Post/Author/DateTime	Post
bluemage55 09-14-06, 02:01 AM	Welcome everyone. Ever since I began frequenting the epic forums about about a year and a half ago, I have heard endless complaints about the 3.5 Epic SRD, and I closely sympathize with many of them. Demand for a Complete Epic Handbook or similar is still high, but Wizards of the Coast does not have any plans for such in the near future. In this forum, I plan to begin work on compiling an unofficial errata for the Epic SRD, which will hopefully be stickied and maintained indefinitely. By beginning this thread, I hope to take the first step in eventually producing the a complete errata. Here, I will post up my work on revision and I invite all members of the Epic boards to offer their sincere constructive criticism, especially those who are experienced members. I must add that I am a full-time college student and only have limited time for such a project, so I beg patience (or contributions :D) if it seems like new additions take significant time.
bluemage55 09-14-06, 02:01 AM	Replace the Epic Attack Bonus entry with the following: Epic Attack Bonus: Similarly, the character’s base attack bonus does not increase after character level reaches 20th. However, the character does receive a cumulative +1 epic bonus on all attacks at every odd-numbered level beyond 20th, as shown on Table: Epic Save and Epic Attack Bonuses. Any time a feat, prestige class, or other rule refers to your base attack bonus, use the sum of your base attack bonus and epic attack bonus. The character can never have more than 4 attacks per round from BAB and EAB. Add the following section to the end of the document. Racial HD and Epic Attack Bonus/Epic Save Bonus Racial HD do not use the Epic Attack Bonus and Save Bonus progression. Instead, Racial HD continue using the non-epic advancement. When a character with over 20 HD adds a class level, that class level uses the Epic Attack Bonus and Epic Save Bonus progression.
bluemage55 09-14-06, 02:02 AM	Remove Mighty Rage from the Epic Barbarian Bonus Feat List and replace it with Epic Rage. Replace the Epic Monk "Quivering Palm" entry with the following: Quivering Palm (Su): The monk counts only half his or her class levels beyond 20th when deteriming the DC to resist this attack. Replace Epic Paladin "spells" entry with the following: Spells: The paladin’s caster level is equal to his class level-10. The paladin’s number of spells per day does not increase after 20th level. Replace Epic Ranger "spells" entry with the following: Spells: The ranger’s caster level is equal to his class level-10. The ranger’s number of spells per day does not increase after 20th level. Replace the Epic Psion "powers" entry with the following: "Powers: The psion’s manifester level is equal to his class level. The psion’s base power points and powers known do not increase after 20th level (except through the use of epic feats)."
bluemage55 09-14-06, 02:02 AM	Replace the following Cosmic Descryer's abilities with their revised version: Spells per Day/Spells Known: At each cosmic descryer level, the character gains new spells per day (and spells known, if applicable) as if he or she had also gained a level in a spellcasting class to which he or she belonged before adding the prestige class level. If already an epic spellcaster, the character gains only the benefit noted under the Spells entry for that epic class. He or she does not, however, gain any other benefit a character of that class would have gained. If the character had more than one spellcasting class before becoming a cosmic descryer, the player must decide to which class to add the new level for the purpose of determining spells per day. Cosmic Connection (Su): At 7th level, the cosmic descryer may join with the massive energy of the multiverse once per day, plus one additional time per day every five levels thereafter. The cosmic descryer can remain connected for a number of minutes equal to his or her class level. While connected, the character is immune to critical hits, is a native on any plane he or she visits, and can use dimension door at will as a 20th-level caster. The cosmic descryer can draw off excess energy from the multiverse itself to increase his or her effective caster level or enhance any attack roll, saving throw, skill check, or ability check by up to her cosmic descryer class level. Drawing off excess energy from the multiverse is dangerous, and it deals the cosmic descryer 5 points of damage for each +1 bonus applied to a single roll or +1 caster level on a single spell.
bluemage55 09-14-06, 02:03 AM	Alchemy includes the benefits of Augmented Alchemy as epic functions of the alchemy skill, and no longer require the feat to work. Diplomacy is now an opposed check. Add the original DC to the target's Diplomacy check and make an opposed roll to determine success. All references to Stabilize Self belong under Autohypnosis.
bluemage55 09-14-06, 02:04 AM	Remove Augmented Alchemy and Mighty Rage. Replace all of the following feats with their equivalent of the same name. Additionally, add all feats not already in the SRD. ARMOR SKIN [EPIC] Benefit: The character gains a +2 natural armor bonus to Armor Class, or his or her existing natural armor bonus increases by 2. Special: A character may gain this feat multiple times. Its effects stack. AUTOMATIC QUICKEN SPELL [EPIC] Prerequisites: Quicken Spell, Spellcraft 30 ranks, ability to cast 9th-level arcane or divine spells. Benefit: The character may cast all 0-, 1st-, and 2nd-level spells as quickened spells without using higher-level spell slots. The normal limit to the number of quickened spells a character may cast per round applies. Spells with a casting time of more than 1 full round can’t be quickened. Special: This feat doesn’t increase the casting time for those spells that normally become full-round actions when cast in metamagic form. Spells enhanced with metamagic feats use their increased spell level for the purposes of determining whether they may be quickened. AUTOMATIC SILENT SPELL [EPIC] Prerequisites: Silent Spell, Spellcraft 24 ranks, ability to cast 9th-level arcane or divine spells. Benefit: The character may cast all spells as silent spells without using higher-level spell slots. Special: This feat doesn’t increase the casting time for those spells that normally become full-round actions when cast in metamagic form. However, since bard spells can’t be enhanced with the Silent Spell feat, they can’t be affected by this feat either. AUTOMATIC STILL SPELL [EPIC] Prerequisites: Still Spell, Spellcraft 27 ranks, ability to cast 9th-level arcane or divine spells. Benefit: The character may cast all spells as stilled spells without using higher-level spell slots. Special: This feat doesn’t increase the casting time for those spells that normally become full-round actions when cast in metamagic form. BANE OF ENEMIES [EPIC] Prerequisites: Survival 24 ranks, five or more favored enemies. Benefit: Any weapon the character wields against one of his or her favored enemies is treated as a bane weapon for that creature type (thus, its enhancement bonus is increased by +2 and it deals +2d6 points of damage). If a weapon already has the bane or dread property against the appropriate type, the effects stack (thus, its enhancement bonus is increased by an additional +2 and it deals another +2d6 points of damage). BLINDING SPEED [EPIC] Prerequisite: Dex 25. Benefit: The character can act as if hasted for 25 rounds each day. The duration of the effect need not be consecutive rounds. Activating this power is a free action. Special: A character may gain this feat multiple times. Each time he or she takes the feat, it grants an additional 25 rounds of haste per day. CHAOTIC RAGE [EPIC] Prerequisites: Rage 5/day, any chaotic alignment. Benefit: Any weapon the character wields while in a rage is treated as an anarchic weapon (it is chaos-aligned and deals an extra 2d6 points of damage against creatures of lawful alignment). If the weapon already has the anarchic or anarchic power property, the extra damage stacks. CRAFT EPIC MAGIC ARMS AND ARMOR [ITEM CREATION] [EPIC] Prerequisites: Craft Magic Arms and Armor, Spellcraft 28 ranks. Benefit: The character can craft magic arms and armor which exceed the normal limits for such items CRAFT EPIC ROD [ITEM CREATION][EPIC] Prerequisites: Craft Rod, Spellcraft 32 ranks. Benefit: The character can craft rods that exceed the normal limits for such items. CRAFT EPIC STAFF [ITEM CREATION][EPIC] Prerequisites: Craft Staff, Spellcraft 35 ranks. Benefit: The character can craft staffs that exceed the normal limits for such items. CRAFT EPIC WONDROUS ITEM [ITEM CREATION][EPIC] Prerequisites: Craft Wondrous Item, Spellcraft 26 ranks. Benefit: The character can craft wondrous items that exceed the normal limits for such items. DIRE CHARGE [EPIC] Prerequisite: Improved Initiative Benefit: If the character charges a foe, he or she can make a full attack. Normal: Without this feat, a character may only make a single attack as part of a charge. EPIC DODGE [EPIC] Prerequisites: Dex 25, Dodge, Tumble 30 ranks, improved evasion, defensive roll class feature. Benefit: Once per round, when struck by an attack from an opponent the character has designated as the object of his or her dodge, the character may automatically avoid all damage from the attack. Special: If the character is struck by an attack that would normally be an automatic hit (such as a natural 20 or the effect of a limited wish spell for an automatic hit, the effects cancel out and the attack is rolled normally. EPIC MIGHT[EPIC] Benefit: You gain a +3 damage bonus on all weapon (including natural weapon) damage rolls. Special: A character may gain this feat multiple times. Its effects stack. EPIC RAGE[EPIC] Prerequisites: Str 21, Con 21, mighty rage class feature Benefit: When you rage, your morale bonuses to Strength and Constitution are increased by +2, and your morale bonus to Will saves is increased by +1. Special: A character may gain this feat multiple times. Its effects stack. EPIC SPELLCASTING (ARCANE) [EPIC] Prerequisites: Spellcraft 24 ranks, Knowledge (arcana) 24 ranks, ability to cast 9th-level arcane spells. Benefit: The character may develop and cast epic arcane spells. He or she may cast a number of epic arcane spells per day equal to his or her ranks in Knowledge (arcana) divided by 10. EPIC SPELLCASTING (DIVINE) [EPIC] Prerequisites: Spellcraft 24 ranks, Knowledge (religion) 24 ranks, ability to cast 9th-level divine spells. Benefit: The character may develop and cast epic divine spells. He or she may cast a number of epic divine spells per day equal to his or her ranks in Knowledge (religion) divided by 10. Special: If the character recieves 9th-level divine spells from revering nature (as druids or rangers do), he or she substitues Knowledge (religion) with Knowledge (nature) for prerequisites and number of epic divine spells per day. If the character recieves both 9th-level divine spells from nature and from another source, the character may choose which Knowledge skill to use. EPIC SPELL FOCUS [EPIC] Prerequisites: Greater Spell Focus and Spell Focus in the school selected, ability to cast at least one 9th-level spell of the school to be chosen. Benefit: Add +2 to the Difficulty Class for all saving throws against spells from the school of magic the character selects to focus on. This stacks with the bonuses from Spell Focus and Greater Spell Focus. Special: You can gain this feat multiple times. Its effects do not stack. Each time you take the feat, it applies to a new school of magic for which you fulfill the prerequisites. EPIC SPELL PENETRATION [EPIC] Prerequisites: Greater Spell Penetration, Spell Penetration. Benefit: The character gets a +4 bonus on caster level checks to beat a creature’s spell resistance. This stacks with the bonuses from Spell Penetration and Greater Spell Penetration. EPIC TOUGHNESS [EPIC] Benefit: The character gains two hit points for every hit dice they possess. Special: A character may gain this feat multiple times. Its effects stack. EPIC WEAPON FOCUS [EPIC] Prerequisites: Proficiency, Greater Weapon Focus, and Weapon Focus with the weapon chosen, fighter level 16th. Benefit: Add a +2 bonus on all attack rolls you make using the selected weapon. This bonus stacks with other bonuses on attack rolls, including the bonuses from Weapon Focus and Greater Weapon Focus. Special: You can gain this feat multiple times. Its effects do not stack. Each time you take the feat, it applies to a new type of weapon. EPIC WEAPON SPECIALIZATION [EPIC] Choose one type of weapon for which you have already selected Greater Weapon Specialization. You can also choose unarmed strike or grapple as your weapon for purposes of this feat. Prerequisites: Proficiency, Epic Weapon Focus, Greater Weapon Focus, Greater Weapon Specialization, Weapon Focus, and Weapon Specialization with the weapon chosen, fighter level 20th. Benefit: Add a +4 bonus on all damage rolls you make using the selected weapon. This bonus stacks with other bonuses on damage rolls, including the bonuses from Weapon Specialization and Greater Weapon Specialization. Special: You can gain this feat multiple times. Its effects do not stack. Each time you take the feat, it applies to a new type of weapon. FORGE EPIC RING [ITEM CREATION][EPIC] Prerequisites: Forge Ring, Spellcraft 35 ranks. Benefit: The character can forge magic rings that exceed the normal limits for such items. GREATER AUTOMATIC QUICKEN SPELL [EPIC] Prerequisites: Quicken Spell, Automatic Quicken Spell, Improved Automatic Quicken Spell, Spellcraft 30 ranks, ability to cast 9th-level arcane or divine spells. Benefit: The character may cast all 6th- and 7th-level spells as quickened spells without using higher-level spell slots. The normal limit to the number of quickened spells a character may cast per round applies. Spells with a casting time of more than 1 full round can’t be quickened. Special: This feat doesn’t increase the casting time for those spells that normally become full-round actions when cast in metamagic form. Spells enhanced with metamagic feats use their increased spell level for the purposes of determining whether they may be quickened. HOLY STRIKE [EPIC] Prerequisites: Smite evil class feature, any good alignment. Benefit: Any weapon the character wields is treated as a holy weapon (is good-aligned and deals an extra 2d6 points of damage against creatures of evil alignment). If the weapon is already has the holy or unholy power property, the extra damage stacks. If the weapon is evil, this feat has no effect on the weapon. IGNORE MATERIAL COMPONENTS[EPIC] Prerequisites: Eschew Materials, Spellcraft 25 ranks, ability to cast 9th-level arcane or divine spells. Benefit: The character may cast spells without any material components. This feat does not affect the need for a focus or divine focus. Special: This feat does not affect item creation. IMPROVED AUTOMATIC QUICKEN SPELL [EPIC] Prerequisites: Quicken Spell, Automatic Quicken Spell, Spellcraft 30 ranks, ability to cast 9th-level arcane or divine spells. Benefit: The character may cast all 3rd-, 4th-, and 5th-level spells as quickened spells without using higher-level spell slots. The normal limit to the number of quickened spells a character may cast per round applies. Spells with a casting time of more than 1 full round can’t be quickened. Special: This feat doesn’t increase the casting time for those spells that normally become full-round actions when cast in metamagic form. Spells enhanced with metamagic feats use their increased spell level for the purposes of determining whether they may be quickened. IMPROVED FAVORED ENEMY [EPIC] Prerequisites: Five or more favored enemies. Benefit: The character's bonuses against one category of favored enemies goes up by +2. Normal: This feat may be taken multiple times. Its effects stack. IMPROVED WHIRLWIND ATTACK [EPIC] Prerequisites: Int 13, Dex 23, Combat Expertise, Dodge, Mobility, Spring Attack, Whirlwind Attack. Benefit: As a standard action, the character can make one melee attack at their full base attack bonus against each opponent within reach. When using the Improved Whirlwind feat, the character also forfeits any bonus or extra attacks granted by other spells or abilities. Since these attacks are made as part of a standard action the character can’t make a 5-foot step between any two of the attacks. Normal: Without this feat, using the Whirlwind Attack feat requires a full attack action, and the character can take a 5-foot step between any two of the attacks. INSPIRE EXCELLENCE[EPIC] Prerequisite: Perform 30 ranks, bardic music class feature. Benefit: The character can use song or poetics to grant a bonus to one ability score to his or her allies. To be affected, an ally must hear the bard sing for 1 full round. The effect lasts as long as the bard sings and for 5 rounds after the bard stops singing (or 5 rounds after the ally can no longer hear the bard). While singing, the bard can fight but cannot cast spells, activate magic items by spell completion (such as scrolls), or activate magic items by command word (such as wands). Each ally to be inspired gains a +4 morale bonus to the same ability score, which the character must choose before he or she begins inspiring. Inspire excellence is a supernatural, mind-affecting ability. Use of this feat counts as one of the character’s bardic music uses for the day. Special: This feat is treated as a bardic music inspiration ability for purposes of feats that affect such abilities. PERFECT AUTOMATIC QUICKEN SPELL [EPIC] Prerequisites: Quicken Spell, Automatic Quicken Spell, Improved Automatic Quicken Spell, Greater Automatic Quicken Spell, Spellcraft 30 ranks, ability to cast 9th-level arcane or divine spells. Benefit: The character may cast all spells as quickened spells without using higher-level spell slots. The normal limit to the number of quickened spells a character may cast per round applies. Spells with a casting time of more than 1 full round can’t be quickened. Special: This feat doesn’t increase the casting time for those spells that normally become full-round actions when cast in metamagic form. This feat does not apply to epic spells. THUNDERING RAGE [EPIC] Prerequisites: Str 25, rage 5/day. Benefit: Any weapon the character wields while in a rage is treated as a thundering weapon. The DC of the Fortitude save to resist deafness is equal to 10 + 1/2 the character’s level. If the weapon is already thundering, increase the sonic damage by 1d8. UNHOLY STRIKE [EPIC] Prerequisites: Smite good class feature, any evil alignment. Benefit: Any weapon the character wields is treated as an unholy weapon (it is evil-aligned and deals an extra 2d6 points of damage against creatures of good alignment). If the weapon already has the unholy or unholy power property, the extra damage stacks. If the weapon is good, this feat has no effect on the weapon. MULTIWEAPON REND Prerequisites: Dex 15, base attack bonus +11, three or more hands, Multiweapon Fighting. Benefit: If you successfully hit an opponent with both of the weapons you wield, you deal extra damage equal to 1d6 + 1½ times your Strength bonus. This extra damage is treated as the same type that your smallest weapon dealt normally for the purpose of overcoming damage reduction and other effects related to damage type. You can gain this extra damage once per round against a given opponent. Special: This feat replaces the Two-Weapon Rend feat for creatures with more than two arms. A fighter can select Multi-Weapon Rend as one of his fighter bonus fears. A ranger with who has chosen the two-weapon combat style can select Multi-Weapon Rend as long as he has a base attack bonus of +11 and is wearing light armor or no armor. TWO-WEAPON REND Prerequisites: Dex 15, base attack bonus +11, Two-Weapon Fighting. Benefit: If you successfully hit an opponent with both of the weapons you wield, you deal extra damage equal to 1d6 + 1½ times your Strength bonus. This extra damage is treated as the same type that your off-hand weapon dealt normally for the purpose of overcoming damage reduction and other effects related to damage type. You can gain this extra damage once per round against a given opponent. Special: A fighter can select Two-Weapon Rend as one of his fighter bonus fears. A ranger who has chosen the two-weapon combat style can select Two-Weapon Rend as long as he has a base attack bonus of +11 and is wearing light armor or no armor.
bluemage55 09-14-06, 02:04 AM	Replace the Epic Spell Descriptions section with the following: EPIC SPELL DESCRIPTIONS Each epic spell description follows the same format used for 0- to 9th-level spells. There are two additional entries for epic spells: Spellcraft DC and To Develop. Spellcraft DC: This is the DC of the Spellcraft check required to cast the epic spell. When casting an epic spell, the character gains a +5 bonus on his or her Spellcraft check if the base seed of the epic spell is from the character’s arcane school specialty or primary psionic discipline. The character takes a –15 penalty if the epic spell seed is from his or her prohibited arcane school. Add the following mitigating factor to Table: Epic Spell Mitigating Factors: 2,500 gp Expensive Material Component (max 25,000 gp) - Spellcraft DC Modifier -1 Replace the Table: Epic Spell Mitigating Factors Note with the following: Note: Mitigating factors are always applied after all epic spell factors (see above) are accounted for in the development of an epic spell. The Spellcraft DC cannot be reduce below the highest DC of any seed used in the spell + 1/2 the total DC of the other seeds used in the spell. Replace the Additional Participants section with the following: Additional Participants: Epic spells can be developed that specifically require additional participants. These spells are called rituals. An epic spell developed as a ritual requires a specific number of additional participants, who each must use up one spell slot of a specified level for the day. During an epic spell’s development, the spell’s creator determines the number of additional participants and the level of the spell slots to be contributed. If the exact number of spellcasters does not partake in the casting, or if the casters do not each contribute the proper spell slot, the epic spell automatically fails. To participate, each participant readies an action to contribute his or her raw spell energy when the primary caster begins the epic spell. Additional participants in a ritual spell reduce the Spellcraft DC, as shown on Table: Additional Participants in Rituals. Each additional participant may only contribute one spell slot. It doesn’t matter whether the additional participants are arcane or divine spellcasters; only the level of the spell slot contributed matters. A contributed spell slot is treated as if normally cast. A wizard may contribute either a prepared, uncast spell slot, or an open, unprepared slot. The Spellcraft DC adjustments for each additional participant stack. The maximum mitigation from additional participants is equal to the primary caster's HD. Replace the following spells with their revised version: Crown of Vermin Conjuration (Summoning) Spellcraft DC: 56 Components: V, S Casting Time: 1 minute Range: Personal Effect: Ruin swarm that surrounds you in a 10-ft.-radius spread Duration: 20 rounds (D) Saving Throw: None (see text) Spell Resistance: No To Develop: 630,000 gp; 11 days; 25,200 XP. Seeds: summon (DC 14). Factors: summon creature other than outsider (+10 DC), summon CR 16 creature (+28 DC), allow mass to move at your speed (ad hoc +2 DC), perfect control of vermin (ad hoc +2 DC). Mitigating factor: change range to personal (–2 DC). After casting crown of vermin, a ruin swarm erupts from the very air around the character. This swarm forms a living aura around the character to a radius of 10 feet. The character is immune to his or her own crown of vermin. The swarm goes where the character goes at his or her speed, even if the character takes to the air or water (though water drowns the vermin after 1 full round of immersion, unless the spell is cast underwater, in which case aquatic or marine vermin answer the call and cannot leave the water). Each creature that enters the area occupied by the effect (or an area that the character forces the effect into) takes swarm damage and suffers from the blinding and distraction abilities of the swarm, and is subject to these every round they spend within the area. The character has utter control over the vermin in his or her aura, and can force them into areas that would normally deter common vermin. The character can completely suppress his or her vermin aura as a free action so that no vermin are visible at all. The time that vermin are suppressed does not count toward the spell’s duration. Alternatively, the character can roughly shape and move the vermin in any fashion he or she desires within the limits of the 10-foot-radius spread as a move-equivalent action. The vermin cannot be wrested from the character’s control through any means. The vermin make all saving throws to avoid damaging effects using the character’s base saving throw bonuses. They gain the character’s spell resistance, if any, and they get saving throws against spells that would otherwise automatically slay vermin. A character can see through his or her crown of vermin without difficulty, but gains one-half concealment against enemy attacks launched both outside and within the character’s crown of vermin. Replace the following seeds with their revised version. In addition, add all seeds not already in the SRD: SEED:AFFLICT Enchantment (Compulsion) [Fear, Mind-Affecting] Spellcraft DC: 14 Components: V, S Casting Time: 1 minute Range: 300 ft. Target: One living creature Duration: 20 minutes Saving Throw: Will negates Spell Resistance: Yes Afflicts the target with a –2 morale penalty on attack rolls, checks, and saving throws. For each additional –1 penalty assessed on either the target’s attack rolls, checks, or saving throws, increase the Spellcraft DC by +2. A character may also develop a spell with this seed that afflicts the target with a –1 penalty on caster level checks, a –1 penalty to an ability score, a –1 penalty to spell resistance, or a –1 penalty to some other aspect of the target. For each additional –1 penalty assessed in one of the above categories, increase the Spell-craft DC by +4. This seed can afflict a character’s ability scores to the point where they reach 0, except for Constitution where 1 is the minimum. If a factor is applied to increase the duration of this seed, ability score penalties instead become temporary ability damage. If a factor is applied to make the duration permanent, any ability score penalties become permanent ability drain. Finally, by increasing the Spellcraft DC by +2, one of the target’s senses can be afflicted: sight, smell, hearing, taste, touch, or a special sense the target possesses. If the target fails its saving throw, the sense selected doesn’t function for the spell’s duration, with all attendant penalties that apply for losing the specified sense. SEED: DESTROY Transmutation Spellcraft DC: 27 Components: V, S Casting Time: 1 minute Range: 300 ft. Target: One creature, or up to a 10-foot cube of nonliving matter Duration: Instantaneous Saving Throw: Fortitude partial Spell Resistance: Yes This seed deals 40d6 points of damage to the target. The damage is of no particular type or energy. For each additional 2d6 points of damage dealt, increase the Spellcraft DC by +2. Any creature reduced to 0 or fewer hit points by this spell is entirely disintegrated, leaving behind only a trace of fine dust. A disintegrated creature’s equipment is unaffected. When used against an object, this seed simply disintegrates as much as one 10- foot cube of nonliving matter. Thus, this seed disintegrates only part of any very large object or structure targeted. The destroy seed affects even magical matter, energy fields, and force effects that are normally only affected by the disintegrate spell. Such effects are automatically destroyed. Epic spells using the ward seed may also be destroyed, though the caster must succeed at an opposed caster level check against the other spellcaster to bring down a ward spell. A creature or object that makes a successful Fortitude save is partially affected, taking only 5d6 points of damage. If this damage reduces the creature or object to 0 or fewer hit points, it is entirely disintegrated. SEED: HARM Necromancy Spellcraft DC: 25 Components: V, S, DF Casting Time: 1 minute Range: Touch Target: Creature touched Duration: Instantaneous Saving Throw: Will half; see text Spell Resistance: Yes Spells developed with the harm seed charges a subject with negative energy that deals 150 points of damage. For each additional +10 hit points of damage dealt, increase the Spellcraft DC by +2. If the creature successfully saves, harm deals half this amount, but it cannot reduce the target’s hit points to less than 1. Alternatively, a living target that fails its Fortitude saving throw could gain four negative levels for the next 8 hours. For each additional negative level bestowed, increase the Spellcraft DC by +4, and for each extra hour the negative levels persist, increase the Spellcraft DC by +2. If the subject has at least as many negative levels as Hit Dice, it dies. If the subject survives and the negative levels persist for 24 hours or longer, the subject must make another Fortitude saving throw, or the negative levels are converted to actual level loss. If used on an undead creature, the harm seed acts like the heal seed, curing as much hit point damage as it would normally deal to a non-undead. SEED: HEAL Conjuration (Healing) Spellcraft DC: 25 Components: V, S, DF Casting Time: 1 minute Range: Touch Target: Creature touched Duration: Instantaneous Saving Throw: Yes (harmless; see text) Spell Resistance: Yes (harmless) Spells developed with the heal seed channel positive energy into a creature to wipe away injury and afflictions. Such a spell immediately ends all of the following adverse conditions affecting the target: ability damage, blinded, confused, dazed, dazzled, deafened, diseased, exhausted, fatigued, feebleminded, insanity, nauseated, sickened, stunned, and poisoned. It dispels all magical effects penalizing the character’s abilities, including effects caused by spells, even epic spells developed with the afflict seed. It also cures 150 hit points of damage. For each additional +10 hit points of damage cured, increase the Spellcraft DC by +2. Only a single application of the spell is needed to simultaneously achieve all these effects. This seed does not restore levels or Constitution points lost due to death. To restore permanently drained ability score points, increase the Spellcraft DC by +6. To dispel all negative levels afflicting the target, increase the Spellcraft DC by +2. This reverses level drains by a force or creature. The drained levels are restored only if the creature lost the levels within the last 20 weeks. For each additional week since the levels were drained, increase the Spellcraft DC by +2. If used against undead, the heal seed acts like the harm seed, dealing as much hit point damage as it would normally cure a non-undead.
bluemage55 09-14-06, 02:05 AM	Replace the epic item characteristics with the following: • Grants a bonus on attacks or damage greater than +5. • Grants an enhancement bonus to armor higher than +5. • Has a weapon or armor special ability with a market price modifier greater than +5. • Grants an armor bonus of greater than +10 (not including magic armor’s enhancement bonus). • Grants a natural armor, deflection, or resistance bonus greater than +5. • Grants an enhancement bonus to an ability score greater than +6. • Grants an enhancement bonus on a skill check greater than +23. • Mimics a spell of an effective level higher than 9th. • Has a caster level above 20th. • Has a single ability with a market price above 200,000 gp, not including material costs for armor or weapons, material component- or experience point-based costs, or additional value for intelligent items. • Has three or more secondary abilities and a total market price above 200,000 gp, not including material costs for armor or weapons, material component- or experience point-based costs, or additional value for intelligent items. Replace the following EPIC ARMOR AND SHIELD SPECIAL ABILITY DESCRIPTIONS with their revised versions. Additionally, replace the "Lightning Warding" ability with the "Electricity Warding" ability: Acid Warding: A suit of armor or shield with this property continually provides the wearer with immunity to acid. The wearer takes no acid damage. Overwhelming abjuration; CL 21st; Prerequisites: Craft Magic Arms and Armor, Craft Epic Magic Arms and Armor, protection from energy; Price: +360,000 gp. Cold Warding: A suit of armor or shield with this property continually provides the wearer with immunity to acid. The wearer takes no cold damage. Overwhelming abjuration; CL 21st; Prerequisites: Craft Magic Arms and Armor, Craft Epic Magic Arms and Armor, protection from energy; Price: +360,000 gp. Electricity Warding: A suit of armor or shield with this property continually provides the wearer with immunity to electricity. The wearer takes no electricity damage. Overwhelming abjuration; CL 21st; Prerequisites: Craft Magic Arms and Armor, Craft Epic Magic Arms and Armor, protection from energy; Price: +360,000 gp. Fire Warding: A suit of armor or shield with this property continually provides the wearer with immunity to fire. The wearer takes no fire damage. Overwhelming abjuration; CL 21st; Prerequisites: Craft Magic Arms and Armor, Craft Epic Magic Arms and Armor, protection from energy; Price: +360,000 gp. Great Spell Resistance: This property grants the armor or shield's wearer spell resistance while the armor or shield is worn. The spell resistance can be 33, 35, 37, or 39, depending on the armor or shield. Overwhelming abjuration; CL 21st (SR 33), 23rd (SR 35), 25th (SR 37), or 27th (SR 29); Craft Magic Arms and Armor, Craft Epic Arms and Armor, spell resistance; Price +315,000 gp (SR 33), +345,000 gp (SR 35), +375,000 gp (SR 37), or +405,000 gp (SR 39). Sonic Warding: A suit of armor or shield with this property continually provides the wearer with immunity to sonic. The wearer takes no sonic damage. Overwhelming abjuration; CL 21st; Prerequisites: Craft Magic Arms and Armor, Craft Epic Magic Arms and Armor, protection from energy; Price: +360,000 gp. Replace the following specific shield with its revised version: Bulwark of the Great Dragon: This +6 heavy shield bears the image of a dragon’s head. Three times per day, the bearer of the shield can command it to belch forth a breath weapon of the appropriate type. The range of this breath weapon is 80 feet (if a line) or 40 feet (if a cone). Regardless of the type, the breath weapon deals 20d6 points of damage. Creatures caught in the area can attempt Reflex saves (DC 22) to take half damage. In addition, the shield provides the bearer immunity to the energy type that matches its breath weapon. To determine what type of dragon shield is found, roll d% and consult the following table: d% Color Breath 01–10 Black Line of acid 11–20 Blue Line of lightning 21–30 Brass Line of fire 31–40 Bronze Line of lightning 41–50 Copper Line of acid 51–60 Gold Cone of fire 61–70 Green Cone of corrosive (acid) gas 71–80 Red Cone of fire 81–90 Silver Cone of cold 91–100 White Cone of cold Caster Level: 20th; Prerequisites: Craft Magic Arms and Armor, Craft Epic Magic Arms and Armor, protection from energy; Market Price: 892,970 gp; Cost to Create: 446,570 gp + 18,988 XP. Replace the following Rings with their revised version: Adamant Law: The wearer of this ring is constantly sheathed in a shield of law effect. It bestows one negative level on any chaotic creature that puts it on. The negative level remains as long as the ring is worn and disappears when the ring is removed. This negative level never results in actual level loss, but it cannot be overcome in any way (including restoration spells) while the ring is worn. Caster Level: 15th; Prerequisites: Forge Ring, Forge Epic Ring, shield of law, creator must be lawful; Market Price: 960,000 gp; Cost to Create: 480,000 gp + 19,600 XP. Chaotic Fury: The wearer of this ring is constantly sheathed in a cloak of chaos effect. It bestows one negative level on any lawful creature that puts it on. The negative level remains as long as the ring is worn and disappears when the ring is removed. This negative level never results in actual level loss, but it cannot be overcome in any way (including restoration spells) while the ring is worn. Caster Level: 15th; Prerequisites: Forge Ring, Forge Epic Ring, cloak of chaos, creator must be chaotic; Market Price: 960,000 gp; Cost to Create: 480,000 gp + 19,600 XP. Ineffable Evil: The wearer of this ring is constantly sheathed in an unholy aura effect. It bestows one negative level on any good creature that puts it on. The negative level remains as long as the ring is worn and disappears when the ring is removed. This negative level never results in actual level loss, but it cannot be overcome in any way (including restoration spells) while the ring is worn. Caster Level: 15th; Prerequisites: Forge Ring, Forge Epic Ring, unholy aura, creator must be evil; Market Price: 960,000 gp; Cost to Create: 480,000 gp + 19,600 XP. Virtuous Good: The wearer of this ring is constantly sheathed in a holy aura effect. It bestows one negative level on any evil creature that puts it on. The negative level remains as long as the ring is worn and disappears when the ring is removed. This negative level never results in actual level loss, but it cannot be over-come in any way (including restoration spells) while the ring is worn. Caster Level: 15th; Prerequisites: Forge Ring, Forge Epic Ring, holy aura, creator must be good; Market Price: 960,000 gp; Cost to Create: 480,000 gp + 19,600 XP. Replace the following Rods with their revised version: Excellent Magic: Once per day when casting a nonepic or epic spell that has an experience point component, the rod supplies up to 2,000 XP, not the caster. If more experience points are required to cast the spell, the caster provides them. As a special use of the rod, the caster can substitute the power inherent in the rod for up to 26,000 experience points for the development cost of an epic spell. Doing so drains all the power from the rod, rendering it useless. Caster Level: 21st; Prerequisites: Craft Rod, Craft Epic Rod; Market Price: 650,000 gp; Cost to Create: 325,000 gp + 26,000 XP. Fortification: This rod functions as a +3 light mace. In addition, it is useful for the construction and defense of fortifications. Whenever the wielder is benefiting from cover, the rod improves that to improved cover (+8 cover AC bonus, +4 cover Reflex save bonus, Improved Evasion, and +10 to Hide checks); failure on the save results in half damage and success results in no damage). Three times per day, the rod can create food and water, as per the cleric spell, for twenty-four people. The rod also has the following powers: Fortify: Four times per day, a stone wall can be created that is 12 inches thick, 10 feet high, and 30 feet long. This wall has a parapet and battlements across the top. (Alternatively, the power can be used to mend a broken existing wall. The gap to be filled can be no more than 300 square feet in area.) In addition, once per day, a great door of iron can be created that is set into one of the newly created walls. This door, 4 inches thick, may be a double door, a drawbridge, or a portcullis, as chosen by the wielder. Siege Engine: One heavy catapult, two light catapults, or three ballistae may be generated with each use of this power. The power can be used four times per day. Ammunition for 20 shots is included with each weapon created. Caster Level: 24th; Prerequisites: Craft Rod, Craft Epic Rod, Craft Magic Arms and Armor, interposing hand, create food and water, major creation, wall of iron, wall of stone; Market Price: 465,665 gp; Cost to Create: 231,985 gp + 14,634 XP.
bluemage55 09-14-06, 02:05 AM	Replace the following epic staffs with their revised version: Cosmos: This staff allows use of the following spells. • Chain lightning (intensified, 1 charge) • Meteor swarm (intensified, 1 charge) • Sunburst (intensified, 1 charge) Caster Level: 27th; Prerequisites: Craft Staff, Craft Epic Staff, Intensify Spell, chain lightning, meteor swarm, sunburst; Market Price: 683,437 gp. Domination: This staff allows use of the following heightened spells. • Dominate monster (1 charge) • Demand (1 charge) • Mass charm monster (1 charge) • Geas (heightened to 9th level, 1 charge) Caster Level: 21st; Prerequisites: Craft Staff, Craft Epic Staff, Heighten Spell, demand, dominate monster, geas, mass charm monster; Market Price: 374,062 gp. Fiery Power: This +5 flaming quarterstaff grants its wielder fire resistance 30 whenever held. In addition, it has the following powers. • Wall of fire (extended, 1 charge) • Delayed blast fireball (intensified, 2 charges) • Meteor swarm (heightened to 12th level, 2 charges) • Summon monster IX (extended, 2 charges, elder fire elemental only) A staff of fiery power can be broken in a retributive strike. The breaking of the staff must be purposeful and declared by the wielder. All charges currently in the staff are instantly released in a 30-foot- radius globe. All within 10 feet of the broken staff take points of damage equal to eight times the number of charges in the staff, those between 11 feet and 20 feet away take six times the number of charges in damage, and those 21 feet to 30 feet distant take four times the number of charges in damage. Successful Reflex saving throws (DC 17) reduce the damage sustained by half. The character breaking the staff has a 50% chance of traveling to another plane of existence; if he or she does not, the explosive release of spell energy destroys him or her. After all charges are used up from the staff, it remains a +5 quarterstaff with no special abilities. (Once empty of charges, it cannot be broken in a retributive strike.) Caster Level: 25th; Prerequisites: Craft Staff, Craft Epic Staff, Extend Spell, Heighten Spell, Improved Heighten Spell, Intensify Spell, continual flame, delayed blast fireball, meteor swarm, protection from energy, summon monster IX, wall of fire; Market Price: 500,000 gp. The Hierophants: This staff allows use of the following spells. • Creeping doom (enlarged, extended, 1 charge) • Command plants (enlarged, extended, 1 charge) • Elemental swarm (intensified, 2 charges) • Shambler (intensified, 2 charges) Caster Level: 27th; Prerequisites: Craft Staff, Craft Epic Staff, Enlarge Spell, Extend Spell, Intensify Spell, creeping doom, command plants, elemental swarm, shambler; Market Price: 445,500 gp. Mighty Force: This staff has three powers. • Shield (quickened, 1 charge) • Forcecage (1 charge) • Crushing hand (1 charge) Caster Level: 21st; Prerequisites: Craft Staff, Craft Epic Staff, Quicken Spell, crushing hand, forcecage, shield; Market Price: 263,812 gp. Replace the following epic wondrous items with their revised version: Boots of Swiftness: These boots grant their wearer a +6 enhancement bonus to Dexterity. The boots grant the wearer the ability to avoid damage as if she had evasion. Whenever she makes a Reflex saving throw to determine whether she takes half damage, a successful save results in no damage. The wearer gains a +20 competence bonus on Balance, Climb, Jump, and Tumble checks. Finally, the wearer of these boots constantly benefits from a haste effect. Caster Level: 10th; Prerequisites: Craft Wondrous Item, Craft Epic Wondrous Item, cat’s grace, jump, haste, creator must have 20 ranks in Balance, Climb, Jump, and Tumble; Market Price: 391,500 gp; Weight: 1 lb. Horseshoes of the Peerless Steed: These horseshoes magically adhere to the feet of any hoofed creature. Anyone riding the creature gains a +10 competence bonus on Ride checks and is treated as having ranks in the appropriate Ride skill (and thus does not take the –5 penalty for riding an unfamiliar mount). The horseshoes grant the rider the effects of the Trample, Ride-By Attack, and Spirited Charge feats. The wearer of the horseshoes gains spell resistance 32 against enchantment effects. In addition, the creature's base land speed increases by 30 ft. Caster Level: 20th; Prerequisites: Craft Wondrous Item, Craft Epic Wondrous Item, Ride 10 ranks, expeditious retreat, spell resistance; Market Price: 217,000 gp; Weight: 4 lbs. Mantle of Great Stealth: The wearer of this cloak gains a +23 competence bonus on Hide and Move Silently checks. The wearer’s outline is blurry and indistinct, granting concealment (20% miss chance) at all times (as the blur spell). The mantle also grants nondetection to its wearer (as the spell). Caster Level: 5th; Prerequisites: Craft Wondrous Item, Craft Epic Wondrous Item, blur, invisibility, nondetection, silence, creator must have 23 ranks in the Hide and Move Silently skills; Market Price: 244,750 gp; Weight: 1 lb.
bluemage55 09-14-06, 02:06 AM	Replace the Anaxim's Magic Immunity with the following: Immunity to Magic (Ex): An anaxim is immune to any spell or spell-like ability that allows spell resistance. Replace the Atropal's Regeneration with fast healing 20. Replace the Infernal with the following: INFERNAL, DEMONIC Huge Outsider (Chaotic, Extraplanar, Evil) Hit Dice: 60d8+960 (1,440 hp) Initiative: +18 Speed: 100 ft. (20 squares), fly 200 ft. (good) Armor Class: 57 (–2 size, +10 Dex, +17 deflection, +22 natural), touch 35, flat-footed 47 Base Attack/Grapple: +60/+84 Attack: +7 vorpal longsword +86 melee (3d6+27/17–20) Full Attack: +7 vorpal longsword +86/+81/+76/+71 melee (3d6+27/17–20) and +5 flaming burst whip of speed +84/+79/+74/+69/+84 melee (1d8+15/19-20 plus 1d6 fire plus entangle); or 2 slams +62 melee (2d8+20) Space/Reach: 15 ft./15 ft. (25 ft. with +5 flaming burst whip of speed) Special Attacks: Death throes, entangle, spell-like abilities, summon demon, vorpal sword Special Qualities: Damage reduction 15/epic and cold iron and good, darkvision 60 ft., flaming body, immunity to electricity, fire, and poison, resistance to acid 10 and cold 10, spell resistance 68, telepathy 100 ft., true seeing, learned spell immunity, divine immunities, immortal Saves: Fort +48, Ref +42, Will +43 Abilities: Str 50, Dex 30, Con 42, Int 32, Wis 32, Cha 44 Skills: Bluff +80, Concentration +79, Diplomacy +92, Disguise +17 (+23 acting), Escape Artist +41, Heal +42, Hide +65, Intimidate +84, Jump +113, Knowledge (arcana) +74, Knowledge (any one) +74, Listen +82, Move Silently +73, Search +74, Sense Motive +74, Spellcraft +74 (+80 scrolls), Spot +82, Survival +11 (+17 following tracks), Swim +51, Tumble +75, Use Magic Device +80 (+86 scrolls) Feats: Cleave, Great Cleave, Greater Two-Weapon Fighting, Improved Initiative, Improved Critical (longsword), Improved Critical (whip), Improved Bull Rush, Improved Two-Weapon Fighting, Power Attack, Quicken Spell-Like Ability (telekinesis), Two-Weapon Fighting, Two-Weapon Rend, Weapon Focus (longsword), Weapon Focus (whip) Epic Feats: Devastating Critical (longsword), Devastating Critical (whip), Dire Charge, Overwhelming Critical (longsword), Overhwhelming Critical (whip), Perfect Two-Weapon Fighting, Superior Initiative Environment: A chaotic evil-aligned plane Organization: Solitary or Abyssal brigade (1 demonic infernal and 1d4 balors) Challenge Rating: 47 Treasure: Standard coins; double goods; standard items Alignment: Always chaotic evil Advancement: 61–90 HD (Huge); 91–180 HD (Gargantuan) Level Adjustment: +0 A demonic infernal stands about 24 feet tall. Its skin is usually dark red. It weighs about 36,000 pounds. Combat Demonic infernals love to join battle armed with their swords and whips. If they face stiff resistance, they may teleport away to loose a few spell-like effects at the foe. A demonic infernal’s natural weapons, as well as any weapons it wields, are treated as chaotic-aligned and evil-aligned for the purpose of overcoming damage reduction. Death Throes (Ex): When killed, a demonic infernal explodes in a blinding flash of light that deals 300 points of damage to anything within 300 feet (Reflex DC 56 half). The save DC is Constitution-based. Demonic Infernal Weapons (Su): Each demonic infernal carries two personal melee weapons that it manifests from its own life essence: a +7 vorpal longsword that looks like a flame or bolt of lightning, and a +5 flaming burst whip of speed. A demonic infernal’s +5 flaming burst whip of speed is a long, flexible weapon with many tails tipped with hooks, spikes, and balls. The weapon deals bludgeoning and slashing damage, in addition to fire damage. When not in combat, the weapons simply do not exist (and they likewise disappear when the demonic infernal releases its grip on them), but a demonic infernal can “draw” their weapons from nowhere as a free action, and can do so even if their weapons are somehow “destroyed”. Entangle (Ex): A demonic infernal’s +5 flaming burst whip of speed entangles foes much like an attack with a net. The whip has 60 hit points. The whip needs no folding. If it hits, the target and the demonic infernal immediately make opposed Strength checks; if the demonic infernal wins, it drags the target against its flaming body (see below). The target remains anchored against the demonic infernal’s body until it escapes the whip. Spell-Like Abilities: At will— blasphemy (DC 34), dominate monster (DC 36), greater dispel magic, greater teleport (self plus 50 pounds of objects only), insanity (DC 34), power word stun, telekinesis (DC 32), unholy aura (DC 35); 3/day—demise unseen (epic spell) (DC 36), mass frog (epic spell) (DC 36), 1/day—fire storm (DC 35), implosion (DC 36). Caster level 60th. The save DCs are Charisma-based. Summon Demon (Sp): Once per day a demonic infernal can automatically summon 4d10 dretches, 1d4 hezrous, nalfeshnees, glabrezus, mariliths, or balors, or one demonic infernal. This ability is the equivalent of an epic spell. Flaming Body (Su): The body of a demonic infernal is wreathed in flame. Anyone grappling a demonic infernal takes 6d6 points of fire damage each round. True Seeing (Su): Demonic infernals have a continuous true seeing ability, as the spell (caster level 60th). Learned Spell Immunity (Dv): If a demonic infernal is affected by a spell cast by a particular spellcaster, the demonic infernal thereafter becomes immune to that spell when cast by that spellcaster. Divine Immunities (Dv): Ability damage, ability drain, energy drain, mind-affecting effects, transmutation Immortal (Dv): Demonic infernals do not age, and they do not need to eat, sleep, or breathe. The only way for a demonic infernal to die is through special circumstances, usually by being slain in magical or physical combat. Skills: Demonic infernals have a +8 racial bonus on Listen and Spot checks. Tactics Round-by-Round The demonic infernal is most effective as a ranged combatant, using its spell-like abilities to attack from a distance. Prior to combat: Unholy aura Round 1: Mass frog or demise unseen and quickened telekinesis, or summon additional demons. If the demonic infernal does not deem itself seriously threatened, it conserves abilities with limited uses per day and uses blasphemy instead. Round 2: Insanity or power word stun. Round 3: Dire charge with weapons, including entangle with whip. Round 4: Teleport or fly away with entangled foe to reestablish range; repeat round 1 and continue. A demonic infernal who wants to drive off or neutralize a party without slaying its foes avoids lethal attacks. Prior to combat: Unholy aura. Round 1: Dominate monster. Round 2: Power word stun. Round 3: Insanity or mass frog to incapacitate a dangerous opponent. Round 4: Teleport or fly away to reestablish range; repeat round 1 and continue. INFERNAL, DIABOLICAL Huge Outsider (Evil, Extraplanar, Lawful) Hit Dice: 60d8+840 (1,320 hp) Initiative: +19 Speed: 100 ft. (20 squares), fly 200 ft. (average) AC: 62 (–2 size, +11 Dex, +17 deflection, +26 natural), touch 36, flat-footed 51 Base Attack/Grapple: +60/+89 Attack: Claw +80 melee (3d8+21/19-20) Full Attack: 2 claws +80 melee (3d8+21/19-20) and 2 wings +77 melee (3d6+10) and bite +78 melee (6d6+10/19-20 plus poison plus disease plus spell suck) and tail slap +78 melee (3d8+10/19-20) Space/Reach: 15 ft./15 ft. Special Attacks: Constrict 2d8+42, fear aura, improved grab, spell-like abilities, summon devil Special Qualities: Damage reduction 15/epic and good and silver, darkvision 60 ft., immunity to fire and poison, resistance to acid 10 and cold 10, regeneration 5, see in darkness, spell resistance 72, telepathy 100 ft. Saves: Fort +46, Ref +43, Will +44 Abilities: Str 52, Dex 32, Con 38, Int 34, Wis 34, Cha 44 Skills: Bluff +80, Climb +84, Concentration +77, Diplomacy +62, Disguise +80, Escape Artist +42, Heal +43, Hide +66, Intimidate +86, Jump +118, Knowledge (arcana) +75 (+79 use scrolls), Knowledge (nobility and royalty) +43, Knowledge (the planes) +75, Knowledge (religious) +75, Listen +75, Move Silently +74, Search +75, Sense Motive +43, Spellcraft +75, Spot +75, Survival +12 (+18 on other planes, +18 when tracking), Tumble +80, Use Magic Device +48 (+54 use scrolls) Feats: Cleave, Great Cleave, Improved Critical (bite), Improved Critical (claw), Improved Critical (tail slap), Improved Initiative, Iron Will, Multiattack, Power Attack, Quicken Spell-Like Ability (delayed blast fireball), Weapon Focus (bite), Weapon Focus (claw), Weapon Focus (tail slap) Epic Feats: Devastating Critical (bite), Devastating Critical (claw), Devastating Critical (tail slap), Dire Charge, Overwhelming Critical (bite), Overwhelming Critical (claw), Overwhelming Critical (tail slap), Superior Initiative Environment: A lawful evil-aligned plane Organization: Solitary or Hell brigade (1 diabolical infernal and 2 pit fiends) Challenge Rating: 47 Treasure: Standard coins; double goods; standard items Alignment: Always lawful evil Advancement: 61–90 HD (Huge); 91–180 HD (Gargantuan) Level Adjustment: +0 A diabolical infernal often wraps its wings around itself like a grotesque cloak, and appears wreathed in flames. A diabolical infernal is 24 feet tall and weighs 6,400 pounds. Combat Diabolical infernals are wily and resourceful fighters, using greater invisibility to gain the upper hand and biting at foes seemingly able to see them. They don’t hesitate to blanket an area with delayed blast fireballs, and can call down the wrath of an inferno with meteor swarm. A diabolical infernal’s natural weapons, as well as any weapons it wields, are treated as evil-aligned and lawful-aligned for the purpose of overcoming damage reduction. Constrict (Ex): A diabolical infernal deals 2d8+42 points of damage with a successful grapple check. Disease (Su): A creature struck by a diabolical infernal’s bite attack must succeed on a DC 54 Fortitude save or be infected with a vile disease known as devil chills (incubation period 1d4 days, damage 1d4 Str). The save DC is Constitution-based. Fear Aura (Su): A diabolical infernal can radiate a 20-foot-radius fear aura as a free action. A creature in the area must succeed on a DC 57 Will save or be affected as though by a fear spell (caster level 60th). A creature that successfully saves cannot be affected again by the same diabolical infernal’s aura for 24 hours. Other devils are immune to the aura. The save DC is Charisma-based. Improved Grab (Ex): To use this ability, a diabolical infernal must hit with its tail slap attack. It can then attempt to start a grapple as a free action without provoking an attack of opportunity. If it wins the grapple check, it establishes a hold and can constrict. Poison (Ex): Injury, Fortitude DC 54, initial damage 1d6 Con, secondary damage death. The save DC is Constitution-based. Spell-Like Abilities: At will—blasphemy (DC 34), create undead, delayed blast fireball (DC 34), greater dispel magic, greater invisibility, greater teleport (self plus 50 pounds of objects only), magic circle against good, mass hold monster (DC 36), persistent image (DC 32), power word stun, unholy aura (DC 35); 3/day—demise unseen (DC 37), hellball (DC 37), 1/day—meteor swarm (DC 36). Caster level 60th. The save DCs are Charisma-based. Once per year a diabolical infernal can use wish as the spell (caster level 60th). Summon Devil (Sp): Twice per day a diabolical infernal can automatically summon 2 lemures, bone devils, or bearded devils, or 1 erinyes, horned devil, ice devil, or pit fiend. This ability is the equivalent of a 9th-level spell. Regeneration (Ex): A diabolical infernal takes normal damage from epic good-aligned silvered weapons, and from spells or effects with the good descriptor. Divine Immunities (Dv): Ability damage, ability drain, energy drain, mind-affecting effects, transmutation Immortal (Dv): Diabolical infernals do not age, and they do not need to eat, sleep, or breathe. The only way for a diabolical infernal to die is through special circumstances, usually by being slain in magical or physical combat. Spell Suck (Dv): If a diabolical infernal bites a foe, the foe loses one of its highest-level prepared spells or one of the spell slots for this day that it has not used. The victim chooses the prepared spell to lose. If the victim has no prepared spells or unused spell slots (either because it has exhausted its spellcasting for the day or because the victim is not a spellcaster), the bite instead deals 2 points of temporary Intelligence damage. Tactics Round-by-Round A diabolical infernal typically opens combat by using its spell-like abilities, attempting to neutralize dangerous opponents before entering melee. Prior to combat: Unholy aura; activate fear aura, summon devil. Round 1: Quickened delayed blast fireball and mass hold monster if facing three or more visible, active opponents; otherwise power word stun against unarmored opponent (preferably a spellcaster). Round 2: Hellball against as many foes as possible, approach worst-injured enemy. Round 3: Full attack against injured enemy. Round 4: Continue melee against injured enemy, or power word stun against annoying spellcaster. Round 5: Repeat from round 1, or greater teleport to safety if endangered. Replace the Colossus's Magic Immunity with the following: Immunity to Magic (Ex): A colossus is immune to any spell or spell-like ability that allows spell resistance. In addition, certain spells and effects function differently against the colossus, as noted below. Replace the Stone Colossus's Magic Immunity with the following: Immunity to Magic (Ex): A stone colossus is immune to any spell or spell-like ability that allows spell resistance. In addition, certain spells and effects function differently against the stone colossus, as noted below. A transmute rock to mud spell slows it (as the slow spell) for 1 round, with no saving throw, while transmute mud to rock heals all its lost hit points. A stone to flesh spell has no effect on a stone colossus. Replace the Flesh Colossus's Magic Immunity with the following: Immunity to Magic (Ex): A flesh colossus is immune to any spell or spell-like ability that allows spell resistance. In addition, negative energy functions differently against the creature, as noted below. Replace the Iron Colossus's Magic Immunity with the following: Immunity to Magic (Ex): An iron colossus is immune to any spell or spell-like ability that allows spell resistance. In addition, certain spells and effects function differently against the iron colossus, as noted below. An electricity effect restores 1 hit point to the iron colossus for each 3 points of damage it would otherwise deal. Replace the Demilich's Magic Immunity with the following: Immunity to Magic (Ex): A demilich is immune to any spell or spell-like ability that allows spell resistance. In addition, certain spells and effects function differently against the demilich, as noted below. A shatter spell affects a demilich as if it were a crystalline creature, but deals half the damage normally indicated. A dispel evil spell deals 3d6 points of damage (Fort save for half damage). Holy smite spells affect demiliches normally.
