Retooled epic spells (revived)

[Kerrick]

Found this on a Google cache. Since it was an interesting discussion, I thought I'd resurrect it. The snapshot was taken on the 6th, though, so I lost a bit.

Are there existing house rules / campaign rules that exchange the seed system from the ELH for a progressive level-based system (i.e. 10th-level, 11th-level, 12th-level, etc.)? If not, I would like to discuss the possibility and how to balance such a system.

There are several - just scan this board, and you'll find a few of them. FWIW, here's my version.

I would like to have both an epic spell system and spells above 9th level, personally...

Monte Cook's Arcana Evolved has a well-thought-out extension of the charts to 10th-level spells. I haven't personally seen any other I'd recommend, but perhaps someone else could recommend one to me.

A few thoughts on how this would work:

You couldn't simply continue the pre-epic progression, since that would be better than one epic feat every two levels, and the sorcerer and wizard currently get one every three. It would also introduce a skipped spell level at level 19.

Neither would you want to leave the Improved Spell Capacity feat as is: each new spell level would be so important that every player would have to take it at every opportunity.
One solution would be to introduce each new spell level after 9th four levels after the old. This leaves enough room to allow some bonus feats, and gives us a smooth progression. Although one bonus feat per twelve levels would most accurately make up the difference between one new spell level every four levels and one every three levels, I suspect you could safely go up to one bonus feat every ten levels, starting at level 30, because you've taken away some flexibility.

You should balance new spells by eyeballing them, and comparing with metamagical versions of 1st- through 9th-level spells, and by asking at which level other epic characters get equivalent power.

By 9th level, we already have several spells that kill multiple characters who fail a saving throw, or even that kills one wounded character without a saving throw. Logically, whatever we come up with at higher level must be worse than mere death, or at least more useful to the caster than a dead enemy.

I recommend that you don't have higher than 9th-level spells and epic spells at the same time. That just encourages players to build spells using both systems and use whichever one gives them the result they prefer: twice the work for less balance.

While you can use epic spell DCs to guesstimate the level of a new spell, I don't think the system is really usable enough for that to work.

That said, if this system is balanced without epic spells, it ought to be as balanced with them as the current system is.

If you do continue the existing patterns for everything, you would need at least thirty-two wizard spells of each level (since a specialist wizard of any of the eight schools must learn at least four spells from his school of specialty before he has a chance to take his next spell level). You would also need at least one spell of every level that's appropriate for every cleric domain. Furthermore, you would need at least a reasonable selection for clerics and druids.

Bards would need some special handling, but their level 7-9 spells could mainly come from the sor/wiz enchantment list.

As always, this would need playtesting.

 

[Lorehead]

Glad you liked it. I've reposted my take on this in the "Resurrected Lore" thread, starting with post #8.

 

[Kerrick]

Glad you liked it. I've reposted my take on this in the "Resurrected Lore" thread, starting with post #8.

I'm going to wait a couple days before posting anything serious here, for fear they are able to recover the lost files and will wipe everything again. I did look over your system, though... it's a lot like mine, but I eliminated the class lists and just went arcane/divine for spells. The link to mine is up in the first post, if you're interested.

 

[Lorehead]

I'm going to wait a couple days before posting anything serious here, for fear they are able to recover the lost files and will wipe everything again.

I don't know if you consider my ideas about epic spells serious, but you could always save a copy as a text file.

I did look over your system, though... it's a lot like mine, but I eliminated the class lists and just went arcane/divine for spells. The link to mine is up in the first post, if you're interested.

I'd looked briefly at your system before I wrote mine, but not too closely. The big difference from my perspective is that you kept the epic seed system from the ELH (closely modeled on one from the 2E option books), whereas I stuck much closer to existing progressions. You must've seen something in this system that I didn't. My impression from reading the document is that you don't actually use the rules to decide on the level of a spell (for which it's very misleading at best), but instead decide ahead of time what the spell level should be, and then add backlash damage, XP costs or rituals to make the numbers match the spell level you want.

 

[Kerrick]

The big difference from my perspective is that you kept the epic seed system from the ELH (closely modeled on one from the 2E option books), whereas I stuck much closer to existing progressions.

Yeah, I adapted/retooled the ELH system because I felt it would provide more concrete rules for making larger spell effects at that level.

You must've seen something in this system that I didn't.

I thought the system had potential - it was a decent framework, but needed serious fleshing out, and it definitely needed changing to a level-based system.

