Epic Spells

[dcollins]

Just make a +30 Spellcraft item, 30x30x100 = 90000

This common response (House-Ruled item) should not be allowed by the DM, because it intrinsically breaks how Epic spells were designed & balanced. Same for the also-frequently-called-for use-activated cure light wounds and true strike wish-list items.

http://superdan.net.home.comcast.net/dndfaq3.html

 

[Shariell]

This common response (House-Ruled item) should not be allowed by the DM, because it intrinsically breaks how Epic spells were designed & balanced. Same for the also-frequently-called-for use-activated cure light wounds and true strike wish-list items.

http://superdan.net.home.comcast.net/dndfaq3.html

Ok...I see your point, and I have read the link you posted but I don't agree.
The entire "creation" feat chain is designed to permit the players to CREATE magic items.
In a "canonic" campaign, the players don't have access to the DMG, thus they are not aware at all of the "example" magical items provided in the manual.
And even if the players are, in a pure game view, asking the DM for making an item they characters don't have ever seen, is metagame.

I much prefer a player wich come up to me, and in game terms start his research for "an item that aid my spellcasting ability".

There are formulas to do this. There are feats to do this. There are rules to do this.
If not, even a +2 keen sword is not legal by the RAW, because is not in the DMG object list.

You can make such +2 keen sword only applying the rules for making and pricing NEW items. Even the scrolls...with every new d20 or official D&D book comes out, you have some NEW spell to use, so you have new scrolls, not listed in the DMG tables.

And to me, the simply fact there are rules to do such things, is enough to argue the argument is valid.
Of course, the final word is up to the DM, but the system si open-ended, and what can be unbalancing in one campaing, can be not in another. The DM is the final judge, but the player who ask for such items has the chance to try.

Don't want to be harsh, English is not my first language, so sometimes I can seems to be due to my poor language.

PS. of course this is only my personal interpretation, as a DM in my campaign.

 

[Vlos]

Here is a relativly low DC one for increasing STR for 3 targets. Its good for a Druid or Cleric Type that works along side fighter types and has another high level caster available.

Seed Fortify (DC 17), Increase Enhancement STR Bonus +20 (DC +40), Add 2 targets (DC +20)
Mitigating Factors: Increase Casting Time by 10 minutes (DC -20), Make Ritual sacrificing 1 9th level spell (DC -17) during casting.

Total DC: 40
Cost to develop: 360,000gp
XP Cost: 14,400xp
Time: 7.2 days


Spell: Patron's Strength(God's Strength)

Transmutation
Spellcraft DC: 40
Components: V, S
Casting Time: 11 minutes
Range: Touch
Target: 3 Creatures Touched
Duration: 20 hours
Saving Throw: Will negates (harmless)
Spell Resistance: Yes (harmless)

This spell grants the target of the god's strength giving them a +21 enhancement bonus to their STR score. This effect lasts for 20 hours.

 

[Nail]

Slightly off-topic:

Seriously, what do spell casters get from epic levels that non-spell casters don't? Improved caster level? <cue incredulous voice> That's it?!?

I've had the ELH for some time now, and every time I read over this part, I can't help but shake my head in disgust. What's the point?

 

[dcollins]

Ok...I see your point, and I have read the link you posted but I don't agree.
The entire "creation" feat chain is designed to permit the players to CREATE magic items.

I agree: create magic items, not invent new magic items. Very different. The latter requires invocation of the "Variant: New Magic Items" (DMG p. 214), just for starters.

In a "canonic" campaign, the players don't have access to the DMG, thus they are not aware at all of the "example" magical items provided in the manual.

I disagree. The crafting feats specifically refer the user to the DMG, for example: "See the Dungeon Master's Guide for descriptions of magic weapons, armor, and shields, the prerequisites associated wuth each one, and prices of their features."

Note that what is noticably lacking in the core feat description is an opportunity to invent your own items, or reference to the "pricing guidelines for new items" table in the DMG. In that regard your intuition is correct.

 

[Yig]

Slightly off-topic:

Seriously, what do spell casters get from epic levels that non-spell casters don't? Improved caster level? <cue incredulous voice> That's it?!?

I've had the ELH for some time now, and every time I read over this part, I can't help but shake my head in disgust. What's the point?

In theory, you can do pretty much whaever you want.

But you'll need to research it, spend a truckload of XP and money.

All of this for having a chance of casting a spell.

Not worth it. I prefer Trainz's variant.

 

[Shariell]

feel free to disagree, as I feel free to continue prefer "in game" request instead of "metagame" requests for items

Like I said, it's only my point of view. Of course I use the "variant rule" proposed, and even the variant rule proposed in the ELH on the spellcraft check modified by your primary caster stat (to me is the ONLY way to make the entire epic spellcasting sistem work for every class and not only the wizard).

So...what can I say? I like the official variant rule, because it seems to improve my game and make much more sense.
I don't think an item is balanced ONLY because is "official", so the playetest material argument to me is not valid (and are plenty of examples it isn't at all)
I don't like to show a player a list of items he can made. I much prefer "in game" requests, instead of showing him a buy list.

On the epic spells DC side: it's hard to me consider "ruin" an epic spell (20d6 damage, fort save to half, and 2.000XP burned every time you cast it). Even Greater ruin si something hilarious to me (come on...)

BTW...the entire ELH and even others epic supplements (like champions of ruin) come up with spells with spellcraft DCs often over 90, 100 and 200 (or more).
I am curious how they are intended to be played...and please note, something of these spells, are refered to characters you can view in the book, with a caster level of 30, nothing more.
So a +30 spellcraft item in my campaign is not overpowered.

It's not an attack to you...it's just one of the things I've in mind when I've decided to allow magical items that grant bonus to spellcraft checks in my campaings.

 

[Angel of Adventure]

Epic Pain in the Butt

In general, I do think the Epic Spellcasting system is workable, but far over priced in terms of what it costs and Epic character to make them. In Jester's Epic game, one character has it but, if he wants to develop and Epic Spell, we would probably have to give him a ton of our treasure to make it work. So Epic Spell, or weapons for the party?

For my campaign, I really wanted people to use the Epic Spellcasting system, so I dropped the gold/XP reqs in half, leaving development time the same. Yes, it should take awhile to develop these, but it shouldn't cost everyone their stuff just so the caster can go Epic.

Anyway, end of my rant . . .

 

[IcyCool]

BTW...the entire ELH and even others epic supplements (like champions of ruin) come up with spells with spellcraft DCs often over 90, 100 and 200 (or more).
I am curious how they are intended to be played...and please note, something of these spells, are refered to characters you can view in the book, with a caster level of 30, nothing more.
So a +30 spellcraft item in my campaign is not overpowered.

You did know that those spells have a list of various different ways to lower the Spellcraft DC, right? Things like xp spent, time spent, and backlash damage taken can all lower the Spellcraft DC very low.

 

[Shariell]

You did know that those spells have a list of various different ways to lower the Spellcraft DC, right? Things like xp spent, time spent, and backlash damage taken can all lower the Spellcraft DC very low.

Please read my precedent posts, and don't be sarcastic, there is no need to be.
I perfectly know what you said, read my first post on this thread.
But trust me... is not enough.
And my rant was about published material. How the hell one OFFICIAL D&D character such the CR 34 lich in CoR can cast the DC 200 spell in the book as written?
There aren't enough mitigating factor, and even if you want to put in backslash damage and a huge amount of XP expenditure *every* time you cast it, you make the spell not viable.