bluemage55 09-14-06, 02:06 AM	Replace the mithral golem's Alacrity and +4 haste bonus to AC with the following: Alacrity (Su): A mithral golem is permanently under the effects of the haste spell. Replace the Mithral Golem's Magic Immunity with the following: Immunity to Magic (Ex): A mithral golem is immune to any spell or spell-like ability that allows spell resistance. In addition, certain spells and effects function differently against the mithral golem, as noted below. A slow spell negates its alacrity for 1d4 rounds, while a haste spell restores 1d6 hit points per level of the caster (maximum 10d6) or restores its alacrity, if previously negated by a slow spell. Multiple slow spells simply extend the duration of the effect. Replace the Adamantine Golem's Magic Immunity with the following: Immunity to Magic (Ex): An adamantine golem is immune to any spell or spell-like ability that allows spell resistance. Replace the LeShay with the following: LESHAY Medium-Size Fey Hit Dice: 26d8+338 (455 hp) Initiative: +20 (+16 Dex, +4 Improved Initiative) Speed: 40 ft. AC: 51 (+16 Dex, +20 insight, +5 natural armor) Base Attack/Grapple: +13/+29 Attack: +6 keen brilliant energy bastard sword of wounding +25 (1d10+11/17-20) melee Full Attack: 2 +6 keen brilliant energy bastard swords of wounding +25/+20/+15 (1d10+11/17-20 primary hand, 1d10+8 off-hand) melee Space/Reach: 5 ft./5 ft. Special Attacks: Charming gaze, spell-like abilities, leshay weapons Special Qualities: Superior two-weapon fighting, DR 15/epic and cold iron, elf traits, immune to poison and disease, low-light vision, SR 31, fast healing 10 Saves: Fort +21, Ref +31, Will +21 Abilities: Str 21, Dex 42, Con 37, Int 33, Wis 23, Cha 44 Skills: Bluff +46, Concentration +42, Diplomacy +54, Disguise +46, Escape Artist +45, Gather Information +21, Hide +45, Intimidate +21, Jump +9, Knowledge (local, nature, nobility and royalty) +40, Listen +33, Move Silently +45, Search +40, Sense Motive +30, Speak Language (any five), Spellcraft +40, Spot +33 Feats: Blind-Fight, Dodge, Improved Initiative, Mobility, Power Attack, Spring Attack, Weapon Finesse Epic Feats: Blinding Speed, Polyglot (bonus feat), Spell Stowaway (heal) Climate/Terrain: Any Organization: Solitary Challenge Rating: 22 Treasure: Standard Alignment: Any Advancement: 27–52 HD (Medium) Level Adjustment: +0 A leshay’s natural weapons are treated as epic for the purpose of overcoming damage reduction. COMBAT Spell-Like Abilities: At will—alter self, detect thoughts, displacement, freedom, greater dispelling, heal, greater invisibility, knock, speak with plants, spell turning, greater teleport, water breathing. Caster level 26th; save DC 27 + spell level. The DCs are Charisma-based. LeShay Weapons (Su): Each leshay carries two personal melee weapons that he or she manifests from his or her own life essence. The weapon can change form as he or she shifts from class to class, typically appearing as a bastard sword (one in each hand). When not in combat, the weapons simply do not exist, but leshay can “draw” their weapons from nowhere as a free action. Leshay weapons are considered light weapons for a leshay, regardless of their size. Superior Two-Weapon Fighting (Ex): A leshay fights with a leshay weapon in each hand. The leshay does not take an attack penalty for attacking with two weapons and can make as many attacks with their off-hand weapon as with their primary hand weapon. Charming Gaze (Su): As charm monster, 30 feet, Will DC 40 negates. The save DC is Charisma-based. Replace the Living Vault's Magic Immunity with the following: Immunity to Magic (Ex): A living vault is immune to any spell or spell-like ability that allows spell resistance. In addition, certain spells and effects function differently against the living vault, as noted below. A freedom spell cast on it causes it to defer the use of its own imprisonment power for 10 rounds. Replace the Paragon's Speed entry with the following: Speed: A paragon creature’s speed increases by 60 ft., for all movement types. Replace the Paragon's Special Attacks entry with the following: Special Attacks: A paragon creature’s special attacks, if any, all gain a +13 insight bonus to their DC to resist, if applicable. Replace the Pseudonatural's Speed entry with the following: Speed: A pseudonatural creature’s speed increases by 30 ft., for all movement types. Replace the Pseudontural's Damage entry with the following: Tentacle rakes from a pseudonatural creature deal damage equal to 2d8 + Str modifier. If the creature is not Medium, it's tentacle attack damage's base damage varies as follows: Fine 1d4, Diminutive 1d6, Tiny 1d8, Small 1d10, Large 3d8, Huge 4d8, Gargantuan 6d8, Colossal 9d8 Replace the Pseudonatural's Challenge Rating entry with the following: As base creature +13. Replace the Ruin Swarm with the following: RUIN SWARM Tiny Vermin (Swarm) Hit Dice: 22d8+220 (319 hp) Initiative: +14 Speed: 20 ft., climb 20 ft., fly 90 ft. (perfect) Armor Class: 26 (+2 size, +12 Dex, +2 natural), touch 24, flatfooted 14 Base Attack/Grapple: +16/— Attack: Swarm (5d6) Full Attack: Swarm (5d6) Space/Reach: 10 ft./0 ft. Special Attacks: Blinding, distraction (DC 31) Special Qualities: Blindsense, fast healing 15, swarm traits, vermin traits Saves: Fort +23, Ref +19, Will +13 Abilities: Str 3, Dex 35, Con 30, Int—, Wis 23, Cha 32 Skills: — Feats: — Environment: Any Organization: Solitary, cloud (2–4 swarms), or plague (5–8 swarms) Challenge Rating: 16 Treasure: None Alignment: Always neutral Advancement: None Combat Blinding (Ex): Any living creature that begins its turn with a ruin swarm in its space must make a Fortitude save (DC 33) or be blinded for one round. The save DC is Dexterity-based. Blindsense (Ex): The ruin swarm notices and locates creatures within 200 ft. Opponents still have 100% concealment against the swarm (but swarm attacks ignore concealment). Distraction (Ex): Any living creature vulnerable to the swarm’s damage that begins its turn with a swarm in its square is nauseated for 1 round; a DC 31 Fortitude save negates the effect. Even with a successful save, spellcasting or concentrating on spells within the area of a swarm requires a Concentration check (DC 20 + spell level). Using skills requiring patience and concentration requires a Concentration check (DC 20). The save DC is Constitution-based. Swarm Traits: A swarm has no clear front or back and no discernable anatomy, so it is not subject to critical hits or flanking. A swarm made up of Tiny creatures takes half damage from slashing and piercing weapons. Reducing a swarm to 0 hit points or fewer causes the swarm to break up, though damage taken until that point does not degrade its ability to attack or resist attack. Swarms are never staggered or reduced to a dying state by damage. Also, they cannot be tripped, grappled, or bull rushed, and they cannot grapple another. A swarm is immune to any spell or effect that targets a specific number of creatures (including single-target spells such as disintegrate), with the exception of mind-affecting effects if the swarm has an intelligence score and a hive mind. A swarm takes a –10 penalty on saving throws against spells or effects that affect an area, such as many evocation spells or grenadelike weapons. If the area effect attack does not allow a saving throw, the swarm takes double damage instead. A swarm rendered unconscious by means of subdual damage becomes disorganized and dispersed, and does not re-form until its hit points exceed its subdual damage. Vermin Traits: A ruin swarm is immune to all mind-affecting effects (charms, compulsions, phantasms, patterns, and morale effects). It also has darkvision (60-foot range). Replace the Titan, Elder with the following: TITAN, ELDER Huge Outsider (Chaotic, Extraplanar) Hit Dice: 60d8+1,080 (1,350 hp) Initiative: +1 Speed: 50 ft. in full plate (10 squares); base speed 80 ft. Armor Class: 46 (–8 size, +1 Dex, +28 natural, +16 +8 adamantine full plate), touch 3, flat-footed 45 Base Attack/Grapple: +60/+100 Attack: Colossal+ +6 adamantine warhammer +83 melee (8d6+42/19-20/x3) or +6 javelin +59 ranged (4d6+22) or slam +76 (3d6+24) Full Attack: Colossal+ +6 adamantine warhammer +83/+78/+73/+68 melee (8d6+42/19-20/x3) or +6 javelin +59 ranged (4d6+22) or 2 slams +76 (3d6+24) Space/Reach: 30 ft./30 ft. Special Attacks: Oversized weapon, spell-like abilities Special Qualities: Damage reduction 15/lawful and epic, darkvision 60 ft., spell resistance 72 Saves: Fort +50, Ref +33, Will +41 Abilities: Str 59, Dex 12, Con 47, Int 21, Wis 28, Cha 34 Skills: Balance +17, Bluff +75, Climb +40, Concentration +91, Craft (any one) +68, Diplomacy +18, Disguise +12 (+18 acting), Heal +40, Intimidate +81 Jump +101, Knowledge (Arcana) +68, Listen +82, Perform (oratory) +75, Search +68, Sense Motive +72, Spellcraft +80, Spot +82, Survival +9 (+15 following tracks), Swim +24, Use Magic Device +12 (+18 use scrolls) Feats: Awesome Blow, Blind-Fight, Cleave, Great Cleave, Improved Bull Rush, Improved Critical (warhammer), Improved Sunder, Magical Aptitude, Power Attack, Quicken Spell-Like Ability (chain lightning), Weapon Focus (warhammer) Epic Feats: Devastating Critical (warhammer), Epic Skill Focus (Concentration), Epic Skill Focus (Jump), Epic Skill Focus (Listen), Epic Skill Focus (Spellcraft) Epic Skill Focus (Spot), Legendary Leaper, Overwhelming Critical (warhammer), Penetrate Damage Reduction (cold iron), Penetrate Damage Reduction (silver) Environment: A chaotic good-aligned plane Organization: Solitary or pair Challenge Rating: 43 Treasure: Double standard plus +8 adamantine full plate, Gargantuan +6 adamantine warhammer, and +6 javelin Alignment: Always chaotic (any) Advancement: 61–120 HD (Colossal) Level Adjustment: +0 An elder titan is about 100 feet tall and weighs about 896,000 pounds. Elder titans speak Abyssal, Common, Celestial, Draconic, and Giant. COMBAT A titan’s natural weapons, as well as any weapons it wields, are treated as chaotic-aligned for the purpose of overcoming damage reduction. Oversized Weapon (Ex): An elder titan wields a great, two-handed warhammer (big enough for Colossal+ creatures) without penalty. Change Shape (Su): A titan can assume the form of any Small or Medium humanoid. The titan retains its oversized weapon special attack regardless of form. Spell-Like Abilities: At will—chain lightning (DC 28), fire storm (DC 29), greater dispel magic, invisibility, invisibility purge, levitate, mass cure critical wounds (DC 30), mass charm monster (DC 30), mass hold monster (DC 31), persistent image (DC 27); 3/day—etherealness, hellball (epic spell), soul scry (epic spell), summon nature’s ally IX, word of chaos (DC 27); 1/day—gate, maze, meteor swarm (DC 31). Caster level 60th. The save DCs are Charisma-based. In addition, titans of good or neutral alignment can use the following additional spell-like abilities: At will—daylight, holy smite (DC 25), remove curse (DC 26); 1/day—greater restoration. Caster level 60th. The save DCs are Charisma-based. Titans of evil alignment can use the following additional spell-like abilities: At will—bestow curse (DC 26), deeper darkness, unholy blight (DC 25); 1/day—crushing hand (DC 31). Caster level 60th. The save DCs are Charisma-based. TACTICS ROUND-BY-ROUND Elder titans enjoy combat and usually close with their foes. If that proves ineffective, they swiftly back off and pelt the foe with spell-like abilities and magical effects. Because of an elder titan’s Quicken Spell-Like Ability feat, it can use chain lightning as a swift action, and frequently attacks in melee while lashing out with this ability at the same time. Prior to combat: Invisibility purge or invisibility. Round 1: Charge and attempt to sunder the weapon of the most dangerous foe. Hurl chain lightning at weak-seeming opponents (allies and summons). Round 2: Full attack against the disarmed opponent, and hurl chain lightning at other weak opponents. Round 3: Back away from first opponent and use maze or hellball on any spellcaster causing trouble. Round 4: Sunder the weapon of the next most effective combatant, or use greater dispel magic on all nearby opponents. Round 5: Full attack against any nearby opponent, or move into ideal position and use word of chaos. Use another quickened chain lightning if weak foes remain. An elder titan usually reserves its gate and etherealness abilities to escape a fight that is not going well. Replace the Umbral Blot's Disintegrating Touch with the following: Disintegrating Touch (Ex): Any creature that comes into contact with a blackball takes 114d6 damage. Any creature reduced to 0 or fewer hit points by this effect is entirely disintegrated, leaving behind not even dust to mark its passing. A disintegrated creature’s equipment is unaffected. Any object that comes into contact with a blackball results in the disintegration of as much as one 10-foot cube of nonliving matter. Thus, the effect disintegrates only part of any very large object or structure targeted. This affects even objects constructed entirely of force, such as forceful hand or a wall of force, but not magical effects such as a globe of invulnerability or an antimagic field. A creature or object that makes a successful Fortitude save (DC 38) is partially affected, taking only 5d6 points of damage. If this damage reduces the creature or object to 0 or fewer hit points, it is entirely disintegrated.
bluemage55 09-14-06, 02:07 AM	Under Construction
bluemage55 09-14-06, 02:24 AM	Replace the following class abilities with their revised versions: Rage (Ex): A barbarian can fly into a rage a certain number of times per day. In a rage, a barbarian temporarily gains a +4 morale bonus to Strength, a +4 morale bonus to Constitution, and a +2 morale bonus on Will saves, but he takes a –2 penalty to Armor Class. The increase in Constitution increases the barbarian’s hit points by 2 points per level, but these hit points go away at the end of the rage when his Constitution score drops back to normal. (These extra hit points are not lost first the way temporary hit points are.) While raging, a barbarian cannot use any Charisma-, Dexterity-, or Intelligence-based skills (except for Balance, Escape Artist, Intimidate, and Ride), the Concentration skill, or any abilities that require patience or concentration, nor can he cast spells or activate magic items that require a command word, a spell trigger (such as a wand), or spell completion (such as a scroll) to function. He can use any feat he has except Combat Expertise, item creation feats, and metamagic feats. A fit of rage lasts for a number of rounds equal to 3 + the character’s (newly improved) Constitution modifier. A barbarian may prematurely end his rage. At the end of the rage, the barbarian loses the rage modifiers and restrictions and becomes fatigued (–2 penalty to Strength, –2 penalty to Dexterity, can’t charge or run) for the duration of the current encounter (unless he is a 17th-level barbarian, at which point this limitation no longer applies; see below). A barbarian can fly into a rage only once per encounter. At 1st level he can use his rage ability once per day. At 4th level and every four levels thereafter, he can use it one additional time per day (to a maximum of six times per day at 20th level). Entering a rage takes no time itself, but a barbarian can do it only during his action, not in response to someone else’s action. Greater Rage (Ex): At 11th level, a barbarian’s morale bonuses to Strength and Constitution during his rage each increase to +6, and his morale bonus on Will saves increases to +3. The penalty to AC remains at –2. Mighty Rage (Ex): At 20th level, a barbarian’s morale bonuses to Strength and Constitution during his rage each increase to +8, and his morale bonus on Will saves increases to +4. The penalty to AC remains at –2. AC Bonus (Ex): When unarmored and unencumbered, a monk adds 1 point of Wisdom bonus (if any) per monk class level to her AC. In addition, a monk gains a +1 bonus to AC at 5th level. This bonus increases by 1 for every five monk levels thereafter (+2 at 10th, +3 at 15th, and +4 at 20th level). These bonuses to AC apply even against touch attacks or when the monk is flat-footed. She loses these bonuses when she is immobilized or helpless, when she wears any armor, when she carries a shield, or when she carries a medium or heavy load. Divine Grace (Su): At 2nd level, a paladin adds 1 point of Charisma bonus (if any) per Paladin class level to all saving throws. Replace the Paladin's mount table with the following: Paladin Level Bonus HD Natural Armor Adj. Str Adj. Int Special 5th–7th +2 +4 +1 6 Empathic link, improved evasion, share spells, share saving throws 8th–10th +4 +6 +2 7 Improved speed 11th–14th +6 +8 +3 8 Command creatures of its kind 15th–19th +8 +10 +4 9 Spell resistance 20th +10 +12 +5 10 Add the following Feat: IMPROVED DAMAGE THRESHOLD Benefit: The character increases his or her massive damage threshold by 3 points. Normal: A character without this feat has a massive damage threshold equal to his or her current Constitution score. With this feat, the character’s massive damage threshold is current Con +3. Special: A character may gain this feat multiple times. Its effects stack. A fighter may select Improved Damage Threshold as one of his fighter bonus feats. Replace the Massive Damage section with the following: Massive Damage Any time a character takes damage from a single hit that exceeds the character’s massive damage threshold, that damage is considered massive damage. A character’s massive damage threshold is equal to the character's current Constitution score +2 per HD; it can be increased by taking the Improved Damage Threshold feat. When a character takes massive damage that doesn’t reduce his or her hit points to 0 or lower, the character must make a Fortitude save (DC 15). If the character fails the save, the character’s hit point total is immediately reduced to –1. If the save succeeds, the character suffers no ill effect beyond the loss of hit points. Creatures immune to critical hits are also immune to the effects of massive damage. Replace the following spells with their revised version: Divine Power Evocation Level: Clr 4, War 4 Components: V, S, DF Casting Time: 1 standard action Range: Personal Target: You Duration: 1 round/level Calling upon the divine power of your patron, you imbue yourself with strength and skill in combat. Your base attack bonus becomes equal to your character level (max. +20; this effect may give you additional attacks), you gain a +6 enhancement bonus to Strength, and you gain 1 temporary hit point per caster level. Transformation Transmutation Level: Sor/Wiz 6 Components: V, S, M Casting Time: 1 standard action Range: Personal Target: You Duration: 1 round/level You become a virtual fighting machine— stronger, tougher, faster, and more skilled in combat. Your mind-set changes so that you relish combat and you can’t cast spells, even from magic items. You gain a +4 enhancement bonus to Strength, Dexterity, and Constitution, a +4 natural armor bonus to AC, a +5 competence bonus on Fortitude saves, and proficiency with all simple and martial weapons. Your base attack bonus equals your character level (max. +20; this effect may give you additional attacks). You lose your spellcasting ability, including your ability to use spell activation or spell completion magic items, just as if the spells were no longer on your class list. Material Component: A potion of bull’s strength, which you drink (and whose effects are subsumed by the spell effects). Replace the Spell Resistance Armor/Shield property with the following: Spell Resistance: This property grants the armor or shield’s wearer spell resistance while the armor or shield is worn. The spell resistance can be 13, 15, 17, or 19, depending on the armor or shield. Moderate abjuration; CL 9th; Craft Magic Arms and Armor, spell resistance; Price +15,000 gp (SR 13), +45,000 gp (SR 15), +75,000 gp (SR 17), +105,000 gp (SR 19).
thorian 09-14-06, 02:59 AM	Why didn't you use material that has already been updated to 3.5 -- like the epic feats in Complete Arcane, for instance? Here are the 3.5 feats from CA: Automatic Quicken Spell Automatic Silent Spell Automatic Still Spell Enhance Spell Epic Spell Focus Epic Spell Penetration Improved Combat Casting Master Staff Master Wand
bluemage55 09-14-06, 04:56 AM	Because they are inadequate. Automatic Quicken Spell as written in Complete Arcane is reduced to the point that it is unusable, and is basically a kick in the groins of spontaneous casters. It takes NINE applications before a sorcerer can quicken their 9th level spells, and if they wish to use Improved Spell Capacity, they need more. The versions I have rewritten allow them to quicken all of their spells with four applications, which still requires an investment, but is more reasonable. Improved Combat Casting as written in Complete Arcane is just strange. The bonus to Concentration checks is not necessary, as Concentration should be more than sufficient by that time to make the flat skill check DCs (especially with a cost-effective competence item). Improved Combat Casting in the Epic SRD is designed to counter Spellcasting Harrier, which defeats defensive casting, and the rewritten one does not fulfill this role. Automatic Silent Spell, Automatic Still Spell, Enhance Spell, Epic Spell Focus, Epic Spell Penetration, Master Staff, and Master Wand are all identical to the 3.5 SRD, so what would be the point?
Gemstone 09-14-06, 07:28 AM	Because they are inadequate. Automatic Quicken Spell as written in Complete Arcane is reduced to the point that it is unusable, and is basically a kick in the groins of spontaneous casters. It takes NINE applications before a sorcerer can quicken their 9th level spells, and if they wish to use Improved Spell Capacity, they need more. The versions I have rewritten allow them to quicken all of their spells with four applications, which still requires an investment, but is more reasonable. Automatic Silent Spell, Automatic Still Spell, Enhance Spell, Epic Spell Focus, Epic Spell Penetration, Master Staff, and Master Wand are all identical to the 3.5 SRD, so what would be the point? Actually, I think there's a point to rewriting the feat so that it requires 9 uses. After all, Quicken spell is one of the two advantages that a preparation caster has over a spontaneous caster. If you remove that, then you suddenly only have one thing, which is that a wizard can have any number of spells in his spellbook, but that's a rather weak point, as a sorceror tend to be very effective with the spells at hand :) So Im not sure if your revision actually fits the idea of the feat, but I guess it could be balanced. Care to evaluate that?
bluemage55 09-14-06, 08:19 AM	Actually, I think there's a point to rewriting the feat so that it requires 9 uses. After all, Quicken spell is one of the two advantages that a preparation caster has over a spontaneous caster. If you remove that, then you suddenly only have one thing, which is that a wizard can have any number of spells in his spellbook, but that's a rather weak point, as a sorceror tend to be very effective with the spells at hand :) So Im not sure if your revision actually fits the idea of the feat, but I guess it could be balanced. Care to evaluate that? Quicken spell is an unbalanced advantage that prepared casters have over spontaneous casters. Multiple spell deployment techniques are the key to victory, and a lack of quickened spells (especially given the existence of Multispell) and time-consuming metamagic is a crippling factor. Spells per day is less of an issues at epic levels than spells per round. With four epic feats required to attain a full range of quickened spells, a spontaneous caster is still paying for the advantage that they are gaining, but the cost is less ludicrous (and more attainable at low epic). A prepared caster can take Improved Metamagic three times and Improved Spell Capacity once while the spontaneous caster is taking the Automatic Quicken tree, which will make them more effective overall, so the system is still balanced. Additionally, one of the spontaneous caster's spells per round (the non-quickened one) still requires a full-round if they wish to apply metamagic to it (which is highly likely considering how useful metamagic is at epic).
Alias 09-14-06, 01:09 PM	I've already done revisions of the monsters (http://www.geocities.com/mistmane/files/epicmonsters.zip) and spells (http://www.geocities.com/mistmane/files/epicspells.zip) (complete with errata), so you all can take a look at those.
bluemage55 09-14-06, 02:22 PM	I've already done revisions of the monsters (http://www.geocities.com/mistmane/files/epicmonsters.zip) and spells (http://www.geocities.com/mistmane/files/epicspells.zip) (complete with errata), so you all can take a look at those. Thank you for the contribution!:D Do you have a list of which things exactly where changed and why?
DragonBringerX 09-14-06, 05:34 PM	On the topic about Automatic Quicken: i do like the idea of changing it from what it is now in the srd...but personally i think only 4 feats is overpowered. I also don't care for the fact that you divided it out like such. Personly i think the way it was presented in 3.0 if fine and should be reverted back to as such...then left alone.
Gemstone 09-14-06, 05:49 PM	I would also like to see a revision of the BAB system. As it is now, it right out sucks that a ftr20/wiz20 has higher BAB than a wiz20/ftr20...
LordBOB777 09-14-06, 06:55 PM	I would also like to see a revision of the BAB system. As it is now, it right out sucks that a ftr20/wiz20 has higher BAB than a wiz20/ftr20... ????
thorian 09-14-06, 08:01 PM	???? This is because a ftr 20 has a BAB of 20. A wiz 20 has a BAB of 10. In the epic rules, your BAB stops at level 20. After that, you get EAB +1 every other level. So the more BAB you get pre-epic, the higher your total attack bonus will be in epic play since everyone increases at the same rate after 20th level, no matter the class chosen.
Gemstone 09-15-06, 04:35 AM	This is because a ftr 20 has a BAB of 20. A wiz 20 has a BAB of 10. In the epic rules, your BAB stops at level 20. After that, you get EAB +1 every other level. So the more BAB you get pre-epic, the higher your total attack bonus will be in epic play since everyone increases at the same rate after 20th level, no matter the class chosen. Yes, which always bugged me out :) I houseruled that if you go a class with higher BAB after 20, you replace your old BAB with the new one. so a wiz20/ftr1 would have +10/+5, but a wiz20/ftr2 would have +11 BAB etc.
Starmage21 09-15-06, 08:13 AM	Yes, which always bugged me out :) I houseruled that if you go a class with higher BAB after 20, you replace your old BAB with the new one. so a wiz20/ftr1 would have +10/+5, but a wiz20/ftr2 would have +11 BAB etc. Fact of the matter is, theyre going to be very different in regards to strengths. Fighter 20/Wizard 20 is going to start with a high strength and pick feats that are going to be geared towards his fighteyness. Even if this character started with 14 on Int(assuming Elite Array), its going to be difficult for him to push 19 on his INT to cast 9th level spells by 40 without some kind of magical help(which is in general a kind of no-no. You dont want half your class features unavailable in an AMF, or if your +INT item gets disjoined). A Wizard 20/Fighter 20 is going to be opposite. Their high starting INT means they are going to be casting 9th level spells, and theyre not going to have a great attack bonus. Fortunately, they can rely on True Strike, or Epic Spellcasting(which can be taken as early as 21), which can only help the grind by providing a large attack bonus. Tenser's Transformation only helps with a wizard's hit point and attack bonus problem, but it means theyll be ignoring their spellcasting ability for the remainder of the combat. In short: You can teach an old dog new tricks, but it is a bit more difficult and slower paced.
Gemstone 09-15-06, 09:15 AM	Fact of the matter is, theyre going to be very different in regards to strengths. Fighter 20/Wizard 20 is going to start with a high strength and pick feats that are going to be geared towards his fighteyness. Even if this character started with 14 on Int(assuming Elite Array), its going to be difficult for him to push 19 on his INT to cast 9th level spells by 40 without some kind of magical help(which is in general a kind of no-no. You dont want half your class features unavailable in an AMF, or if your +INT item gets disjoined). A Wizard 20/Fighter 20 is going to be opposite. Their high starting INT means they are going to be casting 9th level spells, and theyre not going to have a great attack bonus. Fortunately, they can rely on True Strike, or Epic Spellcasting(which can be taken as early as 21), which can only help the grind by providing a large attack bonus. Tenser's Transformation only helps with a wizard's hit point and attack bonus problem, but it means theyll be ignoring their spellcasting ability for the remainder of the combat. In short: You can teach an old dog new tricks, but it is a bit more difficult and slower paced. Of course a wizard who goes fighter will be a better wizard than fighter, if he has put all his points and such in INT. But just the thing that a character will all 18's from the start will STILL be worse if he goes fighter first, bugs me out
Starmage21 09-15-06, 11:07 AM	well, to top that all off, the fighter/wizard has a much easier chance of making it to 40 than the wiz/ftr does. At 20, the fighter is capped out, nothing more to gain, as his attacks increase at the same rate regardless of what class he choses. The wizard eventually gets raped, as he reaches Wizard 20/Fighter 7ish, his spells are no longer useful except as buffers.
Gemstone 09-15-06, 11:46 AM	well, to top that all off, the fighter/wizard has a much easier chance of making it to 40 than the wiz/ftr does. At 20, the fighter is capped out, nothing more to gain, as his attacks increase at the same rate regardless of what class he choses. The wizard eventually gets raped, as he reaches Wizard 20/Fighter 7ish, his spells are no longer useful except as buffers. That, I disagree with. A wizard 20 is pretty formidable if played intelligently
Alias 09-15-06, 12:13 PM	Thank you for the contribution! Do you have a list of which things exactly where changed and why? A list of specific changes would be almost as long as the documents themselves. Suffice it to say that for the monsters, most of it was errata - whoever did the conversions in the SRD did a half-assed job, so I just completed it. For the spells, I updated everything to the 3.5 versions - things like animate dead, disintegrate, and other spells that were changed between editions; schools like Conjuration (teleportation); and, of course, the ever-present errata.
rob_douglas 09-15-06, 02:19 PM	I don't think that Bluemage wants this to be a "change the rules" thread, but a clarify what is clearly or should be clearly wrong. Like it or not, it is clear that the way Epic BAB was handled was intentional, so I don't think it belongs in this thread - it would just get cluttered with House Rules. I will post a bunch of my pet peeves as well this weekend. ;) ROB
bluemage55 09-15-06, 05:17 PM	I don't think that Bluemage wants this to be a "change the rules" thread, but a clarify what is clearly or should be clearly wrong. Like it or not, it is clear that the way Epic BAB was handled was intentional, so I don't think it belongs in this thread - it would just get cluttered with House Rules. I will post a bunch of my pet peeves as well this weekend. ;) ROB Agreed. This will not be a thread to rewrite the system. The BAB system was clearly intended by the developers, even although it bugs me too, it doesn't need to be vastly changed. The one part of it that *might* be legitimately argued as a mistake by the designers is the capping of iterative attacks, which I personally think should be changed. We shall see as to that later. On the topic about Automatic Quicken: i do like the idea of changing it from what it is now in the srd...but personally i think only 4 feats is overpowered. I also don't care for the fact that you divided it out like such. Personly i think the way it was presented in 3.0 if fine and should be reverted back to as such...then left alone. This is a topic of legitimate concern, and I hope others will voice their opinions and experiences. I limited it to 4 feats because Quicken Spell requires 4 spell levels. A prepared caster can take Improved Metamagic x3 and Improved Spell Capacity for a significantly greater benefit, but a spontaneous caster would require these 4 feats instead if they wanted to use quickened spells (which they inevitably will indeed want).
Starmage21 09-15-06, 08:15 PM	That, I disagree with. A wizard 20 is pretty formidable if played intelligently Say that when your fighting a CR 30 ish creature immune to most or all energy types and SR so high you cant hope to pass it. Youre effectiveness is reduced so quickly its staggering. If it were true that wizards were viable to everyone with reduced casting ability, you'd see more PC wizards multiclassing into classes with less than full casting.
bluemage55 09-15-06, 08:46 PM	I'll correct Gemstone by saying that a Wizard 20 is pretty formidable is min-maxed to the hilt. Polymorph Any Object/Shapechange + Tenser's Transformation can make for a devastating "Gith". Add in some psionic powers from items (Form of Doom, Psionic Lion's Charge, and Hustle, and you have a wizardly killing machine.
guru7892 09-16-06, 04:04 AM	also another thing, right now it looks like that the psion can keep learning powers... the sorcerer cannot keep learning spells (except through the use of feats) doesn't this seem odd? oh, and don't throw me any balance crap, because the wizard will always be able to have access to more spells (see spontanous spell) unless the sorcerer devotes all his/her feats into learning spells (thus getting crippled) they are not going to get close. sorcerer abuse is a serious problem people!
Gemstone 09-16-06, 04:16 AM	Say that when your fighting a CR 30 ish creature immune to most or all energy types and SR so high you cant hope to pass it. Youre effectiveness is reduced so quickly its staggering. If it were true that wizards were viable to everyone with reduced casting ability, you'd see more PC wizards multiclassing into classes with less than full casting. Force cage solves most problems with smaller creatures :) My Epic wizard Aloon, took out a CR 25 creature all by himself with that. If there's a wizard, there's a way
bluemage55 09-16-06, 05:36 AM	also another thing, right now it looks like that the psion can keep learning powers... the sorcerer cannot keep learning spells (except through the use of feats) doesn't this seem odd? I'm inclined to agree. It's especially strange given that the wilder and psychic warrior also do not gain additional powers after 20th. Does anyone have a copy of Complete Psion? I get the feeling that there might be a revised epic progressions within.
guru7892 09-16-06, 04:21 PM	somebody somewhere should make some progression for some more spells known after the 20th level. 40th level sorcerers should be able to know more spells than 20th level sorcerers withough feats... just like how 10th level sorcerers know less than 20th level sorcerers.
bluemage55 09-18-06, 12:55 AM	somebody somewhere should make some progression for some more spells known after the 20th level. 40th level sorcerers should be able to know more spells than 20th level sorcerers withough feats... just like how 10th level sorcerers know less than 20th level sorcerers. No. The epic bonus feat progression allows for customizability. If you want more powers, take expanded knowledge. The sorcerer was designed with this in mind in terms of balance. The alternative would be to reduce the number of epic bonus feats, but that would be the same as forcing the sorcerer to take expanded knowledge.
Sapp 09-18-06, 01:08 AM	I think Epic games can be a lot of fun, but they should really make it easier for us. I mean the Epic challenges. That IS something I feel strongly needs a revision. Not just changing the CRs of almost every monster, but giving better ideas than simply tossing a bunch of random monsters in that barely have an ecology or history besides "they had been imprisoned all this time" or "they came from a far away place, so no one heard of them until now". The problem is that Epic is such a HUGE topic, and the ELH essentially tries to cover THREE different subjects at once: Epic PHB, Epic DMG, and Epic MM. Simply not enough room. But honestly, right now, the ELH needs some more inspirational ideas. Epic Monsters with more Epic Challenges with fluff. Dicefreaks is nice and all, but it would be pretty cool not to always suggest it just because something's missing in the ELH. Oh, and some monsters that can actually threaten PCs, please. Ones that can scry, discern location, metafaculty, greater teleport, and/or planeshift. As of now, epic parties can always run, hide, and attack via Epic Rituals... and that would be the logical choice almost every time. If they were going to make a change, I'd want a BIG one. I'd buy that.
bluemage55 09-18-06, 01:29 AM	If they were going to make a change, I'd want a BIG one. I'd buy that. This thread is not for discussing what you would want to buy. Direct those concerns to the Petition thread. This thread is for a player-developed errata to the existing 3.5 Epic SRD that fixes errors and clarifies rules.
bluemage55 09-18-06, 01:31 AM	Epic Basics, Epic Classes, and Epic Skills sections added. Epic Spellcasting feat clarification added to Epic Feat section. It has now been separated into Epic Spellcasting (Arcane) and Epic Spellcasting (Divine)
GreyLord 09-18-06, 06:13 AM	I don't think that Bluemage wants this to be a "change the rules" thread, but a clarify what is clearly or should be clearly wrong. Like it or not, it is clear that the way Epic BAB was handled was intentional, so I don't think it belongs in this thread - it would just get cluttered with House Rules. I will post a bunch of my pet peeves as well this weekend. ;) ROB It was Intentional, but I see it as a BIG intentional mistake to purposely disempower fighters and any warriors. Unfortunately, that would be something other than 3.5 rewording epic rules... That would require a real revision to redo. A fighter should ALWAYS be able to outstrip a wimpy wizard when improving attack ability...it shouldn't be that wizards and warriors progress with the same Epic attack bonus, that's just stupid overall. In my opinion. Warriors got the NERF under epic rules in relation to Spellcasters. I for one would think that though it was intentional how they wrote BAB, overall it was a BIG mistake on their part and a very unbalancing portion of an overall unbalanced write of epic rules. Once again, in my opinion of course.
bluemage55 09-18-06, 07:21 AM	The discontinuation of BAB was in order to limit the "auto-hit or auto-miss" situation that would inevitably develop. Contrary to what you seem to be asserting, fighters still have significantly better attack bonuses than wizards do. A difference of +10 can be as much as a 50% greater chance of hitting, which is far from insignificant. Furthermore, as limited wish before each attack for an auto-hit becomes the norm, attack bonuses serve only to augment power-attacking, which is already a method of consistently dealing extreme amounts of damage. Continued BAB progression would overpower this technique.
Draegun Fury 09-18-06, 09:36 AM	Grrr, I really didn't want to side track this thread, but since it seems to be the current topic I'll say this anyway. Bluemage, I don't see Limited Wish to Auto-Hit as being any kind of NORM. I mean, if it was, it was severely cripple PC's! Sure a Fighter might feel tough Auto Hitting with LW and powerattack for 30 points, but when that same 40th level fighter meets a CR 34 Phaethon with 62 HD that starts using Auto Hit LW's whilst Power Attack for 62 points, that PC is going to be upset. Or worse give the Phaethon 6 levels of Babarian and let it Power Attack for 68 points. This only gets worse as levels go up. I think whilst we are all thinking about Errata, we should think about Errating Limited Wish. Cheers.
GreyLord 09-18-06, 12:37 PM	In a similar vein, simply by allowing BAB to increase, it allows the Fighters to hit higher AC...becomes a moot point on hitting once they get to a certain levels (Greater Deities ALWAYS hit according to rules, and they are only level 60). What it DOES allow if one could give them, and allowed their multiple attacks to increase are an ever increasing number of multiple attacks eventually FAR beyond what a wizard or rogue would get (and it would be ridiculous for a Wizard who is studiously studying spells to keep up with a fighter on physical attacks, or one to stay only one attack behind, even when they are really high epics). Furthermore, things such as powerattack, suddenly gain an even greater use under epic. I now have a sorc at lower epic that can do 450 Damage a round (some would call it a powerbuild, others would call it a weak build, depending on who you talk to). Let's see for a fighter to have a power attack that reached that point they'd STLL have quite a ways to go with their natural abilities. Just one more reason to allow BAB to continue to increase for warriors. It was WotC's intent, but seeing their rulings on other things (Take Deities for one), I think it was a mistake, and unbalances warrior classes, NOT just because of to hit, but many other things, inclusive of how quickly they gain multiple attacks (if we allow it), to inclusive of their very feats that they've taken previously. Power Attack would just be one example.
Gemstone 09-18-06, 02:14 PM	In a similar vein, simply by allowing BAB to increase, it allows the Fighters to hit higher AC...becomes a moot point on hitting once they get to a certain levels (Greater Deities ALWAYS hit according to rules, and they are only level 60). Actually, deities are treates as if they had rolled a 20 on the attack. You need to roll once more to check for autohit and critical
Draegun Fury 09-18-06, 02:53 PM	I'll just say this quickly, by doing the maths, UNCAPPING BAB does not slow down combat, it actually speeds it up. Yes I am aware that it could be boring to sit there whilst the fighter makes ten or twenty attacks, but others will argue it is boring to watch the Magic User count his hundreds of dice from his dozens of spells he just dropped. Capping BAB was the SINGLE BIGGEST Screw Up that WotC has Ever Made. Most PC's that play from Level one will never get past 60th level, in this case is it really so bad that the Fighter gets 12 attacks, and that the Wizard can't hit the monster but the Fighter can? (After all the Wizard could try, oh, I don't know, casting a Spell?). Uncapping is not that big an issue for rogues either, at 60th level their BAB is 45! This means that if the Fighter has a 95% chance to hit on his first attack, the Rogue has a 35% chance to hit, this sounds about right to me! H/is job isn't fighting, its sneak attacking when the enemy's AC is lowered by 5 or 10 giving him a 60% or 85% chance of hitting, or when the enemy is flanked giving him another 10% chance to hit. Only at 80th level does it reach the extremes where a Fighter will have a 95% chance of hitting what a Rogue only has a 5% chance of hitting. But again use Flanking and surprize/invisibility to up your chances by 35 to 60% !! Perhaps someone should note that the 80th level Rogues deals 42d6+ damage when he hits! Or that he can walk thru walls, and dance on clouds and talk just about anyone into just about anything! Really, uncapping BAB is not that bad! Eventually, if the "enormous" amounts of attacks (16 at 80th level) become to much, then simply start treating them like any other dice rolls that grow too numerous, average them. The Fighter gets 3 attacks with a good chance of hitting and 20 attacks that only have a 5% chance to hit? Awesome roll the 3 attacks with a decent chance of hitting, of the other twenty attacks ONE of them hits! Damn it, I said I wouldn't contribute to derailing this thread. Keep up the good work Bluemage! If I think of anyways to help I'll do my best. Cheers.
Sapp 09-18-06, 02:55 PM	This thread is not for discussing what you would want to buy. Direct those concerns to the Petition thread. This thread is for a player-developed errata to the existing 3.5 Epic SRD that fixes errors and clarifies rules. Small changes and errata are fine. I consider some of the monsters actually in need of errata. Very stupid but aesthetic ones that the Designers might not have thought of, that bear clarification. Such as what happens when you True Mind Switch with a Hecatoncheires? Do you control just 1 head and pair of Arms? What about dominate? How do spells that target one mind work? Can they be brainsucked? The monsters need more details (and they need teleport and planeshift). So do the Epic spells. Such as why Superb Dispelling works like the non-epic dispel series and relies on caster levels, when the Epic dispel seed doesn't rely on caster levels?
rob_douglas 09-18-06, 03:01 PM	Hey Quick comments on the sections: Basics I don't think the rule on iterative attacks counts as errata, but rather a house-rule. Again, it is clear that they thought about this and meant it, for good or ill. I would add a clarification about Racial BAB and character level BAB. Racial BAB is not limited to 20HD, but any character levels gained after 20HD add epic BAB at every odd-HD, and epic save bonus at every even HD. Skills Again, making Diplomacy an opposed check is a house-rule (a good one) but not errata. Do you want to mix the two? I think that would be fine as well, putting together a campaign document, but I would prefer them to be marked as such. Also, I am not sure that Diplomacy should be opposed by the target's Diplomacy. Resisting should be something Will based (like Sesnse Motive) or should just be level based, which I thought made the most sense anyway. Also note that Diplomact takes 1 minute to take effect, and it is often hard to get a hostile to stay still and listen that long. It can be done hurriedly at -10, but yeah, that essentially means DC 30 to stop a fight at least long enough to have a longer conversation. Alternatively, you can allow a save vs. fanaticalness, if that is the only concern. DC 20 - amount you beat the Fanatic DC by would be ok. Another idea is to assume that all servants have been subject to their bosses Diplomacy, so then it is an opposed check, opposed by the bosses diplomacy. Feats Again, I think your AutoQuicken rules are house rules, not errata. I actually believe the original rules are completely fair (not the Complete Arcane, which are clearly wrong). You need 4 AQ feats if you want to Auto Quicken a spell metamagicked to 10th level or higher (AQ takes effect based on the final spell slot). You could take 3 IMs instead of 3AQs, and yes, you would not be able to AutoQuicken everything, but you could use that IM more versatilely, using it to Maximize and Empower, etc. Now AutoSilent/Still, those maybe should be 1 feat each for 9 levels. Maybe 2 feats for 5 levels. They can't be duplicated with IM though - but maybe with ISC. It is pretty clear that 3 ISCs are better than 3xAutoSilent - as far as how many silent spells you could cast. I think the Epic Spellcasting clause is a necessary errata - the old rule was confusing and broken. The Errata on Epic Toughness should really be errata on Improved Toughness - that should be limited to 20 hp. Especially since they at least already thought about it once and came up with +30 hit points. +2hp/HD is like +4 CON - that is pretty huge. ---- OK, now I will give you at least 1 errata of my own: Boots of Swiftness: These shoes grant their wearer a +6 enhancement bonus to Dexterity. The wearer also gains an enhancement bonus to her base land speed of +10 feet, and she gains the evasion ability (as the rogue class feature). The wearer gains a +20 competence bonus on Balance, Climb, Jump, and Tumble checks. As a free action, the wearer can click her boot heels together, enabling her to act as though affected by a haste spell for up to 60 rounds each day. The duration of the haste effect need not be consecutive rounds.?Caster Level: 20th; Prerequisites: Craft Wondrous Item, Craft Epic Wondrous Item, cat’s grace, expeditious retreat, haste, creator must have 20 ranks in Balance, Climb, Jump, and Tumble; Market Price: 411,000 gp; Weight: 1 lb. Pricing: primary ability: haste (12000) x2 (caster level 20) x3 (3/day) = 72,000 secondary abilities: 36000 (+6) + 25000 (evasion) + 40000x4 (4 skills) + 5000 (+10' movement as striding boots) = 226,000 multiply secondary abilities by 1.5 = 339,000 total = 72000 + 339000 = 411000 ROB
Draegun Fury 09-18-06, 04:39 PM	Hey Quick comments on the sections: Basics I don't think the rule on iterative attacks counts as errata, but rather a house-rule. Again, it is clear that they thought about this and meant it, for good or ill. Agreed. I would add a clarification about Racial BAB and character level BAB. Racial BAB is not limited to 20HD, but any character levels gained after 20HD add epic BAB at every odd-HD, and epic save bonus at every even HD. No, wrong. BAB from Racial HD is not limited at any level and it STACKS with Class levels. A Solar with 30 Racial HD and 20 Levels of Fighter has a BAB of 50, only once Class Levels surpass 20th level do you begin to apply Epic Attack Bonuses, but still not for Racial HD. Skills Again, making Diplomacy an opposed check is a house-rule (a good one) but not errata. Do you want to mix the two? I think that would be fine as well, putting together a campaign document, but I would prefer them to be marked as such. Also, I am not sure that Diplomacy should be opposed by the target's Diplomacy. Resisting should be something Will based (like Sesnse Motive) or should just be level based, which I thought made the most sense anyway. Also note that Diplomact takes 1 minute to take effect, and it is often hard to get a hostile to stay still and listen that long. It can be done hurriedly at -10, but yeah, that essentially means DC 30 to stop a fight at least long enough to have a longer conversation. Alternatively, you can allow a save vs. fanaticalness, if that is the only concern. DC 20 - amount you beat the Fanatic DC by would be ok. Another idea is to assume that all servants have been subject to their bosses Diplomacy, so then it is an opposed check, opposed by the bosses diplomacy. I agree that this seems more in the area of House Rules, however, I always thought Diplomacy WAS a contested roll, pretty darn sure of it actually. *Shrugs* Feats Again, I think your AutoQuicken rules are house rules, not errata. I actually believe the original rules are completely fair (not the Complete Arcane, which are clearly wrong). You need 4 AQ feats if you want to Auto Quicken a spell metamagicked to 10th level or higher (AQ takes effect based on the final spell slot). You could take 3 IMs instead of 3AQs, and yes, you would not be able to AutoQuicken everything, but you could use that IM more versatilely, using it to Maximize and Empower, etc. Now AutoSilent/Still, those maybe should be 1 feat each for 9 levels. Maybe 2 feats for 5 levels. They can't be duplicated with IM though - but maybe with ISC. It is pretty clear that 3 ISCs are better than 3xAutoSilent - as far as how many silent spells you could cast. Yeah again, I think this is House Rules more than Errata, and I think in this case I'll leave the know how up to all you Mages. I think the Epic Spellcasting clause is a necessary errata - the old rule was confusing and broken. I liked it the way it was, hey we all have a little lawyer in us ;) The Errata on Epic Toughness should really be errata on Improved Toughness - that should be limited to 20 hp. Especially since they at least already thought about it once and came up with +30 hit points. +2hp/HD is like +4 CON - that is pretty huge. *shrugz* Really, what's 200 Hit Points over the course of 100 levels? ---- OK, now I will give you at least 1 errata of my own: Boots of Swiftness: These shoes grant their wearer a +6 enhancement bonus to Dexterity. The wearer also gains an enhancement bonus to her base land speed of +10 feet, and she gains the evasion ability (as the rogue class feature). The wearer gains a +20 competence bonus on Balance, Climb, Jump, and Tumble checks. As a free action, the wearer can click her boot heels together, enabling her to act as though affected by a haste spell for up to 60 rounds each day. The duration of the haste effect need not be consecutive rounds.?Caster Level: 20th; Prerequisites: Craft Wondrous Item, Craft Epic Wondrous Item, cat’s grace, expeditious retreat, haste, creator must have 20 ranks in Balance, Climb, Jump, and Tumble; Market Price: 411,000 gp; Weight: 1 lb. Pricing: primary ability: haste (12000) x2 (caster level 20) x3 (3/day) = 72,000 secondary abilities: 36000 (+6) + 25000 (evasion) + 40000x4 (4 skills) + 5000 (+10' movement as striding boots) = 226,000 multiply secondary abilities by 1.5 = 339,000 total = 72000 + 339000 = 411000 ROB *scratches head* Oh wait thats the finished product, I was waiting for you to say something was wrong. (I've been up all night with my baby, give me a break ok ;)) Looks fine I guess. ? grr, I'm too tired. Cheers.
bluemage55 09-18-06, 11:08 PM	Basics I don't think the rule on iterative attacks counts as errata, but rather a house-rule. Again, it is clear that they thought about this and meant it, for good or ill. Fair enough. I would add a clarification about Racial BAB and character level BAB. Racial BAB is not limited to 20HD, but any character levels gained after 20HD add epic BAB at every odd-HD, and epic save bonus at every even HD. Good point. Skills Again, making Diplomacy an opposed check is a house-rule (a good one) but not errata. Do you want to mix the two? I think that would be fine as well, putting together a campaign document, but I would prefer them to be marked as such. Also, I am not sure that Diplomacy should be opposed by the target's Diplomacy. Resisting should be something Will based (like Sesnse Motive) or should just be level based, which I thought made the most sense anyway. Also note that Diplomact takes 1 minute to take effect, and it is often hard to get a hostile to stay still and listen that long. It can be done hurriedly at -10, but yeah, that essentially means DC 30 to stop a fight at least long enough to have a longer conversation. Alternatively, you can allow a save vs. fanaticalness, if that is the only concern. DC 20 - amount you beat the Fanatic DC by would be ok. Another idea is to assume that all servants have been subject to their bosses Diplomacy, so then it is an opposed check, opposed by the bosses diplomacy. I consider it an inherent balance problem when any non-epic character with sufficient min/maxing can pursade hostile gods to freindliness. Normally, when you want an NPC to do something, you make opposed Charisma checks. It is further noted that Charisma checks made to influence PCs are essentially untrained Diplomacy checks. As such, I consider this rule to be a logical extension and an easy way to repair the mechanics. Feats Again, I think your AutoQuicken rules are house rules, not errata. I actually believe the original rules are completely fair (not the Complete Arcane, which are clearly wrong). You need 4 AQ feats if you want to Auto Quicken a spell metamagicked to 10th level or higher (AQ takes effect based on the final spell slot). You could take 3 IMs instead of 3AQs, and yes, you would not be able to AutoQuicken everything, but you could use that IM more versatilely, using it to Maximize and Empower, etc. Now AutoSilent/Still, those maybe should be 1 feat each for 9 levels. Maybe 2 feats for 5 levels. They can't be duplicated with IM though - but maybe with ISC. It is pretty clear that 3 ISCs are better than 3xAutoSilent - as far as how many silent spells you could cast. AQ is officially supposed to be once per every level now, which is blatantly underpowered. It is necessary to compromise somewhere in between the old AQ and the 3.5 AQ, and so using a bit of comparison, 4 feats seemed appropriate. The Errata on Epic Toughness should really be errata on Improved Toughness - that should be limited to 20 hp. Especially since they at least already thought about it once and came up with +30 hit points. +2hp/HD is like +4 CON - that is pretty huge. There should be an errata on Improved Toughness. Unfortunately, that still doesn't fix the fact that Great Constitution ends up being much better. OK, now I will give you at least 1 errata of my own: Boots of Swiftness: These shoes grant their wearer a +6 enhancement bonus to Dexterity. The wearer also gains an enhancement bonus to her base land speed of +10 feet, and she gains the evasion ability (as the rogue class feature). The wearer gains a +20 competence bonus on Balance, Climb, Jump, and Tumble checks. As a free action, the wearer can click her boot heels together, enabling her to act as though affected by a haste spell for up to 60 rounds each day. The duration of the haste effect need not be consecutive rounds.?Caster Level: 20th; Prerequisites: Craft Wondrous Item, Craft Epic Wondrous Item, cat’s grace, expeditious retreat, haste, creator must have 20 ranks in Balance, Climb, Jump, and Tumble; Market Price: 411,000 gp; Weight: 1 lb. Pricing: primary ability: haste (12000) x2 (caster level 20) x3 (3/day) = 72,000 secondary abilities: 36000 (+6) + 25000 (evasion) + 40000x4 (4 skills) + 5000 (+10' movement as striding boots) = 226,000 multiply secondary abilities by 1.5 = 339,000 total = 72000 + 339000 = 411000 ROB Looks good. It will be added.
bluemage55 09-18-06, 11:17 PM	No, wrong. BAB from Racial HD is not limited at any level and it STACKS with Class levels. A Solar with 30 Racial HD and 20 Levels of Fighter has a BAB of 50, only once Class Levels surpass 20th level do you begin to apply Epic Attack Bonuses, but still not for Racial HD. I remember debates on this beig made before, with lots of examples brought up from published epic monsters with class levels as examples. Does anyone know where some proof for one argument or the other is to be found?
dragonfire8974 09-19-06, 01:53 AM	really, what needs to happen is the fighter feats just need a giant boost in powers. my house rule is there is a level bonus to damage (3/4 of attack bonus (epic+base)) but that's for everyone. fighters need feats that are on par with spellcasting. really, i think they are balanced up to twentieth level, but when spellcasting stops really being times per day, and the wizard is pumping out as many spells as possible.... the warlock and fighter should be really improving at about the same rate, so fighters should be gaining about an average of 3 dmg every 2 lvls without feats. with feats, it should double, or triple (i'm not too familiar with epic warlocks as i am with epic wizards). so feats that would cause automatic crits times/day, +3 to attack and damage, +6 to attack, +6 to dmg, extra attack at -5. i know there's more, but the feats that are given right now are just boring. all the fighters start becoming the same after epic levels. also, epic wizards (as much as i hate to admit it) need a bit of capping. like improved spell capacity can only be taken every 5 lvls, multi-spell every 10, and epic spellcasting cannot benefit from items. that helps to limit the power of epic wizards. by the way, i love the new automatic metamagic feats, they are really well balanced against their normal metamagic counterparts and other feats.
dragonfire8974 09-19-06, 02:11 AM	by the way, i'm betting that if a monster cr is over twenty, then it is subject to epic progression rules. i can't find any examples in the epic handbook (i was hoping the leshay wizard that was the head of a guild had stats, but no.....) and the one epic npc that's a frost giant is either not epic, or is just an epic caster. i don't know enough to compare the statistics correctly on geri orelsdotter to a frost giant cleric5/runecaster 4 with not epic adjustment. i can do the base attack, but not the saves. i'm sorry, i have failed anyway, i wanted to point out the char for someone who's better at these things her stats are str29, dex10, con21, int14, wis16, cha14, fort 21, ref 6, will 14, bab 15
Draegun Fury 09-19-06, 02:45 AM	I remember debates on this beig made before, with lots of examples brought up from published epic monsters with class levels as examples. Does anyone know where some proof for one argument or the other is to be found? It is actually writen clear as day in the Epic (which I don't have with me at the moment :mad: ). Its in one of the Sidebars, it says (as near as I can remember), Racial HD do not count towards levels when determining whether or not you apply Epic Attack Bonus. It gives an example, and states that only when Class levels reach 21st level do you start applying EAB. So a 20th level human fighter has BAB 20 = 20 A 20HD Solar (bare with me) has a Racial BAB 20 = 20 A 40th level human fighter has BAB 20 + EAB 10 = 30 A 40 HD Solar has Racial BAB 40 = 40 An 80th level human fighter has BAB 20 + EAB 30 = 50 A 40 HD Solar With 40 fighter Levels has Racial BAB 40 + BAB 20 + EAB 10 = 70 Sorry I can't site page number, but if you use your references in the back of the Epic Level Handbook, there is a Side Bar that explains it clearly. Cheers.
rob_douglas 09-19-06, 03:23 PM	I remember debates on this beig made before, with lots of examples brought up from published epic monsters with class levels as examples. Does anyone know where some proof for one argument or the other is to be found? Starting with all the deities in Deities and Demigods, and then the Paragon Infernal Lascer in Dragon 297. In 3.5 MM the Forst Giant Blackguard, and in the MM3 the Eldritch Giant Confessor. I am sure there are many others, but all of them give full BAB for racial hit dice and Epic AB for class levels after 20 HD. I am sure there are others. So anyway, that seems to have been the intention all along. Somewill argue that character levels after ECL 20 get Epic Attack Bonus, but that is truly broken. A Trumpet Archon Paladin 5 should have BAB 17, not BAB 12 and EAB 3. ROB
rob_douglas 09-19-06, 03:38 PM	Its in one of the Sidebars, it says (as near as I can remember), Racial HD do not count towards levels when determining whether or not you apply Epic Attack Bonus. It gives an example, and states that only when Class levels reach 21st level do you start applying EAB. It actually says character levels, and only in the FAQ. The sidebar says 20th level. If it meant class level, you could get more BAB by multi-classing as well. Character level is defined as racial HD plus class levels. It does not include Level Adjustment. ROB
bluemage55 09-24-06, 05:22 AM	Epic Prestige Classes Section added. The Cosmic Connection ability of the Cosmic Descryer is limited to a bonus equal to the Cosmic Descryer's class level to prevent hit points from being the deciding factor for spellcasters. Discuss?