My impression from reading the document is that you don't actually use the rules to decide on the level of a spell (for which it's very misleading at best), but instead decide ahead of time what the spell level should be, and then add backlash damage, XP costs or rituals to make the numbers match the spell level you want.

Guilty as charged. You're the first person to point that out to me, though I don't know if you're the first to notice. This is also the main flaw with my system (well, besides its size and the fact that there are still a few things I can't do), though really, this could be applied to the non-epic spell system too - you have a spell x, and you want to make it L y, so you tweak it here and there (damage caps, targets, range) so that it balances at that level. My way is just more obvious and, I'll admit, more of a PITA.
I might just ditch it altogether and try doing spells that work off the existing progression, since I now have a pretty good idea of where spells fall in terms of power level anyway. And there are a few rules (soul magic, e.g.) that I'm waiting on my DM to write up (stuff that his group came up with in 1E) that I need to make some of these spells... but if I just make them normal spells, I can put the other bits in without having to make new rules for them.

 

[Kerrick]

I don't know if you consider my ideas about epic spells serious, but you could always save a copy as a text file.

Eh, screw it. It doesn't look like they're going to do a serverwipe again, so I'll go ahead and post.

I did read over the system, and I have some questions.

Do you have expanded spell lists for bards, paladins, et al? I had posted one here right before the server crash; I could post it again if anyone's interested.

The DC of a saving throw against a spell of 10th level or higher is 2 ✕ spell level + ability modifier (determined by your class). Saving throw DCs against spells of 9th level or below remain the same, at 10 + spell level + ability modifier.

What's the missing character here? Is 2+level, or 2*level, or what? Either way, it seems a little odd - 2+level is way too low, and 2*level would increase too fast. 10+level seems to work just fine from my POV. From the quote below, it seems to be 2*level.

Because each spell level above 9th takes twice as long to master as each nonepic spell level, you should replace the spell level variable of most formulas with the expression (2 ✕ spell level - 10) for spells of 10th level and above. The DM should determine when this is and isn’t appropriate. An example of when this is not necessary is when the cost of some item is directly proportional to both the spell level and the caster level of a spell, since the higher caster level already reflects the complexity of epic spells.

I'm not following this. What is "the spell level variable"? Do you mean replace "spell level" with (2*level-10)? And when would this come up?

Why did you go with 1 spell every 4 levels? I originally had 1/3 (since you skip from 18-21 to start, and I figured gaining spells of such high level at 1/3 made sense), but I changed it to 1/2 for some reason that is lost in the recesses of my memory now. I think 1/3 works better.

Any spell duration measured in hours, minutes, rounds or any other unit of time less than a day cannot exceed 25 hours, unless the spell is modified with the Extend Spell feat. In this case, the maximum duration cannot exceed 49 hours. It is very difficult to make a short-term spell last long enough that you will not have to replace it every day, just as it is very difficult to replenish your spells more than once per day.

Interesting. Alternatively, you could rule that any ongoing effects are dismissed/dispelled when you rest, go unconscious, or die - you're not providing the driving force behind the spells anymore, so they go away. We use this in our games normally - the evil mage throws down a spell that works until we kill him, then it goes away.

Any nonepic spell that absolutely defeats some type of effect, with no check or saving throw involved, does not work against tenth-level and higher spells unless otherwise stated. Thus, mage’s disjunction only automatically disjoins spells up to 9th level, but has a chance to destroy epic level items, and protection from evil, a first-level spell, does not protect against epic-level enchantments. Greater dispel magic, on the other hand, has a chance to dispel even epic spells if the caster succeeds at the caster level check.

This is pretty much the same way I ruled it - non-epic can't affect epic. I like the proviso about "no check or save involved" - I might yoink that.

A typical epic spell can only be overcome by a specific type of effect of a high enough caster level, although sometimes a caster level check or minimum spell level substitutes for the caster level requirement.

I've always felt that certain things like removing a curse should be an opposed caster level check - it gives the party cleric or local churchperson a chance to remove the curse of doom laid down by the uber-high-death knight of Orcus before they have to go search the continent for someone high enough level to take care of it.

 

[Lorehead]

Do you have expanded spell lists for bards, paladins, et al? I had posted one here right before the server crash; I could post it again if anyone's interested.

Not at present. I don't plan to create any for paladins or rangers. Spellcasting is such a minor part of their power that trading bonus feats for new spells would actually weaken them. Advancing from ranger or paladin to full casting on the level of a cleric or druid would make a good prestige class, but they should keep the option to ignore it as they do now.

i should probably do a progression for the bard. That would be more difficult to do correctly.

