Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Cheiromancer" data-source="post: 3181306" data-attributes="member: 141">Ok.&nbsp; Sounds like we are agreed on everything but the feats (I think it is appropriate for ritual being moved to a condition).&nbsp; Having an epic spell worth 10 is fine, too.I like the notion of # of participants = (Spellcraft/3) playing a key role.&nbsp; If rituals are capped at 6 participants, then, given enough powerful casters, the feat might be worthwhile even at level 24 or so.&nbsp; 2 more casters means +6 factors and +6 caster level.&nbsp; That would be +24SP if purchased a la carte (+1 caster level is split into 3 separate factors).&nbsp; Not a terrible return on a feat, though most of the a la carte factors probably won't be useful.&nbsp; At level 36 you have 6 more casters (12 total) and potentially +18 factors and +18 caster level.&nbsp; Or more, if some of them are epic spellcasters.&nbsp; That's a nice feat, even if you are only worried about SR, or enemy dispels or something.&nbsp; Of course, you have to come up with twelve high level wizards to reap the full benefits, but that's OK; it serves to limit the feat at very high levels.If one feat allows you to involve more participants, a different feat should allow you to get more out of the ones you have.&nbsp; Maybe get double the benefit of the donated spell levels, to a maximum of your leadership score?&nbsp; Every ritual spell thus gets the &quot;special&quot; text of [binding]. And double double is a triple, so you can't go too crazy with [binding] and this feat.&nbsp; Although really, if you have the leisure to cast a ritual spell like [binding], your opponent ought to be hosed.I don't know about you, but to me &quot;Cabal Leader&quot; sounds like it should be the one that allows you to lead more people in a ritual; &quot;Ritual Adept&quot; sounds like it would let you perform more intense rituals with a given set of resources.&nbsp; Although it wouldn't be an oxymoron if the &quot;Leader&quot; feat involved Leadership.Anyway, the one that is intense and tied to your leadership score: If you have six 18th level wizards contributing 9th level spells, a standard ritual would get 18SP worth of factors and +18 caster level (call this a &quot;+18 ritual&quot;).&nbsp; Doubled is 36, a leadership score which is pretty easy to meet, even for wizards.&nbsp; If you have a few epic spellcasters contributing slots (10 x 2) you would have a hard time making your leadership score high enough; but an optimized caster could reap a huge benefit.&nbsp; This is a good option for casters who associate with a small group of capable people.&nbsp; Epic Leadership is probably worthwhile for its own sake, but enabling you to get 75 free factors in a spell (and +75 caster level!) is just amazing.The feat that increases the number of participants, and is tied to your Spellcraft score: it is not as flashy.&nbsp; You need the cooperation of more people, but your results could match that of a smaller, more intense ritual.&nbsp; They do different things, so I wouldn't make one the prerequisite for the other.&nbsp; Having both feats together could be very interesting.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Cheiromancer, post: 3181306, member: 141"] Ok. Sounds like we are agreed on everything but the feats (I think it is appropriate for ritual being moved to a condition). Having an epic spell worth 10 is fine, too. I like the notion of # of participants = (Spellcraft/3) playing a key role. If rituals are capped at 6 participants, then, given enough powerful casters, the feat might be worthwhile even at level 24 or so. 2 more casters means +6 factors and +6 caster level. That would be +24SP if purchased a la carte (+1 caster level is split into 3 separate factors). Not a terrible return on a feat, though most of the a la carte factors probably won't be useful. At level 36 you have 6 more casters (12 total) and potentially +18 factors and +18 caster level. Or more, if some of them are epic spellcasters. That's a nice feat, even if you are only worried about SR, or enemy dispels or something. Of course, you have to come up with twelve high level wizards to reap the full benefits, but that's OK; it serves to limit the feat at very high levels. If one feat allows you to involve more participants, a different feat should allow you to get more out of the ones you have. Maybe get double the benefit of the donated spell levels, to a maximum of your leadership score? Every ritual spell thus gets the "special" text of [binding]. And double double is a triple, so you can't go too crazy with [binding] and this feat. Although really, if you have the leisure to cast a ritual spell like [binding], your opponent ought to be hosed. I don't know about you, but to me "Cabal Leader" sounds like it should be the one that allows you to lead more people in a ritual; "Ritual Adept" sounds like it would let you perform more intense rituals with a given set of resources. Although it wouldn't be an oxymoron if the "Leader" feat involved Leadership. Anyway, the one that is intense and tied to your leadership score: If you have six 18th level wizards contributing 9th level spells, a standard ritual would get 18SP worth of factors and +18 caster level (call this a "+18 ritual"). Doubled is 36, a leadership score which is pretty easy to meet, even for wizards. If you have a few epic spellcasters contributing slots (10 x 2) you would have a hard time making your leadership score high enough; but an optimized caster could reap a huge benefit. This is a good option for casters who associate with a small group of capable people. Epic Leadership is probably worthwhile for its own sake, but enabling you to get 75 free factors in a spell (and +75 caster level!) is just amazing. The feat that increases the number of participants, and is tied to your Spellcraft score: it is not as flashy. You need the cooperation of more people, but your results could match that of a smaller, more intense ritual. They do different things, so I wouldn't make one the prerequisite for the other. Having both feats together could be very interesting. [/QUOTE]

Verification