Draegun Fury 09-24-06, 08:33 AM	Shakes head, I'm confused. This is how I read it. LA adjustment and Racial HD do not, in anyway determine when a character starts using the Epic Attack Bonus. Only class levels determine this. An outsider with 27HD that takes a Level in Fighter will have a BAB of 28 (27 from Outsider HD 1 from Fighter), is this right? I don't know, if I ever get my book back I'll have a look, I'm actually quite Peeved that I haven't had it returned yet. Cheers.
Klytus 09-24-06, 01:33 PM	LA adjustment and Racial HD do not, in anyway determine when a character starts using the Epic Attack Bonus. Only class levels determine this. An outsider with 27HD that takes a Level in Fighter will have a BAB of 28 (27 from Outsider HD 1 from Fighter), is this right? Entirely correct. I don't know, if I ever get my book back I'll have a look, I'm actually quite Peeved that I haven't had it returned yet. Cheers. Bummer.
Draegun Fury 09-24-06, 02:33 PM	So I am correct. Well then, can someone please clarify what Rob is saying? We're obviously disagreeing on something, but now I'm not sure what. Cheers.
rob_douglas 09-25-06, 12:13 AM	So I am correct. Well then, can someone please clarify what Rob is saying? We're obviously disagreeing on something, but now I'm not sure what. Cheers. No, actually, you are incorrect. Well, you are partly correct. The Level Adjustment is not used in any way in determining BAB. Also, BAB from racial HD is not limited, and does not use EAb, also correct. However, BAB from class levels uses EAB based on "Character Level" which is defined as racial HD plus class levels from all classes, or more simply, as HD. From the FAQ, pg3 (and read page 2 for definition of Character Level vs. ECL, etc.): When is a monster character considered epic level? Do you “go epic” when your total class levels equal 20 or when your total Hit Dice equal 20? Is a monster character eligible for epic-level feats (such as Epic Toughness) when its character level is 21+ or when its ECL is 21+? A monster becomes an epic-level character when its character level hits 21, just like any other character. A monster’s character level equals its racial Hit Dice + class levels. (See the second sidebar on page 25 of the Epic Level Handbook.) A creature’s ECL has no effect on when it becomes an epic character, although once it becomes an epic character, its ECL continues to affect how much experience it earns and when it can add a new level. We have gone around and around on the boards on this, and many people feel that only class levels should be used in determining EAB, making Outsiders and Dragons have a really nice bonus when multiclassing into a melee class. But the builds of such creatures shown in Dragon 297, Deities and Demigods, and even the MM 3.5 (Frost Giant Jarl) show that the designers intention was that you only got EAB for class levels added after 20 HD. Hence my call for clarifying it. It got more confused in the DMG 3.5 because there it does say you should use ECL, not character level for EAB determination, but this is clearly an error, as it is not used in any example builds. It was just messiness when they were rewriting that section. It has also generally been agreed that any monster with CR<20 which is not a "character" in that it does not use the Elite array or class levels, should not have any Epic feats anyway, just because it really isn't Epic in an encounter kind of way. ROB
Draegun Fury 09-25-06, 11:25 AM	OK I see now. Just so long as we agree a Human Paragon with 20 Levels of Fighter has a BAB of 20. Cheers. PS: Is this an update for 3.5 r does it work this way in 3.0 too?
rob_douglas 09-25-06, 11:56 AM	Yes, +20 for Paragon level 20 fighter. I have never seen anything indicating that the rules changed from 3.0 to 3.5, except as noted in the DMG where they actually want to include Level Adjustment (which would give your fighter a BAB of +5, and and EAB of +8 - totally not right!). The FAQ in this case is edition independent. Again, Look at Dragon 297 Lascer for an example. ROB
rob_douglas 09-29-06, 02:26 PM	Replace the Cosmic Descryer's Cosmic Connection ability with the following: Cosmic Connection (Su): [snip] increase his or her effective caster level or enhance any attack roll, saving throw, skill check, or ability check by up to her cosmic descryer class level. I really like that, and it fits with a lot of other PrC rewrites for 3.5, in that they are limited to their class level (Bladesinger/Duelist INT to AC, etc.). I have thought many times that Monk AC bonus from WIS should also be limited based on class level, but that is a different story. Anyway, agreed - this should be in our errata/update to 3.5. I had been thinking about how to limit it and it was so simple - good job. ROB
elondir 10-02-06, 05:35 PM	What I'd like to see is epic rules that are not "separate" from the non-epic rules. In other words, full-scaling BAB and infinite spell progressions. With current characters dealing thousands of damage per round, I don't think the EAB confusion is worth the effort. All epic feats should have prerequisites other than "21st level". Don't nerf what is already nerfed. I got really mad when 3.5 came out and fly, haste, heal, and harm got mangled. I don't want to see my epic spells go bye bye too. Clarify the existing confusion once and for all, too. Just my 2 cents
bluemage55 10-02-06, 08:53 PM	What I'd like to see is epic rules that are not "separate" from the non-epic rules. In other words, full-scaling BAB and infinite spell progressions. Full-scaling BAB is abandoned for a clearly stated reason. The reason that there is no infinite spell progression is because it is abandoned to provide a greater amount of bonus feats while retaining the same amount of overall power. If you really want, house-rule your sorcerer to not gain any bonus feats and maintain spell progression (although I would consider that an incredibly bad build). All epic feats should have prerequisites other than "21st level". Why? Some feats don't have prerequisites for a reason: they are simple, straight-forward feats with minor scalable benefit. I got really mad when 3.5 came out and fly, haste, heal, and harm got mangled. Those were not mangled. They were overpowered and are now fixed. Epic spell seeds will reflect the updates. Clarify the existing confusion once and for all, too. That is one of the ultimate goals of this project.
rob_douglas 10-03-06, 12:06 AM	As Bluemage said, the goal is to clarify confusion. It is also to update to 3.5. If you don't like 3.5 nerfs of some classic spells, you won't like this project. It is designed to make things conisistent, and clarify the rules as they are - not to develop a new epic system (ala infinite BAB/spell progression). I think a separate document on house-rules would be fine. But let's just focus here on what is not 3.5E compatible, and also clean up some of the mess. I have many more examples of stuff that needs cleaning, but haven't cleaned it yet. ;) If anyone wants to take it on - the Xixical: Has Blinding Speed x4 as feats, and Haste 3/day at CL 36. Also has Meteor Swarm (should be Cold-substituted Meteor Swarm at least). Perhaps it should also gain the feat from Frostburn that allows it to ignore cold immunity/resistance.... ROB
bluemage55 10-03-06, 02:11 AM	Has Blinding Speed x4 as feats, and Haste 3/day at CL 36. Also has Meteor Swarm (should be Cold-substituted Meteor Swarm at least). Perhaps it should also gain the feat from Frostburn that allows it to ignore cold immunity/resistance.... ROB That's a weird feat selection, and does need to be fixed. No material from outside the SRD however.
rob_douglas 10-03-06, 05:54 PM	At some point I will also post my changes to the staves. I think they overused Heighten, and incorrectly used it (failing to use Improved Heighten to get over 10th level) and could have used Empower, Maximize, etc better. I also disagree with the caster levels for staves and for scrolls, based on the spell slot used. They note that it is spell slot level +11. But no 30th level wizard could make a scroll with a 19th level spell slot - spending all feats on ISC only gets you 7 feats, making 16th the max. I prefer (spell slot level-9) *3/2 + 20 - round down. But that is complicated. Maybe (caster level-19)/2 + 9 = max spell level castable. Make it a limitation on taking ISC anyway, and then it will make more sense for the scrolls and staves. A 30th level wizard would only beable to cast 14th level spells, so would need to take at least 2 feats that were not ISC. The real limit to ISC is max spell level = (caster level-19)*2/3 + 9. To reverse it: Caster level = (Spell level-9)*3/2 +19. I am looking at this because, look at the staff of the cosmos. It has an Intensified Meteor Swarm. Spell level = 16. No way a 27th level caster could make that. You need to be 30th to have the spell slots, and 32nd to get Craft Epic Staff (which is also the minimum level you could have that, but your caster level could be lower than 32, so that shouldn't be a requirement of all staves). Anyway, I would put the minimum caster level for that staff at 30th level. Even though you have to be higher to make it, you can bring the costs down. It is currently at 27th. I would do the same for many of the others, and I will rework the costs. And I will change things that make no sense, like Heightened Meteor Swarm in a Staff of Fiery Power with Maxmimized Meteor Swarm. I will get to work on that next. ROB
rob_douglas 10-04-06, 12:20 AM	Replace Magic Immunity (Ex): A <name of creature> is immune to all magical and supernatural effects, except as follows. With Immunity to Magic (Ex): A <name of creature> is immune to any spell or spell-like ability that allows spell resistance. In addition, certain spells and effects function differently against the creature, as noted below. In all cases in the Epic SRD: Demilich, Golems, Collossi, Living Vault. (any others? Did I miss any?) ROB
bluemage55 10-08-06, 07:23 PM	Monsters sections updated to include the 3.5 changes from Magic Immunity to Immunity to Magic. I also updated the Mithral Golem to reflect the 3.5 haste spell.
Grayson 10-09-06, 12:35 AM	Just to revisit the Quicken/Multi-spell issue. In high-level games, the coin of the realm is not available spells, it's how fast you can dish them out. High level casters have *so* many spells available per day that the limit on power is very, very rarely going to be how many they've got. Remember that D&D is balanced on a 4-encounters-per-day basis. A naked 20th level wizard has 3 dozen spells (not counting 0th) - 4 per level, not counting the bonus spells from high Int. If the character can't fully contribute in a given encounter with a 9th, 8th, 7th, 6th, and 5th level spell slot, then it's a pretty unusual encounter ;) And that's not taking into consideration gear, which would directly give a bunch more spells (just from stats), and things like staves/rods/misc magic. Realistically, they're going to have 6-8 5th+ spells to throw at any given encounter, assuming they pace themselves. And really, an epic party can often pick and choose when and how they want to fight. By the time my players are hitting 14th-15th level, they're teleporting/MMMansioning/etc to avoid fights they don't to tackle. Making it overly difficult for a sorcerer to gain access to automatic quicken makes them far, far weaker than a comparably leveled wizard. The extra 50% spells are rarely going to make anywhere near as big a difference as being able to cast them twice as fast. The 4 feats instead of 3 is, imo, a good compromise. (Although it's more nerfed than that in my game, but I've taken high-level spellcasters down a few notches, so it's definately in the realm of house-rules)
Krispieman 10-10-06, 05:09 AM	Some issues that came up recently during character creation: Improved Ki Strike: As it is written, only a monk of level 16+ can gain this feat. Any multiclass monk is severly limited and almost forced to use monk weapons in order to penetrate damage reduction. Not sure about the solution, but perhaps making it a scalable feat that requires multiple acquisitions would help. Improved Ki Strike . Prerequisites: Wis 21, any Ki Strike . Benefit: The effectiveness of your ki strike increases according to the following table: Current New Ki Strike (magic) Ki Strike (lawful) Ki Strike (lawful) Ki Strike (adamantine) Ki Strike (adamantine) Ki Strike (epic) This would also allow multiclassed monks to benefit from the Keen Strike, Shattering Strike, and Vorpal Strike feats. Infinite Deflection: Ranged attacks aren't all that viable at Epic, but with this feat, as written, they are entirely useless. Combined with Exceptional Deflection you can also no longer be the effect of any ranged touch spell. My suggestiong: limit the amount of attacks deflected to the number of attacks the character has in that round. Other views? K-man :cool:
rob_douglas 10-10-06, 03:43 PM	Or limit the number reflected like Combat refelexes (which is a prereq, no?). 1+DEX mod. ROB
rob_douglas 10-10-06, 03:51 PM	I have been thinking about my errata for the Boots of Swiftness, and I think that instead of +10' movement, and Haste 60 rounds per day, they should just gratn continuous Haste. Easier to track, and effectively the same thing... However, by the book, the cost is way to high (cost of Haste continuous @ 20th level, is 20*3*2000*4 = 480,000). And the 20th level thing really only helps with the dispel check and making them seem more Epic - the basic Haste continuous (caster level 5 = 120,000). I think this is fair for the boots of Swiftness. So my new errata'ed Boots of Swiftness are: Boots of Swiftness: These shoes grant their wearer a +6 enhancement bonus to Dexterity. The wearer also gains continuous Haste effect: an enhancement bonus to her base land speed of +30 feet, +1 to all attacks, +1 AC, +1 reflex save, and an additional attack when full attacking, and she gains the evasion ability (as the rogue class feature). The wearer gains a +20 competence bonus on Balance, Climb, Jump, and Tumble checks. Caster Level: 20th; Prerequisites: Craft Wondrous Item, Craft Epic Wondrous Item, cat’s grace, haste, creator must have 20 ranks in Balance, Climb, Jump, and Tumble; Market Price: 451,500 gp; Weight: 1 lb. Pricing: primary ability: haste (20*3*2000) = 120,000 secondary abilities: 36,000 (+6) + 25,000 (evasion) + 40,000x4 (4 skills) = 221,000 multiply secondary abilities by 1.5 = 331,500 total = 120,000 + 331,500 = 451,500 ROB
GreyLord 10-10-06, 06:48 PM	Full-scaling BAB is abandoned for a clearly stated reason. The reason that there is no infinite spell progression is because it is abandoned to provide a greater amount of bonus feats while retaining the same amount of overall power. If you really want, house-rule your sorcerer to not gain any bonus feats and maintain spell progression (although I would consider that an incredibly bad build). Why? Some feats don't have prerequisites for a reason: they are simple, straight-forward feats with minor scalable benefit. Those were not mangled. They were overpowered and are now fixed. Epic spell seeds will reflect the updates. That is one of the ultimate goals of this project. I understand the reasoning, but infinite spell progression IS still in, it's called increased spell capacity...You can have characters cast 20th level spells and greater...however it doesn't go up as previously...which could be a gripe. (In some ways I suppose one could take feats to increase BAB in some ways...maybe...). And their nerfing of BAB made absolutely NO sense....so I can't roll 20 dice for 20 attacks at super high levels...but I rolling 400 dice for an epic spell is Okay...yeah right...sure...that's GREAT logic... :rolleyes: Nerfing BAB was one of the STUPID moves in their Epic idea...amongst many others...perhaps if they hadn't made so many stupid moves there would be more reason for them to publish a new Epic book because more people would think...hey that makes sense...instead of...hey...that's stupid... Epic seems to be one of the most heavily houseruled books of the 3e/3.5 years that I've seen... But I get the intent of the thread and rewriting it isn't it's intent...it's merely trying to make sense out of nonsense from the 3e to 3.5 move with what needs to be updated and what doesn't. On that front it seems to be doing nicely and good job and kudos to the thread donaters.
bluemage55 10-10-06, 09:34 PM	(In some ways I suppose one could take feats to increase BAB in some ways...maybe...). Epic Prowess. And their nerfing of BAB made absolutely NO sense....so I can't roll 20 dice for 20 attacks at super high levels...but I rolling 400 dice for an epic spell is Okay...yeah right...sure...that's GREAT logic... No epic spellcaster in their right mind would use epic spells for offense, so scratch the dice-rolling when SR, magic immunity, or improved evasion simply dodges the spell. Standard melee attacks, on the other hand, are the perfect offensive weapon.
GreyLord 10-11-06, 02:28 AM	Epic Prowess. No epic spellcaster in their right mind would use epic spells for offense, so scratch the dice-rolling when SR, magic immunity, or improved evasion simply dodges the spell. Standard melee attacks, on the other hand, are the perfect offensive weapon. Actually epic spells are the perfect offense...but it all depends on when you cast it and when you do the offense. A well prepared spellcaster will smoke just about anything anyday if they get everything ready before hand. And no, Epic Prowess raises Attack Bonuses, but it doesn't actually increase the number of attacks so it requires multiple feats to come close to an ever increasing BAB for the reasoning they stated that they didn't want to include it. However, with the right feats one can raise the number of dice they roll for a spell's damage, with other spellcasting feats such as increased spell capacity, nicely. The entire reason for discounting the BAB is a rather absurd reasoning...IMO of course...and hurts epic rather then helps it, is one of the things where the designers actually IGNORED what people playtested and TOLD THEM DIRECTLY about, and one of those things that makes no sense about the epic rules as written as it completely changes how the progression and rules went prior to that. Hell, if I'm a Eldritch Knight and use increase spellcapacity, I help myself in multiple ways, as well as making it so if I want to go play it more like a warrior with the feat Arcane strike, I might be a better warrior than some of the pure warriors...because of the really ridiculous takes they did for BAB in epic. Rules that don't make sense, and are counter intuitive to what the general player thinks, plus the time invested just to get to epic, makes the epic rules a minor seller as opposed to some of the big sellers, and one of the reasons why WotC is less inclined to create another epic book...IMO of course. Money=more books, and the epic rules shot themselves in the foot...it made money at first, but because they didn't want something that flowed more smoothly with the rules as already written, and created a new system of doing things...made it so many players just say...why bother...they change everything anyways...I'll either houserule my way through it, or ignore the epic rules anyways as they don't make sense why suddenly my fighter's attack bonuses start progressing like a wimpy spellcaster, etc. For warriors, epic REALLY stunk...IMO. To much concentration on spellcasters (and more specifically wizards and clerics) and not enough on any of the others. However, this thread isn't about complaints on epic, however much I think the rules need a complete overhaul and more on a 3.5 SRD revision.
bluemage55 10-11-06, 04:13 AM	Actually epic spells are the perfect offense...but it all depends on when you cast it and when you do the offense. A well prepared spellcaster will smoke just about anything anyday if they get everything ready before hand. Really, now. How about overwhelming SR? Like from a pseudonatural or a relatively inexpensive SR item? Or from something with Immunity to magic? How about exceptional and infinte reflection? Improved evasion? An item of constant intensified spell turning? Various immunities, such as from death ward, freedom of movement, mind blank, and universal energy immunity? And no, Epic Prowess raises Attack Bonuses, but it doesn't actually increase the number of attacks so it requires multiple feats to come close to an ever increasing BAB for the reasoning they stated that they didn't want to include it. They didn't want to include any more attacks because they would come at successively lower bonuses, eventually to the point where they would be simply rolls for natural 20s and thus a waste of time. However, with the right feats one can raise the number of dice they roll for a spell's damage, with other spellcasting feats such as increased spell capacity, nicely. Except that offensive spells are dead at epic, for the reasons given above. The entire reason for discounting the BAB is a rather absurd reasoning...IMO of course...and hurts epic rather then helps it, is one of the things where the designers actually IGNORED what people playtested and TOLD THEM DIRECTLY about, and one of those things that makes no sense about the epic rules as written as it completely changes how the progression and rules went prior to that. It is not absurd. The simple fact of the matter is that an increasing discrepancy between full BAB and half BAB characters excaerbates the all or nothing situation. Full BAB simply turns into more power attacking anyway, which is already overpowered (chargetastic builds, anyone?). Hell, if I'm a Eldritch Knight and use increase spellcapacity, I help myself in multiple ways, as well as making it so if I want to go play it more like a warrior with the feat Arcane strike, I might be a better warrior than some of the pure warriors...because of the really ridiculous takes they did for BAB in epic. An eldritch knight built in such a manner will drastically be lacking in combat-oriented epic feats . . . and arcane strike is really not that good.
Gemstone 10-11-06, 07:13 AM	I've not gotten so far into epic yet (level 25 currently), but this far, offensive spells such as Polar Ray and Chain Lightning (oh I love that one :D) makes up for a great deal of the damage our party deals (one wizard, a cleric and a straight fighter). Maybe at higher levels 30+, offensive spells become useless, but that's also why we've house ruled that energy immunity can be overcome through the usage of feats (altough we have yet to actually define those rules) and that the ring of universal elemental immunity is an artifact only thingie. Pierce Immunity [EPIC] Through intense study of the nature of the elements, you can pierce the immunity of creatures that normaly are immune to your attacks Benefit: Chose an element (Acid, Cold, Fire, Sonic, Electricity). Whenever you attack a creature that normaly is immune to that energy type, it instead has Resistance against that element equal to its HD. Improved Pierce Immunity [EPIC] Your spells and attacks break energy resistances as if they were paper Benefit: Chose an element you have Pierce Immunity with. Creatures you attack or target with spells has a -15 penalty to their resistance against your attacks. Special: The benefit of this feat stacks. Each time you take it, the penalty improves by another -15.
bluemage55 10-11-06, 02:50 PM	I've not gotten so far into epic yet (level 25 currently), but this far, offensive spells such as Polar Ray and Chain Lightning (oh I love that one :D) makes up for a great deal of the damage our party deals (one wizard, a cleric and a straight fighter). Maybe at higher levels 30+, offensive spells become useless, but that's also why we've house ruled that energy immunity can be overcome through the usage of feats (altough we have yet to actually define those rules) and that the ring of universal elemental immunity is an artifact only thingie. Pierce Immunity [EPIC] Through intense study of the nature of the elements, you can pierce the immunity of creatures that normaly are immune to your attacks Benefit: Chose an element (Acid, Cold, Fire, Sonic, Electricity). Whenever you attack a creature that normaly is immune to that energy type, it instead has Resistance against that element equal to its HD. Improved Pierce Immunity [EPIC] Your spells and attacks break energy resistances as if they were paper Benefit: Chose an element you have Pierce Immunity with. Creatures you attack or target with spells has a -15 penalty to their resistance against your attacks. Special: The benefit of this feat stacks. Each time you take it, the penalty improves by another -15. That's homebrew, and not the province of this thread. Within core, the presence of universal energy immunity is a simplifying factor since it rules out significant dice rolling. For non-core, there already exists other feats for elemental penetration.
Gemstone 10-11-06, 03:21 PM	That's homebrew, and not the province of this thread. Within core, the presence of universal energy immunity is a simplifying factor since it rules out significant dice rolling. For non-core, there already exists other feats for elemental penetration. ah yes, sorry. I mixed two threads up and read the few last statements on this one.
GreyLord 10-11-06, 07:48 PM	I SHOULDN'T get sucked into it, because this thread isn't about that...BUT...those who think that an offensive spell only means one that you point at an enemy and hope they aren't immune to...IN MY OPINION...should reevaluate their arsenal of offensive spells as they are limiting themselves. The most effective offensive spells normally AREN'T the ones that are point and click, but the ones that affect the environment and items AROUND the so called immune creature... Far more devastating, and sometimes one spell of what some might consider lesser quality, can be deadly with enough imagination. Roll 400 dice for damage, of course...but to what??? If the creature has no ground to stand on...but is reliant upon gravity and friction to move...but none is available...because you've destroyed that... Oh and numerous other things far beyond that of course... As for BAB...rolling to get 20's is pretty darn important. Hell, the more attacks the better. AT that point you don't even have to define which attack you are using with what bonus, you just roll the stack of the D20s and if you get them, count up the 20s that you rolled. And with Crits tossed in for good matter, those 20s can become more significant...and don't forget, the more attacks, the bigger the possibility of getting a chance to roll for crits. With how underpowered warriors are compared to an epic spellcaster...anything helps.
bluemage55 10-11-06, 08:52 PM	I SHOULDN'T get sucked into it, because this thread isn't about that...BUT...those who think that an offensive spell only means one that you point at an enemy and hope they aren't immune to...IN MY OPINION...should reevaluate their arsenal of offensive spells as they are limiting themselves. The most effective offensive spells normally AREN'T the ones that are point and click, but the ones that affect the environment and items AROUND the so called immune creature... Far more devastating, and sometimes one spell of what some might consider lesser quality, can be deadly with enough imagination. Roll 400 dice for damage, of course...but to what??? If the creature has no ground to stand on...but is reliant upon gravity and friction to move...but none is available...because you've destroyed that... Precisely, you must be creative. And in those creative situations, for the most part it isn't about rolling hundreds of die to obtain an effect. As for BAB...rolling to get 20's is pretty darn important. Hell, the more attacks the better. AT that point you don't even have to define which attack you are using with what bonus, you just roll the stack of the D20s and if you get them, count up the 20s that you rolled. And with Crits tossed in for good matter, those 20s can become more significant...and don't forget, the more attacks, the bigger the possibility of getting a chance to roll for crits. With how underpowered warriors are compared to an epic spellcaster...anything helps. If you gain an extra attack that serves only the purpose of a natural 20, then you might as well just give the warrior a nice increase in damage. It saves tremendous amount of time and results in the same effect. That, however, requires the concession that melee characters are underpowered, which is a common misconception I do not agree with because I usually play the melee character and I always end up as the killing machine of the party. In a basic iconic party, the melee specialist is an incredible asset at epic when he is adequately equipped and is supported by spellcasters. I would agree that a single fighter up against a single wizard of the same level is likely to lose, but that's not what their role is likely to be in a typical game. If your warrior is underpowered, you're being moronic and standing toe-to-toe, trading hits. People complain about how spellcasters can pull off broken spell combos and such, but if they just stood in one place shooting fireballs, how much would they suck?
bluemage55 10-28-06, 01:45 AM	After some playtesting, updated the epic feat section. The crafting feats have had the Knowledge (Arcana) requirement removed so that they are more accessible to all casters, and a note was added to the end of Ignore Material Components to specify that it does not affect item creation. Finally, I added a new epic feat "Epic Might" that can be repeatedly taken for +3 damage on weapon damage rolls each time.
bluemage55 11-05-06, 04:00 AM	Added an epic spells section with some game-balancing errata. Added an errata to the Umbral Blot's Disintegrating Touch ability to reflect 3.5 disintegrate.
CelestialBarbarian 11-05-06, 06:56 AM	Table 4-32: Intelligent Item Awesome Powers, on page 148 of ELH lists bull's strength, cat's grace, and endurance spells as intensified, granting a +10 enhancement bonus to the appropriate ability score. Under 3.5 the Intensify Spell feat doesn't apply to the three spells because they have no variable components any longer. I might also add that the name of endurance has been changed to bear's endurance. The SRD doesn't update any of these.
bluemage55 11-05-06, 09:06 AM	Table 4-32: Intelligent Item Awesome Powers, on page 148 of ELH lists bull's strength, cat's grace, and endurance spells as intensified, granting a +10 enhancement bonus to the appropriate ability score. Under 3.5 the Intensify Spell feat doesn't apply to the three spells because they have no variable components any longer. I might also add that the name of endurance has been changed to bear's endurance. The SRD doesn't update any of these. That's a good call. What should those abilities be replaced with instead? I am thinking to allow the use of an extended bull's strength/cat's grace/bear's endurance, but 3 times a day instead for a hefty 80 minutes each time.
CelestialBarbarian 11-05-06, 09:26 AM	That's a good call. What should those abilities be replaced with instead? I am thinking to allow the use of an extended bull's strength/cat's grace/bear's endurance, but 3 times a day instead for a hefty 80 minutes each time. Thanks! :) Hmm. A +4 enhancement bonus even for an extended period of time doesn't really seems like most of an Awesome power. I mean, you can get those on the less-expensive version of non-epic wonderous items. Maybe keep the +10 enhancement bonuses for some period (30 minutes?) but drop the reference to the spells?
runestar 11-05-06, 09:27 AM	Also, is there a reason why the armour skin epic feat was nerfed from +2NA to just a measly +1NA?:mad:
CelestialBarbarian 11-05-06, 09:52 AM	Also, is there a reason why the armour skin epic feat was nerfed from +2NA to just a measly +1NA?:mad: :lol: It's always funny for me to hear people use "nerf" as a verb. Are you old enough to remember real nerf? :D
Klytus 11-05-06, 08:32 PM	Table 4-32: Intelligent Item Awesome Powers, on page 148 of ELH lists bull's strength, cat's grace, and endurance spells as intensified, granting a +10 enhancement bonus to the appropriate ability score. Under 3.5 the Intensify Spell feat doesn't apply to the three spells because they have no variable components any longer. I might also add that the name of endurance has been changed to bear's endurance. The SRD doesn't update any of these. Maybe the Intensify Spell feat is what needs to be re-worked so it does work on fixed-effect spells? It would need to add 25% to the original fixed value, and then double to get a +10 for these effects. On the other hand, I am now thinking of an Intensified bestow curse... ::shudder::
CelestialBarbarian 11-05-06, 09:15 PM	Maybe the Intensify Spell feat is what needs to be re-worked so it does work on fixed-effect spells? It would need to add 25% to the original fixed value, and then double to get a +10 for these effects. On the other hand, I am now thinking of an Intensified bestow curse... ::shudder:: Well Empower Spell and Maximize Spell don't work on non-variable effects, so Intensify Spell probably shouldn't either.
bluemage55 11-05-06, 10:41 PM	Also, is there a reason why the armour skin epic feat was nerfed from +2NA to just a measly +1NA?:mad: Perhaps the point was to bring it in line with the fact that epic prowess grants only +1 to attack rolls. I see the feat as underpowered, especially given that Improved Natural Armor does the same thing before epic (except that it requires natural armor already). I don't see +2 NA as being overpowered since natural armor still doesn't stop touch attacks. Does anyone else have thoughts on this?
CelestialBarbarian 11-05-06, 11:17 PM	Perhaps the point was to bring it in line with the fact that epic prowess grants only +1 to attack rolls. I see the feat as underpowered, especially given that Improved Natural Armor does the same thing before epic (except that it requires natural armor already). I don't see +2 NA as being overpowered since natural armor still doesn't stop touch attacks. Does anyone else have thoughts on this? I tend to agree. If a non-epic feat grants virtually the same thing, it seems underpowered for an epic feat. As a practical matter I probably won't change the epic feat, simply because I try to minimize the number of house rules I use.
CelestialBarbarian 11-06-06, 07:25 AM	I noticed that the sample demilich in the ELH and the SRD has a CR of 29. The demilich is based on a 21st-level wizard. Under 3.0 the lich had CR adjustment of +2, and the demilich a CR adjustment of +6, so 21 + 2 -6 = 29. Under 3.5, however, the lich had a CR adjustment of +4, so the sample demilich should have a CR of 31 now.
bluemage55 11-06-06, 03:52 PM	Under 3.5, however, the lich had a CR adjustment of +4, so the sample demilich should have a CR of 31 now. But it doesn't. The 3.5 Lich has an LA of +4, but a CR adjustment of +2.
CelestialBarbarian 11-07-06, 01:12 AM	But it doesn't. The 3.5 Lich has an LA of +4, but a CR adjustment of +2. That's what I get for looking up material when I'm sick and have stayed up all night. :(
Witch 11-29-06, 06:36 PM	If you're errataing individual epic spells, Rain of Fire will need the weather seed increased by six :)
dok 11-29-06, 07:44 PM	There needs to be a slight rewording to the Automatic Quicken feats. As written, a Sorcerer with the basic Automatic Quicken Spell Epic feat can cast an Empowered, Maximized, Twinned, Energy Admixtured scorching ray as a free action, (because even with metamagic, it's still treated as a 2nd level spell for all purposes except the 15th level spell slot it requires) but still needs a full-round action to cast an empowered fireball. I would suggest changing the wording to reflect the spell slot used, and allowing Perfect spell to be taken multiple times, adding an additional +2 levels to the spell slot affected.
Witch 11-29-06, 07:45 PM	Bluemage clarified in another thread that this was actually his intention for Perfect to suddenly work for all levels, not just ninth.
dok 11-29-06, 11:22 PM	That's fine, except it still doesn't address the example I presented: Automatic Quicken spell lets a sorcerer drop a 15th level spell slot as a free action as long as it's an uber-metamagic'd 2nd level spell, but forces him to burn a full-round action to use a 3rd level spell slot for an energy substituted-fireball.
Gemstone 11-30-06, 01:47 AM	Perhaps the point was to bring it in line with the fact that epic prowess grants only +1 to attack rolls. I see the feat as underpowered, especially given that Improved Natural Armor does the same thing before epic (except that it requires natural armor already). I don't see +2 NA as being overpowered since natural armor still doesn't stop touch attacks. Does anyone else have thoughts on this? Aye... IMO, +1 to AC is severely underpowered. AC is already lacking at epic levels after what I've seen, so I vote for changing it to +2
bluemage55 11-30-06, 01:58 AM	That's fine, except it still doesn't address the example I presented: Automatic Quicken spell lets a sorcerer drop a 15th level spell slot as a free action as long as it's an uber-metamagic'd 2nd level spell, but forces him to burn a full-round action to use a 3rd level spell slot for an energy substituted-fireball. The 3.0 ELH FAQ addressed this and stated that the modified spell level is used. I just updated the feats to include specify that. Thanks for noting the omission. :D
bluemage55 11-30-06, 02:04 AM	Aye... IMO, +1 to AC is severely underpowered. AC is already lacking at epic levels after what I've seen, so I vote for changing it to +2 I actually feel like removing the feat entirely. It's just plain terrible, as Damage Reduction, Great Dexterity, and Great Constituion are all much better defensive epic feats.
Witch 11-30-06, 03:30 AM	Well, in a way, people focusing on AC should be able to increase it too. Just not that crappily.
bluemage55 11-30-06, 03:44 AM	Well, in a way, people focusing on AC should be able to increase it too. Just not that crappily. They're better off doing it with Great Dexterity, or possibly Great Intelligence/Great Wisdom depending on their build.
Witch 11-30-06, 03:59 AM	Wouldn't that be problematic, with a Max Dex Bonus and all? For wearers of for example, Full Plate.
bluemage55 11-30-06, 04:12 AM	Wouldn't that be problematic, with a Max Dex Bonus and all? For wearers of for example, Full Plate. Smart characters don't bother with real armor and use bracers of armor instead.
Aluroon 11-30-06, 08:29 AM	Smart characters don't bother with real armor and use bracers of armor instead. So my Paladin and or Fighter has to suck because he wants to wear armor? Also note that I disagree with your psion change, think that Automatic Quicken should be 3 feats (with Still/Silent being 1 each). Timeless body needs an errata so that it only lasts 1 round, its broken as is without adding extend power onto it.
bluemage55 11-30-06, 03:28 PM	So my Paladin and or Fighter has to suck because he wants to wear armor? They already do through no fault of my own. The maximum Dex bonus is a huge limitation on armor even before epic. Also note that I disagree with your psion change, think that Automatic Quicken should be 3 feats (with Still/Silent being 1 each). What's your reasoning behind that? Timeless body needs an errata so that it only lasts 1 round, its broken as is without adding extend power onto it. True. I didn't include that since it would be errata that belongs outside of the epic SRD (and there are other things that need to be fixed in that category as well).
Witch 11-30-06, 03:56 PM	Darnit Aluroon, don't screw over the tricks I steal from my playtesters! :(
Gemstone 11-30-06, 07:15 PM	Smart characters don't bother with real armor and use bracers of armor instead. Actually, why is that? Isn't there a way to make armore effective as well? IMO, a fighter should be able to wear armor without a massive penalty...
bluemage55 11-30-06, 09:26 PM	Actually, why is that? Isn't there a way to make armore effective as well? IMO, a fighter should be able to wear armor without a massive penalty... Actually there is, but unfortunately, it's an SDA . . .
Gemstone 12-01-06, 08:18 AM	Actually there is, but unfortunately, it's an SDA . . . But most fighters doesn't have all that much Dex as long as they aren't archers, right? Or have I missed something completly here? After all, a bracers of armor costs as much as a suit of armor, except for the very fact that when you buy an armor, you pay more, to get MORE AC total. For example, a full Plate offers +8 AC from scratch for 1.500 gp. To make a single bracers of armor that makes up for that will cost you: 8*8*1000=64.000 gp. The total cost for armor will therefore lie a total of 62.500 gp under the cost for a similiar enchanted bracer, without the epic factor too... adding on the potential DEX bonus on anyone carrying bracers will of course even the odds out a bit, but not enough until higher epic levels. Also, the SDA I think you are speaking of only affects light or medium armor, not heavy armor. Am I missing something here?
Draegun Fury 12-01-06, 08:52 AM	There is magic armor in the ELH that increases the Max Dex by 8 (Armour of the Celestial Battalion), however I do not know how one would work out the cost for an ability that did that. As for actual Errata: Mighty Rage [Epic] Prerequisites Str 21, Con 21, greater rage class feature, rage 5/day. Benefit When you rage, you gain a +8 bonus to Strength and Constitution and a +4 morale bonus on Will saves. (These bonuses replace the normal rage bonuses.) Should become: Mighty Rage [Epic] Prerequisites Str 21, Con 21, mighty rage class feature, rage 5/day. Benefit When you rage, you gain a +10 bonus to Strength and Constitution and a +5 morale bonus on Will saves. (These bonuses replace the normal rage bonuses.) Also, I would suggest changing the Feat Name from Mighty Rage to Epic Rage. Cheers.
Gemstone 12-01-06, 09:23 AM	Let me object to that. Shouldn't it grant +12 to strength and to con? Else, it's not a very powerful increase for a single feat?
Draegun Fury 12-01-06, 09:49 AM	I guess that fits better with the way it was first intended. I'm not sure about the balance tho'. What do you other guys think? Cheers.
bluemage55 12-02-06, 03:40 PM	Am I missing something here? Most fighters will still want Dex. They may not put their level-based ability score increases into it, but Dex still determines initiative, Reflex saves, and AC. Keep in mind also the following: Medium or heavy armor entails a painful loss of movement speed except for dwarves. Creatures who depend on wings to fly can't wear armor heavier than light armor. Standard armor doesn't protect against incorporeal attacks like bracers of armor do unless you pay for an additional +3 for ghost touch. Gish have their own issues with armor. Armor has check penalties that hurt skill users. A basic level 20 fighter will have a Dex of 13, that is increased an additional +6 by gloves of dexterity. Their expected Dexterity will be 19, granting a bonus of +4. Such a fighter could have identical AC with either a +5 mithral breastplate of ghost touch for 68,850 gp or with bracers of armor +10 for 100,000 gp. The fighter wearing the regular armor has certainly saved money, but a fighter who wants to optimize their total armor bonus beyond +10 cannot do so using armor. Rather, said fighter would instead stick with the the bracers and grab a monk's belt and a periapt of wisdom +6, throwing on about another +5 to their AC. Doing so would also allow them to have a +1 robe enchanted with more armor special abilities. As you can see, regular armor represents a budget approach rather than an optimal approach. Of course, in an epic game, where Dexterity scores are likely to be ever-increasing, the usefulness of regular armor even as a budget solution will decrease, and regular armor becomes irrelevant once Dex scores exceed 31.
Alias 12-02-06, 04:17 PM	The total cost for armor will therefore lie a total of 62.500 gp under the cost for a similiar enchanted bracer, without the epic factor too. You're not just paying for the armor bonus - you're paying for: The lack of a max Dex bonus; The lack of armor penalties; The lack of arcane spellcasting failure; and The lack of speed penalty for medium/heavy armor. If I fall into the water, I'm not going to sink like a rock wearing bracers of armor; I'll be able to carry far more gear, move a lot faster, and do a lot of things I wouldn't be able to do wearing 50 pounds of metal. Given the choice between full plate and bracers +8 (and assuming I could afford either), the choice is pretty clear to me, and it's well worth the extra 62K gold.
CelestialBarbarian 12-03-06, 12:40 AM	Creatures who depend on wings to fly can't wear armor heavier than light armor. Can you direct me to where in the books the rules say this? At one time I looked high and low but coudn't find it. Thanks.
bluemage55 12-03-06, 08:22 AM	Can you direct me to where in the books the rules say this? At one time I looked high and low but coudn't find it. Thanks. From the SRD, the equipment description specifically references barding for mounts as preventing flight if it is medium or heavy. The reference for creatures in general is elsewhere, I believe Savage Species has one such reference.
Gemstone 12-03-06, 03:19 PM	The lack of a max Dex bonus; Any armor wielding character will have a pretty low Dex bonus anyway :) Most fighters I see have a DEX of 13 or so. The lack of armor penalties; If you mean penalties, they are a pretty balanced option for armor, as it's cheap and very effecient ;) The lack of arcane spellcasting failure; That's not really a weakness. It's more of a balancing factor against spellcasters, since a wizard can't run around in heavy armor. True, clerics lack this weakness, but then again, which class is considered to be most powerful? The lack of speed penalty for medium/heavy armor. This one however, I completly agree with. It's an unfair (altough logical) penalty for armor wielders. So I'm not really on the same side. I would gladly spend those 62k on something else when I can get the same bonus from an armor. True, it's a bit better and something they should definitivly do something about (I'm adding a feat for it IMC). But I guess that's for discussion in another thread.
Witch 12-03-06, 03:25 PM	Any armor wielding character will have a pretty low Dex bonus anyway :) Most fighters I see have a DEX of 13 or so. At Epic, when a +6 Dex item is completely trivial? I'd be surprised to see a fighter with so low a Dex.
Klytus 12-03-06, 04:09 PM	At Epic, when a +6 Dex item is completely trivial? I'd be surprised to see a fighter with so low a Dex. The other thing about Armor and AC at Epic levels is that with the BAB's of Epic creatures, it doesn't matter whether your AC is 10, 30 or even 70 - you are going to get hit. A lot. Never mind armor, what you need are Hit Points!
Witch 12-03-06, 04:14 PM	...what? The intention is to not get hit. That isn't very difficult. Get yourself some epic buffs, or bonuses of all sorts.
Krispieman 12-03-06, 05:09 PM	Armor Skin, by itself, is a sad feat indeed. Consider the fact that the to hit bonus of every epic character increases by 1 for every 2 levels, while character feats accumulate at a rate of only 1 per 3 levels. Assuming one would take Armor Skin for every character level feat you're still falling rapidly behind. Changing it to +2 natural armor is the least that should be done. Perhaps we could even consider +3, but this would create new problems. To the discussion about armor vs. bracers: There remains one solid reason to use actual suits of armor over bracers and that is the armor special abilities (fortification, soulfire to name but a few). Unless your DM allows these enhancements to be placed upon bracers (a variant rule 1st suggested in the 3.0 Arms & Equipment guide, IIRC) there is no other way to aquire said bunuses. Some may find that sacrificing some movement/dex/skill use is worth it when compared to becoming immune to critical hits or death affects and energy drain. K-man :cool:
CelestialBarbarian 12-03-06, 05:58 PM	From the SRD, the equipment description specifically references barding for mounts as preventing flight if it is medium or heavy. The reference for creatures in general is elsewhere, I believe Savage Species has one such reference. Thanks. I didn't find anything in Savage Species, but I found the barding reference in the PHB.
rob_douglas 12-04-06, 09:57 AM	A lot of folks get their Soulfire, etc. abilities by enhancing a Robe as armor. But this is not explicitly allowed, I know. But a Robe takes the same slot as other armor, and Magic Vestment treats a robe or any normal clothing as armor with an armor bonus of +0 and no dex modifier, so it is an easy argument to make. So they where their +10 bracers of armor, and get a +1 Robe of heavy Fortification (+5) and Soulfire (+4). On the issue of Bracers - the A&E Guide says you can only get +8 pre-epic and +5 in special abilities, whereas ELH allows +10 pre-epic. If you allow the special abilities on top of that, you would be allowing +15 total, which is epic in itself due to the cost (225,000gp) which would require Craft Epic, but not trigger the x10 cost multiplier. In this case, +14 would be allowed as non-epic. I am not sure what to do about this, but those things need to be resolved (and therefore appropriately on this thread). And there is the issue of the Robe and bracers "stacking" protections. I am really having a problem with non-armor wearers having better ACs. Even if Bracers cost x2 that would help a lot, making +10 total the most. And perhaps we should disallow the Robe stacking trick. Of course there is a similar trick with armor - make it +1 and cast Magic Vestment on it, but that is more vulnerable to dispels and you still don't get as many bonuses to play with. Even worse....a +1 robe with +9 in special abilities, and +1 bracers with +12 or +13 in special abilities, and you just cast epic mage armor to get your real armor bonuses....Perhaps a rule that unless the armor bonus of the item contributes to your protection, the other protections don't work. @CB re: flying and armor - the necessary information is in the Movement Modes in the glossary of the Monster Manual. For Flight, the creature can only fly if carrying a light load. It notes that Medium armor does not necessarily constitute a Medium load. Fly spell and Air Walk would ignore this rule anyway. So I think that CB is closer. A half-celestial epic character could easily wear Mithral full-plate. ROB
Draegun Fury 12-04-06, 11:18 AM	Hey guys, I could of sworn I already posted this, but looking over I can't find it, so here we go again. The ELH has a suit of Magic Chain with a +10 Dex modifier. Extrapolating the cost for that enhancement, could see a viable alternative to wearing bracers. Combining the above with Mithral Armor, you could get Fullplate Armor with a Max Dex modifier of +12. Cheers.
rob_douglas 12-04-06, 11:53 AM	An interesting thought. I think that the material should have been better explained in the Armor of the Celestial Battalion. It is basically better mithral, but as the rules go, it does seem to be made of regular metal. However, for the purposes of errata, I propose a new material - celestial steel. It has higher Dex allowed and lower penalties. Mithral wouldn't stack with it, but yes, Celestial Full Plate would be an option. I can't figure out the price of it, because the AotCB costs are too low. At will Fly at 20th level = 120,000. Constant Magic Circle also at 20th = 120,000. +7 chainmail = 490,300. Besides, that armor should require fly, or Air walk, and it should also require freedom of movement if the dex bonus is actually coming from magic and not the material. It would be nice to know, because what is the Dex bonus of that armor in an AMF? I wish I had some answers, but I don't. ROB
bluemage55 12-09-06, 08:44 PM	Inspire Excellence errata added. Paragon errata added.
CelestialBarbarian 12-10-06, 12:51 AM	Inspire Excellence errata added. Paragon errata added. Added where?
bluemage55 12-10-06, 01:09 AM	Check the feats and monsters (g-w) sections on the first page.
CelestialBarbarian 12-10-06, 02:11 AM	Check the feats and monsters (g-w) sections on the first page. Ah, ok, thanks. :)
bluemage55 12-17-06, 09:31 PM	Added Dire Charge, which I believe I accidentally cut out at an earlier point.
bluemage55 01-04-07, 03:23 AM	Added the removal of Augmented Alchemy, allowing its function to be used without the feat.
