Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Kerrick" data-source="post: 3047438" data-attributes="member: 4722">Question, UK: are you going with spell slots that you automatically gain (like with 0-9) or with AMC slots that you have to blow a feat on? I've been doing some work on a new, simpler, epic system (I posted the basics in the House Rules forum about a month ago, which means it's probably gone now) and I found that you can gain 1 new spell/3 levels without breaking the system (the same as feats, really...).And will you be able to put epic spells into artifacts? That's one of my many gripes about the "epic" spell system - you can't put them into magic items or artifacts. WTF?Something else I've been tossing around - I call it the Principle of Bulk Consumption. When you buy things in bulk, you get them cheaper, right? So why shouldn't this apply to metamagic? The rule is this: If you apply the same metamagic feat to a spell more than once, the level adjustment for each application is reduced by 1, to a minimum of 1. So, the spell Cheiro's suggesting, to surround the earth with an antimagic field (using my system)would be: antimagic field (L6); widen x22 (+44) = L50 spell. I really like the idea of DDQ as opposed to DDT - it makes a lot more sense from a mathematical POV, and it's a lot easier to figure out larger areas and such. I think I'll use that for mine.You could just make a (possibly epic) feat that increases orders of magnitude as opposed to iteration. For example: Epic Extend Spell (okay, so my names suck <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f61b.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":p" title="Stick out tongue    :p"  data-smilie="7"data-shortname=":p" />) - for a cost of, say, +5 levels, you can increase the spell's duration by one step, from rounds to minutes to hours to days.Well don't keep us in the dark - speak! Enlighten us, so that we may know the inner workings of the great minds at WotC.I hope by "Int bonus" you really mean "spellcasting ability bonus", otherwise all other casters are boned. And it's ability stat = 10 + spell level, not bonus. While changing it to ability bonus = 10+1/2 spell level might seem like a good idea, I don't think it is. A L9 spell requires a 19 stat, while a L10 spell would require only 15, feats notwithstanding. What if the character gets ability-drained? He loses the 9th-level spells, but can still cast 10th+? No way, dude. So it requires an absurd ability score to cast a spell to move the galaxy - how often is someone going to cast something like that anyway? Once every million years?I used it for the level-based system, at +4 levels, and it worked fine. Their version (if what you say is correct) is hideously broken, however. If you set damage to scale by caster level, it should be 1d6/level, not base damage/level.Is this for XP cost, or the XP require to develop the spell? For that matter, UK - does your system follow the ELH, where developing epic spells requires XP as well as gold?And finally:I think if you up all those by 10 levels, you'll be closer to the mark. Like I pointed out before, a planet-wide antimagic field is ~L50, and someone else (Cheiro?) said that creating a star would be L70ish; teleporting a city would be around ~30. Assuming it's around 1 mile, we take teleport object (L7), change from target to area (20-ft. radius, +7) and widen x8 (+16, for an radius of 5,120 ft.), we end up with L30.</blockquote>

Verification