Immortals Handbook - Grimoire (Artifacts, Epic Magic discussion)

[Upper_Krust]

Hiya mate!

Or would you say that the 1=1 formula is right and thus your benchmarks are too low?

Yes, then the benchmarks are too low. The benchmarks are just brainstorming.

That's what we were chatting about the other day; remember when we calculated that teleport city would be a 45th level spell?

Try working it out when you only need the surface area and not the volume. Same for Anti-magicking a planet.

Once the system is in place you can come up with some less obvious ways to destroy a planet (or whatever) that doesn't take the full metamagic. I mean whats the minimum amount of a planet you could destroy that would make it unihabitable etc.

 

[Upper_Krust]

Hello!

Pretty much
If you don't powergaming considderations matter, heck you are probably right. Most epic games that work run on Gentlemen's rules anyhow. (No Hulking Hurlers or Incantatrix or Epic Spellcasting abusers)
It may be best to err on the side of caution, and make the system lean to the weaker end. (Stops, requirements, etc) The DM has the final word on most issues, but not all will say No if they don't know what the player is truely trying to break.
There was an issue, IIRC, where a WoTC offical stated Psycrystals gain HD, and were Psionic creatures. (There may have been debate over this, and the Official was just ending it with a ruling. I have only heard of this ruling, but the Expanded Psionics Handbook seems to back this up) This eventually meant a Psion could take a psycrystal, who took the Psycrystal feat, who took the Psycry... ...and they all use Aid Another on the Psion's Strength Check to Sunder the universe! (of course a DM would just slap a PC who tried this, but it is in the rules)
The only failing of the d20 system is that Math works for, and against the developer.
And now back to our regularly schedualed forum!

Of your several new magic types/schools/etc, I am sure one kind is Chronomancy.

Might be, might not be.

Are your other ideas dimentional-based, or more simple things that may have allready been printed, (and no doubt butchered by WoTC) and just redone to be epic? or are they completely new?

I suspect some of them have seen the light of day in other guises, but what I am doing will be a different implementation.

 

[Kerrick]

The metamagic system balances perfectly scaled as it is. I HATE Improved Metamagic. I strongly advise against using something like this.

With all due respect, UK, I think you're wrong. Cheiro and I have both pointed out (multiple times, I might add) that stacking metamagic MUST be reduced in cost. Let's take hellball as an example... we can all agree that it's around a 15th level spell, right? So:

Fireball (L3); energy admixture x3 (+9); widen (+3) = 15th level. If you use full cost for admixture, you end up with 18th level, which is WAY too high for this spell.

I read UK's proposal as requiring a key ability of 10 + twice the spell level. So a wizard's level 10 epic spell would require an Intelligence of 30. Level 11 would be 32, and so on. (I'm reading 2/level as meaning 2 per level.)

Okay, I misread it for some reason. But why suddenly double the ability score requirement? You're already blowing a feat per level; doubling the casting score requires more feats and/or serious magic items to boost the score high enough to cast even mid-level (15th) epic spells.

Spellcasters are not meant to move galaxies unless they are eternals or sidereals of magic.

Good enough. Do you have rules for rituals, so lesser spellcasters could do large-scale spells like moving a city or whatnot?

By my understanding of logistics, 33rd-level should be the highest level character on a planet, 66th-level should be the highest in the galaxy and 99th the highest in the universe. Thats for characters with a lifepan of a century.

Huh? How'd you come up with that? And what about undead, or elves, or others with longer lifespans? What about the immortality ritual?

Yes, then the benchmarks are too low. The benchmarks are just brainstorming.

Okay, we've pretty well established that... but we're also working on new ones, so it's all good.

 

[Upper_Krust]

Hi Kerrick mate!

With all due respect, UK, I think you're wrong.

Okay...but I don't think I am.

Cheiro and I have both pointed out (multiple times, I might add) that stacking metamagic MUST be reduced in cost.

Once you do that you mess up everything as far as I can see.

eg. (Using your method) 1280d6 fireball @ 19th-level spell. 40960 d6 fireball at @ 29th-level spell.

Its ludicrous.