What's the missing character here? Is 2+level, or 2*level, or what? Either way, it seems a little odd - 2+level is way too low, and 2*level would increase too fast. 10+level seems to work just fine from my POV. From the quote below, it seems to be 2*level.

You guessed right. It's a multiplication X. I'll try replacing it with the multiplication sign (×), which everyone should be able to see.

Why is +2 per spell level too fast? That's the only reasonable rate. In my system, you gain a new spell level every four character levels. Epic saving throws increase by +2 across the board over those same four character levels. Thus, spell DCs must increase by the same amount to keep up.

I'm not following this. What is "the spell level variable"? Do you mean replace "spell level" with (2*level-10)? And when would this come up?

For example, an effect that converts a spell into a certain bonus per spell level. Basically, the difference between spell levels is twice as much.

Why did you go with 1 spell every 4 levels? I originally had 1/3 (since you skip from 18-21 to start, and I figured gaining spells of such high level at 1/3 made sense), but I changed it to 1/2 for some reason that is lost in the recesses of my memory now. I think 1/3 works better.

I would be surprised if either 1/2 or 1/3 worked at all. I explained my reasoning in the message you reposted above. Each new spell level is better than Improved Spell Capacity, and the primary spellcasters currently receive one bonus feat every three levels. Thus, granting these classes a new spell level as often as you used to grant bonus feats raises their power level. I chose every four levels as a reasonable step down. The difference between 1/3 and 1/4 is 1/12, but I raised the rate of bonus feats to 1/10 to compensate for the loss in versatility.

Interesting. Alternatively, you could rule that any ongoing effects are dismissed/dispelled when you rest, go unconscious, or die - you're not providing the driving force behind the spells anymore, so they go away. We use this in our games normally - the evil mage throws down a spell that works until we kill him, then it goes away.

I made a deliberate effort not to change any of the core rules. All nonepic spells work exactly the same for nonepic casters.

This is pretty much the same way I ruled it - non-epic can't affect epic. I like the proviso about "no check or save involved" - I might yoink that.

Go right ahead. Note that I didn't say that non-epic can't affect epic. I said that you need a sufficiently powerful spell to overcome certain epic spells, just as you do for certain nonepic spells.

I've always felt that certain things like removing a curse should be an opposed caster level check - it gives the party cleric or local churchperson a chance to remove the curse of doom laid down by the uber-high-death knight of Orcus before they have to go search the continent for someone high enough level to take care of it.

This would make a reasonable house rule, since it sounds as if you have a different style of adventure design in mind.

I deliberately want the adventurers not to be able to beat some of the BBEG's key spells until later in the adventure, when they're ready to face off. That gives them the David versus Goliath feeling, but still lets them win in the end. This is very much a judgment call. It doesn't apply to curses such as aphasia or arbitrary form, which are merely very difficult for a lower-level caster to break. (At present, though, it does apply to infantilize. Maybe it shouldn't, or perhaps that spell should be powered down so that it doesn't work on high-level opponents in a single shot.) I have less hesitation about making the caster of vaticinal taunt immune to nonepic scrying, since that type of interaction is already common.

 

[Kerrick]

Not at present. I don't plan to create any for paladins or rangers. Spellcasting is such a minor part of their power that trading bonus feats for new spells would actually weaken them. Advancing from ranger or paladin to full casting on the level of a cleric or druid would make a good prestige class, but they should keep the option to ignore it as they do now.

True, that. I don't know why we (our group) haven't done a PrC for paladins/blackguards (bg is a base class in our campaign). My DM is big on paladins - he could easily come up with an epic paladin PrC that grants higher-end spells.

i should probably do a progression for the bard. That would be more difficult to do correctly.

I haven't done a progression, but I have a spell list. Check the end of this post.

Why is +2 per spell level too fast? That's the only reasonable rate. In my system, you gain a new spell level every four character levels. Epic saving throws increase by +2 across the board over those same four character levels. Thus, spell DCs must increase by the same amount to keep up.

I forgot you use 1/4, not 1/2. Never mind.

I would be surprised if either 1/2 or 1/3 worked at all. I explained my reasoning in the message you reposted above. Each new spell level is better than Improved Spell Capacity, and the primary spellcasters currently receive one bonus feat every three levels. Thus, granting these classes a new spell level as often as you used to grant bonus feats raises their power level.

