Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Cheiromancer" data-source="post: 3155362" data-attributes="member: 141">I'd be happy with a 330,000 gp price tag on the periapt of epic resilience even if we had to resort to gematria and tarot cards to price it.  Although going by the book is easier to justify.I wonder if the periapt counts as having "multiple similar abilities"?  DMG 282 says "calculate the price of the single most costly ability, then add 75% of the value of the next most costly ability, plus one-half the value of any other abilities."  The grouping of afflictions that the periapt wards against seem semantically similar; the Con bonus is close (because of the health aspect) but not quite as similar.  It's like the SR and DR of the rod of invulnerability; both related to "invulnerability" but not as close together as SR and save bonuses, or DR and natural armor bonuses. This "close but not real close" would justify not multiplying by 75%, I think.  There really needs to be more worked-out examples.Re: Circumventory SpellVarious spells in the SRD seem to indicate that a specific immunity is worth about +8SP (or +4 levels in metamagic).  Command undead is the example that comes to mind. This circumvents a natural immunity to mind-affecting magic that is derived from the subjects being of the undead type.  I could see generalizing the principles behind this spell and devising a feat that caused any spell to ignore undead immunities, although the most natural way would be at a substantial cost: modified spells might become necromantic, say, and not be able to affect creatures that aren't undead.  Still, a +4 level modifier might be enough to ensure that a spell's utility extends to undead but is not otherwise diminished.Be that as it may, I don't like the notion of magic as being considered a specific immunity on par with an undead's immunity to mind-affecting magic. I don't have a feel for how a feat like Circumventory Spell would be able to distinguish mechanically between natural immunities (and resistances) and protections that are derived from magic. Is it laced with strong anti-magic that suppresses spells?  In which case, why wouldn't it suppress supernatural protections?  If it works on the principles of dispel magic, why isn't there a caster level check?  If it works on the principles of globe of invulnerability, why isn't there a spell level based component?  And it seems kind of strong; as written it could punch through a forcefield, prismatic wall and an anti-magic field, and then ignore the epic ward that the caster has set up around herself.Here's a feat that applies to spell protections.  It draws on the principles of a globe of invulnerability, and so it doesn't apply to magic items.  (It was published by Throwing Dice games in 2002, and is copyright me and Joseph Mucchiello, Jr.) The fact that a magic item has death ward in its prerequisites does not necessarily means that the protection granted is equivalent to a 4th level spell.WRETCHED SPELL [METAMAGIC]Your spells ignore magical counter-measures and defenses.Prerequisite: Spellcaster level 5+, Spell Focus (Abjuration) or wizard specialization: AbjurationBenefit: A spell modified with the wretched metamagic feat ignores all spells (including spell-like abilities) of level 1 or lower. For example, a wretched magic missile would ignore a shield spell. Ignored spells cannot reduce or prevent damage from, detect or interact in any way with the modified spell. A wretched spell takes up a slot 1 level higher.  A wretched spell has no special effect on supernatural or extraordinary abilities or defenses. Nor does it ignore mundane materials created by spells such as wall of stone. Saving throw bonuses granted by spells are not negated by a wretched spell.Special: Wretched spell is stackable; each additional level of wretched causes the modified spell to ignore an additional level of spells.Besides the magic missile exploit, I thought this would also allow an invisibility to be warded against detect invisibility.  Or even, if stacked high enough, true seeing.  With six levels it would allow a spell ignore (and still be effective in) an anti-magic field.  Of course, so could a spell modified by Circumventory Spell.A variation of Wretched Spell whose principles are drawn from antimagic field would apply to items.  But you'd need to give the spell you are casting the ability to function inside this virtual antimagic field.  (A wretched spell needs no such provision because it is automatically raised to a level that bypasses the virtual globe of invulnerability that is suppressing the protections.  Well, except for cantrips.  <img src="http://www.enworld.org/forum/images/smilies/paranoid.png"  class="smilie" loading="lazy" alt=":uhoh:" title="Paranoid    :uhoh:" data-shortname=":uhoh:" /> )  I'd say +8 levels, and the modified spell would have the quirks of an antimagic field; spells modified wouldn't work against incorporeal undead or summoned creatures, and they wouldn't penetrate a wall of force or prismatic sphere/wall.  And if an item would function in an antimagic field it would still provide protection against the modified spell.  The modified spell would, however, ignore supernatural resistances and immunities, not just those derived from magic items and spells.+8 levels is hefty, but it means that the save DC on that finger of death can't be heightened nearly as much.  And it slows down the progression of the arms race; it will be a few levels before people absolutely have to have items that work inside an anti-magic field.[edit] A +4 level modifier against a specific natural immunity, like undead immunity to mind-affecting spells, would also be appropriate.  I don't know if it would be enough to bypass *all* undead immunities (allowing you to polymorph them as well as charm them).  And it certainly wouldn't be enough to bypass all immunities by anything to anything.[edit2] If we go this way, can we call it Despicable Spell?  I love doing Sylvester the Cat imitations. <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f600.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":D" title="Big grin    :D"  data-smilie="8"data-shortname=":D" /></blockquote>

Verification