VrecknidjX 01-04-07, 10:26 AM	Just curious, bluemage55, if you'd be willing to write an article for Knowledge Arcana (http://wizo.wizards.com/ka/) about all this? I actually have several reasons for asking. First, I've played D&D for a long time, and have always been a fan of the super-duper powers that some characters can attain (provided the players are up to the task of not just being inane about it). Second, I currently have a group of characters in a campaign that are pushing 25th level, and I've had to do some of this kind of work myself already, and really appreciate what you're doing. And, third, I hope that KA would have enough readers interested in the topic that it would be seen as an appreciated article. No promises, of course. I am the D&D area editor for the magazine, but I don't determine final cuts (though I have a bit of influence). I would really like an article or two on epic play, and I see an attempt at gauging and improving the epic SRD as a big step in the right direction for epic DMing. If you are interested, shoot me an email (it's in my profile). Dave
bluemage55 01-22-07, 08:14 PM	Updated several epic items.
rob_douglas 01-25-07, 12:19 AM	I know I have to post some updates to the section on Staffs, but I thought I would at least post this tidbit I just realized. I noticed that they still publish save DCs for epic staffs, which they don't do for the non-epic staffs, and it says that you use those save DCs or the wielder's, whichever is higher. So I got to wondering - where did they get those numbers, because some of them come out to be pretty high. Take the Staff of the Cosmos - Intensified Meteor Swarm - DC 34. Now as I see it, the DC for an Intensified Meteor Swarm in general is 19+INT or CHA bonus. For magic items, you use the lowest ability score that could cast it - in this case, 19, so +4. 19+4 - 23. Where did they get 34? They used the Intensified spell slot for determining base DC AND required ability score - neither of which is correct. So Inten. MS is 16th level. 10+16 (spell slot) + 8 (ability score to cast a 16th level spell = 26) = 34. Required ability score applies only to the unmodified spell level - except in the case of heighten spell. A wizard with INT 15 can't cast any 6th level spells, but he can cast Quickened 5th level spells in 9th level slots if he is 17th level or higher. I already noted before (I believe) my objection to the rule on minimum caster level for a given spell level, but I am going to go ahead with it. Since the most powerful spell here requires a 16th level slot, that means caster level is 11+16 = 27. OK, well, I should note my update for these items. Staff of the Cosmos This staff allows use of the following spells. Chain lightning (intensified, 1 charge) Meteor swarm (intensified, 1 charge) Sunburst (intensified, 1 charge) Caster Level: 27th; Prerequisites: Craft Staff, Craft Epic Staff, Intensify Spell, chain lightning, meteor swarm, sunburst; Market Price: 684,037.5 gp. (Note that Staff of Domination does not require caster level 21, so I dropped it to 17th. It is still epic, as it costs over 200K) Staff of Domination This staff allows use of the following spells. Dominate monster (1 charge) Demand (1 charge) Mass charm monster (1 charge) Geas/quest (heightened to 9th, 1 charge) Caster Level: 17th; Prerequisites: Craft Staff, Craft Epic Staff, Heighten Spell, demand, dominate monster, geas/quest, mass charm monster; Market Price: 303,412.5 gp. (For the Staff of Fiery Power, I chose to Maximize the Meteor Swarmit, rather than Heighten it to 12th - as that is more useful, especially since it has no save on the prime target. This also removes some prereqs. Speaking of Prereqs - is there ANY precedent for allowing Spell Focus (Evocation) to be crafted into this item? I see no reason to change the price. The elements in place are 300,600 for the staff of spells, 72,000*1.5 for the weapon, and 66,000 for the fire resistance. That is 474,600gp, not including the Retributive Strike, so 500,000gp seems fair. Below is my edited entry though.) Staff of Fiery Power This +5 flaming quarterstaff grants its wielder fire resistance 30 whenever held. In addition, it has the following powers. Wall of fire (extended, 1 charge) Delayed blast fireball (intensified, 2 charges) Meteor swarm (heightened to 12th, 2 charges) Summon monster IX (extended, 2 charges, elder fire elemental only) A staff of fiery power can be broken in a retributive strike. The breaking of the staff must be purposeful and declared by the wielder. All charges currently in the staff are instantly released in a 30-foot radius globe. All within 10 feet of the broken staff take points of damage equal to eight times the number of charges in the staff, those between 11 feet and 20 feet away take six times the number of charges in damage, and those 21 feet to 30 feet distant take four times the number of charges in damage. Successful Reflex saving throws (DC 17) reduce the damage sustained by half. The character breaking the staff has a 50% chance of traveling to another plane of existence; if he or she does not, the explosive release of spell energy destroys him or her. After all charges are used up from the staff, it remains a +5 quarterstaff with no special abilities. (Once empty of charges, it cannot be broken in a retributive strike.) Caster Level: 25th; Prerequisites: Craft Staff, Craft Epic Staff, Extend Spell, Heighten Spell, Improved Heighten Spell, Intensify Spell, continual flame, delayed blast fireball, meteor swarm, resist energy, summon monster IX, wall of fire; Market Price: 500,000 gp. Staff of The Hierophants This staff allows use of the following spells. Creeping doom (enlarged, extended, 1 charge) Command plants (enlarged, extended, 1 charge) Elemental swarm (intensified, 2 charges) Shambler (intensified, 2 charges) Caster Level: 27th; Prerequisites: Craft Staff, Craft Epic Staff, Enlarge Spell, Extend Spell, Intensify Spell, creeping doom, command plants, elemental swarm, shambler; Market Price: 446,100 gp. (Another one that doesn't need to be 21st caster level, so I dropped it to 17th) Staff of Mighty Force This staff has three powers. Shield (quickened, 1 charge, may be activated once per round) Forcecage (1 charge) Crushing hand (1 charge) Caster Level: 17th; Prerequisites: Craft Staff, Craft Epic Staff, Quicken Spell, crushing hand, forcecage, shield; Market Price: 214,162.5 gp. That is enough for now....I will come back to this for more staffs later. Bluemage, feel free to add them to the front page when you feel they are correct. ROB
Alias 01-25-07, 12:53 PM	I already noted before (I believe) my objection to the rule on minimum caster level for a given spell level, but I am going to go ahead with it. Since the most powerful spell here requires a 16th level slot, that means caster level is 11+16 = 27. The DMG says you can make the CL higher for scrolls, potions and wands, but it's silent on other items... I wonder if you *could* craft them at higher CLs? But yeah, I agree - I can't see any reason for all these items being CL 20, beyond the fact they're epic. Speaking of Prereqs - is there ANY precedent for allowing Spell Focus (Evocation) to be crafted into this item? Not really... unless you count metamagic feats as precedents. I think the only reason they added Spell Focus was to jack up the DCs (which they actually got right in this case).
bluemage55 01-25-07, 02:15 PM	Rob, I'm getting slightly lower numbers than you for the staffs. Did you apply the x.75 price modifier for the second most expensive spell and x.5 for every spell after that? For the staff of fiery power, Spell Focus (Evocation) definitely does not belong in the prerequisites. I would leave it as Heighten Spell, as it helps in bypassing spell turning and wards, and the increased save DCs still help against targets in the area (not to mention the fact that targeting an opponent with Exceptional Deflection and Reflect Arrows can be very bad).
rob_douglas 01-25-07, 04:58 PM	The DMG says you can make the CL higher for scrolls, potions and wands, but it's silent on other items... I wonder if you *could* craft them at higher CLs? But yeah, I agree - I can't see any reason for all these items being CL 20, beyond the fact they're epic. For staffs in particular, there is no reason to do so - as any spell cast from it uses your caster level. I guess except if you are worried about a targetted Dispel on your staff. I think that might be a reason for the difference - in 3.0, they wanted it to have a caster level > 20 anyway, since that was the only caster level that a staff had. Now it gets it from the caster, so there is no need - again making this a good revision. As for other items, I see no reason why you couldn't. It would increase the cost proportionally. You could make Boots of Speed at 20th caster level for 20 rounds of speed a day. Etc. Rob, I'm getting slightly lower numbers than you for the staffs. Did you apply the x.75 price modifier for the second most expensive spell and x.5 for every spell after that? I have a spreadsheet, so I should be getting them all right or none. ;) I also added 600gp for the masterwork staff that is needed as the base. Any one in particular? I think I messed up one of the spell levels (I think I treated Chain Lightning as 7th instead of 6th in the Cosmos. Let me check - yep I did. That made that too high. I will edit that. So should I round to a more convenient number? Like the next multiple of 5,000 gp? For the staff of fiery power, Spell Focus (Evocation) definitely does not belong in the prerequisites. I would leave it as Heighten Spell, as it helps in bypassing spell turning and wards, and the increased save DCs still help against targets in the area (not to mention the fact that targeting an opponent with Exceptional Deflection and Reflect Arrows can be very bad). That is true. Do you think that is what they were thinking? While it could be effective, do you think that is a likely combination - especially as it then requires an extra feat. I will put it back for the "official" revision - but I still will use Maximize on my personal versions.... ;) ROB
bluemage55 01-25-07, 07:11 PM	You are not supposed to add the cost of a masterwork staff unless the staff also functions as a magic weapon. The staffs do have to be 21st level, because the price has to be 200,000+ gp for a single power (I'm aware this is not stated explicitly, but there are items over 200,000 gp that are not epic).
bluemage55 01-28-07, 03:32 AM	Added the staffs that Rob posted, with my own revision included.
EricV 01-28-07, 03:36 PM	To the discussion about armor vs. bracers: There remains one solid reason to use actual suits of armor over bracers and that is the armor special abilities (fortification, soulfire to name but a few). Unless your DM allows these enhancements to be placed upon bracers (a variant rule 1st suggested in the 3.0 Arms & Equipment guide, IIRC) there is no other way to aquire said bunuses. Some may find that sacrificing some movement/dex/skill use is worth it when compared to becoming immune to critical hits or death affects and energy drain. K-man :cool: One of the only things I allow in my core-only game is the grace feature from Monte Cook's BoEM; it allows full dex bonus. Otherwise, yeah, most would opt for bracers.
Alias 01-31-07, 12:51 PM	Some may find that sacrificing some movement/dex/skill use is worth it when compared to becoming immune to critical hits or death affects and energy drain. Yeah, good point, that. On the subject of bracers: has anyone else noticed that the CL for bracers of armor is twice the bonus, whereas normal armor is 3 times the bonus? It's kind of odd... they grant an armor bonus, whereas armor grants an enhancement bonus, but they use the same pricing formula. The non-epic cap for skill bonuses, as listed in the ELH, is +30. There is no item in the DMG that grants a bonus above +10 (except possibly the robe of eyes, which grants +10 to Search and Spot checks). Even in 3.0, there was no item that granted a bonus above +15 except the ring of jumping (+30), which everyone agreed was broken anyway. So I suggest the non-epic cap for skill bonus be reduced to +10 - that would help with the abuses of such items as the ever-popular rod of spellcraft +90.
bluemage55 02-01-07, 08:14 AM	On the subject of bracers: has anyone else noticed that the CL for bracers of armor is twice the bonus, whereas normal armor is 3 times the bonus? It's kind of odd... they grant an armor bonus, whereas armor grants an enhancement bonus, but they use the same pricing formula. Bracers of armor can only grant an armor bonus, whereas magical armor can gain special abilities. This way, bracers of armor scale faster than the more beneficial armor abilities. The non-epic cap for skill bonuses, as listed in the ELH, is +30. There is no item in the DMG that grants a bonus above +10 (except possibly the robe of eyes, which grants +10 to Search and Spot checks). Even in 3.0, there was no item that granted a bonus above +15 except the ring of jumping (+30), which everyone agreed was broken anyway. So I suggest the non-epic cap for skill bonus be reduced to +10 - that would help with the abuses of such items as the ever-popular rod of spellcraft +90. The thought occurred to me that perhaps the cap should be +23. +30 seems to have been arbitrarily selected as a result of the 3.0 ring of jumping. In 3.5, one rank is required for each point of competence bonus, so a 20th level character could only make a +23 item. I'll add that update to the thread.
Cord de'Beron 02-01-07, 08:45 AM	In 3.5 rules the DC from Spell Focus (and Greater Spell Focus) was lowered to suit the saving throws more. In the booklet it dosnt change the Epic Spell Focus (+6 DC), shouldnt it be lowered to +3 or maybe +4? In the Complete Arcane its changed to +3!! Regards
bluemage55 02-01-07, 08:59 AM	In 3.5 rules the DC from Spell Focus (and Greater Spell Focus) was lowered to suit the saving throws more. In the booklet it dosnt change the Epic Spell Focus (+6 DC), shouldnt it be lowered to +3 or maybe +4? In the Complete Arcane its changed to +3!! Regards That has already been resolved. Take a look at the SRD.
Alias 02-01-07, 12:04 PM	+30 seems to have been arbitrarily selected as a result of the 3.0 ring of jumping. Right. That one's pretty obvious. The thought occurred to me that perhaps the cap should be +23. ... In 3.5, one rank is required for each point of competence bonus, so a 20th level character could only make a +23 item. True... but I wonder why the "improved" rings are only +10, instead of +15 or +20. I mean, a +20 ring only costs 20,000 gp, which is near the low end for rings. A +20 skill bonus is huge - imagine gloves that granted a +20 bonus to Open Locks, or Disable Device - every rogue out there would have a set, especially if they cost only 20K. And +23 is a little odd - skill bonuses always go by 5's, just because it's a nice round number.
Witch 02-01-07, 12:45 PM	I suggest that if you're capping it anyway, you cap it at 20 or 25. I dislike the look of a cap at 23.
bluemage55 02-01-07, 02:27 PM	A +20 ring would be 40,000 gp, actually. +23 seems the most appropriate number, and to make it +20 or +25 simply because it's not a "nice, even number" seems arbitrary.
CelestialBarbarian 02-01-07, 03:33 PM	A +20 ring would be 40,000 gp, actually. +23 seems the most appropriate number, and to make it +20 or +25 simply because it's not a "nice, even number" seems arbitrary. 25 isn't "even" or "round" anyway since it can't be divided by 2 into a whole number. Still there is an appeal to having it be a multiple of five (perhaps because that's the number of fingers on our hands and toes on our feet?) rather than a prime number, evenly divisible only by itself an 1. :D
rob_douglas 02-01-07, 05:26 PM	Bracers of armor can only grant an armor bonus, whereas magical armor can gain special abilities. This way, bracers of armor scale faster than the more beneficial armor abilities. Do you allow someone to have say Bracers +10, and a Robe +1 of Heavy Fortification and Death Ward? That would grant you all the abilities you need, at very little cost. I just arbitrarily ruled no. [/quote] The thought occurred to me that perhaps the cap should be +23. In 3.5, one rank is required for each point of competence bonus, so a 20th level character could only make a +23 item. [/QUOTE] I also support +20 as a cap, just because it is a nicer looking number and certainly "big enough". I can see the argument for making it only +15. Those skill bonus items could be a much better way to do some things. Add in UMD to some gloves, and suddenly you can easily use any scroll or wand with your Gloves of Utilizing. Since most characters can't even get UMD easily, it is a cheap way to make that happen. But anyway, +20 seems the most supportable by the rules, assuming you want to keep the math easy and keep it as a multiple of 5 (which I do). ROB
bluemage55 02-01-07, 07:53 PM	Do you allow someone to have say Bracers +10, and a Robe +1 of Heavy Fortification and Death Ward? That would grant you all the abilities you need, at very little cost. I just arbitrarily ruled no. Why not? There's also the additional opportunity cost of the bracers slot. I also support +20 as a cap, just because it is a nicer looking number and certainly "big enough". I can see the argument for making it only +15. Those skill bonus items could be a much better way to do some things. Add in UMD to some gloves, and suddenly you can easily use any scroll or wand with your Gloves of Utilizing. Since most characters can't even get UMD easily, it is a cheap way to make that happen. But anyway, +20 seems the most supportable by the rules, assuming you want to keep the math easy and keep it as a multiple of 5 (which I do). The rules require one skill rank for every point of bonus. I'm not sure that it really makes the math that much easier, as the only difference between +20 and +23 is where the price jumps.
Alias 02-02-07, 12:26 PM	A +20 ring would be 40,000 gp, actually. Oops, forgot to square the bonus. 40K puts it firmly in the range of Major Rings, so yeah, +20 could probably be the cap. If you use PaladinPride's variant pricing system (which actually works, with a little modification), you end up with +30 rings being 135K (that works) and +40 being 480K (possibly a little low, but still good). +23 seems the most appropriate number, and to make it +20 or +25 simply because it's not a "nice, even number" seems arbitrary. It's not really arbitrary - if you look in the book, ALL skill bonus items go by 5s - there isn't a "ring of lockpicking +13" or "gloves of selight of hand +19". Sure, there's no rule that says you can't make said items, but they just look weird. The rules require one skill rank for every point of bonus. Just because you have 23 ranks doesn't mean you have to make an item that grants a +23 bonus - it can grant any bonus that you want, up to +23.
elondir 02-02-07, 01:40 PM	From reading this thread, it would make most sense to cap it at either +23 (what a 20th level character can make), +20 (easier math), or +25 (rounding +23 up to the nearest 5). However, it would make the ring of jumping an epic magic item, which doesn't make sense to me. Actually, if you need 1 rank per bonus, then doesn't that automatically make the ring of jumping epic? I vote for +23.
CelestialBarbarian 02-02-07, 01:57 PM	From reading this thread, it would make most sense to cap it at either +23 (what a 20th level character can make), +20 (easier math), or +25 (rounding +23 up to the nearest 5). However, it would make the ring of jumping an epic magic item, which doesn't make sense to me. Actually, if you need 1 rank per bonus, then doesn't that automatically make the ring of jumping epic? I vote for +23. Jumping: This ring continually allows the wearer to leap about, providing a +5 competence bonus on all his Jump checks. Faint transmutation; CL 2nd; Forge Ring, creator must have 5 ranks in the Jump skill; Price 2,500 gp. Jumping, Improved: As jumping, except it grants a +10 competence bonus on its wearer’s Jump check. Moderate transmutation; CL 7th; Forge Ring, creator must have 10 ranks in the Jump skill; Price 10,000 gp. So the rings of jumping would not be epic even with a +23 cap on competence bonuses.
ninja_bob 02-02-07, 02:47 PM	So the rings of jumping would not be epic even with a +23 cap on competence bonuses. I think the “epic jump ring” was a reference to the 3.0’s “+30 jump” which in 3.5 would mean you need 30 ranks in jump to craft it, hardly in the realms of the non-epic.
CelestialBarbarian 02-02-07, 06:08 PM	I think the “epic jump ring” was a reference to the 3.0’s “+30 jump” which in 3.5 would mean you need 30 ranks in jump to craft it, hardly in the realms of the non-epic. Exactly why I posted the 3.5 SRD--to show that the +30 of the old 3.0 ring of jumping is now irrelevant.
CelestialBarbarian 02-04-07, 08:31 PM	I noticed that the heal seed uses the heal from 3.0 (heals all hit point damage) rather than the heal from 3.5 (heals 10/level up to 150). Should the heal seed be changed to reflect the change in the underlying heal spell?
bluemage55 02-05-07, 01:25 AM	I noticed that the heal seed uses the heal from 3.0 (heals all hit point damage) rather than the heal from 3.5 (heals 10/level up to 150). Should the heal seed be changed to reflect the change in the underlying heal spell? Indeed it should. Updated Epic Spells section to reflect 3.5 heal/harm.
CelestialBarbarian 02-05-07, 01:35 AM	Indeed it should. Updated Epic Spells section to reflect 3.5 heal/harm. Great! How did you determine that for each additional +10 hit points of damage cured the caster would need to increase the Spellcraft DC by +2? Thanks. :) So if you wanted to develop an epic heal spell that you could use in melee that would heal more damage than a maximum mass heal, it would have something like the following: Heal seed base Spellcraft DC: 25 Lower the casting time from 1 minute to 1 action: +20 Increase healing from 150 to 300 hit points: +30 Total Spellcraft DC: 75 Cost: gold: 675,000 XP: 27,000 Is that right? Thanks. :)
bluemage55 02-05-07, 01:52 AM	Great! How did you determine that for each additional +10 hit points of damage cured the caster would need to increase the Spellcraft DC by +2? Thanks. :) Refer to the energy seed. It is based on the lightning bolt spell, and starts off with the capped damage and requires +2 DC for every equivalent increase of another caster level. I did the same here. So if you wanted to develop an epic heal spell that you could use in melee that would heal more damage than a maximum mass heal, it would have something like the following: Heal seed base Spellcraft DC: 25 Lower the casting time from 1 minute to 1 action: +20 Increase healing from 150 to 300 hit points: +30 Total Spellcraft DC: 75 Cost: gold: 675,000 XP: 27,000 Is that right? Thanks. :) Looks right to me. :D
CelestialBarbarian 02-05-07, 01:55 AM	Refer to the energy seed. It is based on the lightning bolt spell, and starts off with the capped damage and requires +2 DC for every equivalent increase of another caster level. I did the same here. Ah, that makes sense! :) Looks right to me. :D Ok, thanks! :) It doesn't seem like Epic Spellcasting then represents a very good option for a cleric at, say, 21st level. Would you agree?
bluemage55 02-05-07, 02:14 AM	It doesn't seem like Epic Spellcasting then represents a very good option for a cleric at, say, 21st level. Would you agree? Epic spellcasting isn't about brute force. It's about customizability. The spell you proposed is fairly worthless as is, but the ability to customize it so that you can cast it from a mile away, use it on the entire party simultaneously, or make it self-casting can be very valuable. Also, there are many other things that said cleric can do with epic spells that are difficult/impossible to achieve without. So, no, I don't think it would be a bad option unless the cleric wasn't very creative in developing spells that are actually useful.
CelestialBarbarian 02-05-07, 02:19 AM	Epic spellcasting isn't about brute force. It's about customizability. The spell you proposed is fairly worthless as is, but the ability to customize it so that you can cast it from a mile away, use it on the entire party simultaneously, or make it self-casting can be very valuable. Also, there are many other things that said cleric can do with epic spells that are difficult/impossible to achieve without. So, no, I don't think it would be a bad option unless the cleric wasn't very creative in developing spells that are actually useful. Well it's an NPC cleric that I'm running, and we all know that I'm not too creative. :D
bluemage55 02-05-07, 02:29 AM	Well it's an NPC cleric that I'm running, and we all know that I'm not too creative. :D I see. For NPCs, epic spells probably aren't worth the hassle until ECL 30+ unless you have generic templates prepared.
CelestialBarbarian 02-05-07, 07:02 AM	I noticed that the afflict seed alone of all the seeds has a 1-action casting time. Can that possibly be correct? Why would the afflict seed have a casting time shorter than the casting time of all the others?
bluemage55 02-05-07, 12:56 PM	I noticed that the afflict seed alone of all the seeds has a 1-action casting time. Can that possibly be correct? Why would the afflict seed have a casting time shorter than the casting time of all the others? It's a pure typo. The pestilence spell treats the casting time as a minute, and all the other seeds have 1-minute casting times, so presumably it was just a random error. I added that to the revisions.
CelestialBarbarian 02-05-07, 01:34 PM	It's a pure typo. The pestilence spell treats the casting time as a minute, and all the other seeds have 1-minute casting times, so presumably it was just a random error. I added that to the revisions. Thanks. I figured it had to be a typo, but when I flipped through the epic spells I missed the one with the afflict seed, so I couldn't tell for sure. This is going to put the kibosh on the wizard's plan to make a cheap offensive spell for use in combat with the afflict seed. It seems like epic spells aren't well-suited to in-combat spells. Wizards did such a horribly slap-dash job compiling the ELH that no matter how much errata they publish or how many mistakes we've posted here, we're still finding more. :(
Shwepie 02-07-07, 07:03 PM	First off, Epic Might, that looks awfully familiar! As for the +1 Natural Armor feat, I'd suggest making it +2. Maybe bump Epic Prowess to +2 and Epic Might to +4, but I am crazy. The cap for competence bonus (or any bonus type) should be +23 since it is based on the creater's ranks. I would like to suggest a revision now. Alot of classes or abilities use the term (character/2 or class level/2) to determan some of their abilities strength. Like the Ranger's effective druid level or the Paladin's caster level are equal to half your class level. This is good for the first 20 levels or so, much like normal BAB progression is. But once you hit Epic you start to create a ever growing gap. I suggest a change of anything that is "character or class level/2" because "character or class -10" after 20 levels and -5 for prestige classes. This way a lvl 50 druid and a lvl 50 ranger would have EDLs of 50 and 40 respectivly. As upposed to 50 and 25.
bluemage55 02-07-07, 08:04 PM	As for the +1 Natural Armor feat, I'd suggest making it +2. Maybe bump Epic Prowess to +2, and Epic Might to +4, but I am crazy. We were actually talking about Armor Skin a few pages back, but we diverted from the discussion. The basic consensus is that Armor Skin is a terribly underpowered feat, but the bonus is +1 so that it scales with Epic Prowess. As I see it, there are three options: 1. Remove Armor Skin entirely. Anyone who wants to spend feats on NA can get an amulet of natural armor and then start taking Improved Natural Armor. 2. Increase Armor Skin to +2. It scales faster than epic prowess, but oh well. 3. Increase both Armor Skin and Epic Prowess to +2. This makes Epic Prowess quite a bit stronger, but given the number of ways to increase your attack bonus or even automatically hit, this might not be a problem. Thoughts, anyone? The cap for competence bonus (or any bonus type) should be +23 since it is based on the creater's ranks. Agreed. would like to suggest a revision now. Alot of classes or abilities use the term (character/2 or class level/2) to determan some of their abilities strength. Like the Ranger's effective druid level or the Paladin's caster level are equal to half your class level. This is good for the first 20 levels or so, much like normal BAB progression is. But once you hit Epic you start to create a ever growing gap. I suggest a change of anything that is "character or class level/2" because "character or class -10" after 20 levels and -5 for prestige classes. This way a lvl 50 druid and a lvl 50 ranger would have EDLs of 50 and 40 respectivly. As upposed to 50 and 25. The ranger does not have an "effective druid level". The ranger has a ranger caster level and a ranger spell progression. However, addressing your main point, I actually think you're onto something. I've never considered this issue with the half-casters. I worry that trying to fix this would be easy for the base classes, but very sloppy for the prestige classes (which encompass different progressions from simply full-caster and half-caster). Given the extreme difficulty in fixing this, I'm leaning towards leaving as it is, as half-casters probably shouldn't be attempting to beat SR or win opposed caster level checks anyway. What do other people think?
Paladin's Pride 02-07-07, 09:40 PM	Given the extreme difficulty in fixing this, I'm leaning towards leaving as it is, as half-casters probably shouldn't be attempting to beat SR or win opposed caster level checks anyway. What do other people think? Give them full caster level. I'll admit that paladins and rangers probably shouldn't be rolling against SR very much, but I see no reason classes should get worse and worse at defeating SR against even challenge rating opponents as levels go up. As far as non-epic prestige classes go, they've already paid for all their abilities with the loss of caster levels by the 10th level of their progression. If their abilities progress in a way that is too beneficial at epic, they'll lose bonus feats, so they probably don't need to lose more caster levels as well.
Shwepie 02-07-07, 11:51 PM	The ranger does not have an "effective druid level". The ranger has a ranger caster level and a ranger spell progression. QUOTE] Oh no? [QUOTE=SRD]Animal Companion (Ex): *snip* This ability functions like the druid ability of the same name, except that the ranger’s effective druid level is one-half his ranger level. A ranger may select from the alternative lists of animal companions just as a druid can, though again his effective druid level is half his ranger level. Like a druid, a ranger cannot select an alternative animal if the choice would reduce his effective druid level below 1st. This is what I ment by effective druid level, as in ranger is effectively a druid of x lvl for his animal companion. I don't think there are many PrC classes out there that offer a level/2 for any abilities, the ones that I have seen usually refer exclusively to the PrC class levels. Also, I am aware Paladin's and Ranger's realy shouldn't be trying to be SR. But if the situation ever arose and it was vital, it'd be nice to at least have a chance.
bluemage55 02-08-07, 12:20 AM	Oh no? My apologies, I did not refer to the text and assumed you were making some sort of mistake with ranger casting.
CelestialBarbarian 02-08-07, 02:43 AM	We were actually talking about Armor Skin a few pages back, but we diverted from the discussion. The basic consensus is that Armor Skin is a terribly underpowered feat, but the bonus is +1 so that it scales with Epic Prowess. As I see it, there are three options: 1. Remove Armor Skin entirely. Anyone who wants to spend feats on NA can get an amulet of natural armor and then start taking Improved Natural Armor. 2. Increase Armor Skin to +2. It scales faster than epic prowess, but oh well. 3. Increase both Armor Skin and Epic Prowess to +2. This makes Epic Prowess quite a bit stronger, but given the number of ways to increase your attack bonus or even automatically hit, this might not be a problem. Thoughts, anyone? Agreed. The ranger does not have an "effective druid level". The ranger has a ranger caster level and a ranger spell progression. However, addressing your main point, I actually think you're onto something. I've never considered this issue with the half-casters. I worry that trying to fix this would be easy for the base classes, but very sloppy for the prestige classes (which encompass different progressions from simply full-caster and half-caster). Given the extreme difficulty in fixing this, I'm leaning towards leaving as it is, as half-casters probably shouldn't be attempting to beat SR or win opposed caster level checks anyway. What do other people think? I agree. Leave it as it is. It's too complicated to fix all the PrC permutions to bring them in line, and it wouldn't be fair to just adjust the ranger and paladin. Ranger and paladin spells serve primarily an auxiliary purpose so that, as you say, they shouldn't be attempting to beat SR or win opposed caster level checks much anyway.
rob_douglas 02-08-07, 11:45 AM	I believe that Armor Skin should go back to being +2. At +1, I see no reason anyone would take it much, and it mimics a (slightly harder to qualify for) non-epic feat. Even though the +2 NA would outstrip Epic Prowess in a straight fight, it still has no effect on touch AC, and it only matches the first epic feat that the fighter will take - Epic Weapon Specialization. And anyone spending too many feats on Defense will eventually lose anyway. You need to balance both, and you need more options on offense to try different ways to get around things. I can see people making up level 60 fighters and assuming Armor Skin x10, but in reality, could you see some one playing 15 levels of a character where they keep on taking Armor Skin every feat? Or spellcasters? It is a niche feat, not as useful as Epic Prowess, and deserving of a slightly better benefit. Make Armor Skin +2. As for the caster level and effective druid level, I could go either way. I do think it is too much trouble to make them all match up. Bladesinger is another 1/2 caster that could really use the benefit. A 60th level Bladesinger (F4/W6/Bl50) isn't quite the magic powerhouse I would expect - he is equal to a 31st level wizard. It is clear that the only "good" way to advance him, as he loses the main benefit of the class after 20th (+1 BAB) is to switch to Eldritch Knight or something else after 20th, and give up the bonus feats for 10 levels (F4/W6/Bl10/ElK40 = CL 45). It is a stated design desire that people will stay with their pre-epic PrCs post-epic, at least until they get a better Epic PrC. Losing to 1/2 caster level makes that progression "stupid". So I would prefer to change it to regular progression, but I do fear balance issues. May need to look at that.... ROB
Krispieman 02-08-07, 04:52 PM	With the return of the Armor Skin debate, I throw in my :twocents:. Armor Skin should, indeed be raised to (at least) a +2 bonus to natural armor. This by itself is not weakening the effect of feats like Epic Prowess for 1 simple reason: Epic Attack Bonus. Taking Armor Skin at +2 once counters 4 lvls of EAB. Because one can select a feat a minimum of once per 3 levels, theoretically AC would outstrip to hit. However, there are many more ways to improve ones to hit then there is AC. This fact becomes even more clear when we consider that to hit is raised regardless of choices where AC only increases through design. I guess the only real way of knowing at what value Armor Skin is truely balanced would be when we ask the CO boards to create both an ultimate AC and ultimate To Hit character at level 20, 30, 40, 50, 60 just to see what the difference is. K-man :cool:
Shwepie 02-08-07, 05:44 PM	It's okay Blue, but I was refering to caster level as well, not just for Rangers and Paladins. As for the caster level and effective druid level, I could go either way. I do think it is too much trouble to make them all match up. Bladesinger is another 1/2 caster that could really use the benefit. A 60th level Bladesinger (F4/W6/Bl50) isn't quite the magic powerhouse I would expect - he is equal to a 31st level wizard. It is clear that the only "good" way to advance him, as he loses the main benefit of the class after 20th (+1 BAB) is to switch to Eldritch Knight or something else after 20th, and give up the bonus feats for 10 levels (F4/W6/Bl10/ElK40 = CL 45). It is a stated design desire that people will stay with their pre-epic PrCs post-epic, at least until they get a better Epic PrC. Losing to 1/2 caster level makes that progression "stupid". So I would prefer to change it to regular progression, but I do fear balance issues. May need to look at that.... ROB This is what I am talking about. Between chlvls 1-20 it remains balanced across the board. But once you start creeping into Epic a small crack appears that can quickly become a grand canyon. It creates a all or nothing situation, much like BAB would of if they didn't change it to the EAB we have now. As for balance issues, I don't think there will be any and it would solve the ever inceasing gap that exists now. The rule could be a blanket one and only take place at epic class levels, 21+ for Core Classes and 11+ for PrCs. I believe there are a few PrCs that go above 10th level, those could be a case by case basis and we don't have to worry about 5 lvl PrCs. For things based on half class level (Caster lvl, DCs of SLAs and SUAs and the like): Clvl-10 for Core Classes and Clvl-5 for PrCs. For things based on half character level: Chlvl-10 works just as good. Taking Rob's Bladesinger (F4/W6/Bl50) from above, his caster level would be 51 at Chlvl 60. Compair that to his caster level if 11 at Chlvl 20 when he was balanced and it only seems the right way to do it. How about a lvl 60 Knight (not the best of choices I know), his DC (minus Cha modifier) for Test of Mettle and Daunting Challenge are (10+Clvl/2) 40. This would make them virtually useless at that level and drasticly reducing his ability to be the meat shield when the time comes. Changing it to (10+Clvl-10) would make it a DC of 60, much more useful. My point is, this would help most Warrior types keep up with Caster types, much like the EAB helps Caster types keep up with Warrior types. Sorry if that is long winded, I can get a little voberse sometimes. As for Armor Skin! I vote for changing it to +2 and change nothing else. Another idea, remove it entirely or leave it at +1 and add a EACB (Epic Armor Class Bonus) that you get everytime you get a ESB. It would increase your very base AC, the default 10 you get by +1. So a lvl 60 character would have a AC of 30 before adding any other modifiers....just a thought.
Gemstone 02-09-07, 04:25 AM	I second the idea of changing the Armor Skin feat to +2 natural AC instead of +1. The prescense of both EAB and Epic Prowess more than makes up for the fact that the feat is +2
CelestialBarbarian 02-09-07, 10:33 AM	I'm not sure if this is the right thread for the following, but I was wondering if anyone had considered altering the Blinding Speed feat (and the Divine Celerity salient divine ability) to keep its power the same as it was before 3.5 substantially weakened the haste spell? The authors of 3.5 partially offset the weakening of haste by making it a multi-target spell, but since Blinding Speed (and Divine Celerity) presumably work only on the creature with the feat (or SDA) the feat (and SDA) are even weaker than the weakened spell. Does it seem like too much for an epic feat (and especially for a SDA) to grant the creature an extra action per round? Thanks. :) Edit: I believe that Armor Skin should go back to being +2. At +1, I see no reason anyone would take it much, and it mimics a (slightly harder to qualify for) non-epic feat. Even though the +2 NA would outstrip Epic Prowess in a straight fight, it still has no effect on touch AC, and it only matches the first epic feat that the fighter will take - Epic Weapon Specialization. And anyone spending too many feats on Defense will eventually lose anyway. You need to balance both, and you need more options on offense to try different ways to get around things. I can see people making up level 60 fighters and assuming Armor Skin x10, but in reality, could you see some one playing 15 levels of a character where they keep on taking Armor Skin every feat? Or spellcasters? It is a niche feat, not as useful as Epic Prowess, and deserving of a slightly better benefit. Make Armor Skin +2. [snip] ROB I forgot to respond to this portion of Blue's original post. I agree with Rob--raise it back to +2. I mean that's certainly what I'd do were I writing the 3.5 EHB. I'm a little more reluctant to house rule everything that I'd chance as an author simply because the older I get (or the longer I DM maybe) the less I like using house rules. I already have far too many of them, and I don't like the fact that because of the widespread use of substantial houseruling it's almost impossible these days to take a character from one campaign and use him (or her) unchanged in someone else's campaign. It's a bit like having trained to play baseball on one team and finding that when you go to another team you have to retrain for a whole bunch of different rules.
bluemage55 02-09-07, 05:58 PM	An extra action per round really is too much, because Wizards learned the hard way to move away from that. You do bring up a good point about the feat, though. As it is, Blinding Speed is underpowered due to the revision. I believe the appropriate solution would be to extend the duration to match the full duration a 5th-level caster would be able to accomplish, which would be 5 rounds * 5 targets = 25 rounds. After hearing the rather one-sided argument from everyone, I'm fairly convinced that Armor Skin should be +2. Both feat updates have been added.
CelestialBarbarian 02-10-07, 02:13 AM	An extra action per round really is too much, because Wizards learned the hard way to move away from that. You do bring up a good point about the feat, though. As it is, Blinding Speed is underpowered due to the revision. I believe the appropriate solution would be to extend the duration to match the full duration a 5th-level caster would be able to accomplish, which would be 5 rounds * 5 targets = 25 rounds. After hearing the rather one-sided argument from everyone, I'm fairly convinced that Armor Skin should be +2. Both feat updates have been added. For three editions of the game (original, 1st Ed and 2nd Ed, and maybe a fourth edition, the weird version that competed with 1st Ed, starting with the Basic D&D boxed set) the haste spell doubled all actions of the target. A hasted wizard got to cast two spells per round, and hasted fighter with two attacks per round got four attacks per round, and so forth. The 3.0 version actually weakened the haste spell, reducing it to only one extra action. To offset the reduction in power, the authors of 3.0 eliminated the aging effect and added a +4 haste bonus to AC. The aging effect, however, rarely imposed a serious cost, as characters typically started very young (in fact you could get a benefit rising in physical age from teen to young adult), and the game featured potions of longevity which reversed the physical aging effects from sources like haste. Haste, in any case imposed no real cost on the long-lived demihuman races. So we played for 25 years or so with a version of haste substantially more powerful than the 3.0 version, and it worked just fine. Certainly a feat of epic level doesn't have too much power by granting for a mere five rounds the benefits of a spell that's weaker than one that worked fine for 25 years.
bluemage55 02-10-07, 07:47 AM	We also played for years where the rogue's sneak attack damage was a multiplier, as were many spells, and the net result were some fairly insane builds emphasizing stacking multiplying factors. The simple fact is that extra actions have been deemed undesirable, much like multipliers.
CelestialBarbarian 02-10-07, 08:47 AM	We also played for years where the rogue's sneak attack damage was a multiplier, as were many spells, and the net result were some fairly insane builds emphasizing stacking multiplying factors. The simple fact is that extra actions have been deemed undesirable, much like multipliers. I agree that munchkins abusing the rules with "but the rules say I can do this!" ruins the game for everyone. :( With a little adult restraint on the part of both DM and players, I never saw any abuse of haste and rarely with backstab. If one were going to keep Blinding Speed as a haste effect, I agree with your suggestion to lengthen the effect to 25 rounds. What about Divine Celerity? It lasts only 1 round per divine rank. I suppose we could lengthen it to 24 rounds plus 1 round per divine rank. Really though I'd be more inclined to change it to match the celerity spell we started using when 3.5 came out. In favor of weakening haste, one of the 3.5 authors wrote in Dragon that haste was clearly better than any 3rd level spell and probably any fourth level. That's an argument for raising the level of haste (or what haste did, in any case), rather than eliminating entirely the ability to gain an extra action through a spell. So I simply created the 5th level spell celerity, which does exactly what a 3.0 haste did. We don't have any problems with celerity, and I wouldn't have any problem with a deity having Divine Celerity keeping the 3.0 haste effect.
bluemage55 02-10-07, 09:30 AM	Divine Celerity gives one minute per divine rank. It should probably be changed to 5 minutes per divine rank.
CelestialBarbarian 02-10-07, 09:32 AM	Divine Celerity gives one minute per divine rank. It should probably be changed to 5 minutes per divine rank. Oh good catch. Good suggestion too, assuming one keeps the weaker haste effect.
Netherek 02-10-07, 02:32 PM	Some things I've noticed about the Epic feats are that the combat feats double the power of the non-epic feat chains like W. Specialization, but this isn't the case with the magic feats Spell Focus and Penetration. With as difficult it becomes for spellcasters, that may need a change... On the AC situation, not count feats or stats, with magic providing a +10 to weapons, armor and shield a 30th lev fighter would have a +37 to hit, and a 40 AC, at 40th this would become 42 to hit and 40 AC. Considering the volume of AC buffers I am not sure there should be a bump on the Armor Skin.
SokenzanMarauder 02-10-07, 02:50 PM	Just wanted to pop in for a second to tell you how much I (and my gaming group) appreciate this BlueMage. Thanks, -Gene
rob_douglas 02-10-07, 03:50 PM	The problem with 3.0 Haste even as a 5th level spell: Celerity, is that I can't think of a level I wouldn't want it. It is like Autoquickenx3 and Dire Charge all rolled into one spell. It was pretty clear that anyone that didn't have it at any level was going to get beaten bad. Even if you give it as an Epic feat for 5 rounds per day, you are still giving a wizard a pretty powerful advantage. The old argument I heard and believed (when lower level) was that it was not unbalanced because the party caster that abused haste soon had no spells left to cast. So it really only helped NPCs (especially Sorcerers) who could afford to burn all their spells in one encounter. But at epic, losing all your spells suddenly is not an issue again either. As I see it, I would rather have 3.0 Haste than Time Stop if that was a trade-off I had to make. I have thought of allowing it as an Epic spell, where factors could be provided for adding rounds of effect, as well as multiple targets, etc. But anything that allows you to cast 2 spells a round is a real challenge to balance. Now you bring up old editions- I don;t have the 1E rules on-line, but I don't think this is a change in 2E: "Spellcasting and spell effects are not sped up." Another issue in old editions was that it affected any creatures in a radius, up to a limit, so it was very hard to cast on a particular target after combat started. You needed to do it beforehand (though a potion was always good). And multiple attacks were handled differently. Everyone got one attack before anyone else got their second attack, etc. So you couldn't take your 4 attacks and go to town without fear of getting hit back. I think 3.0 Haste was bad at any level, and it was a good job that they corrected that. 3.5 Haste still helps the party a lot, such that they almost never want to be without it. That's enough. Blinding Speed should be 20 or 25 rounds per day. I think 20 is good because a Haste spell nowadays should affect 4 party members, so that is 4x5 rounds in conversion.... ROB
CelestialBarbarian 02-10-07, 04:01 PM	Yeah they really hosed time stop too. Both a PC and an NPC wizard with time stop have found themselves without much they could really do efficaciously during all the rounds of time stop. In the old days you could just slit everyone's throat, which was clearly a problem, but with the current coup de grace rules that wouldn't be much of an option for a weak guy with a dinky dagger. :D
bluemage55 02-10-07, 04:02 PM	Some things I've noticed about the Epic feats are that the combat feats double the power of the non-epic feat chains like W. Specialization, but this isn't the case with the magic feats Spell Focus and Penetration. With as difficult it becomes for spellcasters, that may need a change... Spellcasters defintely don't need to be more powerful, but I agree that these feats should be updated for the sake of consistency. I have added the Epic Spell Focus and Epic Spell Penetration revisions. On the AC situation, not count feats or stats, with magic providing a +10 to weapons, armor and shield a 30th lev fighter would have a +37 to hit, and a 40 AC, at 40th this would become 42 to hit and 40 AC. Considering the volume of AC buffers I am not sure there should be a bump on the Armor Skin. Armor Skin doesn't help with touch attacks, and at 30th level, use-activated limited wish items for automatic hits are viable investments, which mitigates the effectiveness of this feat somewhat. Also note that the Improved Natural Armor (non-epic) feat does the exact same thing as Armor Skin except that it cannot be taken unless you already have natural armor.
bluemage55 02-10-07, 04:04 PM	Just wanted to pop in for a second to tell you how much I (and my gaming group) appreciate this BlueMage. Thanks, -Gene :D :D You're welcome! :D :D
ninja_bob 02-12-07, 09:36 AM	I’ve been playing with the 3.0 epic rules since the day they came out. The first thing I did was change armour skin. Not to +1 but to +2 ac (not just natural) Because 1. I never like the look of a human fighter with scales like dragon. 2. the number of things that get around it (touch attacks are a MAJOR problem) make the feat seem a poor choice. And then I changed it’s name to something like epic defence or something about footwork (so long ago). I didn’t destroy the game. It made sense.
bluemage55 03-04-07, 07:41 AM	Added the Divine Emissary updates. Added Paladin divine grace update to non-epic errata section.
Szatany 03-04-07, 08:11 AM	This is because a ftr 20 has a BAB of 20. A wiz 20 has a BAB of 10. In the epic rules, your BAB stops at level 20. After that, you get EAB +1 every other level. So the more BAB you get pre-epic, the higher your total attack bonus will be in epic play since everyone increases at the same rate after 20th level, no matter the class chosen. I always wondered why they made it this way. It could have been so much simpler: Keep HD/class BAB and saves at epic level, but add this: Whenever base attack bonus and/or any saving throw reaches value of 20, from now on it increases by +1 every 2 levels instead of its original progression.
bluemage55 03-04-07, 07:34 PM	I always wondered why they made it this way. It could have been so much simpler: Keep HD/class BAB and saves at epic level, but add this: Whenever base attack bonus and/or any saving throw reaches value of 20, from now on it increases by +1 every 2 levels instead of its original progression. That doesn't seem like a good approach. The attack bonuses of a 3/4 progression class suddenly begins increasing faster than other classes, and save bonuses end up increasing far slower than they otherwise would. Your method is actually not simpler, but more complex than the existing mechanic.
Szatany 03-05-07, 06:17 AM	Alright, probably a bad idea then. Thanks.
CelestialBarbarian 03-12-07, 01:18 AM	Added the Divine Emissary updates. Added Paladin divine grace update to non-epic errata section. From where did these updates come?
bluemage55 03-12-07, 04:46 AM	The Paladin update goes along with the Monk update to its AC bonus. Both are fixes to take out silly class-dipping for insanely high bonuses (since ability score bonuses naturally go up significantly in epic). The Divine Emissary as written has an underpowered collection of abilities. Compared to the Paladin, the class gives up one bonus feat/six levels, undead turning, and additional remove disease in return for slightly more smites per day, divine inspiration (utterly worthless as a +2 luck bonus is completely superseded by divine favor), greater planar ally (increasingly useless as 18 HD outsiders become increasingly irrelevant), divine hand (decent, but usable too rarely), and Granted Domain (the most useful ability). When you consider the useful abilities, the class becomes giving up one bonus feat/six levels for a single ability (that you only need to dip for once) and a +20 bonus that you only get very, very few times per day. The revision attempts to address these issues and make it a playable class rather than a dip for Granted Domain.
CelestialBarbarian 03-12-07, 02:22 PM	The Paladin update goes along with the Monk update to its AC bonus. Both are fixes to take out silly class-dipping for insanely high bonuses (since ability score bonuses naturally go up significantly in epic). The Divine Emissary as written has an underpowered collection of abilities. Compared to the Paladin, the class gives up one bonus feat/six levels, undead turning, and additional remove disease in return for slightly more smites per day, divine inspiration (utterly worthless as a +2 luck bonus is completely superseded by divine favor), greater planar ally (increasingly useless as 18 HD outsiders become increasingly irrelevant), divine hand (decent, but usable too rarely), and Granted Domain (the most useful ability). When you consider the useful abilities, the class becomes giving up one bonus feat/six levels for a single ability (that you only need to dip for once) and a +20 bonus that you only get very, very few times per day. The revision attempts to address these issues and make it a playable class rather than a dip for Granted Domain. Ok so by "update" you mean your own suggestions rather than any update issued by Wizards?
bluemage55 03-12-07, 02:35 PM	Ok so by "update" you mean your own suggestions rather than any update issued by Wizards? Yes, like all of the other revisions posted on this thread.
CelestialBarbarian 03-12-07, 03:15 PM	Yes, like all of the other revisions posted on this thread. Most of the revisions involve carrying through changes made elsewhere officially into the epic level material. This particular set of changes goes well beyond that to alter the balance among classes.
Gemstone 03-12-07, 04:22 PM	Most of the revisions involve carrying through changes made elsewhere officially into the epic level material. This particular set of changes goes well beyond that to alter the balance among classes. I wholeheartedly agree. If you are to change a prestige class THAT much, I suggest we discuss it at length first.
bluemage55 03-12-07, 04:28 PM	Deleted
CelestialBarbarian 03-12-07, 04:39 PM	I like the idea of preserving this thread for changes that flow naturally out of the 3.5 revision and subsequent errata. I'd like to see this sort of proposal go either to its own thread or perhaps to a thread dedicated to proposals of its sort. :)
bluemage55 03-12-07, 05:48 PM	It has been removed. I'm thinking I should instead tweak some of the individual abilities a bit, the obvious one being that hideously useless luck bonus.
CelestialBarbarian 03-12-07, 06:02 PM	It has been removed. I'm thinking I should instead tweak some of the individual abilities a bit, the obvious one being that hideously useless luck bonus. Did you start a new thread to discuss it? If so, maybe you could post a link here for those of us who would like to join in. :)
bluemage55 03-12-07, 06:58 PM	No, we can discuss it here. I'll go with one ability at a time: Divine Inspiration (Sp): A divine emissary gains a +2 luck bonus on his or her attack and damage rolls for 10 rounds, once per day at 1st level, plus one additional time per day every three levels thereafter. As written, this ability is terrible. It's like divine favor, except worse, since divine favor can grant up to +3. Note also that 72,000 gp buys an unslotted item that provides +3 constantly. My revision was to change it so that it functions constantly and has a scaling bonus: Divine Inspiration (Su): A 1st-level divine emissary gains a +2 luck bonus on his or her attack and damage rolls. This bonus increases by an additional +2 every three levels thereafter.
Gemstone 03-13-07, 01:48 AM	Divine Inspiration (Su): A 1st-level divine emissary gains a +2 luck bonus on his or her attack and damage rolls. This bonus increases by an additional +2 every three levels thereafter. Not to bad. I guess I can live with that
CelestialBarbarian 03-14-07, 05:02 AM	No, we can discuss it here. I'll go with one ability at a time: As written, this ability is terrible. It's like divine favor, except worse, since divine favor can grant up to +3. Note also that 72,000 gp buys an unslotted item that provides +3 constantly. My revision was to change it so that it functions constantly and has a scaling bonus: Divine Inspiration (Su): A 1st-level divine emissary gains a +2 luck bonus on his or her attack and damage rolls. This bonus increases by an additional +2 every three levels thereafter. Whatever people think of it, I hope you won't put it with the sort of changes that we have on this thread that flow naturally from changes between 3.0 and 3.5 or other errata. Having said that, I don't have a problem with scaling the luck bonus to some degree. I'd probably grant +1 for every 3 additional levels, like divine favor, and cap it at +5, like divine favor before the errata. Since it's a constant bonus I wouldn't be inclined to let it get any better than that.
runestar 03-14-07, 06:14 AM	Divine favour was capped at +6 pre-errata, IIRC.:)
CelestialBarbarian 03-14-07, 06:23 AM	Divine favour was capped at +6 pre-errata, IIRC.:) I wrote over it in dark pencil, but under bright light I can see the original 6. Spoilsport! :P
runestar 03-14-07, 06:46 AM	I have a query regarding epic whirlwind. Does it seem a tad too weak? You typically end up making less attacks than with the original whirlwind feat. The only advantage is that it is a standard action, which might give it some synergy with abilities like flyby attack.:confused:
CelestialBarbarian 03-14-07, 07:23 AM	I have a query regarding epic whirlwind. Does it seem a tad too weak? You typically end up making less attacks than with the original whirlwind feat. The only advantage is that it is a standard action, which might give it some synergy with abilities like flyby attack.:confused: Yes, it's more like a Rapid Whirlwind than an Improved Whirlwind. This feat is actually weaker than a non-epic feat I created back under 3.0 before ELH: LIGHTNING WHIRLWIND [Nindurai] You know how to make a lightning-fast Whirlwind Attack. Prerequisites: Dex 13, Int 13, Dodge, Mobility, Combat Expertise, Spring Attack, Whirlwind Attack, base attack bonus +7. Benefit: You can make a Whirlwind Attack as a standard action rather than as a full attack action. You can make only one Whirlwind Attack per round. The current version of Improved Whirlwind looks particularly weak versus this feat that I created back then too: TWIN WHIRLWINDS [Nindurai] You know how to make two Whirlwind Attacks in one round. Prerequisites: Dex 13, Int 13, Dodge, Mobility, Combat Expertise, Lightning Whirlwind, Spring Attack, Whirlwind Attack, base attack bonus +9. Benefit: You can make two Whirlwind Attacks as a full-round action. I hadn't given any thought to the nindurai feats since ELH and 3.5 came out because nobody's currently playing a nindurai, but I might have to give some consideration to making one or both of them epic feats now. :( I'm too tired to think about it at the moment.
rob_douglas 03-14-07, 01:43 PM	If you do go with the Divine Emissary Intuition change, it should not be capped, just as Arcane Archer magic arrow bonus is uncapped. That is part of the rules with Epic progressions, they don't tend to cap. ROB
bluemage55 03-14-07, 02:28 PM	If you do go with the Divine Emissary Intuition change, it should not be capped, just as Arcane Archer magic arrow bonus is uncapped. That is part of the rules with Epic progressions, they don't tend to cap. Agreed. I have a query regarding epic whirlwind. Does it seem a tad too weak? You typically end up making less attacks than with the original whirlwind feat. The only advantage is that it is a standard action, which might give it some synergy with abilities like flyby attack. It does seem too weak. I'm thinking it could be both revised and streamlined if we simply have it allow you to whirlwind attack as a standard action.
CelestialBarbarian 03-14-07, 08:11 PM	If you do go with the Divine Emissary Intuition change, it should not be capped, just as Arcane Archer magic arrow bonus is uncapped. That is part of the rules with Epic progressions, they don't tend to cap. ROB Well then fine, leave it uncapped--and unscaling too--at +2. :P
bluemage55 03-18-07, 10:48 PM	Added divine power and transformation revisions to match the PHB +20 cap. Added Improved Whirlwind Attack revision.
Witch 03-20-07, 08:54 AM	Allow me to adress an issue: what do all of you think of the distortion between CL & CR you notice in many epic monsters?
CelestialBarbarian 03-20-07, 09:28 AM	Allow me to adress an issue: what do all of you think of the distortion between CL & CR you notice in many epic monsters? Could you provide an example or two of the distortion? Thanks. :)
Witch 03-20-07, 09:37 AM	A bad example would be the fact that the Vermiurge has Crown of Vermin at CL 42 continually active (which has little impact). I can't seem to find as many as I thought there were. Likely little to discuss, I suppose. Next time, I'll get better informed.
bluemage55 03-20-07, 09:46 AM	Most of them are fairly close to their CR. With the Vermiurge in particular, it seems that they made a mistake and based it off the creature's HD instead of its CR. As far as I am aware, this has no noticeable effect as caster level is irrelevant for crown of vermin except for dispelling purposes (and you can't dispel the Vermiurge's version which is a supernatural ability).
bluemage55 03-22-07, 10:55 PM	Added revised versions of Epic Weapon Focus and Epic Weapon Specialization.
rob_douglas 03-22-07, 11:47 PM	I agree that EWF should require GWF - and that will change a lot of creatures in the list - as they have EWF without GWF. But I do not think it should have a prereq of Fighter 16. None of the other Focus ones have that. Specialization does, but not Focus. I agree with the EWS changes. ROB
bluemage55 03-23-07, 02:20 AM	Eh? GWF has a fighter level prereq as far as I can see: GREATER WEAPON FOCUS [GENERAL] Prerequisites: Proficiency with selected weapon, Weapon Focus with selected weapon, fighter level 8th.
rob_douglas 03-23-07, 02:35 AM	You are right. I missed that (actually, I think I remember that from when we last talked about this ages ago....) Well then the issue is that they didn't seem to want to have a fighter level prereq for Epic Weapon Focus, but added one for Greater Weapon Focus. Adding it to Epic WF takes away that feat from a lot of creatures that have it. I think that while they wanted to give GWF for fighters, they didn't want to take EWF away from Paladins, Barbarians, dragons, outsiders, etc. and made a mistake in Complete Warrior by adding GWF as a prereq. I think it is too much a hindrance to other martial classes to take EWF away from them at epic levels. Anyone else have any thoughts? ROB
bluemage55 03-23-07, 03:46 AM	The removal of EWF isn't a huge deal for most creatures. Swap in Epic Prowess and it's only down 1 point of attack bonus. It makes more sense to me as a "fighter only" feat because that was the purpose of GWF.
Gemstone 03-23-07, 06:14 AM	The removal of EWF isn't a huge deal for most creatures. Swap in Epic Prowess and it's only down 1 point of attack bonus. It makes more sense to me as a "fighter only" feat because that was the purpose of GWF. Yes indeed. Im still a bit doubtful about the power of EWF, but I guess you are better judges of that :)
rob_douglas 03-23-07, 04:19 PM	I agree that the purpose of GWF was fighter only, but not that the Epic feat was designed to follow that chain. Epic Spell Focus is designed to follow it. However, Epic Fortitude, Reflexes, Will, Skill Focus, and Toughness all expand on a non-epic feat but don't require it. I think that making it Fighter only is too great a bonus compared to other melee types who might take it. The Fighter already gets +1 from GWF that others can't get. Another +2 vs Prowess (+1) makes the total +2 more for a Fighter over other melee types. Then there are other Feats. Shattering Strike has EWF as a prereq for it - and it primarily a monk feat. Now you have to have 20 fighter levels on top of being a pretty powerful monk. I am surprised actually that it is not a prereq more often - I could see it being a prereq for Swarm of arrows or Overwhleming Critical (which BTW could require Power Critical as a prereg, but doesn't and which is way underpowered as a feat, but we haven't even started on that one...). That said, given it is not a prereq for much else, and other melee types might have preference for other feats (Bane/death of Enemies, Great Smiting, for instance) taking it away as an option may not really be taking much away. I still don't like it. ROB
bluemage55 03-23-07, 05:56 PM	A net +2 advantage isn't that big of a deal, especially given how ripped off fighters are during non-epic levels. Other melee classes during non-epic levels have generally useful bonuses such as smiting, favored enemy bonuses, and barbarian rage, while the fighter's feats beyond the first few offer situational bonuses and combat options. Entering epic levels, the fighter is already far behind a raging barbarian or a ranger fighting their favored enemies, and is of course far behind the paladin in damage when it comes to smitable enemies. An additional +1 bonus isn't going to overpower the fighter in any way. The Shattering Strike prerequisties should probably just be errataed to remove EWF.
