Immortals Handbook - Grimoire (Artifacts, Epic Magic discussion)

[EarthSeraphEdna]

The Epic Level Handbook apparently has its own rules for minimum caster levels for spells:

Spells with an effective level of 10th or higher are possible at epic levels. Because these spell slots aren’t automatically gained at a particular level like 0- to 9th-level spells are, they don’t have a minimum caster level. For this reason, the minimum caster level for any spell of 10th level or higher is set at 11 + spell level.

Right now, we have four options on how to handle the minimum caster level for spells and/or the maximum number of Automatic Metamagic Capacities a character can have:

A. The minimum caster level for a spell is Spell Level × 2 - 1, not including the Magic portfolio (U_K's suggestion).
B. The minimum caster level for a spell is Spell Level × 3 (Kerrick and U_K's suggestion?).
C. The maximum number of Automatic Metamagic Capacities a character can have is equal to his relevant spellcasting ability modifier (Pssthpok's suggestion).
D. The minimum caster level for a spell is Spell Level + 11 (Epic Level Handbook).

 

[Kerrick]

B. The minimum caster level for a spell is Spell Level × 3 (Kerrick and U_K's suggestion?).

No, no, no... that's not what I meant. Maybe I should've been clearer before... what I mean is that you gain L10 spells at L21. Every three levels thereafter, you gain a new spell level (L11 at 24, L12 at 27, etc.) This used to be UK's idea also - AMC as feats, gainable every three levels. Apparently he's gone to another idea.

I actually have to go over my proofs again; I found an error that might change my results. I haven't gotten around to it because it's a lot of number-crunching, and while I'm good with with numbers (and Excel makes the calculations easier) it makes my head hurt sometimes.

A. The minimum caster level for a spell is Spell Level × 2 - 1, not including the Magic portfolio (U_K's suggestion).

D. The minimum caster level for a spell is Spell Level + 11 (Epic Level Handbook).

These are the same. With SL*2 - 1, a L12 spell has a CL of 23. With SL+11, a L12 spell also has a CL of 23. I think that of the other two suggestions, this is the better one - you don't have to put an arbitrary cap on AMC, and it gives everyone the same restriction, rather than limiting it to a variable number (stat bonus).

 

[EarthSeraphEdna]

These are the same.

Wait, what? Using Spell Level × 2 - 1, a 20th-level spell requires caster level 39th. Using Spell Level + 11, a 20th-level spell requires caster level 31st.

 

[Kerrick]

Wait, what? Using Spell Level × 2 - 1, a 20th-level spell requires caster level 39th. Using Spell Level + 11, a 20th-level spell requires caster level 31st.

Wow... I managed to pick (totally at random, I assure you) the ONLY level at which both of those were equal. Hooray me.

If we use SL + 11, we get...

L10 - CL 21
L11 - CL 22
L12 - CL 23
etc.

I dunno about you guys, but I think being able to get a new level of spells every level is a bit much (and personally, I consider any mechanics in the ELH suspect for balance). At least the SL * 2 - 1 method spreads them out to every other level.

Question: AMC is an epic feat, right? So no one can take it and get L10 spells at L19? I'm asking this because if it's true, I need to check my calculations to account for it.

 

[EarthSeraphEdna]

Question: AMC is an epic feat, right? So no one can take it and get L10 spells at L19? I'm asking this because if it's true, I need to check my calculations to account for it.

'Tis an epic feat.

 

[Kerrick]

Okay. Here's the supporting evidence for my theory, then. I hope it's not too discombobulated; I cleaned it up last week, when I was working on something else, because I hadn't looked at it in a year or so and even I was having trouble understanding it.

 

[Farealmer3]

U_K have you figured out how much damage a singularity does on contact?

 

[Upper_Krust]

Hiya mate!

U_K have you figured out how much damage a singularity does on contact?

Not yet, but its an interesting puzzle I may attempt to solve when I get more free time.

I think the twin problems are the myriad side effects (all of which I have written down somewhere - when I brainstormed the black hole golem) and the damage itself.

 

[Farealmer3]

Another question.

The standard MO for higher hardness material is they peirce the hardness of lesser materials. What about when the lesser material is layered in such a way to make it have a greater hardnesss that the harder material. For example you've stated that tank armor has much more than 15 hardness from the steel it's made of. Does that mean a adamantine weapon couldn't bypass it's hardness?

 

[Upper_Krust]

Hiya matey!

Another question.

The standard MO for higher hardness material is they peirce the hardness of lesser materials. What about when the lesser material is layered in such a way to make it have a greater hardnesss that the harder material. For example you've stated that tank armor has much more than 15 hardness from the steel it's made of. Does that mean a adamantine weapon couldn't bypass it's hardness?

I think this is something of a flaw in the nomenclature. Tank armour has a higher Damage Reduction (not hardness) because of its thickness.

So it might have Hardness 20* but because it has 4-5 inches of thickness in places, that would be akin to DR 100/-

If Iron is Hardness 10 then Steel is probably 15 and Chobham is at least 20 (I'd have to go back over my notes).