1/2 wouldn't work, I don't think. And it strays from the progression - you get L9 at 18, then nothing until at least L21. That's how I arrived at 1/3 - it kept the progression, and spread the spells out without spreading them too far out.

As for the bonus feats - I can understand the rationale behind having them, but I don't agree with their presence. Most of the primary casters don't get any class abilities to replace anyway, so giving them bonus feats is just a double bonus for them anyway. Since you changed bonus feats to 1/10, what would be wrong with 1/3 for spells? They get 1/2 spells at non-epic, and feats 1/3... I don't see how granting a spell level and a feat (or effectively 2 feats) every three levels is overpowering.

Note that I didn't say that non-epic can't affect epic. I said that you need a sufficiently powerful spell to overcome certain epic spells, just as you do for certain nonepic spells.

I know, I was overgeneralizing. I only ruled it that way because my epic system is sufficiently different than the core to warrant it. If you go with straight progression, same rules, your version would likely work better, since there's little distinction between "non-epic" and "epic" spells.

I deliberately want the adventurers not to be able to beat some of the BBEG's key spells until later in the adventure, when they're ready to face off. That gives them the David versus Goliath feeling, but still lets them win in the end. This is very much a judgment call.

Indeed.

Expanded Bard Spell List

7th level Bard Spells
Antimagic field
Cure serious wounds, mass
Hold person, mass
Invisibility, mass
Magnificent mansion
Power word, blind
Scrying, greater
Shadow conjuration, greater
Shout, greater (moved from 6th)
Spell turning

8th Level Bard Spells
Cure critical wounds, mass
Discern location
Dominate monster
Power word, stun
Scintillating pattern
Screen
Shadow evocation, greater

9th Level Bard Spells
Disjunction
Heal, mass
Power word, Kill
Shades
Wail of the banshee (maybe... not sure about this one)

 

[Lorehead]

I haven't done a progression, but I have a spell list. Check the end of this post.

Looks like a good start.

1/2 wouldn't work, I don't think. And it strays from the progression - you get L9 at 18, then nothing until at least L21. That's how I arrived at 1/3 - it kept the progression, and spread the spells out without spreading them too far out.

Please take another look at your arithmetic. Wizards, clerics and druids all get 9th-level spells at level 17, not level 18. I gave everyone a new spell level at level 21, and every four levels thereafter. Sorcerers get spell slots like those from Improved Spell Capacity then, but learn new spells one level after wizards do.

As for the bonus feats - I can understand the rationale behind having them, but I don't agree with their presence. Most of the primary casters don't get any class abilities to replace anyway, so giving them bonus feats is just a double bonus for them anyway. Since you changed bonus feats to 1/10, what would be wrong with 1/3 for spells? They get 1/2 spells at non-epic, and feats 1/3... I don't see how granting a spell level and a feat (or effectively 2 feats) every three levels is overpowering.

Replacing one feat per three levels with one ability that's better than a feat every three levels raises their power level, I think. Also, it breaks the progression.

The feats replace spell and prestige class progression. In this case, I didn't want to remove them entirely, as every other epic class gets them.

 

[Kerrick]

Please take another look at your arithmetic. Wizards, clerics and druids all get 9th-level spells at level 17, not level 18.

Oh hell. I'm still stuck in 2E, where they got 9th level spells at L18. I'm not totally convinced that 1/4 is right... non-epic spells lose a lot of their potency at epic levels because of high SR and less damage output, relatively speaking - a maximized delayed blast fireball or meteor swarm will do a lot more damage to something with a couple hundred hit points than it will to something with over a thousand. Casters need those extra higher-level spells to stay viable at that level of play.

Replacing one feat per three levels with one ability that's better than a feat every three levels raises their power level, I think. Also, it breaks the progression.

They're gaining a free ISC - how is that better than a feat?

The feats replace spell and prestige class progression. In this case, I didn't want to remove them entirely, as every other epic class gets them.

*shrug* I'd say get rid of bonus feats entirely, but that's just me. You still get 1/3 levels normally, and scaling class abilities; but, by the time you hit L21, you should have at least a few levels in a PrC or another class too, simply because characters change over time - they're not going to be locked into one concept their entire lives, except in rare cases - a monk, say, or a paladin. Even then, though, chances are they'd go PrC to focus or gain some special abilities.

But, this might also be a different design philosophy - our group multi-classes a lot, and we make liberal use of PrCs, and I've noticed that a lot of others (perhaps a majority) do too - that's why WotC keeps churning them out.