CelestialBarbarian 03-23-07, 06:31 PM	The Master of the Order of the Bow has Epic Weapon Specialization as a prerequisite. Requring Greater Weapon Specialization would radically alter what a character would need to gain the Master of the Order of the Bow. Order of the Bow Initiate would no longer be the preferred background as intended. Doubtless adding GWS as a requirement for EWF would have other unforseen consquences. So no, I wouldn't house-rule GWF as a prerequisite for EWF. To keep the most consistency between games and reduce unforseen consquences, people should use a few house rules as possible.
bluemage55 03-23-07, 06:43 PM	It isn't a house rule. GWF was not a part of 3.0, and therefore couldn't have been a prereq for EWF. It's a logical extension. GWF is also included as a prereq for EWF in its rewrite in Complete Warrior (which is 3.5). By the RAW, GWF is required for EWF. Master of the Order of the Bow is a 3.0 prestige class from Dragon. It should be updated to reflect the EWF changes, either by dropping Epic Weapon Specialization, or simply not and thus changing the expected build.
CelestialBarbarian 03-23-07, 07:06 PM	1. Rats, for some reason I thought we were talking about Epic Weapon Specialization instead of focus. I can only say that my father died three weeks ago and I'm not concentrating as well as usual. 2. Since Complete Warrior specifically updates Epic Weapon Focus to require Greater Weapon Focus, I agree that it's not a house rule but is RAW, and that the Epic SRD file should change to reflect that. That change doesn't actually change the prerquisites for the Master of the Order of the Bow because you had your choice of EWF or the OBI special ability that became GWF. 3. Since Complete Warrior does not update Epic Weapon Specialization, changing it to require GWS, while perhaps a logical chance, would still be a house rule. It's not as blatant as our preference for a change in Improved Whirlwind attack, where we just flat out rejected the 3.5 change in favor of something we liked better, but it's still not a necessary change, like, for instance, changing the DR on a creature they left in 3.0 terms, which no longer apply to DR at all. So it would still be a house rule. Since the 3.5 OBI lost the equivalent of Greater Weapon Specialization, and to discourage the overuse of house rules, I'd keep EWS as it is. I think both of these changes would go well on a "Logical, Peer-Reviewed House Rules" thread. If I were to accept such a house rule (it is a logical house rule, and would do at least a little to ameliorate the complaints of fighter fans that there's little reason to go single-class fighter), I'd almost certainly change the Master of the Order of the Bow. After all, 3.5 dropped the equivalent of GWS from OBI, so it's not unreasonable to drop a higher WS requirement from the epic class too.
bluemage55 03-24-07, 04:26 PM	EWS was not updated in Complete Warrior, and the EWS that we do have is another example of bad updating on the part of the SRD. GWS did not exist in 3.0, and it isn't an unreasonable conclusion to draw that the absence of GWS as a prereq for EWS is an oversight, much like EWF in the same document. It also is fairly logical that the feat tree follows a certain progression of prerequisites that should hold true for EWS. I would consider this a blatant error correction rather than much of a house rule.
CelestialBarbarian 03-24-07, 04:49 PM	EWS was not updated in Complete Warrior, and the EWS that we do have is another example of bad updating on the part of the SRD. GWS did not exist in 3.0, and it isn't an unreasonable conclusion to draw that the absence of GWS as a prereq for EWS is an oversight, much like EWF in the same document. It also is fairly logical that the feat tree follows a certain progression of prerequisites that should hold true for EWS. I would consider this a blatant error correction rather than much of a house rule. Don't overstate the case. It's hardly a "blatant error correction." They might have wanted to leave EWS easier to acquire, especially since the benefits stack. They didn't simply fail to update it in the 3.5 update packet; they had an opportunity to update it in Complete Warrior and declined to do so. At best it's a logical house rule.
bluemage55 03-24-07, 06:08 PM	Aside from second-guessing what material the publishers put in books and for what reason, it is easy to see a very logical progression for the entire feat tree. GWF requires WF. EWF requires GWF. GWS requires WS. EWS requires _______. What would you expect to go in the blank?
CelestialBarbarian 03-24-07, 06:10 PM	Aside from second-guessing what material the publishers put in books and for what reason, it is easy to see a very logical progression for the entire feat tree. GWF requires WF. EWF requires GWF. GWS requires WS. EWS requires _______. What would you expect to go in the blank? I agree that we shouldn't second-guess them by saying that if they'd have paid attention they'd have required GWS for EWS.
rob_douglas 03-25-07, 12:27 AM	There is no reason not to have EWS require GWS, since the effect of EWS without GWS is the same as GWS - they both grant a further +2 to damage. I think Bluemage is right on this one. It is a logical, and fighter only progression. It mimcs Spell Focus and Greater/Epic Spell Focus more than Skill Focus and Epic Skill Focus. It is only EWF that I disagree on, since I think it is an epic feat that epic non-fighters could use. I have made my case. People can choose as they see fit. Bluemage - would you be willing to note some items in your page 1 list as still not agreed on? In general we have had consensus or near consensus, so I think it could be valuable to note the things that don't have consensus maybe with an asterisk or something. ROB
CelestialBarbarian 03-25-07, 12:44 AM	There is no reason not to have EWS require GWS, since the effect of EWS without GWS is the same as GWS - they both grant a further +2 to damage. How does the fact that each has the same effect relate to whether EWS should require GWS? I think Bluemage is right on this one. It is a logical, I said it was logical. The issue isn't the logic, but whether it's simply something the authors of the 3.5 update packet overlooked or rather a logical house rule. Wizards has had two chances to update it, and they haven't. It's quite possible that they didn't want to disrupt all the existing epic characters who have only 4 levels of fighter (or in any case, fewer than 12 levels) yet have already taken EWS. It belongs on a thread for logical house rules, not for the revison of the epic SRD for 3.5 rules. and fighter only progression. It mimcs Spell Focus and Greater/Epic Spell Focus more than Skill Focus and Epic Skill Focus. It is only EWF that I disagree on, since I think it is an epic feat that epic non-fighters could use. I have made my case. People can choose as they see fit. Bluemage - would you be willing to note some items in your page 1 list as still not agreed on? In general we have had consensus or near consensus, so I think it could be valuable to note the things that don't have consensus maybe with an asterisk or something. ROB Or better, yet, put it on a thread for logical house rules.
rob_douglas 03-25-07, 10:38 PM	SRD UPdate thread response. The fact that Wizards hasn't updated it, despite chances to do so is a weak argument, because the point of this entire thread is that Wizards hasn't updated things that it had the chance to. They haven't paid attention to Epic level stuff. They wouldn't know the effect on the game of requiring or not requiring Greater... as a prereq for Epic.... Wizards is no longer a competent authority on this subject. EWS should not and need not require GWF - I didn't realize that was your point - I thought we were talking about EWS requiring GWS. I was commenting on the effect of that requirement overall. There is no effect on the game - if you could take EWS under 3.0 rules, you could take GWS at the same time using this update and have the same effect, so no one is losing any ability. This is not the case with making EWF require GWF. That was my point. If you go back to the beginning of this thread, everything is pretty much "logical house rules" if that is your term. Some follow a little more logically given the 3.0->3.5 changes, but all require some thought to verify they are intended. All we have to agree on is what is logical. EWS we all agree is logical, so it goes in. If we can't come to a consensus, we will have to live with it. Ultimately someone needs to write something. If we can get a general agreement, it will probably go in. Make your best argument against it, but at some point you have to let it go. ROB
CelestialBarbarian 03-25-07, 11:34 PM	SRD UPdate thread response. The fact that Wizards hasn't updated it, despite chances to do so is a weak argument, because the point of this entire thread is that Wizards hasn't updated things that it had the chance to. They haven't paid attention to Epic level stuff. They wouldn't know the effect on the game of requiring or not requiring Greater... as a prereq for Epic.... Wizards is no longer a competent authority on this subject. EWS should not and need not require GWF - I didn't realize that was your point - I thought we were talking about EWS requiring GWS. I was commenting on the effect of that requirement overall. There is no effect on the game - if you could take EWS under 3.0 rules, you could take GWS at the same time using this update and have the same effect, so no one is losing any ability. This is not the case with making EWF require GWF. That was my point. If you go back to the beginning of this thread, everything is pretty much "logical house rules" if that is your term. Some follow a little more logically given the 3.0->3.5 changes, but all require some thought to verify they are intended. All we have to agree on is what is logical. EWS we all agree is logical, so it goes in. If we can't come to a consensus, we will have to live with it. Ultimately someone needs to write something. If we can get a general agreement, it will probably go in. Make your best argument against it, but at some point you have to let it go. ROB I think that typos are confusing the discussion. As Blue poined out, Wizards updated Epic Weapon Focus in Complete Warrior to require Greater Weapon Focus as a requirement. That's not only logical but RAW as well. Now with Epic Weapon Specialization they almost certainly considered it when they updated epic fighter feats in Complete Warrior, and chose not to, probably for the very reason I suggested in my previous post. While that's circumstantial evidence, it's strong circumstantial evidence. Remember that the American legal system requires, for a criminal conviction, that the jury find the accused guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. Juries can and do find criminals guilty beyond a reasonable doubt based soley on strong circumstantial evidence. So requiring Greater Weapon Specialization for Epic Weapon Specialization, while logical, isn't RAW. Despite Blue's assertion, when I disagreed with him over munchkinism that I'm arrogant, I'm not arrogant enough to arrogate to myself, or even to a committee of me, you and Blue (heh, that sounds like a song from the 1970s :D), the right to simply redo what Wizards has done or chosen not to redo. It's one thing where they changed a rule and didn't carry though the new rule to one of their older products, a clear matter of oversight, and quite another to simply make our own changes.
bluemage55 03-26-07, 02:38 AM	It's always going to come down to a matter of opinion since we're working with a lot of interpretation. Not including EWS is evidence that WotC might be choosing purposely not to update it. The problem is, there is no way to know that for sure. As CB noted, this is indeed circumstantial evidence, and at times, circumstantial evidence is enough. This evidence is not, however, beyond a reasonable doubt (especially as it stands alone), nor is it even a preponderance. That is why I feel that it makes more sense to rely on something that we do know for sure: the logical prerequisite trees that I will repeat below: GWF requires WF. EWF requires GWF. GWS requires WS. EWS requires _______. If someone can show me (and the rest of the community) how this is flawed, then I would be happy to change my position. As it is, this seems to be the logial answer.
CelestialBarbarian 03-26-07, 03:07 AM	It's always going to come down to a matter of opinion since we're working with a lot of interpretation. Not including EWS is evidence that WotC might be choosing purposely not to update it. The problem is, there is no way to know that for sure. As CB noted, this is indeed circumstantial evidence, and at times, circumstantial evidence is enough. This evidence is not, however, beyond a reasonable doubt (especially as it stands alone), nor is it even a preponderance. That is why I feel that it makes more sense to rely on something that we do know for sure: the logical prerequisite trees that I will repeat below: GWF requires WF. EWF requires GWF. GWS requires WS. EWS requires _______. If someone can show me (and the rest of the community) how this is flawed, then I would be happy to change my position. As it is, this seems to be the logial answer. Without compelling evidence to the contrary, we shouldn't change the rules.
Krispieman 03-26-07, 04:58 AM	I feel compelled to say that I agree with both Bluemage and Rob. Not just because it's logical, but also because feels balanced. As stated before, WotC shows little inclination to support Epic play and rules in a manner which we would find acceptable. Updating/changing a few feats in a very small amount of books does not satisfy me and I assume it does not for most of you either. So if WotC is no longer leading the way when it comes to Epic, those of us who love to play it are forced to either look at other sources, or make up our own rules and play. While this thread may be "logical houserules", there's but a small step between that and actual rules. The step seems to be employment by WotC. So all we need to do is get employed on a free-lance basis and everything we'd say is official :P. My point being here, that since WotC has abandoned us, the main authority around here is us. So if we agree upon a certain change for a feat, class, spell, item, monster, etc and accept it in our games, who is to say we're wrong to do so? Back in the days of AD&D (2nd edition) lost of people had Dexterity affect Initiative. When they created 3.0 Wizards took this "logical houserule" and made it an actual rule. So perhaps, by writing down our own in this thread, someday WotC will see it and adopt them. In the mean time, we'll be playing games that are better balanced, well thought out and generally more fun because they have less weird flaws, all thanks to our "logical houserules". Therefore I vote "Yay" to add GWSpec. to the prereq's of EWSpec. Not only because it is in line with similar Normal -> Greater -> Epic feats, but also because it feels right to me. K-man :cool:
CelestialBarbarian 03-26-07, 06:49 AM	I feel compelled to say that I agree with both Bluemage and Rob. Not just because it's logical, but also because feels balanced. As stated before, WotC shows little inclination to support Epic play and rules in a manner which we would find acceptable. Updating/changing a few feats in a very small amount of books does not satisfy me and I assume it does not for most of you either. So if WotC is no longer leading the way when it comes to Epic, those of us who love to play it are forced to either look at other sources, or make up our own rules and play. While this thread may be "logical houserules", there's but a small step between that and actual rules. The step seems to be employment by WotC. So all we need to do is get employed on a free-lance basis and everything we'd say is official :P. My point being here, that since WotC has abandoned us, the main authority around here is us. So if we agree upon a certain change for a feat, class, spell, item, monster, etc and accept it in our games, who is to say we're wrong to do so? Back in the days of AD&D (2nd edition) lost of people had Dexterity affect Initiative. When they created 3.0 Wizards took this "logical houserule" and made it an actual rule. So perhaps, by writing down our own in this thread, someday WotC will see it and adopt them. In the mean time, we'll be playing games that are better balanced, well thought out and generally more fun because they have less weird flaws, all thanks to our "logical houserules". Therefore I vote "Yay" to add GWSpec. to the prereq's of EWSpec. Not only because it is in line with similar Normal -> Greater -> Epic feats, but also because it feels right to me. K-man :cool: Again, don't overstate the case. Wizard hasn't "abandoned" us; they've just not focused as much attention on epic material as we'd like. As I've said twice before, I'll all for putting this change on a "Logical Houserules" thread. It just doesn't belong on a thread devoted to updated the SRD for 3.5 changes. :P Edit: Hey, and if I get hired by Wizards, I promise I'll push to make Greater Weapon Specialization an offical prerequisite for Epic Weapon Specialization. :D
bluemage55 03-26-07, 12:50 PM	As I've said twice before, I'll all for putting this change on a "Logical Houserules" thread. It just doesn't belong on a thread devoted to updated the SRD for 3.5 changes. :P But as I and Rob have pointed out, everything on this thread is a "logical house rule". Everything here is subjective to interpretation as to whether they were deliberate discrepancies or unfixed errors. Some happen to be more blatant errors than others, but ultimately, everything in this thread is up to our best judgement. I really think that you're just too caught up by the name of the thread. If it feels more appropriate, just call it "Logical Houserules" in your head. It's just a name. The purpose of this thread, though, that I think most people understand it to be, is that it is a revision of the existing (poorly updated/balanced) rules in order to conform them to 3.5 standards (e.g. EWF, epic seeds) and to provide playability by removing balance problems (e.g. Diplomacy, Cosmic Descryer, uncapped epic spell ritual participants).
rob_douglas 03-30-07, 11:25 AM	Hi Bluemage I noticed that you updated the Boots of Swiftness in the Magic Items section, but changed the Price I had calculated. You didn't give a reason for the price change, so I was wondering what motivated it? Just the skill bonuses, evasion, and Dex bonus are early worth the 200K without the continuous Haste effect, and without multiplying for multiple abilities. So it seems low. ROB
CelestialBarbarian 03-30-07, 01:44 PM	I noticed that the SRD entry for the infernal hasn't updated the DR as listed in the 3.5 update packet to 15/good and epic. Has someone done that here already? Edit: I checked at the top of the thread under epic monsters and didn't see it mentioned.
bluemage55 03-30-07, 02:43 PM	Hi Bluemage I noticed that you updated the Boots of Swiftness in the Magic Items section, but changed the Price I had calculated. You didn't give a reason for the price change, so I was wondering what motivated it? Just the skill bonuses, evasion, and Dex bonus are early worth the 200K without the continuous Haste effect, and without multiplying for multiple abilities. So it seems low. ROB Hmm, let's do the math out: I found the command-word haste to be silly. It would actually be cheaper to drop the CL to 10, matching the boots of speed, and making it constant. I priced the haste effect based on boots of speed rather than the normal formula. The boots of speed pricing was done differently than the normal guidelines, and I went with the boots as the more apporopriate guideline. For once a day use-activation, the boots of speed cost 12,000 gp, so a constant effect would be 5x as much at 60,000 gp. The Dex effect is 36,000 gp. Each competence bonus is 40,000 gp. The ring of evasion effect is 25,000 gp. 60,000 gp + 36,000 gp * 1.5 + 40,000 gp*4*1.5 + 25,000 gp*1.5 = 391,500 gp. In conclusion, I messed up my math somewhere when I did it before. The boots have been updated to 337,500 gp. Let me know if I messed up somewhere in there. :D
bluemage55 03-30-07, 03:12 PM	I noticed that the SRD entry for the infernal hasn't updated the DR as listed in the 3.5 update packet to 15/good and epic. Has someone done that here already? Edit: I checked at the top of the thread under epic monsters and didn't see it mentioned. Thanks for pointing that out. Added the DR update.
Hand of Vecna 03-30-07, 03:12 PM	Hmm, let's do the math out: I found the command-word haste to be silly. It would actually be cheaper to drop the CL to 10, matching the boots of speed, and making it constant. I priced the haste effect based on boots of speed rather than the normal formula. The boots of speed pricing was done differently than the normal guidelines, and I went with the boots as the more apporopriate guideline. For once a day use-activation, the boots of speed cost 12,000 gp, so a constant effect would be 5x as much at 60,000 gp. The Dex effect is 36,000 gp. Each competence bonus is 40,000 gp. The ring of evasion effect is 25,000 gp. 60,000 gp + 40,000 gp*4*1.5 + 25,000 gp*1.5 = 337,500 gp. In conclusion, I messed up my math somewhere when I did it before. The boots have been updated to 337,500 gp. Let me know if I messed up somewhere in there. :D Hate to say it, but your math's still off -- you forgot the cost of the +6 to Dex (36,000, x1.5 = 54,000). The boots should be 391,500 gp.
bluemage55 03-30-07, 03:17 PM	Hate to say it, but your math's still off -- you forgot the cost of the +6 to Dex (36,000, x1.5 = 54,000). The boots should be 391,500 gp. Good call. Fixed.
CelestialBarbarian 03-30-07, 03:36 PM	Thanks for pointing that out. Added the DR update. My pleasure. :)
Balthanon 03-31-07, 12:58 PM	Hate to say it, but your math's still off -- you forgot the cost of the +6 to Dex (36,000, x1.5 = 54,000). The boots should be 391,500 gp. Depends on whether you're using the latest item creation rules-- a Dexterity bonus is a common effect and affiliated with the boot slot, so according to the Magic Item Compendium it doesn't get multiplied by 1.5.
bluemage55 03-31-07, 04:56 PM	Depends on whether you're using the latest item creation rules-- a Dexterity bonus is a common effect and affiliated with the boot slot, so according to the Magic Item Compendium it doesn't get multiplied by 1.5. Until the rules in the Magic Item section of the SRD are updated, I'm inclined to continue using the older rules for this thread, due to the bit of a hassle it entails.
Hand of Vecna 03-31-07, 05:43 PM	Depends on whether you're using the latest item creation rules-- a Dexterity bonus is a common effect and affiliated with the boot slot, so according to the Magic Item Compendium it doesn't get multiplied by 1.5. It gets the x1.5 because it's an added/secondary feature (the continual [or 3/day] haste effect being the primary feature).
bluemage55 03-31-07, 05:50 PM	It gets the x1.5 because it's an added/secondary feature (the continual [or 3/day] haste effect being the primary feature). The Magic Item Compendium rules dispense with the 1.5 multiplier for certain "standard" effects like ability score bonuses.
Hand of Vecna 04-01-07, 12:50 AM	The Magic Item Compendium rules dispense with the 1.5 multiplier for certain "standard" effects like ability score bonuses. Even when it's being added as a secondary effect to an item? A "Belt of Perfection" (+6 enhancement bonus to all ability scores) costs 36,000 x 6 = 216,000 gp?
bluemage55 04-01-07, 02:27 AM	A "Belt of Perfection" (+6 enhancement bonus to all ability scores) costs 36,000 x 6 = 216,000 gp? There would be 1.5 multipliers for the improper slots (Dex goes in gloves, Con and Wis go in amulets, Int goes in helmet, Cha goes in cloak), but the gist of what you're saying is correct. I have not incorporated those new rules into this revision thread, nor will I unless WotC updates the magic item section of the SRD to match the new rules.
Hand of Vecna 04-01-07, 11:59 PM	There would be 1.5 multipliers for the improper slots (Dex goes in gloves, Con and Wis go in amulets, Int goes in helmet, Cha goes in cloak), but the gist of what you're saying is correct. I have not incorporated those new rules into this revision thread, nor will I unless WotC updates the magic item section of the SRD to match the new rules. *re-reads sections of the MIC* Hunh, whaddaya know.... Umm... isn't the entire purpose of this thread to provide updates for the SRD, updates WotC hasn't put in yet?
bluemage55 04-02-07, 12:53 AM	Umm... isn't the entire purpose of this thread to provide updates for the SRD, updates WotC hasn't put in yet? This thread concerns itself with the Epic section of the SRD, and the non-epic rules that need modifications for the sake of Epic play. We can't be certain yet that WotC plans to keep the new rules for the SRD, as they have not yet updated the SRD to match them. It is quite possible that WotC may choose to incorporate only parts, or none, of the new rules into the SRD in the end.
rob_douglas 04-02-07, 12:59 AM	I am still quite leary of the new rules myself. One question - do they mean that adding one ability enhancement doesn't pay the x1.5 cost, but what about adding more than one? The new rules are unclear. They technically only refer to adding a "common effect" to an item that does not have any other common effect. The new rules just make Epic characters even more powerful if followed for all. They were added to improved variety in items used in a campaign, but not to make epic characters more powerful. At epic levels, the new rules are not needed, as you can afford the multi-function penalty. WE should start a thread just to talk about the new rules, and the Item Level table.... ROB
Balthanon 04-02-07, 08:51 AM	WE should start a thread just to talk about the new rules, and the Item Level table.... ROB Ask and ye shall receive. I created a thread here to discuss it.
rob_douglas 04-04-07, 01:21 AM	Another silly thing that I think was missed the first time - but this is not a Revision also - but a "good house-rule". Move the Paladin's mount progression down 4 levels. Instead of waiting to 25th level to increase HD, etc, increase them at 21st. The reason for this is that up to 15th level, it increased every 5 levels, 5, 10, 15. Then it did not progress at 20th when it should have by the repetition. Then they added progression back in every 5 levels, but didn't reset the count to include the 6 levels you already spent - it is 11 levels between mount improvement that way. As it is, the mount becomes completely useless by epic levels. I think that there also needs to be more feats like Familiar Spell (which comes for free to wizards and sorcerers). Or even a Share Enhancements ability, so that the mount benefits from much of the rider's protections. They already share spells, but AC and Save bonuses, and STR/DEX/CON, hp, etc would help. Even Effective HD to avoid Holy Word is really necessary as well - Familiars are protected as much as their masters, but not Mounts. ROB
bluemage55 04-04-07, 05:51 PM	That looks more like a mistake to me. Is there any good reason that the paladin's mount doesn't improve at 20th level? Every other class ally follows the same multiples pattern except this one. I cannot see why the paladin's mount skips advancement at 20th level.
rob_douglas 04-05-07, 01:55 AM	I can't see a good reason, but since they presumably pay attention to pre-Epic stuff, I just assumed that was intended, and that they screwed up at Epic, forgetting that they had missed an advancement at 20th, and skipping ahead to 21st. It should be one or the other. 25th is too long to wait. ROB
CelestialBarbarian 04-05-07, 07:05 AM	I noticed that creatures like the pit fiend, which in 3.0 took normal damage only from good-aligned weapons, under 3.5 also take damage from spells with the good descriptor. Should that change carry through to creatures in ELH like the infernal?
Lacyon 04-05-07, 10:13 AM	Regarding EPIC MIGHT[EPIC] Benefit: Gain a +3 damage bonus on all weapon (including natural weapon) damage rolls. Special: A character can gain this feat multiple times. Its effects stack. And EPIC WEAPON SPECIALIZATION [EPIC] Choose one type of weapon for which you have already selected Greater Weapon Specialization. You can also choose unarmed strike or grapple as your weapon for purposes of this feat. Prerequisites: Proficiency, Epic Weapon Focus, Greater Weapon Focus, Greater Weapon Specialization, Weapon Focus, and Weapon Specialization with the weapon chosen, fighter level 20th. Benefit: Add a +2 bonus on all damage rolls you make using the selected weapon. This bonus stacks with other bonuses on attack rolls, including the bonuses from Weapon Specialization and Greater Weapon Specialization. Special: A character can gain this feat multiple times. Its effects do not stack. Each time you take the feat, it applies to a different type of weapon. Doesn't it seem odd that the more restricted feat with greater prerequisites has a lesser effect? Also, shouldn't "This bonus stacks with other bonuses on attack rolls" be "This bonus stacks with other bonuses on damage rolls"? Lacyon
CelestialBarbarian 04-05-07, 10:57 AM	Regarding And Doesn't it seem odd that the more restricted feat with greater prerequisites has a lesser effect? Also, shouldn't "This bonus stacks with other bonuses on attack rolls" be "This bonus stacks with other bonuses on damage rolls"? Lacyon From what source does the Epic Might feat come? I don't see it either in ELH or the SRD.
Lacyon 04-05-07, 12:09 PM	From what source does the Epic Might feat come? I don't see it either in ELH or the SRD. It's from the feats section at the beginning of this thread. -Lacyon
CelestialBarbarian 04-05-07, 12:56 PM	It's from the feats section at the beginning of this thread. -Lacyon Grrrrrr. One of those items that doesn't belong on thread titled "3.5 Epic SRD Revisions!" :(
bluemage55 04-07-07, 04:44 PM	Greater Weapon Specialization should be +4, not +2. It's fixed. Epic Might was designed as a balancing feat to deal with the fact that martial classes (aside from the conditional Great Smiting and Improved Favored Enemy) don't have a way to increase their damage using their epic bonus feats (this goes especially for the fighter, which has a lot of them). Epic Prowess is the only offensive feat they can take, but it becomes increasingly redundant as it cannot be applied towards Power Attack. This means that once feats allowing combat options are exhausted, martial characters will throw all of their epic bonus feats into Damage Reduction (the best stacking defensive feat). The result is that scaling leads to a game where characters are unable to kill each other because they can heal themselves or flee much much more quickly than others can hurt them. Epic Might allows martial characters to actually improve their offense, which fixes the disparity. It gives +3 damage, which is equivalent to the defense offered by Damage Reduction.
Lacyon 04-07-07, 05:07 PM	Greater Weapon Specialization should be +4, not +2. It's fixed. Cool. That's kinda what I figured. Epic Might was designed as a balancing feat to deal with the fact that martial classes (aside from the conditional Great Smiting and Improved Favored Enemy) don't have a way to increase their damage using their epic bonus feats (this goes especially for the fighter, which has a lot of them). Epic Prowess is the only offensive feat they can take, but it becomes increasingly redundant as it cannot be applied towards Power Attack. This means that once feats allowing combat options are exhausted, martial characters will throw all of their epic bonus feats into Damage Reduction (the best stacking defensive feat). The result is that scaling leads to a game where characters are unable to kill each other because they can heal themselves or flee much much more quickly than others can hurt them. Epic Might allows martial characters to actually improve their offense, which fixes the disparity. It gives +3 damage, which is equivalent to the defense offered by Damage Reduction. Interesting. I guess it's necessary to some degree, although this doesn't solve the problem perfectly either... I mean, two characters that focused on defense still can't hurt each other, and when a guy who focused on defense meets a guy who focused on offense, they're basically even. But when two guys who're focused on offense come together, they're also basically even. So it seems like offense is you'd almost always be better off focusing on offense and hoping to a) win initiative, or b) get luckier attack rolls, because at least then you have a chance of beating either opponent. Anbody who tried to split focus should be pretty even with the pure offense guy, but also fail against the pure defense guy too. Not that I can think of a way to fix this. Just an interesting conundrum. -Lacyon
bluemage55 04-07-07, 05:17 PM	Interesting. I guess it's necessary to some degree, although this doesn't solve the problem perfectly either... I mean, two characters that focused on defense still can't hurt each other, and when a guy who focused on defense meets a guy who focused on offense, they're basically even. But when two guys who're focused on offense come together, they're also basically even. So it seems like offense is you'd almost always be better off focusing on offense and hoping to a) win initiative, or b) get luckier attack rolls, because at least then you have a chance of beating either opponent. Anbody who tried to split focus should be pretty even with the pure offense guy, but also fail against the pure defense guy too. With this feat, they don't have to both focus on defense. There is still a possibility that they will both be defensive, but at least this provides the choice of doing otherwise.
Lacyon 04-07-07, 06:31 PM	With this feat, they don't have to both focus on defense. There is still a possibility that they will both be defensive, but at least this provides the choice of doing otherwise. No, I get this. What I'm saying is that with both feats out there, it seems strictly better to focus on offense. I mean, take several characters with 20 feats to burn. One of them takes pure defense, DR 60/-. One of them takes pure offense, +60 damage. One of them takes half/half. DR 30/- and +30 damage. When the pure offense character meets the pure defense character, their feats cancel, and based on their non-feat abilities (weapons, armor, etc.) they're basically even. Either one can kill the other. When the pure offense character meets the half/half character, each character is up a net +30 damage. Either one can kill the other. When the half/half character meets the pure defense character, each of them is down thirty points of damage on the other. It may just be that they can't kill each other. I dunno. While all those results are balanced it just makes it seem like you have to go all-out offense if you want to make sure you don't run into a brick wall. -Lacyon
bluemage55 04-07-07, 07:34 PM	Offense is supposed to be more effective than defense in heads-up combat, so as to avoid the whole situation with tanks being unable to kill each other. However, when the characters are pitted against multiple opponents of lower CRs/ECLs, the defensive character is more effective. The defensive character will likely deal sufficient damage to deal with his opponents, and his defense will dramatically reduce or even completely negate the return strikes between turns. By contrast, the offensive character's damage can be excessive, and given a limited number of possible kills a round, the return volleys from a large number of remaining weak enemies can hurt badly.
Lacyon 04-09-07, 09:45 AM	Offense is supposed to be more effective than defense in heads-up combat, so as to avoid the whole situation with tanks being unable to kill each other. However, when the characters are pitted against multiple opponents of lower CRs/ECLs, the defensive character is more effective. The defensive character will likely deal sufficient damage to deal with his opponents, and his defense will dramatically reduce or even completely negate the return strikes between turns. By contrast, the offensive character's damage can be excessive, and given a limited number of possible kills a round, the return volleys from a large number of remaining weak enemies can hurt badly. That makes sense. Thanks. -Lacyon
runestar 04-09-07, 10:16 AM	I noticed that creatures like the pit fiend, which in 3.0 took normal damage only from good-aligned weapons, under 3.5 also take damage from spells with the good descriptor. Should that change carry through to creatures in ELH like the infernal? No, according to the 3.5 SRD, though it is debatable just how thoroughly updated that is(for a 3.5 document). Not sure if it was intended or an oversight though. With wotc, you can never be sure...:P
CelestialBarbarian 04-09-07, 10:22 AM	No, according to the 3.5 SRD, though it is debatable just how thoroughly updated that is(for a 3.5 document). Not sure if it was intended or an oversight though. With wotc, you can never be sure...:P Well I thought the purpose of this thread was to note the 3.5 revisions that had been neglected in the 3.5 update of ELH, but since Blue ignored my original post and has posted material in now way related to the 3.5 revision, I guess maybe this really is just a deceitfully-named Blue's House Rules thread.
bluemage55 04-09-07, 11:52 AM	Well I thought the purpose of this thread was to note the 3.5 revisions that had been neglected in the 3.5 update of ELH, but since Blue ignored my original post and has posted material in now way related to the 3.5 revision, I guess maybe this really is just a deceitfully-named Blue's House Rules thread. I did not notice your original post. My answer is yes, it does look like an oversight. I'll add it to the revisions. In response to the latter part of your post, my answer remains ths same, and I'll paraphrase it here one more time: Nearly everything in this thread is a form of house rule, even the ones that are fixes of obvious errors. Everything here is subjective to interpretation as to whether they were deliberate discrepancies or unfixed errors. Some happen to be more blatant errors than others, but ultimately, everything in this thread is up to our best judgement. I really think that you're just too caught up by the name of the thread. If it feels more appropriate, just call it "Logical Houserules" in your head. It's just a name. The purpose of this thread, though, that I think most people understand it to be, is that it is a revision of the existing (poorly updated/balanced) rules in order to conform them to 3.5 standards (e.g. EWF, epic seeds) and to provide playability by removing balance problems (e.g. Diplomacy, Cosmic Descryer, uncapped epic spell ritual participants).
CelestialBarbarian 04-10-07, 01:30 AM	I did not notice your original post. My answer is yes, it does look like an oversight. I'll add it to the revisions. In response to the latter part of your post, my answer remains ths same, and I'll paraphrase it here one more time: Nearly everything in this thread is a form of house rule, even the ones that are fixes of obvious errors. Everything here is subjective to interpretation as to whether they were deliberate discrepancies or unfixed errors. Some happen to be more blatant errors than others, but ultimately, everything in this thread is up to our best judgement. I really think that you're just too caught up by the name of the thread. If it feels more appropriate, just call it "Logical Houserules" in your head. It's just a name. The purpose of this thread, though, that I think most people understand it to be, is that it is a revision of the existing (poorly updated/balanced) rules in order to conform them to 3.5 standards (e.g. EWF, epic seeds) and to provide playability by removing balance problems (e.g. Diplomacy, Cosmic Descryer, uncapped epic spell ritual participants). I find it hard to believe that you would miss anything on this thread. I have never seen you fail to respond to any post addressing a change--except for mine. You certainly have never missed responding when I've pointed out that you're once again straying from the original intention of the thread. But as I and Rob have pointed out, everything on this thread is a "logical house rule". Everything here is subjective to interpretation as to whether they were deliberate discrepancies or unfixed errors. Some happen to be more blatant errors than others, but ultimately, everything in this thread is up to our best judgement. I really think that you're just too caught up by the name of the thread. If it feels more appropriate, just call it "Logical Houserules" in your head. It's just a name. The purpose of this thread, though, that I think most people understand it to be, is that it is a revision of the existing (poorly updated/balanced) rules in order to conform them to 3.5 standards (e.g. EWF, epic seeds) and to provide playability by removing balance problems (e.g. Diplomacy, Cosmic Descryer, uncapped epic spell ritual participants). We cannot directly observe what you said when you first started the thread since you have conveniently edited it since I started pointing out that you were using the thread to pass off your house rules as mere updates to the epic SRD for changes made in the 3.5 revision. However we can still see what you and others were thinking early on. You started the thread on 9-14-06, and the next day Rob stated: I don't think that Bluemage wants this to be a "change the rules" thread, but a clarify what is clearly or should be clearly wrong. Like it or not, it is clear that the way Epic BAB was handled was intentional, so I don't think it belongs in this thread - it would just get cluttered with House Rules. ROB To which you replied on the very same day: Agreed. This will not be a thread to rewrite the system. The BAB system was clearly intended by the developers, even although it bugs me too, it doesn't need to be vastly changed. So clearly you did not intend for this to become a house rules thread and neither did Rob. So you've either lost sight of your original intention or you're simply lying. Either way, this thread is no place for house rules. So to be honest you need to either: 1. Go back and remove all the house rules, leaving only the 3.5 updates as you clearly intended originally, or 2. Go back to the first post and retitle the thread "Bluemage55's House Rules Thread." If you truly think that the title of the thread doesn't mean anything, than you won't object to changing it to convey a true sense of what you're now doing on the thread--passing along your house rules--and you'll change the title. If you're simply lying about the importance of the title, and lying about your intention to deceive people into thinking your house rules are just applications of the 3.5 update to the epic rules, than of course you won't do either.
Lacyon 04-10-07, 09:33 AM	So clearly you did not intend for this to become a house rules thread and neither did Rob. So you've either lost sight of your original intention or you're simply lying. Either way, this thread is no place for house rules. So to be honest you need to either: I'm not quite sure what you're getting at here. As has been mentioned, everything in the thread is a "house rule". The quote you reference addressed the idea of changing the epic system (the BAB progression in particular). Bluemage has added and modified individual feats, classes, etc., but the rules haven't changed, as I see it. 1. Go back and remove all the house rules, leaving only the 3.5 updates as you clearly intended originally, or 2. Go back to the first post and retitle the thread "Bluemage55's House Rules Thread." 3. Change the title of the thread to "Proposed 3.5 Epic SRD Revision". "Bluemage55's House rules" wouldn't be entirely accurate, as many of the changes were proposed and/or debated by members of this community. -Lacyon
CelestialBarbarian 04-10-07, 09:37 AM	I'm not quite sure what you're getting at here. As has been mentioned, everything in the thread is a "house rule". The quote you reference addressed the idea of changing the epic system (the BAB progression in particular). Bluemage has added and modified individual feats, classes, etc., but the rules haven't changed, as I see it. 3. Change the title of the thread to "Proposed 3.5 Epic SRD Revision". "Bluemage55's House rules" wouldn't be entirely accurate, as many of the changes were proposed and/or debated by members of this community. -Lacyon I don't see how much clearer it can be. Rob specifically said that this isn't a house rules thread and bluemage agreed. Now they're both claiming that it's nothing but a house rules thread. Clearly they have strayed from the original purpose of updating the epic rules for the 3.5 revision to passing off house rules as mere 3.5 updates.
Lacyon 04-10-07, 09:54 AM	I don't see how much clearer it can be. Rob specifically said that this isn't a house rules thread and bluemage agreed. Now they're both claiming that it's nothing but a house rules thread. Clearly they have strayed from the original purpose of updating the epic rules for the 3.5 revision to passing off house rules as mere 3.5 updates. I don't think that either of them meant the same thing you do with the term "house rules". -Lacyon
CelestialBarbarian 04-10-07, 10:05 AM	I don't think that either of them meant the same thing you do with the term "house rules". -Lacyon Spare me the speciousness. We all know what house rules mean. And they are Blue's house rules because he decides which ones to make and which ones to skip. I made a perfectly valid 3.5 update comment which he first ignored, then pretended he hadn't ignored, but still didn't put in the section under epic creatures. So he puts his own house rules, but he doesn't put 3.5 updates to the rules if he doesn't like them--or more to the point, if he doesn't like the poster. So yes, it's Blue's house rules. If he wants to change it to Blue's and Sycophants' House rules to account for people who will excuse anything he does no matter how bad, that's fine with me. I think you'll find though that if you change the name of the thread to what it really has become, that not so many people respect it anymore. But let's be clear: what started out clearly as a thread devoted to updating the epic rules for the 3.5 revision has degenerated into a thread for glorifying Blue's house rules.
runestar 04-10-07, 10:43 AM	Let it go, CB. You sound like you are starting to obsess... Or in the very least, your tone could sound a lot less confrontational. I doubt that is what you intended, but that is what you appear to be coming across as. And it can be quite grating on the nerves.:(
Lacyon 04-10-07, 10:45 AM	Spare me the speciousness. We all know what house rules mean. Do we? Because it seems to be a common opinion on WotC boards that anything not written and released in an official WotC supplement is a houserule. Which means that everything in this thread is a houserule, by it's nature. Thus I conclude that on Page 1, when Blue and Rob talked about keeping "house rules" out of this thread, they must have either been delirious or have meant something different by "house rule". And they are Blue's house rules because he decides which ones to make and which ones to skip. I made a perfectly valid 3.5 update comment which he first ignored, then pretended he hadn't ignored, but still didn't put in the section under epic creatures. So he puts his own house rules, but he doesn't put 3.5 updates to the rules if he doesn't like them--or more to the point, if he doesn't like the poster. Whoa. Didn't mean to step in that. Are you sure the truth isn't hidden in the very first post, whereupon bluemage ever-so-subtly hinted that he is "a full-time college student and only [has] limited time for such a project"? So yes, it's Blue's house rules. If he wants to change it to Blue's and Sycophants' House rules to account for people who will excuse anything he does no matter how bad, that's fine with me. I think you'll find though that if you change the name of the thread to what it really has become, that not so many people respect it anymore. But let's be clear: what started out clearly as a thread devoted to updating the epic rules for the 3.5 revision has degenerated into a thread for glorifying Blue's house rules. It's clear that the person maintaining the thread decides what updates he will and won't put in, and when he'll get around to doing it, sure. See, I haven't been here long, and bluemage could well be a jerk and I just don't know it. What I do know is that this thread is a handy resource, and bluemage created and maintains that resource. So I'm going to give him the benefit of the doubt, just this once, and assume he's a reasonable guy. I also know that Bluemage announced the addition of "Epic Might" around page 3 of this thread, which you didn't seem to have a problem with until just now because it's a "house rule". I'll do you the courtesy of assuming you missed his earlier post instead of just ignoring it. -Lacyon PS - Check the creatures section again. I think your update is in there, unless I'm just totally confused.
rob_douglas 04-10-07, 11:09 AM	I don't want to get into a debate again about what this thread is or isn't. I will admit that I disagree with several of Blue's updates. I voiced my objections at the time in most cases, but then I moved on. I still disagree in those cases - Epic Might, Epic Weapon Focus, Auto-Quicken. I think it is fair to point it out and debate it. I leave my posts as something of a dissenting opinon. But ultimately it is what it is. It is a very handy resource. There is something very different between changing the BAB rules, and adding or tweaking a feat. And yes, there are also differences between pure 3.5 carryover (the effects of Haste) and new rules. But Blue ultimately decides what gets posted in his posts. This isn't a wiki. Maybe it should be. ROB
rob_douglas 04-10-07, 11:31 AM	A couple of updates: From another thread - Rod of Fortification should grant Improved cover, rather than 9/10ths cover, when the character already has cover from another source. This grants an AC bonus of +8, +4 to Reflex saves, Improved Evasion, and +10 to Hide checks. Edit: (Forgot to add this one...): Spell Opportunity should only allow one Touch spell AoO as an Immediate action, rather than for every AoO - especially as the rules for AoOs have changed to allow a single creature to provoke and be hit more than once by the same attacker. You should need Multispell to cast more than one Quickened spell a round, whether as a swift action as normal, or as an immediate action in this case. Now the tough one - Spellcasting Harrier and Improved Combat Casting: In the original ELH version, they went together, and should have stayed together in later updates. SH was updated in Draconomicon. ICC was updated in Complete Arcane. They now no longer work together: In ELH, SH overpowered existing Combat Casting, providing a penalty to concentration checks of at least 10. ICC then overpowered SH, by no longer allowing AoOs. You didn't really need ICC except to counter SH - that is its only purpose, since you can easily pass the DC24 Concentration check to cast a 9th level spell defensively when you have Combat Casting and 25 ranks in Concentration needed to qualify for the feat. (You could cast a 9th level spell if your CON was 1!) So then along comes Draconomicon. SH there automatically grants an AoO - no check, no save, nothing. This overpowers CC, but now it is in direct opposition to ICC, which says you never provoke an AoO, where this says you always do. So on to Complete Arcane. ICC is then updated to grant a bonus to Concentration. Given the Draco SH, this has no effect on that feat, except to make ICC completely irrelevant once and for all. The only reason they must have written that update was to make it less powerful, and work with the ELH SH feat. The bonus somewhat offsets the penalty from ELH SH - since caster level can be less than the character level of the attacker, and often will be, especially if the attacker is a dragon. It also doesn't say whether the +4 from CC stacks with ICC. I believe the intention was to make the 2 work together. That if the attacker had SH, the defender needed to have ICC. I also believe the intention was to make it so that ICC did not trump SH as it did in the ELH. So I suggest that the correct fix is to use the ELH version of SH, and the Complete Arcane version of ICC, with a note that this stacks with the +4 bonus from CC. Thoughts? ROB
bluemage55 04-11-07, 06:54 PM	From another thread - Rod of Fortification should grant Improved cover, rather than 9/10ths cover, when the character already has cover from another source. This grants an AC bonus of +8, +4 to Reflex saves, Improved Evasion, and +10 to Hide checks. Sounds good, I'll add it. Spell Opportunity should only allow one Touch spell AoO as an Immediate action, rather than for every AoO - especially as the rules for AoOs have changed to allow a single creature to provoke and be hit more than once by the same attacker. You should need Multispell to cast more than one Quickened spell a round, whether as a swift action as normal, or as an immediate action in this case. :confused: As far as I know, you get one AoO each time a creature provokes an AoO. With Spell Opportunity, you can make that one attack as a melee touch spell instead of a melee attack. I believe the intention was to make the 2 work together. That if the attacker had SH, the defender needed to have ICC. I also believe the intention was to make it so that ICC did not trump SH as it did in the ELH. So I suggest that the correct fix is to use the ELH version of SH, and the Complete Arcane version of ICC, with a note that this stacks with the +4 bonus from CC. My impression was that they screwed up ICC when they wrote Complete Arcane. As written, it's completely useless. It doesn't do anything at all even when you have a Con of 1. It does not protect you from SH, as you still have to cast defensively, which will provoke an AoO. The Draconomicon version of SH is more or less identical to the ELH version (with slightly different wording). My solution is to stick with the ELH ICC, since that one actually serves a purpose, unlike the CA ICC which is inferior to spending your epic feat on Skill Focus (basketweaving).
rob_douglas 04-11-07, 07:19 PM	:confused: As far as I know, you get one AoO each time a creature provokes an AoO. With Spell Opportunity, you can make that one attack as a melee touch spell instead of a melee attack. Spell Opp requires Combat Reflexes. Yes, you get one each time it provokes, and with reach (say as a dragon) you could get lots of opportunities. With Combat Reflexes you get to use all those opportunities. This is equivalent to casting a whole lot of Quickened spells as free actions. Normally a quickened spell is a Swift action, so you can't do more than one a round. Basically this would allow you to cast a whole lot of spells in a single round - albeit only touch spells, but I thought that it was outside the spirit of how quickening worked - that you can't cast lots of quickened spells in one round without taking Multispell. In the flavor of it, it is that casting spells still takes some amount of effort, more than free. So that is why I thought it should change to an Immediate action, which would limit you to one a round, regardless of how many times one creature provoked, or how many creatures provoked you. You are already getting AutoQuicken essentially - even if you choose Temporal Stasis as your attack spell. My impression was that they screwed up ICC when they wrote Complete Arcane. As written, it's completely useless. It doesn't do anything at all even when you have a Con of 1. It does not protect you from SH, as you still have to cast defensively, which will provoke an AoO. The Draconomicon version of SH is more or less identical to the ELH version (with slightly different wording). My solution is to stick with the ELH ICC, since that one actually serves a purpose, unlike the CA ICC which is inferior to spending your epic feat on Skill Focus (basketweaving). I think you need to reread the Draconomicon Spellcasting Harrier. It grants an AoO if you cast defensivley. ELH SH forced a harder Concentration check. They aren't the same thing. Drac SH actually allows you to hit someone for damage, while the ELH one doesn't. Your solution (ELH ICC, Drac SH) would be fine, since technically, you don't need to cast defensively to avoid the AoO - since it categorically states that you don't get provoke AoO when threatened, and therefore you don't need to cast defensively, and therefore don't spring the clause under Drac SH. Like I said, though, I think they wanted the two to cancel out, and they wrote the Complete Arcane one to go with ELH SH. In that case, there are still no AoOs, but if the opponents have each feat, they would be back in the same situation as before either had either feat - I thought that was a good thing. Drac SH and ELH ICC makes ELH ICC necessary when someone gets SH, but not really before. ELH SH with CA ICC does not require you to get ICC ever - since you can really pump your Concentration and not fail the check - though it would still be hard. The DC to cast a 9th level spell against a 24th level attacker would be 15+9+12 = 36. Since you have to have 25 ranks in Concentration, and you get +4 from Combat Casting for 29, you only need a roll of 6-CON bonus, which I assume would be at least +3 at that point, so you need a 3 or more.... All right, I am convinced. Use the Spellcasting Harrier from Draconomicon, and Improved Combat Casting from ELH, and ignore Complete Arcane (which has made enough of a mess of Epic on its own... ;) ) ROB
bluemage55 04-12-07, 01:58 PM	Spell Opp requires Combat Reflexes. Yes, you get one each time it provokes, and with reach (say as a dragon) you could get lots of opportunities. With Combat Reflexes you get to use all those opportunities. This is equivalent to casting a whole lot of Quickened spells as free actions. Normally a quickened spell is a Swift action, so you can't do more than one a round. Basically this would allow you to cast a whole lot of spells in a single round - albeit only touch spells, but I thought that it was outside the spirit of how quickening worked - that you can't cast lots of quickened spells in one round without taking Multispell. In the flavor of it, it is that casting spells still takes some amount of effort, more than free. So that is why I thought it should change to an Immediate action, which would limit you to one a round, regardless of how many times one creature provoked, or how many creatures provoked you. You are already getting AutoQuicken essentially - even if you choose Temporal Stasis as your attack spell. I thought of it differently. I compared it to melee attacks and AoOs. AoOs allow you to pull off free attacks that you normally wouldn't be able to do, outside of how the BAB system of iterative attacks worked. My perspective is that AoOs give you free attacks beyond what you can normally accomplish, and that would apply for spells as well as melee attacks. We should discuss this some more. I think you need to reread the Draconomicon Spellcasting Harrier. It grants an AoO if you cast defensivley. ELH SH forced a harder Concentration check. They aren't the same thing. Drac SH actually allows you to hit someone for damage, while the ELH one doesn't. Oh dear. I get it now. Sorry, I have been refering to the SRD SH, which is already updated to resemble Draconomicon SH. What I meant is to stick with the SRD versions of SH and ICC.
rob_douglas 04-12-07, 02:29 PM	I thought of it differently. I compared it to melee attacks and AoOs. AoOs allow you to pull off free attacks that you normally wouldn't be able to do, outside of how the BAB system of iterative attacks worked. My perspective is that AoOs give you free attacks beyond what you can normally accomplish, and that would apply for spells as well as melee attacks. We should discuss this some more. I guess we should look more into what could come from these. You can't do buffs, but being able to cast Harm several times a round as a free action could be an interesting problem. I don't like to argue it based on that though, because you will point out that you eventually run out of slots, which is the same argument for allowing multiple Quickened spells per round anyway, without even having the Multispell feat. If it is determined that casting 3 spells in a round is so powerful that you need an Epic feat to do it (Multispell), then I think that having an epic feat that allows casting 6 spells in a round could also be considered too powerful. A Dragon with reach could get off 6 Temporal Stasis spells, or Otto's Irresistible Dance. If he had an MDJ the round before to knock out some mind blanks, the whole party could be dancing to death from that little trick. (As an aside, look at the Advanced Red Dragon in the ELH - it has Spell Opportunity and no touch attack spells on its spell list..... Crazy.) Oh dear. I get it now. Sorry, I have been refering to the SRD SH, which is already updated to resemble Draconomicon SH. What I meant is to stick with the SRD versions of SH and ICC. Yeah, I never checked the SRD. But I see that it has been updated. Ok - so I now support following the SRD, which is equal to the ELH ICC and Draconomicon SH. ROB
Lacyon 04-12-07, 02:51 PM	I guess we should look more into what could come from these. You can't do buffs, but being able to cast Harm several times a round as a free action could be an interesting problem. I don't like to argue it based on that though, because you will point out that you eventually run out of slots, which is the same argument for allowing multiple Quickened spells per round anyway, without even having the Multispell feat. If it is determined that casting 3 spells in a round is so powerful that you need an Epic feat to do it (Multispell), then I think that having an epic feat that allows casting 6 spells in a round could also be considered too powerful. A Dragon with reach could get off 6 Temporal Stasis spells, or Otto's Irresistible Dance. If he had an MDJ the round before to knock out some mind blanks, the whole party could be dancing to death from that little trick. (As an aside, look at the Advanced Red Dragon in the ELH - it has Spell Opportunity and no touch attack spells on its spell list..... Crazy.) I would think that after the first one or two SoOs, the opponents might stop doing things that provoke? I mean, it's a cool trick, but casters can cast defensively, rogues can tumble (and unless there's some rule out there that stops it, even a fighter in full plate can grab a +20-30ish tumble item and put 1 cross-class rank in it) - and that's not even assuming we have some nifty magic item that'll swift-action move us right next to the dragon (or away from it if we're ranged attackers) to full-attack. It doesn't seem too bad to me. -Lacyon
bluemage55 04-12-07, 02:57 PM	As Lacyon points out, AoOs are fairly conditional because opponents must provoke the attack. Consider also that spells are much more easily stopped than melee attacks. Given the choice to hit an opponent hard at your full attack bonus, or taking a chance with a spell that may or may not get past SR, that the opponent will probably save against, and might be stopped by a variety of immunities, I wouldn't expect the decision to be one-sided. It would seem like a choice that wouldn't be too bad either way.
runestar 04-14-07, 02:13 AM	Has there been a revision of the elder titan anywhere? I always thought it had auto-quicken.:embarrass And its stats look quite weak for a colossal creature.