Let's take hellball as an example... we can all agree that it's around a 15th level spell, right? So:

Stop worrying about balancing with Epic Spells.

Fireball (L3); energy admixture x3 (+9); widen (+3) = 15th level. If you use full cost for admixture, you end up with 18th level, which is WAY too high for this spell.

Energy Admixture is possibly too high.

Fireball (L3), Widen (+3) and Quod Damage (+8) = +11 = 14th

Okay, I misread it for some reason. But why suddenly double the ability score requirement?

...because epic magic is tougher to learn.

You're already blowing a feat per level; doubling the casting score requires more feats and/or serious magic items to boost the score high enough to cast even mid-level (15th) epic spells.

Exactly, if it were easy then everyone would be casting 15th-level spells.

Good enough. Do you have rules for rituals, so lesser spellcasters could do large-scale spells like moving a city or whatnot?

Yes, Ceremonial Magic.

Huh? How'd you come up with that?

Roughly approximates to 1/2 the number of characters of the next highest level within a given population.

And what about undead, or elves, or others with longer lifespans? What about the immortality ritual?

Don't worry I have rules for extended lifespans too...but I have to save something for the darn books.

Okay, we've pretty well established that... but we're also working on new ones, so it's all good.

Indeed.

 

[Kerrick]

Once you do that you mess up everything as far as I can see.

eg. (Using your method) 1280d6 fireball @ 19th-level spell. 40960 d6 fireball at @ 29th-level spell.

Its ludicrous.

Where are you coming up with these numbers? Come on, UK, you know better than to pull numbers out of thin air an expect the rest of us to know what you're talking about.

Stop worrying about balancing with Epic Spells.

I only chose hellball because it's the simplest example of the bunch.

Energy Admixture is possibly too high.

Fireball (L3), Widen (+3) and Quod Damage (+8) = +11 = 14th

Yeah, admix should probably be +3. But, uh, what's "quod damage"?

Roughly approximates to 1/2 the number of characters of the next highest level within a given population.

Mmm... so how do you explain high-magic worlds like FR? Our homebrew had (before a massive cataclysm) numerous high-epic NPCs; we had a party of around 8 PCs who went from 1st to ~30th. I guess it's only a guideline, and I don't even have to pay attention to it, but it looks off - like it would apply to a medium-low magic world, not a place in the UK universe.

Don't worry I have rules for extended lifespans too...but I have to save something for the darn books.

Just wondered if you were accounting for them.

 

[Upper_Krust]

Hi Kerrick mate!

Where are you coming up with these numbers? Come on, UK, you know better than to pull numbers out of thin air an expect the rest of us to know what you're talking about.

Fairly straightforward.

Damage doubles every +4 spell levels using 2 empower spell feats.

But if you reduce the empower spell feat to a mere +1 level (as you suggest), then every +2 spell levels doubles damage. Which brings us back to the figures I previously stated, which are clearly broken and therefore case closed.

I only chose hellball because it's the simplest example of the bunch.

I wonder what the minimum level is to cast it under the Epic Rules system, about 60th-level or thereabouts perhaps.

Yeah, admix should probably be +3. But, uh, what's "quod damage"?

Empower Spell = +2 spell levels. Quod is a double empowerment.

ddq for single empowerment is far too confusing, so you have to use two at a time for it.

Mmm... so how do you explain high-magic worlds like FR?

Is FR high-magic now though, it clearly was in the past.

The way I use worlds with a high magic factor is sort of like the way I tackled the absolutes of Anti-Magic on my website, only in reverse. See Mega-magic.

http://www.immortalshandbook.com/sermon1.3.htm

Each increase to the magic factor may well be +4 Automatic Metamagic Capacity feats for free to everyone.

Our homebrew had (before a massive cataclysm) numerous high-epic NPCs; we had a party of around 8 PCs who went from 1st to ~30th. I guess it's only a guideline, and I don't even have to pay attention to it, but it looks off - like it would apply to a medium-low magic world, not a place in the UK universe.

If it was as easy to get to 30th-level as D&D 3rd Edition suggests then every surviving adventurer would be 30th within 3 years. Clearly the EXP rules are a touch too generous.

Of course in a way I am not complaining because it means there are more epic players around and people reaching epic levels faster.

