic spellcasting was conveyed by a feat.  Not a class ability.  We've departed from the basic ELH mechanic in a lot of ways (number of slots not a function of spellcraft ranks, casting a spell not a spellcraft check), so maybe one more departure won't hurt... but I'd rather not go that way.I sure hope it passes. I'm enjoying the process of collaborating with you, and it'd be a shame if this dissatisfaction persisted and rubbed off onto the whole thing.</blockquote>

Verification