bluemage55 04-14-07, 05:36 PM	It could indeed use a revision. I'll take a look at it and see what I can do. Simply applying size increases off the 3.5 titan gives it, prior to applying level-based increases: Str 59, Dex 12, Con 47, Int 21, Wis 28, Cha 24 One major problem I see is the spellcasting of the elder titan. 3.0 titans had 20th-level casting, so it was appropriate for elder titans to have spellcasting as well. 3.5 titans, on the other hand, have only SLAs, so I'm thinking some changes will need to be made in that area to the 3.5 elder titan.
bluemage55 04-14-07, 07:43 PM	Here's a revised version: TITAN, ELDER Huge Outsider (Chaotic, Extraplanar) Hit Dice: 60d8+1,080 (1,350 hp) Initiative: +1 Speed: 50 ft. in full plate (10 squares); base speed 80 ft. Armor Class: 46 (–8 size, +1 Dex, +28 natural, +16 +8 adamantine full plate), touch 3, flat-footed 45 Base Attack/Grapple: +60/+100 Attack: Colossal+ +6 adamantine warhammer +83 melee (8d6+42/19-20/x3) or +6 javelin +59 ranged (4d6+22) or slam +76 (3d6+24) Full Attack: Colossal+ +6 adamantine warhammer +83/+78/+73/+68 melee (8d6+42/19-20/x3) or +6 javelin +59 ranged (4d6+22) or 2 slams +76 (3d6+24) Space/Reach: 30 ft./30 ft. Special Attacks: Oversized weapon, spell-like abilities Special Qualities: Damage reduction 15/lawful and epic, darkvision 60 ft., spell resistance 72 Saves: Fort +50, Ref +33, Will +41 Abilities: Str 59, Dex 12, Con 47, Int 21, Wis 28, Cha 34 Skills: Balance +17, Bluff +75, Climb +40, Concentration +91, Craft (any one) +68, Diplomacy +18, Disguise +12 (+18 acting), Heal +40, Intimidate +81 Jump +101, Knowledge (Arcana) +68, Listen +82, Perform (oratory) +75, Search +68, Sense Motive +72, Spellcraft +80, Spot +82, Survival +9 (+15 following tracks), Swim +24, Use Magic Device +12 (+18 use scrolls) Feats: Awesome Blow, Blind-Fight, Cleave, Great Cleave, Improved Bull Rush, Improved Critical (warhammer), Improved Sunder, Magical Aptitude, Power Attack, Quicken Spell-Like Ability (chain lightning), Weapon Focus (warhammer) Epic Feats: Devastating Critical (warhammer), Epic Skill Focus (Concentration), Epic Skill Focus (Jump), Epic Skill Focus (Listen), Epic Skill Focus (Spellcraft) Epic Skill Focus (Spot), Legendary Leaper, Overwhelming Critical (warhammer), Penetrate Damage Reduction (cold iron), Penetrate Damage Reduction (silver) Environment: A chaotic good-aligned plane Organization: Solitary or pair Challenge Rating: 43 Treasure: Double standard plus +8 adamantine full plate and Gargantuan +6 adamantine warhammer Alignment: Always chaotic (any) Advancement: 61–120 HD (Colossal) Level Adjustment: — An elder titan is about 100 feet tall and weighs about 896,000 pounds. Elder titans speak Abyssal, Common, Celestial, Draconic, and Giant. COMBAT A titan’s natural weapons, as well as any weapons it wields, are treated as chaotic-aligned for the purpose of overcoming damage reduction. Oversized Weapon (Ex): An elder titan wields a great, two-handed warhammer (big enough for Colossal+ creatures) without penalty. Change Shape (Su): A titan can assume the form of any Small or Medium humanoid. The titan retains its oversized weapon special attack regardless of form. Spell-Like Abilities: At will—chain lightning (DC 28), fire storm (DC 29), greater dispel magic, invisibility, invisibility purge, levitate, mass cure critical wounds (DC 30), mass charm monster (DC 30), mass hold monster (DC 31), persistent image (DC 27); 3/day—etherealness, hellball (epic spell), soul scry (epic spell), summon nature’s ally IX, word of chaos (DC 27); 1/day—gate, maze, meteor swarm (DC 31). Caster level 60th. The save DCs are Charisma-based. In addition, titans of good or neutral alignment can use the following additional spell-like abilities: At will—daylight, holy smite (DC 25), remove curse (DC 26); 1/day—greater restoration. Caster level 60th. The save DCs are Charisma-based. Titans of evil alignment can use the following additional spell-like abilities: At will—bestow curse (DC 26), deeper darkness, unholy blight (DC 25); 1/day—crushing hand (DC 31). Caster level 60th. The save DCs are Charisma-based. TACTICS ROUND-BY-ROUND Elder titans enjoy combat and usually close with their foes. If that proves ineffective, they swiftly back off and pelt the foe with spell-like abilities and magical effects. Because of an elder titan’s Quicken Spell-Like Ability feat, it can use chain lightning as a swift action, and frequently attacks in melee while lashing out with this ability at the same time. Prior to combat: Invisibility purge or invisibility. Round 1: Charge and attempt to sunder the weapon of the most dangerous foe. Hurl chain lightning at weak-seeming opponents (allies and summons). Round 2: Full attack against the disarmed opponent, and hurl chain lightning at other weak opponents. Round 3: Back away from first opponent and use maze or hellball on any spellcaster causing trouble. Round 4: Sunder the weapon of the next most effective combatant, or use greater dispel magic on all nearby opponents. Round 5: Full attack against any nearby opponent, or move into ideal position and use word of chaos. Use another quickened chain lightning if weak foes remain. An elder titan usually reserves its gate and etherealness abilities to escape a fight that is not going well. Discuss. :D
Gemstone 04-14-07, 07:54 PM	waaaait a second. isn't an elder titan supposed to have epic spellcasting? Maybe Im tired, but taking that away removes some of the flavour that I particulary liked about the elder titan
bluemage55 04-14-07, 08:23 PM	waaaait a second. isn't an elder titan supposed to have epic spellcasting? Maybe Im tired, but taking that away removes some of the flavour that I particulary liked about the elder titan 3.0 titans had spellcasting ability. 3.5 titans do not. The fact that the epic titan has spellcasting, and thus the ability to qualify for epic spellcasting, is a holdover from 3.0. However, the elder titan could have epic spells as SLAs, and I'm thinking that you are correct about the flavor. I revised it to include hellball and soul scry 3x day each.
runestar 04-14-07, 11:11 PM	I see some problems with the SLAs you gave it. Greater dispel magic will be useless, since it has no chance of successfully affecting any spell cast by the party(it caps at 20). You might want to give it epic counterspell or something. Word of chaos at caster lv60? That is a potential TPK for the whole party if you can succeed at stripping away their protections. Many of the lower lv SLAs like chain lightning are flat out useless. The PCs will have virtual elemental immunity and/or evasion by this point, and will be making dc:28 checks with relative ease(I do not see how they can possibly fail it). Same for cure critical wounds. Maybe replace with heal? Basically, scrap all the SLAs you know will be useless to streamline the entry and avoid cluttering up the stat block. Think we better start upgrading all its SLAs to 8th or 9th lv, heightened if need be. With caster lv 60, it can quicken up to lv26 spells(in theory). Or give it more epic spells as SLAs. I will see what other epic SLAs might suit its flavour. Giving it its sorc spellcasting back seems like the most expedient solution though. Puts the burden of spell selection on the dm and absolves us of this headache...:D Cataract of fire and necromatic singularity from champions of ruin seem like nice choices. Maybe enslave from the ELH as well(to replace charm monster).
bluemage55 04-15-07, 12:11 AM	I didn't select the SLAs other than the epic spells. The SLAs are simply the ones that a 3.5 titan has, simply advanced to CL 60 and with appropriate save DCs. Greater dispel magic still allows a sufficient dispel check to negate most magic items, so it can take out items providing key enhancements (and its massive Spellcraft check should be enough to figure out which ones). Chain lightning allows the titan to deal with summoned ranged mobs as a swift action, which it would otherwise have to waste a turn on using fire storm or hellball. Cure critical wounds allows it to fully heal itself when it runs away from fights using etherealness and gate, so it isn't quite useless (although it is indeed pointless in combat). I do not plan to give it a spellcasting progression because this runs counter to the 3.5 titan. Also, I would not give it SLAs outside of Core because the SRD needs to be self-contained. I do see your point that the SLAs are too weak though. I revised the titan again and upgraded many of the SLAs.
Witch 04-15-07, 02:39 AM	Your caster level is bad. Refer to the creatures in the ELH, and you'll notice that caster level ~ CR, not HD.
bluemage55 04-15-07, 03:04 AM	Your caster level is bad. Refer to the creatures in the ELH, and you'll notice that caster level ~ CR, not HD. 3.5 doesn't take that stance. CL for SLAs is either specially chosen or based on HD.
Witch 04-15-07, 03:15 AM	And it should be specially chosen to be in line with CR. Word of Chaos at CL ~43 is fine. Word of Chaos at CL 60 is not. There's other possible issues, but the crux remains the same. There is no need to give a being a CL that high above his CR, and all it will accomplish is either making the monster unplayable (either too high CL or too high CR for the rest to function well) or raising that CR.
bluemage55 04-15-07, 03:39 AM	And it should be specially chosen to be in line with CR. Word of Chaos at CL ~43 is fine. Word of Chaos at CL 60 is not. There's other possible issues, but the crux remains the same. There is no need to give a being a CL that high above his CR, and all it will accomplish is either making the monster unplayable (either too high CL or too high CR for the rest to function well) or raising that CR. They aren't chosen to match CR. Some of them are the minimum CL for a creature's highest SLA, and some others are just random. CL 60 word of chaos is appropriate. It can easily be protected against (greater spell immunity, silence, and epic spells, all of which the titan will have a hard time dispelling since it only has greater dispel magic. CL 43 word of chaos is nearly useless, as spending an entire round to usually only deafen your opponents (and that's if they aren't protected) is absolutely pathetic.
Witch 04-15-07, 03:45 AM	Elder Titan: CR 30; CL 29 Elder Treant: CR 25; CL 23 Winterwight: CR 23; CL 23 Lavawight: CR 23; CL 22 Shape of Fire: CR 26; CL 24 Shadow of the Void: CR 26; CL 24 Anaxim: CR 22; CL 22 Atropal: CR 30; CL 30 ... It goes on. You don't see a pattern? There's a reason for it, being the fact that CL influences CR heavily, and they shouldn't differ too greatly.
bluemage55 04-15-07, 03:48 AM	I'm talking about 3.5, not 3.0 (and that includes the Epic SRD, which was barely updated). Refer to the MM and other 3.5 publications.
runestar 04-15-07, 03:51 AM	3.5 doesn't take that stance. CL for SLAs is either specially chosen or based on HD. Not quite. It is almost always based off cr. That it simply appears to have some sort of connection with HD is purely a coincidence. This means that a balor advanced to 60HD will still use its SLAs at caster lv20 by RAW. Of course, it would be reasonable to have the caster lv scale at a 1:1 ratio with cr. But definitely not HD. CL 43 word of chaos is nearly useless, as spending an entire round to usually only deafen your opponents (and that's if they aren't protected) is absolutely pathetic. Against a lv43 party, a cr43 challenge is supposed to be pathetic. That is the whole idea of cr. You want it to be a challenge, throw a cr45+ challenge at them instead.:) As for its SLAs, if you want to strip away spellcasting, we will have to improve on those SLAs. What good 8th/9th lv spells can replace the weaker spells like dispel or chain lightning? This is proving to be a bigger challenge than I originally envisioned. And its mental stats will have to be boosted as well. Also, is there a reason for all those epic skill focus feats?
bluemage55 04-15-07, 04:14 AM	Not quite. It is almost always based off cr. That it simply appears to have some sort of connection with HD is purely a coincidence. This means that a balor advanced to 60HD will still use its SLAs at caster lv20 by RAW. Of course, it would be reasonable to have the caster lv scale at a 1:1 ratio with cr. But definitely not HD. I would suggest that you back that up with some evidence. Here's mine, just going off the first monster page of the SRD: Aboleth: 8 HD, CR 7, CL 16th = 2x HD or random Aboleth Mage: 8 HD, CR 17th, CL 16th = 2x HD or random Astral Deva: 12 HD, CR 14th, CL 12th = HD Planetar: 14 HD, CR 16, CL 17th = random Solar: 22 HD, CR 23, CL 20th = random Lanern Archon: 1 HD, CR 2, CL 3rd = minimum CL for aid Hound Archon: 6 HD, CR 3, CL 6th = HD Trumpet Archon: 12 HD, CR 14, CL 12th = HD Avoral: 7 HD, CR 9, CL 8th = minimum CL for dimension door Not Against a lv43 party, a cr43 challenge is supposed to be pathetic. That is the whole idea of cr. You want it to be a challenge, throw a cr45+ challenge at them instead.:) Wrong. A CR 43 challenge is supposed to eat one-fourth of their resources.
runestar 04-15-07, 04:31 AM	Wrong. A CR 43 challenge is supposed to eat one-fourth of their resources. With a caster lv 60 word of chaos, that will be all or nothing. How is that 25% of their resources?:P I would suggest that you back that up with some evidence. Here's mine, just going off the first monster page of the SRD: Nor can you support the monsters whose caster lv share no correlation with their HD either.
bluemage55 04-15-07, 04:56 AM	With a caster lv 60 word of chaos, that will be all or nothing. How is that 25% of their resources?:P As I explained above, there are a number of ways that ECL 43 PCs can protect themselves. Nor can you support the monsters whose caster lv share no correlation with their HD either. As I stated above, CL is based on HD, minimum CL for a SLA, or is arbitrarily chosen for specific circmstances. It is not, however, based on CR.
runestar 04-15-07, 07:38 AM	On a side note, I think it would be less troublesome to simply retain the spellcasting capabilities, and use auto-silent/still/quicken and maybe ignore material components to simulate 1 quickened SLA/round. This also paves the way for multispell and maybe epic counterspell(the feat from PGTF and wotc website - but qualifying for it is tricky). Though this might require us to rework many of the feats to make room. I will probably need to dump all weapon feats, possibly expertise and perhaps even great cleave. The concept I had in mind was that the titan wades into battle, while unleashing quickened spells and deftly countering any offending spells cast in combat. Something like: Feats: Cleave, Combat reflexes(will need to raise dex to 13), Improved counterspell, Improved initiative, Improved Sunder, Power attack, Reactive counterspell, Silent spell, Still spell, Quicken spell Epic feats: Auto silent/still/quicken spell * 3(9 feats), Epic counterspell, Epic spellcasting, multispell * 2, polygot(for the flavour aspect). Can't seem to squeeze in eschew/ignore material components anywhere... Too narrowly focused?:P
Witch 04-15-07, 07:43 AM	I'm talking about 3.5, not 3.0 (and that includes the Epic SRD, which was barely updated). Refer to the MM and other 3.5 publications. Then you better revise all the epic monsters as well, to be consistent. Personally, I'd rather keep CL in line with CR, but as I'm less good at argueing this than Selah is, I'll ask him to explain it.
Gemstone 04-15-07, 07:46 AM	I say we throw in some higher than level 9 spells as SLA's. Through metamagic feats that is. I mean, chain lightning isn't that impressive, but an enhanced chain lightning that deals an addition +40d6 damage... OW. I'll leave the CR and such to you, but the flavour I can pick appart :D
bluemage55 04-15-07, 05:58 PM	On a side note, I think it would be less troublesome to simply retain the spellcasting capabilities, and use auto-silent/still/quicken and maybe ignore material components to simulate 1 quickened SLA/round. This also paves the way for multispell and maybe epic counterspell(the feat from PGTF and wotc website - but qualifying for it is tricky) The reason I didn't go that way was because it did not match up with the 3.5 titan. Then you better revise all the epic monsters as well, to be consistent. Personally, I'd rather keep CL in line with CR, but as I'm less good at argueing this than Selah is, I'll ask him to explain it. I actually plan to, eventually. I say we throw in some higher than level 9 spells as SLA's. Through metamagic feats that is. I mean, chain lightning isn't that impressive, but an enhanced chain lightning that deals an addition +40d6 damage... OW. Is there precedent for having metamagicked SLA's without the use of the SLA feats (other than the archmage and hierophant abilities)?
Gemstone 04-16-07, 01:48 AM	Is there precedent for having metamagicked SLA's without the use of the SLA feats (other than the archmage and hierophant abilities)? Hmm... As far as I know, no, but in order to make Epic Monsters more akin to their CR, I think it's needed.
CelestialBarbarian 04-16-07, 11:58 AM	I would suggest that you back that up with some evidence. Here's mine, just going off the first monster page of the SRD: Aboleth: 8 HD, CR 7, CL 16th = 2x HD or random Aboleth Mage: 8 HD, CR 17th, CL 16th = 2x HD or random Astral Deva: 12 HD, CR 14th, CL 12th = HD Planetar: 14 HD, CR 16, CL 17th = random Solar: 22 HD, CR 23, CL 20th = random Lanern Archon: 1 HD, CR 2, CL 3rd = minimum CL for aid Hound Archon: 6 HD, CR 3, CL 6th = HD Trumpet Archon: 12 HD, CR 14, CL 12th = HD Avoral: 7 HD, CR 9, CL 8th = minimum CL for dimension door Wrong. A CR 43 challenge is supposed to eat one-fourth of their resources. Actually it's 20% (page 49, DMG, first column, last paragraph, under the heading "What's Challenging?"), which is one-fifth. :P The caster level of the 3.5 titan is 20, or one less than its CR. (The 3.0 titan had the same CR and CL.) Thus you could make an argument for giving the elder titan a CL of 42. At that CL the word of chaos seems close to useless, but no more so than the base titan's word of chaos with a CL of 20 against a party of 21st-level characters. Giving an elder titan with a CR of 43 a CL of 42 would follow not only the 3.5 titan but the pattern of the 3.0 elder titan, which had a CR of 30 and a CL of 29. To make the elder titan's word of chaos more useful, you could simply bump up the CL a few levels. Even at a CL = CR +1, word of chaos can stun and deafen opponents. At a CL = CR +5, the opponents can be confused too, although if they're stunned, they can't act in the manner that a confusion spell would normally make them act. I say "close to useless" above because word of chaos can banish opponents regardless of their level, although they do get a saving throw at -4, so even when CR = CL -1, word of chaos has a chance to banish opponents. Most likely it would banish only some of the opponents (who can't return for 24 hours), raising the danger of death from the titan to non-banished party members. Imagine having your meat shield banished, after which the elder titan squishes the annoying spellcasters with his adamantine warhammer. :D As long as we're updating the elder titan, we might as well include titan errata from the 3.5 Monster Manual, which removed polymorph from its spell-like abilities, replacing it with a supernatural ability of change shape: Change Shape (Su): A titan can assume the form of any Small or Medium humanoid. The titan retains its oversized weapon special attack regardless of form."
bluemage55 04-16-07, 12:26 PM	Actually it's 20% (page 49, DMG, first column, last paragraph, under the heading "What's Challenging?"), which is one-fifth. :P I stand corrected. The caster level of the 3.5 titan is 20, or one less than its CR. (The 3.0 titan had the same CR and CL.) Thus you could make an argument for giving the elder titan a CL of 42. At that CL the word of chaos seems close to useless, but no more so than the base titan's word of chaos with a CL of 20 against a party of 21st-level characters. Giving an elder titan with a CR of 43 a CL of 42 would follow not only the 3.5 titan but the pattern of the 3.0 elder titan, which had a CR of 30 and a CL of 29. To make the elder titan's word of chaos more useful, you could simply bump up the CL a few levels. Even at a CL = CR +1, word of chaos can stun and deafen opponents. At a CL = CR +5, the opponents can be confused too, although if they're stunned, they can't act in the manner that a confusion spell would normally make them act. I say "close to useless" above because word of chaos can banish opponents regardless of their level, although they do get a saving throw at -4, so even when CR = CL -1, word of chaos has a chance to banish opponents. Most likely it would banish only some of the opponents (who can't return for 24 hours), raising the danger of death from the titan to non-banished party members. Imagine having your meat shield banished, after which the elder titan squishes the annoying spellcasters with his adamantine warhammer. :D As I argued, though, 3.5 CL is never based on CR. As long as we're updating the elder titan, we might as well include titan errata from the 3.5 Monster Manual, which removed polymorph from its spell-like abilities, replacing it with a supernatural ability of change shape: Good call, I'll fix it.
Balthanon 04-16-07, 12:34 PM	As I argued, though, 3.5 CL is never based on CR. It may be based on the affect of the spells as appropriate for the CR though. And your list seemed to prove as effectively that HD are not a given for caster level either. Are there any other monsters that have blasphemy/word of chaos/etc... and a caster level far higher than their CR? The only other creatures I can think of with them are a few of the demons/devils.
CelestialBarbarian 04-16-07, 12:40 PM	I stand corrected. Feel free to take a seat. ;) As I argued, though, 3.5 CL is never based on CR. I looked up the same creatures in the 3.0 Monster Manual and with the exception of the solar's CR rising from 19 to 23, none of the numbers you referenced has changed from 3.0. So CL didn't equal CR under 3.0 either. That suggests as a general rule keeping the same distance in 3.5 between CL and CR as in 3.0. Keeping the same distance for the elder titan would mean a CL of 42 for a CR of 43. With the two exceptions you noted above, most of the CLs are within 2 or 3 levels of the CR, and that seems to be a good rule of thumb. If you want the word of chaos to have a little bit more effectiveness, perhaps bump the CL to 45 or 46 (or 48 at most, if only to allow the possibility of the confusion effect). Good call, I'll fix it. Thanks! :)
bluemage55 04-16-07, 12:43 PM	Due to the scaling nature of HD and CR, it's natural that it would be uncommon for non-epic creatures. As CRs scale, however, having CL greater than HD is increasingly possible, but blanket immunities also become more common.
bluemage55 04-16-07, 12:50 PM	I looked up the same creatures in the 3.0 Monster Manual and with the exception of the solar's CR rising from 19 to 23, none of the numbers you referenced has changed from 3.0. So CL didn't equal CR under 3.0 either. That suggests as a general rule keeping the same distance in 3.5 between CL and CR as in 3.0. Keeping the same distance for the elder titan would mean a CL of 42 for a CR of 43. With the two exceptions you noted above, most of the CLs are within 2 or 3 levels of the CR, and that seems to be a good rule of thumb. If you want the word of chaos to have a little bit more effectiveness, perhaps bump the CL to 45 or 46 (or 48 at most, if only to allow the possibility of the confusion effect). My problem, then, is the fact that the ELH suddenly uses different rules for CL and SR than the MM. It's clear that they thought that there would be a problem without it, but with blanket immunities in place, this should not be the case for CL. The overly-high SR isn't really a problem either, as spellcasters learn to use non-SR spells to have a way to deal with Magic Immunity and pseudonaturals. My further thoughts are that this problem was self-caused with the choice to have ridiculously high-HD per CR monsters, and reducing that could fix some of the issues.
CelestialBarbarian 04-16-07, 01:00 PM	It may be based on the affect of the spells as appropriate for the CR though. And your list seemed to prove as effectively that HD are not a given for caster level either. Are there any other monsters that have blasphemy/word of chaos/etc... and a caster level far higher than their CR? The only other creatures I can think of with them are a few of the demons/devils. The balor and pit fiend both get blasphemy. The balor has 20 HD and a CR of 20, and a CL of 20. The pit fiend has 18 HD and a CR of 20, and a CL of 18. (CL = HD for the pit fiend instead of CR.) The horned devil doesn't have blasphemy, but has 15 hit and a CL of 15 for its SLA. The maralith doesn't have blasphemy either, but again has CL = HD (19) rather than CR (17). The 3.0 balor had 13 HD, CR 18, and CL 20. The 3.0 maralith had 9 HD, CR 17, and CL 13. The 3.0 pit fiend had 13 HD, CR 16 and CL 17. The 3.0 horned devil had 11 HD, CR 10, and CL 12. It looks like Wizards wasn't consistent in either 3.0 or 3.5 in terms of making caster levels equal either to CR or to HD. With these non-epic creatures, CR and HD don't differ too much, and the CL usually falls somewhere around both. They do, however, appear to have capped non-epic creatures to a CL of 20. Where HD outpace CR differ radically, it seems that keeping the CL down around the CR would offer a more approriate challenge than having CL up around hit dice.
CelestialBarbarian 04-16-07, 01:04 PM	My problem, then, is the fact that the ELH suddenly uses different rules for CL and SR than the MM. It's clear that they thought that there would be a problem without it, but with blanket immunities in place, this should not be the case for CL. The overly-high SR isn't really a problem either, as spellcasters learn to use non-SR spells to have a way to deal with Magic Immunity and pseudonaturals. My further thoughts are that this problem was self-caused with the choice to have ridiculously high-HD per CR monsters, and reducing that could fix some of the issues. Yes, if CR continued to keep pace with HD, then the choice of whether to make CL = CR or CL = HD or CR = approxmiately either one wouldn't make much of a difference.
runestar 04-16-07, 01:31 PM	Well, Hezrou has caster lv13 but 10 outsider HD. Vrock has caster lv12 for just 10 HD as well? In the very least, there seems to be no hard and fast rule. I suggested that it at least be based off cr so that it would scale linearly as the creature advances, and not exponentially. Bluemage is not wrong in that the PCs should have means of protecting themselves against it such that caster lv is irrelevant, but in the off chance that they did not(for whatever reason), it at least will not screw them over unfairly. Note that when I mentioned that it be based off cr, I did not necessarily mean that there was some obvious connection between cr and caster lv. But they should at least increase in tandem.:)
bluemage55 04-16-07, 01:36 PM	Yes, if CR continued to keep pace with HD, then the choice of whether to make CL = CR or CL = HD or CR = approxmiately either one wouldn't make much of a difference. Indeed. The problem is inherent in the system, though, because certain types of racial HD simply suck and are thus worth fractional amounts of CR. The solution would be to ensure that monsters recieve appropriately powerful abilities to off-set bad racial HD, but that is by no means an easy task, nor is it a minor change.
CelestialBarbarian 04-16-07, 01:50 PM	Well, Hezrou has caster lv13 but 10 outsider HD. Vrock has caster lv12 for just 10 HD as well? In the very least, there seems to be no hard and fast rule. I suggested that it at least be based off cr so that it would scale linearly as the creature advances, and not exponentially. Bluemage is not wrong in that the PCs should have means of protecting themselves against it such that caster lv is irrelevant, but in the off chance that they did not(for whatever reason), it at least will not screw them over unfairly. Note that when I mentioned that it be based off cr, I did not necessarily mean that there was some obvious connection between cr and caster lv. But they should at least increase in tandem.:) Yes, you could use CL = CR +3 or something. A party of 43rd-level characters might cast a bunch of greater spell immunity spells in order to protect itself from an elder titan with a CL of 60. They'd have to know that they were going to face a greater titan, and know that it had a much more powerful caster level compared to its physical threat than a base titan does. My players rarely walk into a situation having even player knowledge like that, much less character knowledge like that. If a party has run into a base titan at level 21 and been hit by its word of chaos, they probably shrugged it off. There's no reason why at 43rd level they'd automatically assume that they couldn't shrug off a bigger titan's word of chaos. Indeed. The problem is inherent in the system, though, because certain types of racial HD simply suck and are thus worth fractional amounts of CR. The solution would be to ensure that monsters recieve appropriately powerful abilities to off-set bad racial HD, but that is by no means an easy task, nor is it a minor change. I agree. With the current system where HD rise much faster than CR--I had the same problem with advancing minotaur hit dice--it probably pay to keep CL closer to CR than to HD.
bluemage55 04-16-07, 02:00 PM	A party of 43rd-level characters might cast a bunch of greater spell immunity spells in order to protect itself from an elder titan with a CL of 60. They'd have to know that they were going to face a greater titan, and know that it had a much more powerful caster level compared to its physical threat than a base titan does. My players rarely walk into a situation having even player knowledge like that, much less character knowledge like that. If a party has run into a base titan at level 21 and been hit by its word of chaos, they probably shrugged it off. There's no reason why at 43rd level they'd automatically assume that they couldn't shrug off a bigger titan's word of chaos. Actually, I'd expect 43rd-level characters to walk around with items providing constant greater spell immunity to all four of the instant kill spells (blasphemy, holy word, dictum, word of chaos), if not epic wards. Those four spells are just incredibly dangerous in general, and not just because of this one titan. Spellcasters can invariably ramp up their caster level faster than characters increase their HD. A Cleric 3/Wizard 3/Mystic Theruge 10/Archmage 5/Hierophant 5 is ECL 26, but has a CL of 36 (38 with the a double-strength orange ioun stone effect). In addition, many high HD creatures can attain just as nasty CLs by adding on non-associated caster levels (+1/2 CR per caster level), and benefit in many other ways at the same time (bonus epic feats, BAB, saves, skill points, etc.).
CelestialBarbarian 04-16-07, 02:22 PM	Actually, I'd expect 43rd-level characters to walk around with items providing constant greater spell immunity to all four of the instant kill spells (blasphemy, holy word, dictum, word of chaos), if not epic wards. Those four spells are just incredibly dangerous in general, and not just because of this one titan. Spellcasters can invariably ramp up their caster level faster than characters increase their HD. A Cleric 3/Wizard 3/Mystic Theruge 10/Archmage 5/Hierophant 5 is ECL 26, but has a CL of 36 (38 with the a double-strength orange ioun stone effect). In addition, many high HD creatures can attain just as nasty CLs by adding on non-associated caster levels (+1/2 CR per caster level), and benefit in many other ways at the same time (bonus epic feats, BAB, saves, skill points, etc.). Wouldn't that be 3 wizard + 10 mystic theurge + 5 archmage + 5 hierophant +10 spell power = CL 33? (Couldn't you just do better replacing 3 cleric and 10 mystic theurge with 13 wizard?) Anyway, if all 43rd-level characters really do walk around permanently immune to all four alignment word spells, it doesn't really matter whether the CR of a CR 43 titan is only 42.
bluemage55 04-16-07, 03:01 PM	Wouldn't that be 3 wizard + 10 mystic theurge + 5 archmage + 5 hierophant +10 spell power = CL 33? (Couldn't you just do better replacing 3 cleric and 10 mystic theurge with 13 wizard?) Oops, my mistake. For some reason I forgot archmage = arcane only. Let me revise that to Cleric 16/Hierophant 5/Cosmic Descryer 7 for a CL of 36 (CL 38 after the double-strength orange ioun stone effect) at ECL 28. Anyway, if all 43rd-level characters really do walk around permanently immune to all four alignment word spells, it doesn't really matter whether the CR of a CR 43 titan is only 42. It does matter on the point of consistency, and for the titan's ability to penetrate SR with all of it's spells.
CelestialBarbarian 04-16-07, 03:05 PM	Oops, my mistake. For some reason I forgot archmage = arcane only. Let me revise that to Cleric 16/Hierophant 5/Cosmic Descryer 7 for a CL of 36 (CL 38 after the double-strength orange ioun stone effect) at ECL 28. It does matter on the point of consistency, and for the titan's ability to penetrate SR with all of it's spells. I don't think you're going to find any consistency any way you go. For penetrating SR, though, I'd go with something like CL = CR + (2 to 5) in this case.
bluemage55 04-16-07, 03:06 PM	As I pointed out, some MM monsters have CL = HD. Virtually none have CL = CR. Also, spellcaster levels are more or less equivalent to CL = HD.
CelestialBarbarian 04-16-07, 03:23 PM	As I pointed out, some MM monsters have CL = HD. Virtually none have CL = CR. To be an appropriate challenge for a party, the CL of a creature should be around its CR, as is the case for the SLA of virtually all the non-epic creatures in 3.5. Also, spellcaster levels are more or less equivalent to CL = HD. That's fine when HD and CR don't differ too much, but causes problems when HD exceed CR by a great deal, as is the case with epic creatures. 3.0 non-epic never had a general rule of equating CR to CL, so the fact that 3.5 doesn't have that rule says nothing about whether to change the 3.0 epic rule that CL = CR. In lieu of a good reason to abandon that rule, it should remain. I'd be willing to allow a little leeway, as I've indicated (CL 42-48 for CR 43) in part because that's how many of the non-epic creatures work in 3.5 and in part just to be reasonable and avoid intellectual rigidity. :)
bluemage55 04-16-07, 04:40 PM	To be an appropriate challenge for a party, the CL of a creature should be around its CR, as is the case for the SLA of virtually all the non-epic creatures in 3.5. The fact that they are around the CR is a result of scaling. CL based on HD cannot dramatically exceed CR until levels pile up. That's fine when HD and CR don't differ too much, but causes problems when HD exceed CR by a great deal, as is the case with epic creatures. 3.0 non-epic never had a general rule of equating CR to CL, so the fact that 3.5 doesn't have that rule says nothing about whether to change the 3.0 epic rule that CL = CR. In lieu of a good reason to abandon that rule, it should remain. I'd be willing to allow a little leeway, as I've indicated (CL 42-48 for CR 43) in part because that's how many of the non-epic creatures work in 3.5 and in part just to be reasonable and avoid intellectual rigidity. :) There is a good reason, and that reason is consistency with non-epic as well as class levels. I also don't see any problems resulting from CL greatly exceeding HD, because at the levels where that occurs, blanket immunities are in place. Note that for the most part, the only thing very high CL does is guarantee the penetration of SR. Since these are generally creatures with sub-par HD, this isn't the least bit unbalanced. I have a question at this point: would you recommend that BAB and saves for monsters be based on CR? Why or why not? Now repeat the question for CL and SR.
rob_douglas 04-20-07, 11:48 PM	Another update - since it came up on another thread - I didn't want to lose it, even though we haven't done much on Epic Spells yet. Crown of Vermin creates a Swarm of 1000 flying and crawling biting and stinging insects. Its attacks are treated as a swarm, and overcome DR -/Epic with its natural weapons. Since it is a swarm, it should have some HD and hit points, and saves as well. I haven't come up with numbers for those yet. How about HD equal to caster level, saves based on that as per swarm rules: HD/3. Damage can destroy the Crown - but it has 1000 hp. Each hp represents the total damage the swarm can do. Link to Swarms: http://www.d20srd.org/srd/monsters/swarm.htm ROB
bluemage55 04-21-07, 08:24 AM	I wouldn't base the effect on caster level, as epic spells generally calculate effectiveness using DC rather than CL. Crown of vermin was based on 3.0 creeping doom, which dealt damage in a similar fasion. Since 3.5, however, creeping doom has been revised to simply summon a large number of swarms. I think the most appropriate thing to do would be to have it summon a ruin swarm. The DC, though, would come out at 70, which is too high. One way to maintain the same level of power would be to weaken the ruin swarm. This would actually desirable since it is just one of those "epic" creatures that were created just by assigning ridiculously high HD instead of actually considering the challenge it poses (which is not CR 23, considering that it cannot effectively deal with four ECL 23 characters unless all of those characters are foolish enough to stand next to each other). I thus used the advancement rules on the ruin swarm in reverse, reducing its CR by 7 by dropping its HD to 22. Here is the revision for the ruin swarm and the crown of vermin spell: Crown of Vermin Conjuration (Summoning) Spellcraft DC: 56 Components: V, S Casting Time: 1 minute Range: Personal Effect: Ruin swarm that surrounds you in a 10-ft.-radius spread Duration: 20 rounds (D) Saving Throw: None (see text) Spell Resistance: No To Develop: 630,000 gp; 11 days; 25,200 XP. Seeds: summon (DC 14). Factors: summon creature other than outsider (+10 DC), summon CR 16 creature (+28 DC), allow mass to move at your speed (ad hoc +2 DC), perfect control of vermin (ad hoc +2 DC). Mitigating factor: change range to personal (–2 DC). After casting crown of vermin, a ruin swarm erupts from the very air around the character. This swarm forms a living aura around the character to a radius of 10 feet. The character is immune to his or her own crown of vermin. The swarm goes where the character goes at his or her speed, even if the character takes to the air or water (though water drowns the vermin after 1 full round of immersion, unless the spell is cast underwater, in which case aquatic or marine vermin answer the call and cannot leave the water). Each creature that enters the area occupied by the effect (or an area that the character forces the effect into) takes swarm damage and suffers from the blinding and distraction abilities of the swarm, and is subject to these every round they spend within the area. The character has utter control over the vermin in his or her aura, and can force them into areas that would normally deter common vermin. The character can completely suppress his or her vermin aura as a free action so that no vermin are visible at all. The time that vermin are suppressed does not count toward the spell’s duration. Alternatively, the character can roughly shape and move the vermin in any fashion he or she desires within the limits of the 10-foot-radius spread as a move-equivalent action. The vermin cannot be wrested from the character’s control through any means. The vermin make all saving throws to avoid damaging effects using the character’s base saving throw bonuses. They gain the character’s spell resistance, if any, and they get saving throws against spells that would otherwise automatically slay vermin. A character can see through his or her crown of vermin without difficulty, but gains one-half concealment against enemy attacks launched both outside and within the character’s crown of vermin. RUIN SWARM Tiny Vermin (Swarm) Hit Dice: 22d8+220 (319 hp) Initiative: +14 Speed: 20 ft., climb 20 ft., fly 90 ft. (perfect) Armor Class: 26 (+2 size, +12 Dex, +2 natural), touch 24, flatfooted 14 Base Attack/Grapple: +16/— Attack: Swarm (5d6) Full Attack: Swarm (5d6) Space/Reach: 10 ft./0 ft. Special Attacks: Blinding, distraction (DC 31) Special Qualities: Blindsense, fast healing 15, swarm traits, vermin traits Saves: Fort +23, Ref +19, Will +13 Abilities: Str 3, Dex 35, Con 30, Int—, Wis 23, Cha 32 Skills: — Feats: — Environment: Any Organization: Solitary, cloud (2–4 swarms), or plague (5–8 swarms) Challenge Rating: 16 Treasure: None Alignment: Always neutral Advancement: None Combat Blinding (Ex): Any living creature that begins its turn with a ruin swarm in its space must make a Fortitude save (DC 33) or be blinded for one round. The save DC is Dexterity-based. Blindsense (Ex): The ruin swarm notices and locates creatures within 200 ft. Opponents still have 100% concealment against the swarm (but swarm attacks ignore concealment). Distraction (Ex): Any living creature vulnerable to the swarm’s damage that begins its turn with a swarm in its square is nauseated for 1 round; a DC 31 Fortitude save negates the effect. Even with a successful save, spellcasting or concentrating on spells within the area of a swarm requires a Concentration check (DC 20 + spell level). Using skills requiring patience and concentration requires a Concentration check (DC 20). The save DC is Constitution-based. Swarm Traits: A swarm has no clear front or back and no discernable anatomy, so it is not subject to critical hits or flanking. A swarm made up of Tiny creatures takes half damage from slashing and piercing weapons. Reducing a swarm to 0 hit points or fewer causes the swarm to break up, though damage taken until that point does not degrade its ability to attack or resist attack. Swarms are never staggered or reduced to a dying state by damage. Also, they cannot be tripped, grappled, or bull rushed, and they cannot grapple another. A swarm is immune to any spell or effect that targets a specific number of creatures (including single-target spells such as disintegrate), with the exception of mind-affecting effects if the swarm has an intelligence score and a hive mind. A swarm takes a –10 penalty on saving throws against spells or effects that affect an area, such as many evocation spells or grenadelike weapons. If the area effect attack does not allow a saving throw, the swarm takes double damage instead. A swarm rendered unconscious by means of subdual damage becomes disorganized and dispersed, and does not re-form until its hit points exceed its subdual damage. Vermin Traits: A ruin swarm is immune to all mind-affecting effects (charms, compulsions, phantasms, patterns, and morale effects). It also has darkvision (60-foot range). Discuss? :D
bluemage55 04-28-07, 07:27 AM	I've noticed that Two-Weapon Rend was changed to a non-epic feat in PHB II. In light of that, I think it would be appropriate to make both Two-Weapon Rend and Multiweapon Rend non-epic feats with matching text. The question that comes to mind, though, is whether or not there should be a feat titled "Epic Two-Weapon Rend" (and a multiweapon equivalent) that improve upon the rend damage. Thoughts?
Geraturatu 04-28-07, 01:17 PM	I would think so. Seeing as they can out forth so many things that are uber powered for feats in epic level, I would think that they could afford to have an Epic Two (or Multi) Weapon Rend. Just my opinion though.
runestar 04-29-07, 10:47 PM	I noticed the leshay has improved crit. But keen and improved crit do not stack in 3.5, so perhaps that could be swapped out for another feat? Maybe quicken SLA:heal? I don't see the use of quickdraw either, since a Leshay can already manifest them as free actions. Also, as they are light weapons, this means power attack cannot be used, nor do cleave/great cleave seem particularly useful in this context. Also, how is the Leshay getting 4 attacks with each hand without TWFing feats? Is it due to superior TWFing ability? Might consider replacing iron will with great fortitude, since fey already get good reflex/will saves. Whirlwind seems like a dud feat as well, given its crappy reach. And improved whirlwind does not seem worth taking as well(I still do not see what it is useful for). Any suggestions on what feats can be used to replace them(that gives the Leshay 5-6 feats to swap out).:)
bluemage55 04-30-07, 01:23 AM	I would rather reduce its HD than replace Improved Critical and Quick Draw. I wish I knew what the designers were thinking when they decided on 50 HD, because as far as I can see, they just went with a huge round number to emphasize the "super-elf" concept. I would prefer to bring the Leshay's HD down to 26 (reducing the CR to 22), and make appropriate adjustments. All of the flavor could be retained, with none of the excessive HD issues. It could then be given an advancement range through 52 HD, allowing for more powerful Leshay if desired. Here's what I currently have: LESHAY Medium-Size Fey Hit Dice: 26d8+338 (455 hp) Initiative: +20 (+16 Dex, +4 Improved Initiative) Speed: 40 ft. AC: 51 (+16 Dex, +20 insight, +5 natural armor) Base Attack/Grapple: +13/+29 Attack: +6 keen brilliant energy bastard sword of wounding +25 (1d10+11/17-20) melee Full Attack: 2 +6 keen brilliant energy bastard swords of wounding +25/+20/+15 (1d10+11/17-20 primary hand, 1d10+8 off-hand) melee Space/Reach: 5 ft./5 ft. Special Attacks: Charming gaze, spell-like abilities, leshay weapons Special Qualities: Superior two-weapon fighting, DR 15/epic and cold iron, elf traits, immune to poison and disease, low-light vision, SR 31, fast healing 10 Saves: Fort +21, Ref +31, Will +21 Abilities: Str 21, Dex 42, Con 37, Int 33, Wis 23, Cha 44 Skills: Bluff +46, Concentration +42, Diplomacy +54, Disguise +46, Escape Artist +45, Gather Information +21, Hide +45, Intimidate +21, Jump +9, Knowledge (local, nature, nobility and royalty) +40, Listen +35, Move Silently +45, Search +40, Sense Motive +30, Speak Language (any five), Spellcraft +40, Spot +35 Feats: Blind-Fight, Dodge, Improved Initiative, Mobility, Power Attack, Spring Attack, Weapon Finesse Epic Feats: Blinding Speed, Polyglot (bonus feat), Spell Stowaway (heal) Climate/Terrain: Any Organization: Solitary Challenge Rating: 22 Treasure: Standard Alignment: Any Advancement: 27–52 HD (Medium) Level Adjustment: +0 A leshay’s natural weapons are treated as epic for the purpose of overcoming damage reduction. COMBAT Spell-Like Abilities: At will—alter self, detect thoughts, displacement, freedom, greater dispelling, heal, greater invisibility, knock, speak with plants, spell turning, greater teleport, water breathing. Caster level 26th; save DC 27 + spell level. The DCs are Charisma-based. LeShay Weapons (Su): Each leshay carries two personal melee weapons that he or she manifests from his or her own life essence. The weapon can change form as he or she shifts from class to class, typically appearing as a bastard sword (one in each hand). When not in combat, the weapons simply do not exist, but leshay can “draw” their weapons from nowhere as a free action. Leshay weapons are considered light weapons for a leshay, regardless of their size. Superior Two-Weapon Fighting (Ex): A leshay fights with a leshay weapon in each hand. Because these weapons are extensions of its own body, the leshay does not take an attack penalty for attacking with two weapons and can make as many attacks with their off-hand weapon as with their primary hand weapon. Charming Gaze (Su): As charm monster, 30 feet, Will DC 40 negates. The save DC is Charisma-based. Elf Traits: Immune to magic sleep spells and effects; +2 racial bonus on Will saves against enchantment spells or effects; entitled to a Search check when within 5 feet of a secret or concealed door as though actively looking for it; +2 racial bonus on Listen, Spot, and Search checks (already figured into the statistics given above). Thoughts?
runestar 04-30-07, 02:29 AM	You are aware of the inherent suckiness of fey HD, right? At only 1/2 bab progression and d6s, they probably have to give it tons of HD to boost its bab and hp. 26 fey HD would just give it a bab of +13. :P
bluemage55 04-30-07, 03:32 AM	You are aware of the inherent suckiness of fey HD, right? At only 1/2 bab progression and d6s, they probably have to give it tons of HD to boost its bab and hp. 26 fey HD would just give it a bab of +13. :P I changed it to humanoid HD, so that it would actually be an elf (a humanoid with the elf subtype). Incidentally, that fixed its BAB.
runestar 04-30-07, 07:40 AM	A humanoid with more than 3 racial HD. Imagine that...:P
CelestialBarbarian 04-30-07, 09:28 AM	I changed it to humanoid HD, so that it would actually be an elf (a humanoid with the elf subtype). Incidentally, that fixed its BAB. I think this has gotten rather far away from the original concept, which was a fey with many hit dice. You might as well give it a different name entirely. A better idea would be to make changes as Runestar suggested in the first place.
bluemage55 04-30-07, 05:51 PM	A humanoid with more than 3 racial HD. Imagine that...:P Monstrous humanoid might be better then. Since monstrous humanoid HD are stronger than humanoid HD, that might work out to be ideal. BAB would and Reflex saves would increase by 7 each, and CR would increase by 2. The BAB of a 26 HD monstrous humanoid actually exceeds that of a 50 HD fey by 1, so it's fighting prowess is fairly consistent with the original, and the CR comes closer at 24. I think this has gotten rather far away from the original concept, which was a fey with many hit dice. You might as well give it a different name entirely. A better idea would be to make changes as Runestar suggested in the first place. The original concept is a super-powerful elf from another reality. Fey, on the other hand, are supposed to be creatures of nature that are intrinsically tied to it. The LeShay doesn't have any sort of connection with nature (flavor or mechanical) besides the speak with plants SLA. The original flavor concept also doesn't mandate a huge number of HD, only an exceptional level of power beyond any normal elf.
CelestialBarbarian 04-30-07, 05:54 PM	Monstrous humanoid might be better then. Actually, since monstrous humanoid HD are stronger than humanoid HD, that might work out to be ideal. BAB would and Reflex saves would increase by 7 each, and CR would increase by 2. The original concept is a super-powerful elf from another reality. Fey, on the other hand, are supposed to be creatures of nature that are intrinsically tied to it. The LeShay doesn't have any sort of connection with nature (flavor or mechanical) besides the speak with plants SLA. The original flavor concept also doesn't mandate a huge number of HD, only an exceptional level of power beyond any normal elf. Maybe if you call it a Nicholas LeShay I'd accept it as a humanoid. :P
bluemage55 04-30-07, 05:56 PM	Maybe if you call it a Nicholas LeShay I'd accept it as a humanoid. :P If he had that charm gaze and that huge Diplomacy check, I doubt he would have divorced his wife. :D
CelestialBarbarian 04-30-07, 06:10 PM	If he had that charm gaze and that huge Diplomacy check, I doubt he would have divorced his wife. :D Ah, but to get a woman like her, you need charm and a high diplomacy check in the first place. Alas the charm and diplomacy almost always wear off after a while. :D
runestar 05-01-07, 12:18 AM	I must admit that I wasn't expecting that drastic a revision from bluemage when I broached the topic of the leshay, simply some simple swapping out of feats to better cater to its strengths. :embarrass
bluemage55 05-01-07, 12:20 AM	I must admit that I wasn't expecting that drastic a revision from bluemage when I broached the topic of the leshay, simply some simple swapping out of feats to better cater to its strengths. :embarrass It's one of the multiple things I've been working on for this thread. I just polished it up and posted it when you brought it up. That said, what are your thoughts on the revision?
runestar 05-01-07, 12:29 AM	I am not sure about making it a monstrous humanoid. IMO, fey still fits the whole "elven" theme more.
CelestialBarbarian 05-01-07, 12:36 AM	I am not sure about making it a monstrous humanoid. IMO, fey still fits the whole "elven" theme more. Yeah, I'd stick with the fey. It's the one example of an epic fey. I'd just make the sort of revisions Runestar suggested but keep it as the lone example of an epic fey.
bluemage55 05-01-07, 01:41 AM	What about humanoid HD? I realize that those are usually under 4, but I have yet to see a rule that this is absolutely necessary. Humanoid (elf) would probably be the most appropriate, flavorwise.
CelestialBarbarian 05-01-07, 01:45 AM	What about humanoid HD? I realize that those are usually under 4, but I have yet to see a rule that this is absolutely necessary. Humanoid (elf) would probably be the most appropriate, flavorwise. Nah. I think that fey fits the flavor just fine--though I'm not sure Nicholas would agree. :D
bluemage55 05-01-07, 01:51 AM	Nah. I think that fey fits the flavor just fine--though I'm not sure Nicholas would agree. :D As I mentioned, fey are creatures with an intrinsic tie to the natural world. Leshay have no such connection beyond their speak with plants SLA. In addition, the Leshay are supposed to be elves, and all the elves that I know of are of the Humanoid (elf) type.
CelestialBarbarian 05-01-07, 01:54 AM	As I mentioned, fey are creatures with an intrinsic tie to the natural world. Leshay have no such connection beyond their speak with plants SLA. In addition, the Leshay are supposed to be elves, and all the elves that I know of are of the Humanoid (elf) type. Nah. It says that leshay are to elves what elves are to humans. It doesn't say that they're supposed to be elves. They're the one example of an epic fey, and they should remain as such.
bluemage55 05-01-07, 02:14 AM	Nah. It says that leshay are to elves what elves are to humans. It doesn't say that they're supposed to be elves. They're the one example of an epic fey, and they should remain as such. Alright, I'll change it back to fey.
CelestialBarbarian 05-01-07, 02:31 AM	Alright, I'll change it back to fey. Cool! :cool: I do think that Runestar's on the right track, but whether you want to flesh out his idea or leave it to him is up to you of course. :)
rob_douglas 05-01-07, 11:26 AM	For my 2 coppers - I prefer to leave them as Fey as well. It does suck that a major Fey benefit was nixed in 3.5 (extra feats based on INT) with nothing to give them back, but I still feel it fits the flavor. Fey have an otherworldly link as well - the Faerie Court and Unseelie Court (for evil Fey). I once saw a write up of Queen Titania as a Paragon LeShay sorcerer - very nice. Fey HD are not so bad for hp as people think, unless you have a paragon, because d4 vs d12 is only 4 hp/level average - and that is completely trumped by a LeShay's +13 CON adjustment. But the BAB is the real problem, as noted. Runestar is correct on the uselessness of some of the feats. Quicken SLA (Heal) is a nice benefit that they can use effectively. The swords should somehow scale when they advance - and they should have some advancement. I had a list of other suggested feat substitutions on a LeShay thread back on the old boards - it didn't migrate as far as I can tell, and google can't find it. :( Quicken Teleport is an option as well. They are severely lacking on Epic feats, and have lots of regular feats. How about Epic Weapon Focus (another reason I don't want that to be a Fighters only feat - good for focused monsters), and Epic Prowess, to offest some of the HD issue. Get rid of Blinding Speed as a feat, and give them Haste as an SLA instead. Epic Toughness would also be good to offset some of the hp issue. Epic Fortitude would bump their worst save. Note there is also another Fey in the ELH - the Hoary Hunter. I do wish there was more flavor interaction between the two - but I fear they were both designed in a vacuum. :) ROB
Balthanon 05-01-07, 11:42 AM	Fey HD are not so bad for hp as people think, unless you have a paragon, because d4 vs d12 is only 4 hp/level average - and that is completely trumped by a LeShay's +13 CON adjustment. But the BAB is the real problem, as noted. One solution to the BAB problem might be adding in either tenser's transformation or divine power as a spell-like ability. Tenser's Transformation is probably most likely due to the fey flavor (generally arcane or divine druidic), though it does have the problem of possibly restricting the Leshay's actions depending on how the no spellcasting is interpreted.