Just wondered if you were accounting for them.

Naturally.

 

[Servitor of Wrath]

"See Mega-magic."

*does so* When would doubling require one to round down? Or up?

 

[paradox42]

The way I use worlds with a high magic factor is sort of like the way I tackled the absolutes of Anti-Magic on my website, only in reverse. See Mega-magic.

If it was as easy to get to 30th-level as D&D 3rd Edition suggests then every surviving adventurer would be 30th within 3 years. Clearly the EXP rules are a touch too generous.

Of course in a way I am not complaining because it means there are more epic players around and people reaching epic levels faster.

I'll throw in my two cents on what I think Kerrick's side is here- there may be worlds where the base assumption, that everything starts at 1st level and the number of people at each higher level is half the previous, doesn't hold. That assumption is a basis for the game's structure, but that structure is built around an assumed world which may not precisely match the one the characters are currently in. In other words, some worlds may have environmental factors (not necessarily having anything to do with magic) which actively reduce the number of low-level individuals and force things to a higher level average.

Dark Sun is a perfect example of this. The world was designed to be harsh and brutal in the extreme; characters must be tough to survive- and even then the attrition rate is quite high. Back in AD&D 2nd Edition, PCs rolled scores using 5d4 instead of 3d6, resulting in potential ranges 2 points higher than the standard (though forcing things to be average much more often as well, so not often resulting in stellar scores). In addition to that, PCs were started not at 1st level, but at 3rd; the rationale (as given in the setting rulebooks) was that the world was so harsh that 1st and 2nd level characters simply wouldn't have a reasonable chance to survive.

Now, 3rd Edition has a quicker level curve- characters really don't tend to spend very long at a given level compared to how long they spent at a level in earlier editions of the game. And in game time, if the campaign is run in what I've seen called the "24 style" (meaning, hardly any down time, the PCs are always doing something- refers to the style of the Fox TV series "24"), it's quite possible for PCs to go from 1st to 20th level in only a year or two. That said, yes, the game still seems to assume the averages you quoted for your numbers above- the number of people at a given level is assumed to be half that of the previous one. But what if we take a world like Dark Sun into account? If most of the 1st and 2nd level people simply die, and active adventurers are assumed to be at least 3rd, doesn't that mean that the number of 3rd-level characters is going to be higher than the number of 1st or 2nd level? The lower-level characters simply aren't around long enough to register in the count, one way or another- they either die or gain levels to reach a survivable status (that being 3rd). There are some there of course, but since their position is unstable, there won't be as many as there will at the "survival point" of 3rd. Thus, the count isn't a pure logarithmic progression anymore- there's a clear "spike" at the equilibrium point of 3rd level, with falloffs to either side.

If worlds like that exist, it may change how the "highest level" thing works out- characters from such places will be more likely to reach higher levels more quickly. The curve gets skewed. Does that make sense?

 

[Ltheb Silverfrond]

I think the highest level being thing was just a general guideline. The more specific the power level you want for your setting, the more you should tweak those numbers.
Oh, U_K, I never did get to mention your artifact rules work Awesome in the Low-magic spectrum too. (So the a Magical Sword for a commoner is a +1 sword, a major item for him, but wielded by the King, it might be a +5 vorpal blade!) No PC I know would ever go "Hmm This sword is nice, but there are better." With that kind of scaling. It definitely captures the classic Hero-with-legendary-magic-item-X feel instead of the current Batman-esque-utility-belt-of-magic-thingamabobs feel.
As for XP rates, Yea, if you use the XP guidelines in the DMG, with 6 EL+0 encounters a day, and 13 needed to level, PCs will be 20th level within 44 in-game days of adventuring. This dosen't include downtime, time spent on other activities, or significantly more powerful foes being defeated. Yea, players level fast, so I think on average D&D games reach 20th in 6 months of once a week 8 hour sessions. Depends on the game style.

 

[Upper_Krust]

Hiya mate!

"See Mega-magic."

*does so* When would doubling require one to round down? Or up?

I'd just use +4 Spell Levels per Magic Factor. Which means a flat doubling. So (if I understand you right) you would never need to round up or down.