CelestialBarbarian 05-01-07, 07:10 PM	For my 2 coppers - I prefer to leave them as Fey as well. It does suck that a major Fey benefit was nixed in 3.5 (extra feats based on INT) with nothing to give them back, but I still feel it fits the flavor. Fey have an otherworldly link as well - the Faerie Court and Unseelie Court (for evil Fey). I once saw a write up of Queen Titania as a Paragon LeShay sorcerer - very nice. Fey HD are not so bad for hp as people think, unless you have a paragon, because d4 vs d12 is only 4 hp/level average - and that is completely trumped by a LeShay's +13 CON adjustment. But the BAB is the real problem, as noted. Runestar is correct on the uselessness of some of the feats. Quicken SLA (Heal) is a nice benefit that they can use effectively. The swords should somehow scale when they advance - and they should have some advancement. I had a list of other suggested feat substitutions on a LeShay thread back on the old boards - it didn't migrate as far as I can tell, and google can't find it. :( Quicken Teleport is an option as well. They are severely lacking on Epic feats, and have lots of regular feats. How about Epic Weapon Focus (another reason I don't want that to be a Fighters only feat - good for focused monsters), and Epic Prowess, to offest some of the HD issue. Get rid of Blinding Speed as a feat, and give them Haste as an SLA instead. Epic Toughness would also be good to offset some of the hp issue. Epic Fortitude would bump their worst save. Note there is also another Fey in the ELH - the Hoary Hunter. I do wish there was more flavor interaction between the two - but I fear they were both designed in a vacuum. :) ROB Good call on the hoary hunter. I have never noticed it. Maybe it needs the name of a famous or semi-famous actor. Maybe we could call it an arquette--there's a whole clan of them who are famous or semi-famous, and I rather like both of the sisters. :D Seriously though, I like the idea of more metamagic feats for their SLAs, and I agree that Blinding Speed isn't as valuable under 3.5 because 3.5 substantially weakened haste. Simply giving it haste as an SLA (maybe a quickened SLA) and replacing Not-So-Blinding-Speed-Anymore with Epic Toughness [or Quicken (haste)] would work well. Has anyone thought of making any epic SLA metamagic feats? I like the idea of being able to quicken or empower SLAs of up to 9th level, of maximizing SLAs, and even of intensifying them. I guess for the leshay there's nothing to maximize or intensify, but a Quicken (mass heal) would be awesome for an advanced leshay. Edit: I agree on Epic Weapon Focus as well. I've taken the old D&D solo-play module, The Maze of the Riddling Minotaur, and advanced virtually every creature in there to anywhere from CR 11 to CR 21. (The BBEG is a CR 25 abomination minotaur, as some of you have read on other threads.) For several of these advanced monsters, Epic Weapon Focus was a logical choice, and one of the most advantageous, out of the epic feats. Some of them just didn't have the prerequisites for the overwhelming majority of epic feats, and it was nice to be able to just make them better at about the only thing they could do--making a physical attack. So I'm keeping the Epic Weapon Focus as it is. I would like to suggest, however, an Epic Greater Weapon Focus (or a Greater Epic Weapon Focus :D) that would require epic fighter levels. People often complain that fighters have few benefits at higher levels, so I don't see any problem at all with allowing an Epic Greater Weapon Focus that adds another +2 to attack rolls. For that matter I'll also suggest an Epic Greater Weapon Specialization feat. Edit 2: Epic Greater Weapon Focus [Epic] You become even more skilled at striking with your chosen weapon. Prerequisites: Proficiency with weapon, Weapon Focus with weapon, Greater Weapon Focus with weapon, Epic Weapon Focus with weapon, fighter level 21 Benefit: You gain a +2 bonus on attacks with the chosen weapon. The bonus stacks with the bonus from Weapon Focus, Greater Weapon Focus, and Epic Weapon Focus. Special: You can gain this feat multiple times. Its effects do not stack. Each time you take the feat it applies to a new type of weapon. Add this feat to the list of epic level bonus feats for the fighter class. Epic Greater Weapon Specialization [Epic] You become even more skilled at dealing damage with your chosen weapon. Prerequisites: Proficiency with weapon, Weapon Focus with weapon, Greater Weapon Focus with weapon, Epic Weapon Focus with weapon, Epic Weapon Specialization with weapon, fighter level 25 Benefit: You gain a +4 bonus on attacks with the chosen weapon. The bonus stacks with the bonus from Weapon Specialization, Greater Weapon Specialization, and Epic Weapon Specialization. Special: You can gain this feat multiple times. Its effects do not stack. Each time you take the feat it applies to a new type of weapon. Add this feat to the list of epic level bonus feats for the fighter class.
Aluroon 05-02-07, 08:52 AM	Its been a while, so I might have mentioned this before, but are you going to deal with the psionics Dispel issues?
bluemage55 05-02-07, 05:28 PM	Its been a while, so I might have mentioned this before, but are you going to deal with the psionics Dispel issues? Please repeat the issue, I'm not sure what it was. Do you mean the fact that dispel psionics doesn't scale, and that psionicists don't have mage's disjunction?
Aluroon 05-02-07, 07:46 PM	Please repeat the issue, I'm not sure what it was. Do you mean the fact that dispel psionics doesn't scale, and that psionicists don't have mage's disjunction? Yes.
runestar 05-02-07, 11:58 PM	How does spell stowaway: teleport work? If a mage casts teleport within range of say, a leshay with said feat, who decides his destination? Will he automatically be teleported to the same location as the mage? Or does he get to designate his own location to be teleported to?:P And why not just reword the epic weapon focus feat to be it stack with itself? Beats churning out "improved versions". This is just as bad as that editor of complete psi who broke down that "extra PSA" feat into all its racial constituents...:P
bluemage55 05-03-07, 02:28 AM	Yes. Not all spellcasters have MDJ either, and everyone is in the same boat once epic wards against MDJ come into play. Given that, everyone has to use epic dispels, not just psionicists. If psionicists really want it, they can still get their hands on an MDJ item and use UMD if it's spell completion. Given these reasons, I don't feel that it's a problem.
bluemage55 05-03-07, 02:34 AM	How does spell stowaway: teleport work? If a mage casts teleport within range of say, a leshay with said feat, who decides his destination? Will he automatically be teleported to the same location as the mage? Or does he get to designate his own location to be teleported to?:P Stowaway Spell specifies that it functions as if cast by the same caster, so I would believe that you end up teleporting as if the same location was targeted (suffering from a different die roll on a miss chance if applicable, and being shunted off if you end up in the same space). And why not just reword the epic weapon focus feat to be it stack with itself? Beats churning out "improved versions". This is just as bad as that editor of complete psi who broke down that "extra PSA" feat into all its racial constituents...:P EWF is supposed to be a one-time per weapon feat that does not stack with itself, just like WF and GWF.
CelestialBarbarian 05-03-07, 03:46 AM	How does spell stowaway: teleport work? If a mage casts teleport within range of say, a leshay with said feat, who decides his destination? Will he automatically be teleported to the same location as the mage? Or does he get to designate his own location to be teleported to?:P I think I envision it as allow you to cast the spell as though you were the actual caster of the spell--so you select the destination as he (or she) would, and have the same limits (number of people transported) as he would. I think, however, that Blue's interpretation is reasonable too, even though I probably wouldn't interpret it that way. That interpretation would, however, be great for making an encounter more challenging under certain circumstances. The creature is beating the stuffing out of the party, and the wizard tries to teleport them away--only to find that the creature has teleported with them and proceeds to continue to beat the stuffing out of the party. On the flip side, however, I can easily see the munchkin whose PC knowns everything about the creatures severely abusing this. The munchkin's PC protects himself from a certain environment (say, lava) then teleports himself into that environment, knowing that the creature will be teleported alone and killed (or severely damaged) by the environment. In fact I bet there are munchkins doing this right now! :P And why not just reword the epic weapon focus feat to be it stack with itself? Beats churning out "improved versions". This is just as bad as that editor of complete psi who broke down that "extra PSA" feat into all its racial constituents...:P Since, as Blue says, these feats are meant to be "one-time per weapon" I came up with the two new feats as logical extensions of the feat tree (that also not incidentally keep Epic Weapon Focus free for my paragon advanced dire lion, etc.). I have no objection in principle, however, to allowing the fighter to take multiple, stacking versions of the epic focus and specialization. Given the way that people complain about how underpowered the fighter is at higher levels, I see no problem with just allowing epic focus and specialization to stack for the fighter. Speaking of redressing the balance of the melee specialists versus spellcasters at high levels, how about Epic Cleave and Epic Power Attack, feats replicating the supreme cleave and improved Power Attack class abilities of the frenzied berserker? Usually I don't want feats to replicate cool prestige class special abilities, but hardly any DMs allow the frenzied berserker as a player class and these two abilities are natural extensions of the Power Attack/Cleave feat tree.
bluemage55 05-03-07, 06:03 AM	I think I envision it as allow you to cast the spell as though you were the actual caster of the spell--so you select the destination as he (or she) would, and have the same limits (number of people transported) as he would. I think, however, that Blue's interpretation is reasonable too, even though I probably wouldn't interpret it that way. That interpretation would, however, be great for making an encounter more challenging under certain circumstances. The creature is beating the stuffing out of the party, and the wizard tries to teleport them away--only to find that the creature has teleported with them and proceeds to continue to beat the stuffing out of the party. On the flip side, however, I can easily see the munchkin whose PC knowns everything about the creatures severely abusing this. The munchkin's PC protects himself from a certain environment (say, lava) then teleports himself into that environment, knowing that the creature will be teleported alone and killed (or severely damaged) by the environment. In fact I bet there are munchkins doing this right now! :P Someone with Spell Stowaway will have the option of following, and can choose not to if they fear such a possibility. Speaking of redressing the balance of the melee specialists versus spellcasters at high levels, how about Epic Cleave and Epic Power Attack, feats replicating the supreme cleave and improved Power Attack class abilities of the frenzied berserker? Usually I don't want feats to replicate cool prestige class special abilities, but hardly any DMs allow the frenzied berserker as a player class and these two abilities are natural extensions of the Power Attack/Cleave feat tree. Improved Power Attack is incredibly powerful at epic, and is roughly equivalent to increasing your damage by almost 50%. For that reason alone I'd disallow or modify Frenzied Berserker, so I don't think it should be allowed as a feat. I'd also be hesitant about allowing feats to duplicate class abilities, lest the vast majority of martial classes become superfluous (unless you're going the route where to plan to scrap them for feats).
CelestialBarbarian 05-03-07, 06:35 AM	Someone with Spell Stowaway will have the option of following, and can choose not to if they fear such a possibility. That too is a reasonable interpretation, although I still think I prefer just allowing the creature with Spell Stowaway to choose the destination. Still, I have to say that it would be fun to have the PCs teleport away only to find they'd brough the critter with them. On what's got to be the fourth hand by now (:D) with my PCs that probably means it's be time to butter them up because they'd be toast then. They never flee until it looks like a total party kill, in which case bringing along the creature would most likely finish the job. :eek: Improved Power Attack is incredibly powerful at epic, and is roughly equivalent to increasing your damage by almost 50%. For that reason alone I'd disallow or modify Frenzied Berserker, so I don't think it should be allowed as a feat. Since hardly anyone allows the frenzied berserker anyway, it's mostly a moot point so far as the class goes. As far as epci melee types are concerned, however, you yourself have said that at higher levels they remain playable only by taking enough spellcasting levels to get Epic Spellcasting, so I don't think that increasing melee damage by 100%, must less merely 50%, would cause any problems for straight melee-specialists. It would be very nice if someone could play a 60th-level melee specialist without needing to spend at least 21 if not more of those levels on a spellcasting class. I'd also be hesitant about allowing feats to duplicate class abilities, lest the vast majority of martial classes become superfluous (unless you're going the route where to plan to scrap them for feats). I'm hestiant too, and as I said, since almost nobody allows the frenzied berserker anyway, and since the two class abilities are logical progressions of the feat tree, this is one of the rare cases where I'd allow feats that replicate class special abilities. I've noticed, by the way, that with the relentless monthly release of new products, Wizards has already strayed into the business of turning class special abilities into feats. I seem to recall feats that allow characters other than wizards and sorcerers to gain familiars (or maybe it's characters other than rangers and druids getting animal companions, or maybe it's both) and others that allow a druid to spontanously cast cure spells (or allow a cleric to spontaneously cast summon spells, or maybe both).
bluemage55 05-03-07, 06:27 PM	That too is a reasonable interpretation, although I still think I prefer just allowing the creature with Spell Stowaway to choose the destination. Still, I have to say that it would be fun to have the PCs teleport away only to find they'd brough the critter with them. On what's got to be the fourth hand by now (:D) with my PCs that probably means it's be time to butter them up because they'd be toast then. They never flee until it looks like a total party kill, in which case bringing along the creature would most likely finish the job. :eek: I think that's actually the best use of Spell Stowaway. No more magical escapes. :D Since hardly anyone allows the frenzied berserker anyway, it's mostly a moot point so far as the class goes. As far as epci melee types are concerned, however, you yourself have said that at higher levels they remain playable only by taking enough spellcasting levels to get Epic Spellcasting, so I don't think that increasing melee damage by 100%, must less merely 50%, would cause any problems for straight melee-specialists. It would be very nice if someone could play a 60th-level melee specialist without needing to spend at least 21 if not more of those levels on a spellcasting class. Well, my issue with it is the fact that so much power is concentrated in a single feat and also the fact that the weakness of pure melee characters stems from the scaling of epic spells, not because melee characters don't do enough damage. I've noticed, by the way, that with the relentless monthly release of new products, Wizards has already strayed into the business of turning class special abilities into feats. I seem to recall feats that allow characters other than wizards and sorcerers to gain familiars (or maybe it's characters other than rangers and druids getting animal companions, or maybe it's both) and others that allow a druid to spontanously cast cure spells (or allow a cleric to spontaneously cast summon spells, or maybe both). If they keep that up, it'll turn into the equivalent of 2nd edition's Player's Option blurring all the lines of distinction between classes.
CelestialBarbarian 05-03-07, 06:43 PM	I think that's actually the best use of Spell Stowaway. No more magical escapes. :D Heh. Well, my issue with it is the fact that so much power is concentrated in a single feat and also the fact that the weakness of pure melee characters stems from the scaling of epic spells, not because melee characters don't do enough damage. The additional damage helps balance the scaling of spells. All the power doesn't come from one feat, but from two, so it's not that bad. Actually even if did all come from one feat I wouldn't mind because being able to deal out massive damage really the only thing that makes straight melee types very useful at higher levels. If they keep that up, it'll turn into the equivalent of 2nd edition's Player's Option blurring all the lines of distinction between classes. I don't remember that. Did it come later 2nd Ed?
bluemage55 05-03-07, 06:52 PM	The additional damage helps balance the scaling of spells. All the power doesn't come from one feat, but from two, so it's not that bad. Actually even if did all come from one feat I wouldn't mind because being able to deal out massive damage really the only thing that makes straight melee types very useful at higher levels. Actually, what the spellcasters do is use their epic spells to buff themselves and then fight in melee. There's also no reason they can't take this feat themselves and use it. I don't remember that. Did it come later 2nd Ed? Fairly late I believe.
bluemage55 05-04-07, 03:12 AM	I've updated Two-Weapon Rend and Multi-Weapon Rend in the feat section, reducing them to non-epic feats as per PHB II.
bluemage55 05-05-07, 03:21 PM	Updated Cosmic Descryer, giving full casting progression to make up for balanced Cosmic Connection.
Thorsbjorn 05-08-07, 04:08 AM	I've updated Two-Weapon Rend and Multi-Weapon Rend in the feat section, reducing them to non-epic feats as per PHB II. Good call on the Two-Weapon Rend. I was just looking at that in the PHB II. I don't, however, see Multi-Weapon Rend in there. Did some new publication turn it into a non-epic feat too, or are you just making a logical extrapolation? Updated Cosmic Descryer, giving full casting progression to make up for balanced Cosmic Connection. Can you expand on what was wrong with the original Cosmic Connection (sounds like a new phone service! :D) and what you changed to fix it? Thanks. :)
bluemage55 05-08-07, 04:39 AM	Good call on the Two-Weapon Rend. I was just looking at that in the PHB II. I don't, however, see Multi-Weapon Rend in there. Did some new publication turn it into a non-epic feat too, or are you just making a logical extrapolation? Multi-Weapon Rend was not reprinted, but all of the multi-weapon feats are identical versions (with identical prerequisites) for multi-armed creatures, so it stands to reason that Multi-Weapon Rend should follow the same procedure. Can you expand on what was wrong with the original Cosmic Connection (sounds like a new phone service! :D) and what you changed to fix it? Thanks. :) The original version had no cap on how many hit points you could burn to increase your rolls or caster level. Essentially, there was no reason to play any other class, because it was possible to achieve nearly any skill check, land any attack, or automatically kill any opponent with a ridiculously high CL blasphemy/holy word/etc. The revised version follows the revision of other class features in 3.5 (such as that of the duelist) in limiting the maximum bonus of an ability to class level of the user.
Thorsbjorn 05-08-07, 05:00 AM	Multi-Weapon Rend was not reprinted, but all of the multi-weapon feats are identical versions (with identical prerequisites) for multi-armed creatures, so it stands to reason that Multi-Weapon Rend should follow the same procedure. The original version had no cap on how many hit points you could burn to increase your rolls or caster level. Essentially, there was no reason to play any other class, because it was possible to achieve nearly any skill check, land any attack, or automatically kill any opponent with a ridiculously high CL blasphemy/holy word/etc. The revised version follows the revision of other class features in 3.5 (such as that of the duelist) in limiting the maximum bonus of an ability to class level of the user. Ah, ok. Thanks for the answers! :)
bluemage55 05-08-07, 07:23 PM	Ah, ok. Thanks for the answers! :) You're welcome. :D
bluemage55 05-08-07, 07:23 PM	Added Bulwark of the Great Dragon revision and all of the [energy name] warding abilities.
rob_douglas 05-08-07, 11:38 PM	Sorry, I've been away - but I wanted to chime in on the Spell Stowaway. As I read it, it seemed to me that the original feat was badly worded as it gave no real indication of how it is supposed to work - and I think the reason for that is that the developers had multiple ideas. My own decision has been to treat how it works to be the most beneficial interpretation that I can come up with at the time the feat is chosen. This still runs the risk of someone knowing how to use that feature against you. Take a look at the spells being Stowed Away in the SRD: Phase - Time Stop Xixiecal - Greater Invis Hunefer - Grt Teleport LeSHay - Heal Uvuudam - Time Stop It is pretty clear that Greater Invis is supposed to work such that the Xixical goes invisible when the party wizard does - or when any of his targets do - in case he tries to add it to the rogue. But it doesn't buy him much. The LeShay Heal is better - it is supposed to work anytime that happens within 300ft. But is that likely to happen at that level? The interesting ones are Time Stop and Teleport. For Time Stop, I rule that the creature goes with the Time Stopper - it seems clear from the creature desciptions that this is the intended result - that they now have to deal with an epic creature sharing their time stream. Teleport I rule the same way, for the same reason - they end up together so the epic creature can munch on them. It is a problem that the munchkin could use it against them - so I allow them to know where they are going, and choose not to go. I think this feat more than most needs the DM to individualize how it actually works - that no one set of RAW would do justice to the options. But it is supposed to be a benefit, that allows the owner of the feat a combat advantage. So make it do that. Back on Weapon Focus, if allowing more than 1 to stack, I would require higher levels for the extra times you take it - otherwise it would be obvious to take it for most melee feats - it sure would destroy the usefulness of Epic Prowess. Sure, a DM could contrive for a PC not to have the preferred weapon, but it would be a major contrivance. Epic characters can make new ones virtually out of thin air. Maybe allow it to be taken once per 10 levels. I like the idea of allowing more Epic Power Attack and Cleave features. I also think that allowing extra free attacks might be worthwhile as a feat - like multispell for melee. You would need Blinding Speed and 4 attacks maybe, then when you use your Blinding Speed (not just any Haste effect) you would gain an extra attack on a full attack. But this is in the realm of new feats and not on SRD topic. Oh - and good call on the Cosmic Descryer. I think at 1/5 feats and full caster, it is a little good, and I think I would go with 3/4 caster. Then the +7 is will not overshadow other classes, but will still represent +5 to caster level over a straight caster when it is first acquired. At that point on, it will slowly decrease in benefit over time compared to straight casters. Of course their Cosmic connection ability is once per day per 5 levels - so never mind - full caster is the only thing that really makes sense. ROB
runestar 05-09-07, 12:08 AM	Going by a strict reading of the spell stowaway feat, it would appear that personal range spells such as time stop have absolutely no benefit, since they cannot be cast on the recipient. I agree that bob that it is clear how the designers intended for it to work. But I suppose that wording it was somewhat awkward.:P
bluemage55 05-09-07, 01:02 AM	Teleport I rule the same way, for the same reason - they end up together so the epic creature can munch on them. It is a problem that the munchkin could use it against them - so I allow them to know where they are going, and choose not to go. I don't allow creatures to automatically know where they will go, but I do allow them to choose whether or not to go. Otherwise, Spell Stowaway (teleport) would have a free built-in trace teleport, which I believe is a bit much. I think this feat more than most needs the DM to individualize how it actually works - that no one set of RAW would do justice to the options. But it is supposed to be a benefit, that allows the owner of the feat a combat advantage. So make it do that. I agree. Wording it in a proper way, however, seems difficult. Back on Weapon Focus, if allowing more than 1 to stack, I would require higher levels for the extra times you take it - otherwise it would be obvious to take it for most melee feats - it sure would destroy the usefulness of Epic Prowess. Sure, a DM could contrive for a PC not to have the preferred weapon, but it would be a major contrivance. Epic characters can make new ones virtually out of thin air. Maybe allow it to be taken once per 10 levels. I don't plan on making it stack, primarily because the WF tree is composed of one-time feats. I like the idea of allowing more Epic Power Attack and Cleave features. I also think that allowing extra free attacks might be worthwhile as a feat - like multispell for melee. You would need Blinding Speed and 4 attacks maybe, then when you use your Blinding Speed (not just any Haste effect) you would gain an extra attack on a full attack. But this is in the realm of new feats and not on SRD topic. Yep. None of those seem highly important, game-balance wise, and although I think they would be nice, they would go better in a game supplement. Oh - and good call on the Cosmic Descryer. I think at 1/5 feats and full caster, it is a little good, and I think I would go with 3/4 caster. Then the +7 is will not overshadow other classes, but will still represent +5 to caster level over a straight caster when it is first acquired. At that point on, it will slowly decrease in benefit over time compared to straight casters. Of course their Cosmic connection ability is once per day per 5 levels - so never mind - full caster is the only thing that really makes sense. The more I think about it, the more I hate the Cosmic Connection ability, even with the level-based cap. I find it irritating that for a character to be the best spellcaster possible, they must be a Cosmic Descryer to take advantage of the caster level bonus. It makes much more sense flavor-wise for a dedicated spellcaster to focus on their primary base class instead. Likewise, the untyped bonus to skills is an issue because it essentially means that the best skill-monkey (and by best I mean hitting the highest DCs for most useful checks) is a . . . Cosmic Descryer? Not to mention the fact that they potentially have the most difficult to cast epic spells as a result of the highest possible Spellcraft check. The untyped bonus to ability checks also create some interesting conundrums where the Cosmic Descryer is an awesome arm wrestler and tripper, among other things. Attack rolls and saves, on the other hand, I have no problem with. To that end, I think the Cosmic Connection ability should be reduced to boosting attack rolls and saves only.
Thorsljon 05-09-07, 04:14 AM	Sorry, I've been away - but I wanted to chime in on the Spell Stowaway. As I read it, it seemed to me that the original feat was badly worded as it gave no real indication of how it is supposed to work - and I think the reason for that is that the developers had multiple ideas. My own decision has been to treat how it works to be the most beneficial interpretation that I can come up with at the time the feat is chosen. This still runs the risk of someone knowing how to use that feature against you. Take a look at the spells being Stowed Away in the SRD: Phase - Time Stop Xixiecal - Greater Invis Hunefer - Grt Teleport LeSHay - Heal Uvuudam - Time Stop It is pretty clear that Greater Invis is supposed to work such that the Xixical goes invisible when the party wizard does - or when any of his targets do - in case he tries to add it to the rogue. But it doesn't buy him much. The LeShay Heal is better - it is supposed to work anytime that happens within 300ft. But is that likely to happen at that level? The interesting ones are Time Stop and Teleport. For Time Stop, I rule that the creature goes with the Time Stopper - it seems clear from the creature desciptions that this is the intended result - that they now have to deal with an epic creature sharing their time stream. Teleport I rule the same way, for the same reason - they end up together so the epic creature can munch on them. It is a problem that the munchkin could use it against them - so I allow them to know where they are going, and choose not to go. I think this feat more than most needs the DM to individualize how it actually works - that no one set of RAW would do justice to the options. But it is supposed to be a benefit, that allows the owner of the feat a combat advantage. So make it do that. Well argued. I'd probably give the leshay Spell Stowaway with mass heal to make it more likely to gain the benefit. Back on Weapon Focus, if allowing more than 1 to stack, I would require higher levels for the extra times you take it - otherwise it would be obvious to take it for most melee feats - it sure would destroy the usefulness of Epic Prowess. Sure, a DM could contrive for a PC not to have the preferred weapon, but it would be a major contrivance. Epic characters can make new ones virtually out of thin air. Maybe allow it to be taken once per 10 levels. That seems reasonable, although I might allow it once per 5 levels. I like the idea of allowing more Epic Power Attack and Cleave features. I also think that allowing extra free attacks might be worthwhile as a feat - like multispell for melee. You would need Blinding Speed and 4 attacks maybe, then when you use your Blinding Speed (not just any Haste effect) you would gain an extra attack on a full attack. But this is in the realm of new feats and not on SRD topic. That sounds like an excellent idea! :) Oh - and good call on the Cosmic Descryer. I think at 1/5 feats and full caster, it is a little good, and I think I would go with 3/4 caster. Then the +7 is will not overshadow other classes, but will still represent +5 to caster level over a straight caster when it is first acquired. At that point on, it will slowly decrease in benefit over time compared to straight casters. Of course their Cosmic connection ability is once per day per 5 levels - so never mind - full caster is the only thing that really makes sense. ROB
runestar 05-09-07, 10:05 AM	Well argued. I'd probably give the leshay Spell Stowaway with mass heal to make it more likely to gain the benefit. And you need to give it the mass heal SLA for consistency as well...:P
Thorsbjorn 05-09-07, 11:41 AM	And you need to give it the mass heal SLA for consistency as well...:P That, or a little cheese. ;)
Thorsbjorn 05-13-07, 12:12 AM	Hey, bluemage55, are you going to add your bulwark of the dragon update to this thread? :)
bluemage55 05-13-07, 12:29 AM	Already did. See the Magic Items 1 section.
Thorsbjorn 05-13-07, 01:27 AM	Already did. See the Magic Items 1 section. Cool! :cool:
Thorsbjorn 05-17-07, 07:45 AM	Earlier on the thread people were discussing caster levels for creatures' spell-like abilities. I'm currently advancing a kraken from CR 12 to CR 20 by adding 24 hit dice. I noticed that the base kraken has a caster level of 9--completely unrelated to either CR or hit dice. It does fall within 3 levels of CR. Any suggestions for its new caster level? I guess if I stuck with its current relationship to CR it would have a caster level of 17. That would give it roughly an even chance of pentrating the party's SR (half-celestial with SR 26, drow with SR 29, and I think the clerical caster's mass spell resistance grants SR 30, which would require the kraken to roll a 13 or better to penetrate it). I could give it Spell Penetration/Greater Spell Penetration (if those even work on spell-like abilities; it gets 8 new feats) to improve things a bit, or just raise the caster level to 20. Giving it a caster level of 41 would simply negate the party's SR. The base kracken gets control weather, control winds, dominate animal and resist energy, each once a day. Any suggestions on whether to improve these? I could improve them by increasing the uses per day, say, to 3, or I could vary them, and increase the lower-level ones more. I could also improve them by, say, substituting dominate monster for dominate animal. Any suggestions? Thanks! :)
bluemage55 05-18-07, 05:02 AM	When you advance a creature, you do not normally change its SLAs in anyway (there is nothing specified in the Improving Monsters section that I can find). However, I've found that the magic rating (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/variant/magic/magicRating.htm) variant is an excellent way of dealing with SLA advancement, even if you do not use the magic rating variant for its normal purpose. Using that system, a 44 HD kraken would have a CL of 15 for its SLAs. I would not change any of its SLAs, unless you are in actuality creating a different, advanced creature (which would not happen until you hit the peak of the Kraken's advancement at 60 HD).
bluemage55 05-18-07, 05:12 AM	Added a revision for the monk Quivering Palm DC. It should only increase by +1/2 levels as per the epic progression for all save-inducing special attacks.
Krispieman 05-23-07, 07:17 AM	I have a slight question concerning the Legendary Wrestler feat. One of its prereqs is Improved Grapple. Now I was wondering if these 2 feats stack or not. I know that in general, most epic feats stack with their non-epic (counter)parts, but as there is no mention either way I was curious. IMHO, a +14 bonus to grapple shouldn't be a problem at Epic levels, but whay say you? K-man :cool:
rob_douglas 05-24-07, 09:33 AM	I believe it stacks, the same way Epic Skill Focus stacks. ROB
Thorsbjorn 05-24-07, 09:47 AM	I believe it stacks, the same way Epic Skill Focus stacks. ROB Since both feats grant an unnamed bonus, I'd think they would follow the general rule that unnamed bonuses stack with any other bonuses, including other unnamed bonuses. :) Edit: I found where the rules say that named bonuses of the same type don't stack (DMG p. 21) but not anything the specifically says that unnamed bonuses stack with each other.
bluemage55 05-24-07, 08:35 PM	They should stack.
bluemage55 06-04-07, 06:48 PM	The Infernal has been bugging me lately, for two reasons: 1. It is essentially an advanced version of the 3.0 balor/pit fiend put together, but both monsters experienced considerable revisions and an increase in power. 2. It makes infernals from Hell and the Abyss identical except for DR and what they summon. To fix both of these, I rewrote the Infernal into two monsters. Take a look and feel free to share questions, thoughts, comments, or criticism: INFERNAL, DEMONIC Huge Outsider (Chaotic, Extraplanar, Evil) Hit Dice: 60d8+960 (1,440 hp) Initiative: +18 Speed: 100 ft. (20 squares), fly 200 ft. (good) Armor Class: 57 (–2 size, +10 Dex, +17 deflection, +22 natural), touch 35, flat-footed 47 Base Attack/Grapple: +60/+84 Attack: +7 vorpal longsword +86 melee (3d6+27/17–20) Full Attack: +7 vorpal longsword +86/+81/+76/+71 melee (3d6+27/17–20) and +5 flaming burst whip of speed +84/+79/+74/+69/+84 melee (1d8+15/19-20 plus 1d6 fire plus entangle); or 2 slams +62 melee (2d8+20) Space/Reach: 15 ft./15 ft. (25 ft. with +5 flaming burst whip of speed) Special Attacks: Death throes, entangle, spell-like abilities, summon demon, vorpal sword Special Qualities: Damage reduction 15/epic and cold iron and good, darkvision 60 ft., flaming body, immunity to electricity, fire, and poison, resistance to acid 10 and cold 10, spell resistance 68, telepathy 100 ft., true seeing, learned spell immunity, divine immunities, immortal Saves: Fort +48, Ref +42, Will +43 Abilities: Str 50, Dex 30, Con 42, Int 32, Wis 32, Cha 44 Skills: Bluff +80, Concentration +79, Diplomacy +92, Disguise +17 (+23 acting), Escape Artist +41, Heal +42, Hide +65, Intimidate +84, Jump +113, Knowledge (arcana) +74, Knowledge (any one) +74, Listen +82, Move Silently +73, Search +74, Sense Motive +74, Spellcraft +74 (+80 scrolls), Spot +82, Survival +11 (+17 following tracks), Swim +51, Tumble +75, Use Magic Device +80 (+86 scrolls) Feats: Cleave, Great Cleave, Greater Two-Weapon Fighting, Improved Initiative, Improved Critical (longsword), Improved Critical (whip), Improved Bull Rush, Improved Two-Weapon Fighting, Power Attack, Quicken Spell-Like Ability (telekinesis), Two-Weapon Fighting, Two-Weapon Rend, Weapon Focus (longsword), Weapon Focus (whip) Epic Feats: Devastating Critical (longsword), Devastating Critical (whip), Dire Charge, Overwhelming Critical (longsword), Overhwhelming Critical (whip), Perfect Two-Weapon Fighting, Superior Initiative Environment: A chaotic evil-aligned plane Organization: Solitary or Abyssal brigade (1 demonic infernal and 1d4 balors) Challenge Rating: 47 Treasure: Standard coins; double goods; standard items Alignment: Always chaotic evil Advancement: 61–90 HD (Huge); 91–180 HD (Gargantuan) Level Adjustment: — A demonic infernal stands about 24 feet tall. Its skin is usually dark red. It weighs about 36,000 pounds. Combat Demonic infernals love to join battle armed with their swords and whips. If they face stiff resistance, they may teleport away to loose a few spell-like effects at the foe. A demonic infernal’s natural weapons, as well as any weapons it wields, are treated as chaotic-aligned and evil-aligned for the purpose of overcoming damage reduction. Death Throes (Ex): When killed, a demonic infernal explodes in a blinding flash of light that deals 300 points of damage to anything within 300 feet (Reflex DC 56 half). The save DC is Constitution-based. Demonic Infernal Weapons (Su): Each demonic infernal carries two personal melee weapons that it manifests from its own life essence: a +7 vorpal longsword that looks like a flame or bolt of lightning, and a +5 flaming burst whip of speed. A demonic infernal’s +5 flaming burst whip of speed is a long, flexible weapon with many tails tipped with hooks, spikes, and balls. The weapon deals bludgeoning and slashing damage, in addition to fire damage. When not in combat, the weapons simply do not exist (and they likewise disappear when the demonic infernal releases its grip on them), but a demonic infernal can “draw” their weapons from nowhere as a free action, and can do so even if their weapons are somehow “destroyed”. Entangle (Ex): A demonic infernal’s +5 flaming burst whip of speed entangles foes much like an attack with a net. The whip has 60 hit points. The whip needs no folding. If it hits, the target and the demonic infernal immediately make opposed Strength checks; if the demonic infernal wins, it drags the target against its flaming body (see below). The target remains anchored against the demonic infernal’s body until it escapes the whip. Spell-Like Abilities: At will— blasphemy (DC 34), dominate monster (DC 36), greater dispel magic, greater teleport (self plus 50 pounds of objects only), insanity (DC 34), power word stun, telekinesis (DC 32), unholy aura (DC 35); 3/day—demise unseen (epic spell) (DC 36), mass frog (epic spell) (DC 36), 1/day—fire storm (DC 35), implosion (DC 36). Caster level 60th. The save DCs are Charisma-based. Summon Demon (Sp): Once per day a demonic infernal can automatically summon 4d10 dretches, 1d4 hezrous, nalfeshnees, glabrezus, mariliths, or balors, or one demonic infernal. This ability is the equivalent of an epic spell. Flaming Body (Su): The body of a demonic infernal is wreathed in flame. Anyone grappling a demonic infernal takes 6d6 points of fire damage each round. True Seeing (Su): Demonic infernals have a continuous true seeing ability, as the spell (caster level 60th). Learned Spell Immunity (Dv): If a demonic infernal is affected by a spell cast by a particular spellcaster, the demonic infernal thereafter becomes immune to that spell when cast by that spellcaster. Divine Immunities (Dv): Ability damage, ability drain, energy drain, mind-affecting effects, transmutation Immortal (Dv): Demonic infernals do not age, and they do not need to eat, sleep, or breathe. The only way for a demonic infernal to die is through special circumstances, usually by being slain in magical or physical combat. Skills: Demonic infernals have a +8 racial bonus on Listen and Spot checks. Tactics Round-by-Round The demonic infernal is most effective as a ranged combatant, using its spell-like abilities to attack from a distance. Prior to combat: Unholy aura Round 1: Mass frog or demise unseen and quickened telekinesis, or summon additional demons. If the demonic infernal does not deem itself seriously threatened, it conserves abilities with limited uses per day and uses blasphemy instead. Round 2: Insanity or power word stun. Round 3: Dire charge with weapons, including entangle with whip. Round 4: Teleport or fly away with entangled foe to reestablish range; repeat round 1 and continue. A demonic infernal who wants to drive off or neutralize a party without slaying its foes avoids lethal attacks. Prior to combat: Unholy aura. Round 1: Dominate monster. Round 2: Power word stun. Round 3: Insanity or mass frog to incapacitate a dangerous opponent. Round 4: Teleport or fly away to reestablish range; repeat round 1 and continue. INFERNAL, DIABOLICAL Huge Outsider (Evil, Extraplanar, Lawful) Hit Dice: 60d8+840 (1,320 hp) Initiative: +19 Speed: 100 ft. (20 squares), fly 200 ft. (average) AC: 62 (–2 size, +11 Dex, +17 deflection, +26 natural), touch 36, flat-footed 51 Base Attack/Grapple: +60/+89 Attack: Claw +80 melee (3d8+21/19-20) Full Attack: 2 claws +80 melee (3d8+21/19-20) and 2 wings +77 melee (3d6+10) and bite +78 melee (6d6+10/19-20 plus poison plus disease plus spell suck) and tail slap +78 melee (3d8+10/19-20) Space/Reach: 15 ft./15 ft. Special Attacks: Constrict 2d8+42, fear aura, improved grab, spell-like abilities, summon devil Special Qualities: Damage reduction 15/epic and good and silver, darkvision 60 ft., immunity to fire and poison, resistance to acid 10 and cold 10, regeneration 5, see in darkness, spell resistance 72, telepathy 100 ft. Saves: Fort +46, Ref +43, Will +44 Abilities: Str 52, Dex 32, Con 38, Int 34, Wis 34, Cha 44 Skills: Bluff +80, Climb +84, Concentration +77, Diplomacy +62, Disguise +80, Escape Artist +42, Heal +43, Hide +66, Intimidate +86, Jump +118, Knowledge (arcana) +75 (+79 use scrolls), Knowledge (nobility and royalty) +43, Knowledge (the planes) +75, Knowledge (religious) +75, Listen +75, Move Silently +74, Search +75, Sense Motive +43, Spellcraft +75, Spot +75, Survival +12 (+18 on other planes, +18 when tracking), Tumble +80, Use Magic Device +48 (+54 use scrolls) Feats: Cleave, Great Cleave, Improved Critical (bite), Improved Critical (claw), Improved Critical (tail slap), Improved Initiative, Iron Will, Multiattack, Power Attack, Quicken Spell-Like Ability (delayed blast fireball), Weapon Focus (bite), Weapon Focus (claw), Weapon Focus (tail slap) Epic Feats: Devastating Critical (bite), Devastating Critical (claw), Devastating Critical (tail slap), Dire Charge, Overwhelming Critical (bite), Overwhelming Critical (claw), Overwhelming Critical (tail slap), Superior Initiative Environment: A lawful evil-aligned plane Organization: Solitary or Hell brigade (1 diabolical infernal and 2 pit fiends) Challenge Rating: 47 Treasure: Standard coins; double goods; standard items Alignment: Always lawful evil Advancement: 61–90 HD (Huge); 91–180 HD (Gargantuan) Level Adjustment: — A diabolical infernal often wraps its wings around itself like a grotesque cloak, and appears wreathed in flames. A diabolical infernal is 24 feet tall and weighs 6,400 pounds. Combat Diabolical infernals are wily and resourceful fighters, using greater invisibility to gain the upper hand and biting at foes seemingly able to see them. They don’t hesitate to blanket an area with delayed blast fireballs, and can call down the wrath of an inferno with meteor swarm. A diabolical infernal’s natural weapons, as well as any weapons it wields, are treated as evil-aligned and lawful-aligned for the purpose of overcoming damage reduction. Constrict (Ex): A diabolical infernal deals 2d8+42 points of damage with a successful grapple check. Disease (Su): A creature struck by a diabolical infernal’s bite attack must succeed on a DC 54 Fortitude save or be infected with a vile disease known as devil chills (incubation period 1d4 days, damage 1d4 Str). The save DC is Constitution-based. Fear Aura (Su): A diabolical infernal can radiate a 20-foot-radius fear aura as a free action. A creature in the area must succeed on a DC 57 Will save or be affected as though by a fear spell (caster level 60th). A creature that successfully saves cannot be affected again by the same diabolical infernal’s aura for 24 hours. Other devils are immune to the aura. The save DC is Charisma-based. Improved Grab (Ex): To use this ability, a diabolical infernal must hit with its tail slap attack. It can then attempt to start a grapple as a free action without provoking an attack of opportunity. If it wins the grapple check, it establishes a hold and can constrict. Poison (Ex): Injury, Fortitude DC 54, initial damage 1d6 Con, secondary damage death. The save DC is Constitution-based. Spell-Like Abilities: At will—blasphemy (DC 34), create undead, delayed blast fireball (DC 34), greater dispel magic, greater invisibility, greater teleport (self plus 50 pounds of objects only), magic circle against good, mass hold monster (DC 36), persistent image (DC 32), power word stun, unholy aura (DC 35); 3/day—demise unseen (DC 37), hellball (DC 37), 1/day—meteor swarm (DC 36). Caster level 60th. The save DCs are Charisma-based. Once per year a diabolical infernal can use wish as the spell (caster level 60th). Summon Devil (Sp): Twice per day a diabolical infernal can automatically summon 2 lemures, bone devils, or bearded devils, or 1 erinyes, horned devil, ice devil, or pit fiend. This ability is the equivalent of a 9th-level spell. Regeneration (Ex): A diabolical infernal takes normal damage from epic good-aligned silvered weapons, and from spells or effects with the good descriptor. Divine Immunities (Dv): Ability damage, ability drain, energy drain, mind-affecting effects, transmutation Immortal (Dv): Diabolical infernals do not age, and they do not need to eat, sleep, or breathe. The only way for a diabolical infernal to die is through special circumstances, usually by being slain in magical or physical combat. Spell Suck (Dv): If a diabolical infernal bites a foe, the foe loses one of its highest-level prepared spells or one of the spell slots for this day that it has not used. The victim chooses the prepared spell to lose. If the victim has no prepared spells or unused spell slots (either because it has exhausted its spellcasting for the day or because the victim is not a spellcaster), the bite instead deals 2 points of temporary Intelligence damage. Tactics Round-by-Round A diabolical infernal typically opens combat by using its spell-like abilities, attempting to neutralize dangerous opponents before entering melee. Prior to combat: Unholy aura; activate fear aura, summon devil. Round 1: Quickened delayed blast fireball and mass hold monster if facing three or more visible, active opponents; otherwise power word stun against unarmored opponent (preferably a spellcaster). Round 2: Hellball against as many foes as possible, approach worst-injured enemy. Round 3: Full attack against injured enemy. Round 4: Continue melee against injured enemy, or power word stun against annoying spellcaster. Round 5: Repeat from round 1, or greater teleport to safety if endangered.
Thorsbjorn 06-04-07, 11:00 PM	The Infernal has been bugging me lately, for two reasons: 1. It is essentially an advanced version of the 3.0 balor/pit fiend put together, but both monsters experienced considerable revisions and an increase in power. 2. It makes infernals from Hell and the Abyss identical except for DR and what they summon. To fix both of these, I rewrote the Infernal into two monsters. Take a look and feel free to share questions, thoughts, comments, or criticism Kudos on the idea of splitting the infernal into two different versions. I wouldn't mind seening a neutral evil version too. The learned spell immunity seems intriguing but a bit too strong. I suggest limiting its duration to a day, or perhaps a week at the most. Shouldn't the demonic version get regeneration too?
bluemage55 06-04-07, 11:50 PM	Shouldn't the demonic version get regeneration too? None of the Core demons get regeneration, and I kept consistent with that in my write-up,
bluemage55 06-16-07, 07:33 AM	Added errata for the Atropal, which should have fast healing 20 instead of regeneration (as it does not have a Con score).
Thorsbjorn 06-18-07, 03:38 AM	Added errata for the Atropal, which should have fast healing 20 instead of regeneration (as it does not have a Con score). I think the atropal is cool and creepy. I have some scribblings for a higher-level epic adventure to another universe that have an atropal guarding the way to the other universe. :D
DragonBringerX 06-18-07, 04:57 AM	i know its been a long while sense I posted here, but I do have to say I like what I see now. These revisions are a beautiful thing a deserve some praise. kudos! :bow: now for some questions: its about the pseudonatural template, it says that its SR is 5x its HD! idunno, dosen't that seem a bit too high. I was thinking somewhere along the lines of maybe 15 + its HD, or something. Not too sure though.
SokenzanMarauder 06-18-07, 03:30 PM	Damn bluemage, every time I come into this thread I walk away with new ideas on how to challenge my players. Again, I can't thank you enough for all the work you're doing here. Keep it up! -Gene
Avatar of Kokusho 06-19-07, 10:37 AM	Those infernals....worst nightmare, maybe? The party I was a part of had to fight a normal, single, unaugmented one and it almost got off a TPK, only one left was me (the spellcaster, lol)..but it taught me a very valuable lesson: Never, ever prepare too many of the same spell. We were 28th level, too. Ouchies.
rob_douglas 06-19-07, 10:56 AM	We've discussed many times that a non-epic caster can craft an item of up to SR 32, I believe (it's caster level plus 12?) - but why are there epic items of SR 21, 23, 25 and 27 with +6, 7, 8 and 9 bonus, respectively. I can't see anything for this in the Errata, but it doesn't jibe with other things we've done, and is, frankly, stupid. I don't know why any epic character would give a damn about SR 27, for 810000 GP! Especially when one can get an epic mantle of SR 40 for 290K. Weird. I agree. The pricing comes from the dumbness of the non-epic pricing of SR on armor. You can pay +2, +3, +4, or +5 for SR 13, 15, 17, or 19. Comparing armor and Mantle prices, knowing you need at least +1 armor: SR Armor Mantle 13 9K 10K 15 16K 30K 17 25K 50K 19 36K 70K And the mantle takes up a cloak slot. Going on, with the Epic SRs as you say: SR Armor Mantle 21 490K 90K 23 640K 110K 25 810K 130K 27 1M 150K 29 1.21M 170K 31 1.44M 190K 33 1.69M 210K Doesn't make much sense. If they really aren't going to charge x10 for Epic Mantles of Spell Resistance, then they ought to price it for armor as an add on, like they did with the Fire Resistance. Of course as a bonus, it interferes with other properties you might want - so ultimately you will never see anyone take SR on their armor. That proves it is not balanced, because it is not a valid choice. I believe it should be the case that SR on armor costs 1.5 times the cost of the same mantle, same as energy resistances. The limit on 200K total cost pre-epic applies, but it will never be subject to the x10 cost just for SR - unless we or I errata SR to x10 as well. ROB
bluemage55 06-20-07, 01:25 AM	i know its been a long while sense I posted here, but I do have to say I like what I see now. These revisions are a beautiful thing a deserve some praise. kudos! :bow: Thanks! :D now for some questions: its about the pseudonatural template, it says that its SR is 5x its HD! idunno, dosen't that seem a bit too high. I was thinking somewhere along the lines of maybe 15 + its HD, or something. Not too sure though. It seems intentional, as the pseudonatural troll corroborates the SR calculation as x5. Keep in mind also that the significant CR adjustment mitigates the effectiveness of this SR somewhat. To begin with though, the CR adjustment needs to be changed to a flat +13 CR, to avoid certain discrepancies such as a 6 or 15 HD creature's CR being reduced when a level is added. With that in mind, let's see a quick analysis of a basic humanoid with class levels that have the template, and their resulting SR: 1st-level character = CR 14, SR 5; ineffective SR 2nd-level character = CR 15, SR 10; ineffective SR 3rd-level character = CR 16, SR 15; ineffecitve SR 4th-level character = CR 17, SR 20; below-average SR 5th-level character = CR 18, SR 25; below-average SR 6th-level character = CR 19, SR 30; average SR 7th-level character = CR 20, SR 35; above-average SR 8th-level character = CR 21, SR 40; above-average SR 9th-level character = CR 22, SR 45; extremely SR 10th-level character = CR 23, SR 50; extreme SR 11th-level character = CR 24, SR 55; extreme SR 12th-level character = CR 25, SR 60; unbeatable SR As you can see, the SR only becomes above-average at CR 20, and unbeatable at CR 25. By those levels, spellcasters have a multitude of options to deal with an opponent with very high or unbeatable SR. Given the rest of a pseudonatural creature's abilities, many of which are not too useful at epic levels (such as Improved Grab and Rotting Constriction when most equipment-using characters have freedom of movement), the template seems balanced with the SR as is. Damn bluemage, every time I come into this thread I walk away with new ideas on how to challenge my players. Again, I can't thank you enough for all the work you're doing here. Keep it up! -Gene You're welcome. Feel free to contribute in any way that you'd like to make this thread even better! :D
bluemage55 06-20-07, 01:28 AM	I believe it should be the case that SR on armor costs 1.5 times the cost of the same mantle, same as energy resistances. The limit on 200K total cost pre-epic applies, but it will never be subject to the x10 cost just for SR - unless we or I errata SR to x10 as well. I concur. The pricing for SR as an armor bonus is problematic, although the flawed system does not become evident until epic levels. The cost should be 1.5 times the normal cost for an additional ability, the same as that for energy resistances. The SR granted by the Great SR ability should also be suitably epic, rather than the pathetic amounts given that could be accomplished by a non-epic creator. I have added the following two to the revisions: Spell Resistance: This property grants the armor or shield’s wearer spell resistance while the armor or shield is worn. The spell resistance can be 13, 15, 17, or 19, depending on the armor or shield. Moderate abjuration; CL 9th; Craft Magic Arms and Armor, spell resistance; Price +15,000 gp (SR 13), +45,000 gp (SR 15), +75,000 gp (SR 17), +105,000 gp (SR 19). Great Spell Resistance: This property grants the armor’s wearer spell resistance while the armor is worn. The spell resistance can be 33, 35, 37, or 39, depending on the armor. Overwhelming abjuration; CL 21st (SR 33), 23rd (SR 35), 25th (SR 37), or 27th (SR 29); Craft Magic Arms and Armor, Craft Epic Arms and Armor, spell resistance; Price +315,000 gp (SR 33), +345,000 gp (SR 35), +375,000 gp (SR 37), or +405,000 gp (SR 39).
Thorsbjorn 06-20-07, 02:01 AM	I concur. The pricing for SR as an armor bonus is problematic, although the flawed system does not become evident until epic levels. The cost should be 1.5 times the normal cost for an additional ability, the same as that for energy resistances. The SR granted by the Great SR ability should also be suitably epic, rather than the pathetic amounts given that could be accomplished by a non-epic creator. I have added the following two to the revisions: Spell Resistance: This property grants the armor or shield’s wearer spell resistance while the armor or shield is worn. The spell resistance can be 13, 15, 17, or 19, depending on the armor or shield. Moderate abjuration; CL 9th; Craft Magic Arms and Armor, spell resistance; Price +15,000 gp (SR 13), +45,000 gp (SR 15), +75,000 gp (SR 17), +105,000 gp (SR 19). Great Spell Resistance: This property grants the armor’s wearer spell resistance while the armor is worn. The spell resistance can be 33, 35, 37, or 39, depending on the armor. Overwhelming abjuration; CL 21st (SR 33), 23rd (SR 35), 25th (SR 37), or 27th (SR 29); Craft Magic Arms and Armor, Craft Epic Arms and Armor, spell resistance; Price +315,000 gp (SR 33), +345,000 gp (SR 35), +375,000 gp (SR 37), or +405,000 gp (SR 39). Is there any reason to limit it to SR 39? You and some others play in higher level campaigns where SR 39 must be irrelevant. Perhaps you could just give the explict formula for calculating the price and CL of any SR and leave it open ended?
bluemage55 06-20-07, 02:05 AM	Is there any reason to limit it to SR 39? You and some others play in higher level campaigns where SR 39 must be irrelevant. Perhaps you could just give the explict formula for calculating the price and CL of any SR and leave it open ended? The explicit formula is already given in the Magic Items 1 portion of the SRD, as 10,000 gp per point of SR over 12. To this, you simply apply the 1.5 modifier for a secondary ability to put it on a suit of armor or shield. The reason it stops at SR 39 is that all of the epic items given are examples to help players along until around level 30 (for example, belts of giant strength can be made for any bonus, once the creator's caster level is high enough, but the SRD only gives examples up to +12).
Thorsbjorn 06-20-07, 02:49 AM	The explicit formula is already given in the Magic Items 1 portion of the SRD, as 10,000 gp per point of SR over 12. To this, you simply apply the 1.5 modifier for a secondary ability to put it on a suit of armor or shield. The reason it stops at SR 39 is that all of the epic items given are examples to help players along until around level 30 (for example, belts of giant strength can be made for any bonus, once the creator's caster level is high enough, but the SRD only gives examples up to +12). Ok, I see how you got the price. SR 19, for instance, is (19 - 12 ) = 7 x 10,000 = 70,000 x 1.5 = 105,000. The rules don't seem to be applying epic prices, however, to the epic versions. If the lowest epic SR is 33, then is the highest non-epic SR 32? If so then for SR 32 the price would be (32 - 12 ) = 20 x 10,000 = 200,000 x 1.5 = 300,000. Then 33 would be (33 - 12) = 21 x 100,000 = 2,100,000 x 1.5 = 3,150,000. Why doesn't the extra factor of 10 apply to epic spell resistance like it does to other epic items? I see that the ELH gives non-epic price for the mantle of epic spell resistance, but why?
bluemage55 06-20-07, 03:06 AM	There is no x10 epic modifier for spell resistance pricing. The highest possible non-epic SR would be SR 32, as you concluded.
Thorsbjorn 06-20-07, 03:31 AM	There is no x10 epic modifier for spell resistance pricing. The highest possible non-epic SR would be SR 32, as you concluded. Yes, but why doesn't an item granting epic SR follow the rules that apply to other types of items granting epic benefits and cost ten times as much as the non-epic price?
bluemage55 06-20-07, 04:43 AM	Yes, but why doesn't an item granting epic SR follow the rules that apply to other types of items granting epic benefits and cost ten times as much as the non-epic price? Because the epic pricing applies to bonuses beyond the normal limits. SR is not a bonus. It is in the same boat as caster level; both make an item epic (requiring the appropriate epic crafting feat) when they exceed the normal limits (SR 32, and CL 20th), but do not apply epic pricing because they are not bonuses.
Thorsbjorn 06-20-07, 05:48 AM	Because the epic pricing applies to bonuses beyond the normal limits. SR is not a bonus. It is in the same boat as caster level; both make an item epic (requiring the appropriate epic crafting feat) when they exceed the normal limits (SR 32, and CL 20th), but do not apply epic pricing because they are not bonuses. Sure, they're different because the rules are different--but why are the rules different? Why is an epic bonus worth ten times a non-epic bonus but an epic SR isn't worth 10 times a non-epic SR?
Balthanon 06-20-07, 11:55 AM	Sure, they're different because the rules are different--but why are the rules different? Why is an epic bonus worth ten times a non-epic bonus but an epic SR isn't worth 10 times a non-epic SR? Probably because it doesn't give you as much of a benefit over time-- as you increase your level and other abilities, spell resistance granted by an item like this is going to be less and less worthwhile. If you turn around and make that a bonus, say +5 to existing SR, that continues to increase in value (for those who have SR naturally) indefinitely. It will almost always be useful-- the same applies to other bonuses.
rob_douglas 06-20-07, 03:33 PM	That is the reason I had heard - that it just makes you keep up with monsters, and isn't a great benefit. I don't know if that is what the designers thought, or it was an accident. I have thought that it should be x10 after SR32, but given that Spell Resistance and Mass Spell Resistance do not have a cap, there is no reason to bother capping it with price. The real challenge is in not letting people buy things that are outside their ability to make - supposedly you could easily afford SR112, Caster Level 100, it would only be 1,000,000gp - but the DM should handle not letting you buy stuff so far outside the scope of his game. Where is that 100th level caster? Note that there are no Planar Metropolis's that can sell you such an item by the rules. ROB
Thorsbjorn 06-20-07, 03:46 PM	That is the reason I had heard - that it just makes you keep up with monsters, and isn't a great benefit. I don't know if that is what the designers thought, or it was an accident. I have thought that it should be x10 after SR32, but given that Spell Resistance and Mass Spell Resistance do not have a cap, there is no reason to bother capping it with price. The real challenge is in not letting people buy things that are outside their ability to make - supposedly you could easily afford SR112, Caster Level 100, it would only be 1,000,000gp - but the DM should handle not letting you buy stuff so far outside the scope of his game. Where is that 100th level caster? Note that there are no Planar Metropolis's that can sell you such an item by the rules. ROB Yes I do wonder if they did it deliberately or, as with so much else in the ELH, simply neglected to apply the 10x rule to SR because they included only one SR item. Saving throw bonuses don't decline in value so much, as DCs go up very slowly (1 point every 8 levels) but as attack bonuses rise 1 point every two levels, the value of AC bonuses declines rather more quickly--albeit not as quickly as SR, which falls 1 point per level effectively. So I agree with you that the 10x modifier should apply to SR over 32 as well. As for buying items they can't make because of excessive level, that's just not a problem in my campaign world. :)
bluemage55 06-20-07, 04:11 PM	The main reason they have SR work the way it does is because it is based on a constant spell, and caster levels don't trigger the x10 epic modifier. Having spell resistance as a constant spell works out to caster level * 5 * 2,000 gp = caster level * 10,000 gp (The designers dropped the standard x2 modifier for 1/min. level spells as they dropped the x4 for boots of speed, using Rule 0 estimations of actual value). In other words, each time you increase CL by 1, the SR goes up by 1, and the price goes up by 10,000 gp, which is exactly the calculation use for Spell Resistance. As the designers decided that CL would not trigger the epic modifier, SR thus does not require the x10 modifier.
Thorsbjorn 06-20-07, 09:44 PM	As the designers decided that CL would not trigger the epic modifier, SR thus does not require the x10 modifier. Perhaps CL should trigger the epic price modifier. Better yet, perhaps the use of an epic item creation feat should trigger the epic price modifier. :)
bluemage55 06-21-07, 02:42 AM	Perhaps CL should trigger the epic price modifier. Better yet, perhaps the use of an epic item creation feat should trigger the epic price modifier. :) The reason the designers decided that CL does not trigger epic pricing was that it resulted in unusable epic scrolls and staves. I personally agree with their decision.
Thorsbjorn 06-21-07, 03:47 AM	The reason the designers decided that CL does not trigger epic pricing was that it resulted in unusable epic scrolls and staves. I personally agree with their decision. No kidding. :P
Saurus33 06-21-07, 04:01 AM	For Epic Spells, I find this system works well; Feanmerc Epic Spell System Hey 'freaks. Just to recap, this is split from the Epic Destruction thread. I posted this as what I do to 'balance' epic spells. Just to make clear, instruction #5 I know I got from Upper Krust somewhere, but I don't recall specifically... but posterity aside... 1) Take the idea you're trying to implement - say, an Epic Destruction spell - and find a Core spell that best matches the general idea. In this case we use Destruction. 2) Find the base DC for Destruction ala the "behind the curtains" on spell seed DCs. This is developer-specific. So, in this case, Destruction is a 7th level spell. A cleric needs to be 13th-level to cast Destruction and could have as many as 16 ranks in Spellcraft, so that's a base DC of 26 (10 + 16). 3) Adjust this DC by way of the factors in the ELH. Thus, increasing the spell's save DC by +1 would be a +2 to the developmental DC, or something like that. If you wanted to deal an additional amount of energy damage on a passed save, throw in the energy seed (+19 DC) and you're good. That energy damage is now a part of the spell. 4) Keep playing with it. If you want the spell to have a higher range, do so. If you want it to also poison targets, throw in the Poison spell (+17 DC). Etc. 5) Once you're done, divide the DC by 10 and add +7. This is the spell slot the new epic spell requires to be cast. This has several effects. a) It chokes the power of epic spellcasting by forcing the caster to have the slots available (via ISC), have the required Int/Wis/Cha, and have not cast that spell slot or memorized something else into it beforehand. b) It makes epic spells a little more scalar than 20 + ability insofar as DCs go, as well as making it harder to dispel higher-level epic spells. c) It allows one to metamagic their epic spells normally. For instance, I've made an epic Destruction spell called "Pollock" which affects a 60-ft.-cone area. It's a 13th-level spell, IIRC, and deals 15d8 on a passed save. One could intensify this spell, quicken it, enlarge it, whatever, and it meshes seamlessly with the system as it stands. Also, to make this clear - you'll notice that I use the term "...damage per caster level (max ...)" a lot. This is because I dislike epic spell design enabling one to just "add on" dice of damage. I have been using the normal DC increases, however, and have thought to change it to... +1 die of damage: +2 DC +1 die of damage per caster level: +1 DC.
bluemage55 06-21-07, 07:03 PM	I am a member of the Dicefreaks boards, so I'm well aware of the Feanmarc system. While the Feanmarc system may or may not be better than the existing system, I consider the current system to be usable given certain fixes. As this thread seeks to revise the existing rules rather than rewrite the system entirely, I have chosen to stick with the current system rather than switching to one of many varied custom epic spell systems.
Thorsbjorn 06-22-07, 11:46 AM	For Epic Spells, I find this system works well; This seems to have merit, but I generally prefer to work with the existing rules than to toss them out entirely. Thanks for posting it though! :)
Gemstone 06-22-07, 03:22 PM	I am a member of the Dicefreaks boards, so I'm well aware of the Feanmarc system. While the Feanmarc system may or may not be better than the existing system, I consider the current system to be usable given certain fixes. As this thread seeks to revise the existing rules rather than rewrite the system entirely, I have chosen to stick with the current system rather than switching to one of many varied custom epic spell systems. Then, I suggest revising the ENERGY SEED into +2d6 for +3 DC on the spell. I find that it makes energy spells a bit more viable as Epic spells. Still not insanely good, but for a level 21 wizard taking Epic spellcasting... Spellcraft: 24 ranks Int Bonus (15+5+6+2) = 28 (+2 for inherent) = +9 That allows him to have +33 Spellcraft, and taking ten, that means 43 total. That's: 43-19 = 24 = 24/3 = 8. That's +16d6 damage straight on for a single spell, which adds up to a total of 26d6 energy damage, which is slightly better than a polar ray. True, it's still not as good as a metamagiced Polar Ray (for a total of 25*1,5 = 37d6) damage, but it's more viable than +1d6 for +2 DC. Better yet, we could make it +3d6 for +2... For explanations sake, I'll make a table: level +1d6(+2) +2d6(+2) +3d6(+2) +4d6(+2) +5d6(+2) 21 18d6 26d6 34d6 42d6 50d6 Considering that a 21st level magic user can have a maximum of 2 epic spells (since 23/10 = 2,3 = 2 slots), any of the three above 26d6 seem very balanced to me. considering that a polar ray can deal 37d6 damage empowered as a level 10 spell, we could easily let Epic spellcasting be able to deal 42d6 damage with a single energy spell. Thus, +3d6 damage for +2 DC seem okay
bluemage55 06-22-07, 04:05 PM	Why do you feel that the energy seed should do as much as metamagic equivalents? The strength of epic spells is in their customizability, not their brute force, and it seems perfectly fine that metamagicked spells can exceed their damage (although the epic spells have their offensive uses, such as for repeated damage over the course of weeks, or damage over the radius of a city, etc.). The reason that +1d6 / +2 was chosen is that the epic spells based factors on existing spells. Every +2 is the equivalent of +1 caster level, and across all seeds, the factors were calculated according to this. As energy spells generally deal +1d6 per additional caster level (caps are removed for epic spells), this is the appropriate amount.
Thorsbjorn 06-22-07, 04:28 PM	Then, I suggest revising the ENERGY SEED into +2d6 for +3 DC on the spell. I find that it makes energy spells a bit more viable as Epic spells. Still not insanely good, but for a level 21 wizard taking Epic spellcasting... Spellcraft: 24 ranks Int Bonus (15+5+6+2) = 28 (+2 for inherent) = +9 That allows him to have +33 Spellcraft, and taking ten, that means 43 total. That's: 43-19 = 24 = 24/3 = 8. That's +16d6 damage straight on for a single spell, which adds up to a total of 26d6 energy damage, which is slightly better than a polar ray. True, it's still not as good as a metamagiced Polar Ray (for a total of 25*1,5 = 37d6) damage, but it's more viable than +1d6 for +2 DC. Better yet, we could make it +3d6 for +2... For explanations sake, I'll make a table: level +1d6(+2) +2d6(+2) +3d6(+2) +4d6(+2) +5d6(+2) 21 18d6 26d6 34d6 42d6 50d6 Considering that a 21st level magic user can have a maximum of 2 epic spells (since 23/10 = 2,3 = 2 slots), any of the three above 26d6 seem very balanced to me. considering that a polar ray can deal 37d6 damage empowered as a level 10 spell, we could easily let Epic spellcasting be able to deal 42d6 damage with a single energy spell. Thus, +3d6 damage for +2 DC seem okay Yes, either one seems like a reasonable change since epic spells are so weak for offensive purposes. Epic spells should truly outshine mere non-epic spells. :)
Gemstone 06-22-07, 06:12 PM	Why do you feel that the energy seed should do as much as metamagic equivalents? The strength of epic spells is in their customizability, not their brute force, and it seems perfectly fine that metamagicked spells can exceed their damage (although the epic spells have their offensive uses, such as for repeated damage over the course of weeks, or damage over the radius of a city, etc.). The reason that +1d6 / +2 was chosen is that the epic spells based factors on existing spells. Every +2 is the equivalent of +1 caster level, and across all seeds, the factors were calculated according to this. As energy spells generally deal +1d6 per additional caster level (caps are removed for epic spells), this is the appropriate amount. I believe there's a need for a revision since Epic Spells represents much of the power that a magic user has at the higher levels. A single Epic spell is supposed to be so powerful that it's ridiculus. Thus, that normal spells are better at dealing damage is fine for some, but for me, it just seems odd that the most powerful of spells can't do damage worth even a penny compared to a standard spell with a single metamagic feat on it. Besides, having +2 being the equal of a single caster level is rather strange, since it's a well known fact that even the simplest spellcaster will invest in items and feats that grants him + to Spellcraft at epic levels. Also, yes, you can deal damage in an area that's equal to a city. It's still not worth much in an encounter when a monster can simply laugh of the damage from such a spell, but cringe in pain from a normal spell without metamagic. A simple normal epic spell dealing energy damage deals 10d6 damage... a polar ray deals up to 25d6! True, there are no caps for an epic spell (thus making it possible to brute force much more damage with mitigating factors), but it's still silly IMO.
rob_douglas 06-22-07, 06:41 PM	But Epic Spells aren't there to do energy damage primarily. If that is what you want to do - there are plenty of existing spells. Why do you need to research a brand new way to build and invent magic to do what you can already do? It doesn't make sense. The premise is just wrong. I do think there are some things wrong, like the base casting tie being 1 minute for many spell seeds, and I sometimes believe the base damage or an energy spell should be 20d6 instead of 10d6, but look what you can do. First off, DC43? Please - Epic Spellcasting is not really a great idea at 21st level, because you are really spending way too much in resources to do anything. I don't even consider it before 24th level, and 27th is better. Until then, you are right, metamagic is better, as it should be. At 27th level, you should (as a good archmage) have Skill Focus and Epic Skill Focus for +14 to spellcraft, and a +30 item (+23 if you use the revision in this thread I believe). INT is 15 + 6 (levels) + 6 (item) + 5 (inherent) = 32 (+11). So that is now 30 ranks +48 = 78. Take 10 on the roll is DC 88. That means your fireball or whatever does 88-19=69/2 = 34...44d6. But that takes a minute to case, so reduce it to a full round and make it 35d6. Almost as high as Empowered Polar Ray, but with more targets. DC 19 gets you 300ft range, 10d6, 20'-radius, casting time 1 minute full round casting = +18 range 5400' = +36 increase to 80' radius = +14 increase damage to 20d6 = +20 backlash 10d6 = -10 Extra caster 5th level slot = -9 DC = 88 Do 20d6 damage to everything in a 80' radius from over a mile away. You are right, that is useless if all you ever fight is one BBEG in a closed in room. But that kind of effect is really Epic. But better than that - why not do this: Energy+Dispel (DC 19+19 = 38) 1-action casting = +20 +30 dispel check = +30 So you can dispel their defenses before they blow up. You can also change the effect to a ranged touch attack and remove the saving throw, which is nice for a single target. Like I said, the cost of the casting time is the biggest hindrance I see. make that start at 1-action and you gain +10d6 damage right off the bat. ROB
Gemstone 06-23-07, 01:42 AM	But Epic Spells aren't there to do energy damage primarily. ... ROB Epic spells, IMO, are the absolut top of magic and thus the most powerful force that can be manipulated. So IMO, it doesn't make any sense at all by not being able to deal damage with it... Also, no magic that you use with Epic spellcasting is especially new. You can do any of those before epic level, mostly because Epic Spellcasting is based upon normal spellcasting. But I can clearly see our ideas of Epic spellcasting differ. I view it as being able to manipulate the tiniest strands of reality and thus giving you the ability to unhinge it and create spells without any other equal. Both through effects and complexity.
bluemage55 06-23-07, 01:50 AM	Wouldn't your view make metamagicked spells and ISC useless then?
Thorsbjorn 06-23-07, 01:57 AM	But Epic Spells aren't there to do energy damage primarily. If that is what you want to do - there are plenty of existing spells. Why do you need to research a brand new way to build and invent magic to do what you can already do? It doesn't make sense. The premise is just wrong. I do think there are some things wrong, like the base casting tie being 1 minute for many spell seeds, and I sometimes believe the base damage or an energy spell should be 20d6 instead of 10d6, but look what you can do. What makes no is the premise that epic damage-causing spells should be weaker than non-epic damage-causing spells. That undermines much of the epic-ness of epic spells. Epic spells should be truly powerful compared to non-epic spells--that's what makes them epic. Epic spells shouldn't advantage one type of caster, like conjurers, and disadvantage another, like evokers. Like I said, the cost of the casting time is the biggest hindrance I see. make that start at 1-action and you gain +10d6 damage right off the bat. ROB Yes, that one tweak would make a big difference for both damage-causing spells and damage-curing spells. The one problem with the damage-curing spells is that it's pretty much all-or-nothing: you either get your spell, usable during combat, that heals all damage, or you don't. The heal seed should probably be scaled too, like the underlying heal and mass heal spells. albeit scaled by DC like the energy seed rather than by level like the heal spells. Then there's an incentive along the line to develop progressively more powerful version. I see no good reason why Epic Spellcasting shouldn't be useful to a 21st-level character. I know that some of the people who post here regularly play with characters of 50th-level and so forth, but most players are lucky if they ever get to 21st level. It has taken 4 years in my campaign for a character to reach 21st-level, and I've been in only one campaign myself where the characters reached epic level (final level of my character was 26 or 27), and really that happened only because the DM gave out far too much treasure, allowing us to become really overpowered for our level and roll right through opponents that should have been well over our heads, granting us exceedingly high amounts of experience. So on those rare occasions when a character does get to 21st level, he should be able to gain some serious benefit from Epic Spellcasting. How perhaps as an intermediate change, instead of giving the energy and heal seeds a 1-action casting time, perhaps give them a 1-round casting time. I see that reducing casting time from 1 minute to 1 round increases the DC by 9 x 2 = 18. That's the equivalent of 9d6 for the energy seed. The decrease from 1 round to 1 action raises the DC another +20, which is your 10d6. So if you make the base casting time 1 round, you're actually allowing an extra 19d6. Making the base casting time 1 round would add only 9d6. Unless I'm reading this wrong. :P
Thorsbjorn 06-23-07, 02:09 AM	Wouldn't your view make metamagicked spells and ISC useless then? Having epic spells be more powerful than non-epic spells would make non-epic spells useless no more than having 9th-level spells makes having 7th-level spells useless. It's not an all-or-nothing proposition. :)
bluemage55 06-23-07, 02:18 AM	Your comparison is improper because regular magic diverges along two trees after 9th-level spells. One route is epic spells, and the other route is 10th+ spells. Both require equally great expenditures to pull off; while epic spells are a drain on wealth and experience points, truly effective 10+ spells require a massive devotion of feats. Epic spells are not simply superior to 10th+ magic, the way that 9th-level spells are superior to 7th-level spells. Both are progressions on different routes.
Thorsbjorn 06-23-07, 02:34 AM	Your comparison is improper because regular magic diverges along two trees after 9th-level spells. One route is epic spells, and the other route is 10th+ spells. Both require equally great expenditures to pull off; while epic spells are a drain on wealth and experience points, truly effective 10+ spells require a massive devotion of feats. Epic spells are not simply superior to 10th+ magic, the way that 9th-level spells are superior to 7th-level spells. Both are progressions on different routes. You're right, my comparison is weak, because epic level spells should overpower 9th-level spells more than 9th-level spells overpower 7th-level spells. Epic spells aren't merely superior, they are superior+. :P
Gemstone 06-23-07, 04:19 AM	Wouldn't your view make metamagicked spells and ISC useless then? Actually no. You can at max have 2 epic spells at level 21, and at 27, you can have 3. Spending a single spell just to deal damage is a huge expenditure of resources, but a viable one. You can still blast off with your normal spells, as they also deal a good deal of damage. But that epic spells are worse than normal spells at dealing damage is just ridiculus
Thorsbjorn 06-23-07, 08:34 AM	Actually no. You can at max have 2 epic spells at level 21, and at 27, you can have 3. Spending a single spell just to deal damage is a huge expenditure of resources, but a viable one. You can still blast off with your normal spells, as they also deal a good deal of damage. But that epic spells are worse than normal spells at dealing damage is just ridiculus I concur on both points. With 2 epic spells you're still going to need your regular spells for offensive power, and you're going to save your epic spells for when you really need the biggest bang for the buck.
SokenzanMarauder 06-23-07, 05:24 PM	I think I noticed a bit of an error on one of the epic feats you've got listed. I've bolded the questionable section: EPIC WEAPON SPECIALIZATION [EPIC] Choose one type of weapon for which you have already selected Greater Weapon Specialization. You can also choose unarmed strike or grapple as your weapon for purposes of this feat. Prerequisites: Proficiency, Epic Weapon Focus, Greater Weapon Focus, Greater Weapon Specialization, Weapon Focus, and Weapon Specialization with the weapon chosen, fighter level 20th. Benefit: Add a +4 bonus on all damage rolls you make using the selected weapon. This bonus stacks with other bonuses on attack rolls, including the bonuses from Weapon Specialization and Greater Weapon Specialization. Special: You can gain this feat multiple times. Its effects do not stack. Each time you take the feat, it applies to a new type of weapon. Shouldn't that be damage rolls? -Gene
Thorsbjorn 06-24-07, 07:08 AM	I think I noticed a bit of an error on one of the epic feats you've got listed. I've bolded the questionable section: Shouldn't that be damage rolls? -Gene Good proofreading catch! I wish more of my students would proofread their own papers as carefully. :P
bluemage55 06-24-07, 03:46 PM	Good catch. It has been fixed.
rob_douglas 06-25-07, 11:00 AM	Re: Epic Spellcasting, I don't think we are going to see a change here, as obviously we can't even agree what it should be. I do not see Epic Spellcasting as "better" than ISC - just different. If it was better, it wouldn't really be appropriate for anyone to take any other feat. It has to be a trade off to be balanced. Right now, at 21st level you have to think about whether or not you want to take Epic Spellcasting. It allows you to do things you CAN'T do with metamagicked spells, not the same things better. Wards against Disjunction, Destroy seeded with Dispels, truly massive areas of effect, Unsavable spells (because let's face it, no matter what metamagic you put on your blast spells, all I need at Epic is a nice slotless ring of evasion (80K) and I am probably taking 0 total damage), etc. I do think the base damage is too small, but that it scales at the right rate (though Bluemage is wrong that all "level-based" factors scale at +2 DC per level of effect - see Dispel). One point Thorssbjorn - I think that the DCs for speeding up casting that you have aren't right. The way I read it, you can go straight to Quickened for +28, straight to 1-action for +20, or reduce it by 1 round from 1 minute for +2 each (total +18 for a full-round casting). So to make a Quickened Fireball is only +28, not +66. I say that because it doesn't say that it must already be 1-action casting to be quickened, nor does it say it must be 1-round to be made 1-action. So that gives you a big boost over what you might have been thinking could be done. In general I think you should be able to apply a metamgic for +2*level adjustment as a factor, but I guess everyone would use maximize for +6 - which could increase more powerful spells too quickly. And I guess Intensify for +14 would defeat the purpose of the damage die increasing factors.... Again, I think that some of the base casting times make no sense. Afflict is the only one with a 1-action casting time. I don't see why. And it makes all combat related metamagic take +18 or more hit right off the bat. You are right that Heal needs to be scaled as was done in 3.5 - the Heal seed reflects 3.0 rules. It should be 150hp + 5hp/+1DC. And of course the Destroy seed should be base damage of 40d6 not 20d6 to match Disintegrate - and the DC should be 25, not 29, and it should do 5d6 not 1/2 on a successful save, and finally it should be +1d6 per +1DC - just as Disintegrate would be (not sure what to do about the if save succeeds damage - should be some way to increase it - maybe it just goes up +1 per d6 damage increase). ROB
bluemage55 06-25-07, 02:49 PM	Re: Epic Spellcasting, I don't think we are going to see a change here, as obviously we can't even agree what it should be. I do not see Epic Spellcasting as "better" than ISC - just different. If it was better, it wouldn't really be appropriate for anyone to take any other feat. It has to be a trade off to be balanced. Right now, at 21st level you have to think about whether or not you want to take Epic Spellcasting. It allows you to do things you CAN'T do with metamagicked spells, not the same things better. Wards against Disjunction, Destroy seeded with Dispels, truly massive areas of effect, Unsavable spells (because let's face it, no matter what metamagic you put on your blast spells, all I need at Epic is a nice slotless ring of evasion (80K) and I am probably taking 0 total damage), etc. Agreed. I do think the base damage is too small, but that it scales at the right rate (though Bluemage is wrong that all "level-based" factors scale at +2 DC per level of effect - see Dispel). I get the feeling that it the dispel seed is in error rather than this being intentional. Note that increasing a spell's resistance to dispelling is +2 per level. Should not the inverse have the same DC increase (and also be in line with the +1/level)? One point Thorssbjorn - I think that the DCs for speeding up casting that you have aren't right. The way I read it, you can go straight to Quickened for +28, straight to 1-action for +20, or reduce it by 1 round from 1 minute for +2 each (total +18 for a full-round casting). So to make a Quickened Fireball is only +28, not +66. I say that because it doesn't say that it must already be 1-action casting to be quickened, nor does it say it must be 1-round to be made 1-action. So that gives you a big boost over what you might have been thinking could be done. Agreed. The example epic spells with 1-action cast times use only +20, and the quickened spells use only +28. In general I think you should be able to apply a metamgic for +2*level adjustment as a factor, but I guess everyone would use maximize for +6 - which could increase more powerful spells too quickly. And I guess Intensify for +14 would defeat the purpose of the damage die increasing factors.... There's also the level-based effects from Lost Empires of Faerun . . . +2*level adjustment seems alright as a general rule, but I would generally not allow metamagic adjustments like this. Again, I think that some of the base casting times make no sense. Afflict is the only one with a 1-action casting time. I don't see why. And it makes all combat related metamagic take +18 or more hit right off the bat. Afflict should have a 1-action casting time like the rest of the seeds; this has already been addressed in my revisions. I believe the intention was for epic spells to have a more "ritually" feel to them, as the existing literature on epic spells (Elven High Magic, for the most part) generally characterized it as something you don't normally cast in the midst of combat. You are right that Heal needs to be scaled as was done in 3.5 - the Heal seed reflects 3.0 rules. It should be 150hp + 5hp/+1DC. Mostly agreed. I went with +10 hp/+2 DC as with all level-based factors in my revision. Then again, I guess there wouldn't be anything wrong with breaking it down to +5 hp/+1 DC. And of course the Destroy seed should be base damage of 40d6 not 20d6 to match Disintegrate - and the DC should be 25, not 29, and it should do 5d6 not 1/2 on a successful save, and finally it should be +1d6 per +1DC - just as Disintegrate would be (not sure what to do about the if save succeeds damage - should be some way to increase it - maybe it just goes up +1 per d6 damage increase). Agrred except for the damage increase, which should be +1d6 per +2 DC as with other level-based factors. Also, the range should be 300 ft. rather than 12,000 ft, and disintegration should occur at 0 hp rather than -10. I've added the destroy seed to the revisions.
rob_douglas 06-25-07, 03:28 PM	I get the feeling that it the dispel seed is in error rather than this being intentional. Note that increasing a spell's resistance to dispelling is +2 per level. Should not the inverse have the same DC increase (and also be in line with the +1/level)? Good point. Otherwise Epic Dispel will almost always work. It will anyway, since all you are putting into you Dispel is dispelling, but when you want to resist dispelling, you probably are doing a lot of other things with the DC, so you can't afford as much "protection". There's also the level-based effects from Lost Empires of Faerun . . . I never liked those - since I couldn't see any way they weren't strictly superior to the existing rules. Afflict should have a 1-action casting time like the rest of the seeds; this has already been addressed in my revisions. Do you mean 1 minute? I believe the intention was for epic spells to have a more "ritually" feel to them, as the existing literature on epic spells (Elven High Magic, for the most part) generally characterized it as something you don't normally cast in the midst of combat. I see that, but there is a fundamental difference between spells that can be used in combat and those that needn't. Heal, Afflict, Energy, Destroy are all most useful only in combat, whereas Fortify and Armor are better cast before combat as buffs. Buffs don't hurt from having a 1-minute casting time, but combat spells really do. So it seems undesireable if you actually want some combat spells to be useful. Clearly an improvement on Mass Heal is supposed to use the Heal seed, but adding +20 to get 1-action, +20 for +100 hp, and +44 for 4 additional targets within 300 ft., that is a seriously costly Mass Heal. Mostly agreed. I went with +10 hp/+2 DC as with all level-based factors in my revision. Then again, I guess there wouldn't be anything wrong with breaking it down to +5 hp/+1 DC. I figured go for +1 DC where you can, sometimes is makes a difference. Agrred except for the damage increase, which should be +1d6 per +2 DC as with other level-based factors. Disintegrate is +2d6 per level, so I went with +2d6/+2DC or +1d6/+1. Also, the range should be 300 ft. rather than 12,000 ft, and disintegration should occur at 0 hp rather than -10. Agreed. ROB
bluemage55 06-25-07, 03:34 PM	Do you mean 1 minute? Err . . . yes. Disintegrate is +2d6 per level, so I went with +2d6/+2DC or +1d6/+1. I missed that. Fixed.
Thorsbjorn 06-26-07, 03:45 AM	Re: Epic Spellcasting, I don't think we are going to see a change here, as obviously we can't even agree what it should be. I do not see Epic Spellcasting as "better" than ISC - just different. If it was better, it wouldn't really be appropriate for anyone to take any other feat. It has to be a trade off to be balanced. Right now, at 21st level you have to think about whether or not you want to take Epic Spellcasting. It allows you to do things you CAN'T do with metamagicked spells, not the same things better. Wards against Disjunction, Destroy seeded with Dispels, truly massive areas of effect, Unsavable spells (because let's face it, no matter what metamagic you put on your blast spells, all I need at Epic is a nice slotless ring of evasion (80K) and I am probably taking 0 total damage), etc. I do think the base damage is too small, but that it scales at the right rate (though Bluemage is wrong that all "level-based" factors scale at +2 DC per level of effect - see Dispel). One point Thorssbjorn - I think that the DCs for speeding up casting that you have aren't right. The way I read it, you can go straight to Quickened for +28, straight to 1-action for +20, or reduce it by 1 round from 1 minute for +2 each (total +18 for a full-round casting). So to make a Quickened Fireball is only +28, not +66. I say that because it doesn't say that it must already be 1-action casting to be quickened, nor does it say it must be 1-round to be made 1-action. So that gives you a big boost over what you might have been thinking could be done. In general I think you should be able to apply a metamgic for +2*level adjustment as a factor, but I guess everyone would use maximize for +6 - which could increase more powerful spells too quickly. And I guess Intensify for +14 would defeat the purpose of the damage die increasing factors.... Again, I think that some of the base casting times make no sense. Afflict is the only one with a 1-action casting time. I don't see why. And it makes all combat related metamagic take +18 or more hit right off the bat. You are right that Heal needs to be scaled as was done in 3.5 - the Heal seed reflects 3.0 rules. It should be 150hp + 5hp/+1DC. And of course the Destroy seed should be base damage of 40d6 not 20d6 to match Disintegrate - and the DC should be 25, not 29, and it should do 5d6 not 1/2 on a successful save, and finally it should be +1d6 per +1DC - just as Disintegrate would be (not sure what to do about the if save succeeds damage - should be some way to increase it - maybe it just goes up +1 per d6 damage increase). ROB You might be right about the increases to DC for reducing casting time. As for the balance, remember that epic spells require large amounts of gold, time, and experience. ISC spells require nothing. So epic spells should be more powerful than ISC spell right off the bat, not less powerful than non-epic spells. So one of two things has to happen to achieve balance between epic spell see and ISC spells: either epic spells have to be free and automatic like non-epic spells, or epic spells need to be more powerful than ISC spells. Balanced epic spells would also, by the way, allow spellcasters who had not taken the metamagic route to compete successfully with spellcasters who had taken the metamagic route. There's no reason that metamagic should be the only way to deal out massive damage with spells at epic levels.
Gemstone 06-26-07, 04:57 AM	You might be right about the increases to DC for reducing casting time. As for the balance, remember that epic spells require large amounts of gold, time, and experience. ISC spells require nothing. So epic spells should be more powerful than ISC spell right off the bat, not less powerful than non-epic spells. So one of two things has to happen to achieve balance between epic spell see and ISC spells: either epic spells have to be free and automatic like non-epic spells, or epic spells need to be more powerful than ISC spells. Balanced epic spells would also, by the way, allow spellcasters who had not taken the metamagic route to compete successfully with spellcasters who had taken the metamagic route. There's no reason that metamagic should be the only way to deal out massive damage with spells at epic levels. Seconded! *Raises second hand* And thirded! wait... that doesn't work... right?
Thorsbjorn 06-26-07, 05:55 AM	Seconded! *Raises second hand* And thirded! wait... that doesn't work... right? Heh. :D Personally I prefer to keep the large costs and make the benefits greater than those of free ISC spells, so that epic spells are truly epic.
rob_douglas 06-29-07, 11:13 AM	Per discussion on another thread about druids.... There are several changes needed for the Paladin's Mount. First, is the summoning of the mount. This was added with 3.0, so should probably have been addressed in the 3.5 ELH Update - summoning once per day is a real detriment when there are likely many ways and times that the mount can be banished. It is a calling effect so at least it can't be dispelled. At Epic Levels, the paladin can summon his mount for 42 hours, but that won't help if it is banished. I believe that it should be able to summon an additional time at 21st and once more per 10 levels thereafter. The mounts increase in HD is also a problem. The last gain pre-epic is at 15th level, and the next is at 25th and every 5 levels there after - they gain +2HD/5 levels. A Druids animal companion gains 2HD/3 levels from 3rd on, the last pre-epic being at 18th, and gaining again at 21st. A Dire Tiger has 18HD at Druid20, and 20HD at Druid21. A Paladin's mount has 12HD from 15th-24th. The rate of gains also drops off significantly: 3, 3, 4, 10, 5, 5, 5... Paladin's mounts should gain +2 HD (and the other benefits) at 20th level, and then again every 3 levels thereafter. This however hits the same time as Epic Bonus feats. Perhaps 19th and every 3 levels would be better and remove many dead levels. If you don't like the 19th, at least make it 22nd and every 3. We should also have some rules for alternate mounts similar to the Druid's subtract some levels rule. A very young Gold Dragon mount might be -15. Celestial would be -1. I also think that mounts and familiar's intelligence should be limited by their master's intelligence. I don't like the idea of familiar's eclipsing them as they ultimately are tied together.... ROB
archerpwr 06-29-07, 01:56 PM	We should also have some rules for alternate mounts similar to the Druid's subtract some levels rule. A very young Gold Dragon mount might be -15. Celestial would be -1. I also think that mounts and familiar's intelligence should be limited by their master's intelligence. I don't like the idea of familiar's eclipsing them as they ultimately are tied together.... ROB There are rules/suggestions for alternative mounts in the DMG.
Amazing_Triangle 06-30-07, 09:17 PM	I have been combing my books and the internet trying to find the reference you have in this post: Epic Attack Bonus: The character can never have more than 4 attacks per round from BAB and EAB. Is this printed somewhere that I can reference it. I always assumed it was the rule that 4 was the limit. Can anyone tell me where this is written? {Excuse me for not reading every post after 5 pages of arguments I just wanted this simple answer :D }
Thorsbjorn 06-30-07, 10:47 PM	It is ironic that you should be the one to bring up the topic on logical fallacies, since you are clearly guilty of one yourself...:rolleyes: It is not your disagreement which makes you immature, but how you responded. Normally, I might make an exception for rude people who at least bring up a valid point, but seeing as to how your post contained neither, I see no reason you should even be entertained. I am not entirely sure what you mean by changing of epic bonuses, but this was a rule which has been in place ever since the ELH was printed. If you are unhappy, bring up this issue with wotc designers instead. And clearly, :censored: is not on the board filter list...:P Long time no see, runestar! It's good to see you back. I don't see AaronDireBear's logical fallacy, but I have to admit that I was too busy reporting him to the moderators for using :censored:, and I wish you hadn't repeated it, runestar, either. (I inserted the ":censored:" in place of the original offensive term.) I have to agree with runestar that your immaturity, AaronDireBear, comes not from disagreeing with someone but from your use of childish language.
runestar 06-30-07, 11:26 PM	I don't see AaronDireBear's logical fallacy, but I have to admit that I was too busy reporting him to the moderators for using , and I wish you hadn't repeated it, runestar, either. (I inserted the "" in place of the original offensive term.) AaronDireBear was suggesting that the reason as to why Bluemage called him immature was meant as some sort of personal attack, triggered by his displeasure from Aaron speaking up against him. This insinuates that Bluemage only accepts posts which supports his own stance, and frowns upon those which contradict him, sort of like an attempt to smear Bluemage's reputation. This is the logical fallacy, because I believe that it was not so much as to what Aaron said (although I do disagree with the accuracy of his statement), but how he said it. :)
Thorsbjorn 06-30-07, 11:45 PM	AaronDireBear was suggesting that the reason as to why Bluemage called him immature was meant as some sort of personal attack, triggered by his displeasure from Aaron speaking up against him. This insinuates that Bluemage only accepts posts which supports his own stance, and frowns upon those which contradict him, sort of like an attempt to smear Bluemage's reputation. This is the logical fallacy, because I believe that it was not so much as to what Aaron said (although I do disagree with the accuracy of his statement), but how he said it. :) Ah well in that case I don't think it's a logically fallacy, but I do agree that it's wrong. Whether or not Bluemage sometimes expresses displeasure at posts that disagree with him, in this case it's clear that Bluemage was criticizing how AaronDireBear disagreed rather than the disagreement itself. Bluemage also rightly pointed out that it's not he, but the Epic Level Handbook, that grants an epic bonus only every other level, so that criticizing Bluemage for incorporating that rule missed the point entirely. I might also add that since fighters, rangers and barbarians lose more under the epic bonus system than do druids and monks, singling druids and monks for this particular complaint also seems off base. We could disagree, furthermore, about whether AaronDireBear's offensive post was offensive because it was immature, or offensive for trivializing rape, but I think we agree that it was offensive and had no place here.
rob_douglas 07-01-07, 12:53 AM	I have been combing my books and the internet trying to find the reference you have in this post: Is this printed somewhere that I can reference it. I always assumed it was the rule that 4 was the limit. Can anyone tell me where this is written? Epic Level Handbook, pg. 7, Side Bar at the bottom entitled: Behind the Curtain: A Limit to Attacks and Saves. ROB
runestar 07-01-07, 01:20 AM	I don't really see anything wrong with allowing monk's belt to add uncapped wis mod to AC. Unless your wis is 32 or higher, you generally lose out to +5 mithral fullplate and +5 animated shield. The huge costs savings is one bothersome factor though.:(
Thorsbjorn 07-01-07, 01:51 AM	I don't really see anything wrong with allowing monk's belt to add uncapped wis mod to AC. Unless your wis is 32 or higher, you generally lose out to +5 mithral fullplate and +5 animated shield. The huge costs savings is one bothersome factor though.:( Where the heck was this whole debate on monks and monk-dips anyway? When OffensiveBear first posted I had no idea to what he was referring in the first place. If Bluemage hadn't posted in response I wouldn't have known that it referred to something he posted previously. I looked back a couple of pages quickly, but I didn't find the subject. I don't really see any problem with an uncapped monk's belt any more than I see problem with an uncapped monk Wisdom bonus to AC. In the party I run even the 20th level cleric has a better AC in +5 full plate because he has "only" a 28 Wisdom. Most likely he'll have to reach 36th level to get that 32 Wisdom, or 40th to get to 34 and have the belt give him a higher AC than +5 full plate and +5 shield. By then of course he could probably afford, oh, say +7 full plate and +7 shield, so he's have to wait additional levels to catch back up, by which time he could afford +9 ... etc.
runestar 07-01-07, 02:06 AM	Where the heck was this whole debate on monks and monk-dips anyway? When OffensiveBear first posted I had no idea to what he was referring in the first place. If Bluemage hadn't posted in response I wouldn't have known that it referred to something he posted previously. I looked back a couple of pages quickly, but I didn't find the subject. To be honest, I had no idea either. I simply assumed that there was some discussion pertaining to this in one of the pages (and I have no patience to slowly go back and sift out the relevant info) and simply took it from there.:P Don't tell me I have been taken for a ride?:embarrass
Thorsbjorn 07-01-07, 07:01 AM	To be honest, I had no idea either. I simply assumed that there was some discussion pertaining to this in one of the pages (and I have no patience to slowly go back and sift out the relevant info) and simply took it from there.:P Don't tell me I have been taken for a ride?:embarrass It looks like, while I was grabbing a couple of hours of sleep, the moderators swooped in and removed AaronDireBear's original offensive post, as well as the replies that either directly quoted his post or repeated the offensive language. Since I censored the term in my own post, my post actually survived! :D When I first read AaronDireBear's original post I had no idea to what, if anything, he was responding. It seemed completely out of the blue. When Bluemage responded it sounded like perhaps he thought AaronDireBear was responding to an old post of his, but perhaps not. I think that one of Rob's posts got deleted too, so I'm not sure but I think maybe he was the first to say something about limiting the monk's belt, but if that referred to an earlier post, I don't know which one. It sort of felt like I had arrived in the middle of a discussion and didn't know what people had said in the first half of the discussion. A quick perusal of the last couple of pages didn't reveal to me the first half either. Maybe Rob or Bluemage can shed some light on this mystery. :P
bluemage55 07-01-07, 09:02 PM	I don't really see anything wrong with allowing monk's belt to add uncapped wis mod to AC. Unless your wis is 32 or higher, you generally lose out to +5 mithral fullplate and +5 animated shield. The huge costs savings is one bothersome factor though.:( You're overlooking the fact that armor severely caps your Dex bonus too, so a character with high Dex and Wis would definitely not bother with armor. Not to mention that bracers of armor are better anyway, and that the monk's belt basically tacks on a huge amount of free AC on top of that.
rob_douglas 07-02-07, 10:50 AM	HI - to catch everyone up - I believed, because I didn't have enough information, that OffensiveBear was referring to a cap Bluemage has mentioned that he thought was a good idea for Monk AC. I just checked, and that is not in this thread, so I was wrong - apparently he was referring to the fix for Quivering Palm DC. We did have a discussion on Monk's Belt and AC, and my issue with it is that the best AC comes to non armor wearers at epic levels. This started with post 120, bottom of page 4 if you do 30 per page. it sums up everything - and why capping the Monk's belt is one solution to make armor viable at epic levels. ROB
bluemage55 07-02-07, 04:41 PM	HI - to catch everyone up - I believed, because I didn't have enough information, that OffensiveBear was referring to a cap Bluemage has mentioned that he thought was a good idea for Monk AC. I just checked, and that is not in this thread, so I was wrong - apparently he was referring to the fix for Quivering Palm DC. I doubt that too many people would dispute that fix, given that all DCs improve only by one-half level after 20th. We did have a discussion on Monk's Belt and AC, and my issue with it is that the best AC comes to non armor wearers at epic levels. This started with post 120, bottom of page 4 if you do 30 per page. it sums up everything - and why capping the Monk's belt is one solution to make armor viable at epic levels. Not to mention that the same cap also prevents the absurd 1-level dip into Monk for +10 AC.
Gemstone 07-02-07, 05:54 PM	HI - to catch everyone up - I believed, because I didn't have enough information, that OffensiveBear was referring to a cap Bluemage has mentioned that he thought was a good idea for Monk AC. I just checked, and that is not in this thread, so I was wrong - apparently he was referring to the fix for Quivering Palm DC. We did have a discussion on Monk's Belt and AC, and my issue with it is that the best AC comes to non armor wearers at epic levels. This started with post 120, bottom of page 4 if you do 30 per page. it sums up everything - and why capping the Monk's belt is one solution to make armor viable at epic levels. ROB My suggestion is that you put in a "Lesser", "normal" and "Greater" version of Monk's belt, with an add-on formulae of how to increase the wisdom AC. Perhaps half the cost of a normal AC boosting item perhaps? Maybe: Bonus^2 * 1500 gp or something
Thorsbjorn 07-02-07, 07:23 PM	HI - to catch everyone up - I believed, because I didn't have enough information, that OffensiveBear was referring to a cap Bluemage has mentioned that he thought was a good idea for Monk AC. I just checked, and that is not in this thread, so I was wrong - apparently he was referring to the fix for Quivering Palm DC. We did have a discussion on Monk's Belt and AC, and my issue with it is that the best AC comes to non armor wearers at epic levels. This started with post 120, bottom of page 4 if you do 30 per page. it sums up everything - and why capping the Monk's belt is one solution to make armor viable at epic levels. ROB I went back and reread post 120 and the posts that followed--I'd forgotten about the "medium armor doesn't equal a medium load" thing from the Monster Manual appendix with reference to flying creatures--and I see a mention of the monk's belt in post 120 but nothing in any of the posts about capping it. The only one who would get a really big benefit from a monk's belt in the current party in my campaign would be the cleric, who has a Wisdom bonus of +9. He wears +5 full plate armor, which grants him an AC bonus of 13, plus he gets a Dex bonus of +1 for a total of +14 to his AC. With a monk's belt he would get +9 for his Wisdom, +2 for his Dex, and +1 for the equivalent of a 5th-level monk for a total +12. So his AC would go down by 2 if he got a monk's belt and divested himself of his armor. He would also lose the electricity and fire resistance 10 that's on the armor. Can a monk get the benefit of his AC bonus while wearing bracers of armor? If so then he actually would have a much higher AC with the belt because he also has +8 bracers of armor that he wears at night to sleep and out on the sea. In that case he would actually have a total of +20 using the belt for a net gain of 6. Not to mention that the same cap also prevents the absurd 1-level dip into Monk for +10 AC. Are you talking about capping the monk's belt or the monk ability? This particular cleric is chaotic good so he couldn't take a level of monk anyway, but if someone already had the belt then taking 1 level of monk wouldn't change the AC at all.
Krispieman 07-02-07, 08:47 PM	While working on some Intelligent items for my epic campaign, I noticed that the rules for Epic intelligent items have never been updated to 3.5. The SRD doesn't mention them at all, and the ELH is quite out of sink with the 3.5 DMG. Therefore I started working on some stuff myself, which I present here for further discussion and approval (it's a work in progress..)Epic Item Intelligence, Wisdom, Charisma and Capabilities [d%] [Mental Ability Scores] [Communication] [Powers] [Senses] [Base Price Modifier] 01 --- --- --- --- -{Roll on table 7-30 of the DMG}- --- --- --- --- 02-36 Two at 18, one at 14 Speech One lesser, one regular, one greater 100 ft. darkvision and hearing +8.000gp 37-58 Two at 19, one at 14 Speech Two lesser, one regular, one greater 120 ft. darkvision and hearing +9.000gp 59-72 Two at 20, one at 15 Speech Two lesser, two regular, one greater 150 ft. darkvision and hearing +10.500gp 73-81 Two at 21, one at 15 Speech Three lesser, two regular, two greater 100 ft. blindsense, darkvision and hearing +13.000gp 82-87 Two at 22, one at 16 Speech Three lesser, three regular, two greater 120 ft. blindsense, darkvision and hearing +16.000gp 88-91 Two at 23, one at 16 Speech, telepathy Four lesser, three regular, two greater 150 ft. blindsense, darkvision and hearing +20.000gp 92-94 Two at 24, one at 17 Speech, telepathy Four lesser, four regular, three greater 100 ft. blindsight, darkvision and hearing +24.500gp 95-97 Two at 25, one at 17 Speech, telepathy Five lesser, four regular, three greater 120 ft. blindsight, darkvision and hearing +30.000gp 98-99 Two at 26, one at 18 Speech, telepathy Five lesser, five regular, three greater 150 ft. blindsight, darkvision and hearing +36.000gp 100 Two at 27, one at 18 Speech, telepathy Six lesser, five regular, four greater 180 ft. blindsight, darkvision and hearing +43.000gp All items can read any language it can speak and if it has Telepathy, it can also use read magic at will.All Lesser Powers are at minimum caster level.[d%] [Lesser Power] [Base Price Modifier] 01-02 --- -{Roll on table 'Intelligent Item Lesser Powers', p 269 of the DMG}- --- 03-05 Wielder has free use of Blind-Fight +10.000gp 06-08 Wielder has free use of Combat Expertise +10.000gp 09-11 Wielder has free use of Combat Reflexes +10.000gp 12-14 Wielder has free use of Improved Initiative +10.000gp 15-18 Item can cast Daylight 2/day +11.000gp 19-22 Item can cast Deeper Darkness 2/day +11.000gp 23-25 Wielder has free use of Improved Disarm +15.000gp 26-28 Wielder has free use of Improved Sunder +15.000gp 29-31 Wielder has free use of Improved Trip +15.000gp 32-34 Wielder has free use of Mobility +15.000gp 35-38 Item can cast Neutralize Poison on wielder 3/day +16.000gp 39-42 Item can cast Remove Blindness/Deafness on wielder 3/day +16.000gp 43-46 Item can cast Remove Curse on wielder 3/day +16.000gp 47-50 Item can cast Remove Disease on wielder 3/day +16.000gp 51-53 Item has 20 ranks in Appraise +20.000gp 54-56 Item has 20 ranks in Bluff +20.000gp 57-59 Item has 20 ranks in Decipher Script +20.000gp 60-62 Item has 20 ranks in Diplomacy +20.000gp 63-65 Item has 20 ranks in Heal +20.000gp 66-68 Item has 20 ranks in Intimidate +20.000gp 69-71 Item has 20 ranks in Knowledge (any) +20.000gp 72-74 Item has 20 ranks in Listen +20.000gp 75-77 Item has 20 ranks in Perform (any) +20.000gp 78-80 Item has 20 ranks in Search +20.000gp 81-83 Item has 20 ranks in Sense Motive +20.000gp 84-86 Item has 20 ranks in Spellcraft +20.000gp 87-89 Item has 20 ranks in Spot +20.000gp 90-92 Item has 20 ranks in Survival +20.000gp 93-96 Item can cast Restoration on wielder 2/day +25.000gp 97-100 Item can cast Air Walk on wielder 3/day +30.000gpAll Regular Powers are at minimum caster level, unless otherwise noted.[d%] [Regular Power] [Base Price Modifier] 01-03 --- -{Roll on table 'Intelligent Item Greater Powers', p 270 of the DMG}- --- 04-08 Wielder has free use of Evasion +35.000gp 09-13 Wielder does not need to breath, drink, eat or sleep +35.000gp 14-18 Item can cast Cone of Cold (20d6) 1/day +36.000gp 19-22 Wielder benefits from a continuous Freedom of Movement +40.000gp 23-27 Item can cast Greater Dispel Magic (CL 20) 1/day +43.000gp 28-32 Item can cast Disintegrate (40d6) 1/day +43.000gp 33-37 Item can cast Greater Command 3/day +49.000gp 38-42 Item can cast Hold Monster 3/day +49.000gp 43-47 Item can cast Fire Storm (20d6) 1/day +50.000gp 48-52 Item can cast Divine Power (CL 20)] on wielder 2/day +58.000gp 53-56 Wielder benefits from a continuous Gaseous Form +60.000gp 57-61 Item can Heal (150hp) 2/day +65.000gp 62-66 Item can cast Greater Teleport on wielder 2/day +66.000gp 67-71 Item can cast Cone of Cold (20d6) 2/day +72.000gp 72-76 Wielder benefits from a continuous Shield of Faith (CL 18) +72.000gp 77-81 Item can cast Divine Power (CL 20) on wielder 3/day +86.000gp 82-85 Item can cast Disintegrate (40d6) 2/day +86.000gp 86-90 Item can cast Greater Dispel Magic (CL 20) 2/day +86.000gp 91-95 Item can Heal (150hp) 3/day +97.000gp 96-100 Item can cast Greater Teleport on wielder 3/day +98.000gp[d%] [Greater Power] [CL] [Base Price Modifier] 01-04 Item can cast Mindblank on the wielder 1/day 30 +86.000gp 05-09 Wielder has free use of Damage Reduction +100.000gp 10-13 Wielder has free use of Dire Charge +100.000gp 14-17 Wielder has free use of Fast Healing +100.000gp 18-22 Wielder has free use of Improved Combat Reflexes +100.000gp 23-26 Wielder has free use of Superior Initiative +100.000gp 27-30 Item can cast Limited Wish 1/day 13 +108.000gp 31-35 Item can cast Dominate Monster (DC 19+) 2/day 17 +110.000gp 36-39 Wielder benefits from a continuous Death Ward 7 +112.000gp 40-44 Item can cast Earthquake 3/day 15 +130.000gp 45-48 Item can cast Astral Projection on the wielder 1/day 30 +147.000gp 49-52 Wielder has free use of Epic Fortitude +150.000gp 53-57 Wielder has free use of Epic Reflexes +150.000gp 58-61 Wielder has free use of Epic Will +150.000gp 62-65 Item can cast Horrid Wilting [intensified = 240 damage] (DC 18+) 1/day 30 +162.000gp 66-70 Item can cast Implosion [heightened to 15th level] (DC 25+) 1/day 30 +162.000gp 71-74 Item can cast Mass Heal (250hp) 2/day 25 +162.000gp 75-78 Item can cast Polar Ray [intensified = 300 damage] 1/day 30 +162.000gp 79-83 Item can cast Time Stop 3/day 17 +165.000gp 84-87 Wielder benefits from a continuous True Seeing 9 +180.000gp 88-91 Item can activate Fire Shield at will 7 +202.000gp 92-96 Item can activate Greater Invisibility at will 7 +202.000gp 97-100 Item can cast Foresight [extended] on the wielder 2/day 30 +216.000gp -{Under Construction}-K-man :cool:
Thorsbjorn 07-02-07, 11:13 PM	The SRD doesn't mention them at all, and the ELH is quite out of sink with the 3.5 DMG. Well if it's out of sink maybe it could go to Home Depot and get a new one. :P
bluemage55 07-03-07, 02:41 AM	My suggestion is that you put in a "Lesser", "normal" and "Greater" version of Monk's belt, with an add-on formulae of how to increase the wisdom AC. Perhaps half the cost of a normal AC boosting item perhaps? Maybe: Bonus^2 * 1500 gp or something The appropriate formula is the existing "price increases exponentially as effect and CL increase linearly". Thus, a regular monk's belt gives you +5 bonus monk levels for AC/damage and 1 extra stun attempt for 13,000 gp and CL 10th, a double-strength version gives you +10 bonus monk levels for AC/damage and 2 extra stuns for 52,000 gp and CL 20th, a triple-strength version gives you +15 bonus monk levels for AC/damage and 3 extra stuns for 1,170,000 gp (epic pricing for over 20th level) and CL 30th.
bluemage55 07-03-07, 02:43 AM	Can a monk get the benefit of his AC bonus while wearing bracers of armor? If so then he actually would have a much higher AC with the belt because he also has +8 bracers of armor that he wears at night to sleep and out on the sea. In that case he would actually have a total of +20 using the belt for a net gain of 6. The monk can indeed do that. Are you talking about capping the monk's belt or the monk ability? This particular cleric is chaotic good so he couldn't take a level of monk anyway, but if someone already had the belt then taking 1 level of monk wouldn't change the AC at all. As shown on page 1, the revision is to the monk ability itself, but the monk's belt is affected by the same revision. Since my revision limits a monk's AC bonus from Wisdom to their class level, a standard monk's belt would allow a maximum of +5 AC from Wis.
runestar 07-03-07, 06:44 AM	Since my revision limits a monk's AC bonus from Wisdom to their class level, a standard monk's belt would allow a maximum of +5 AC from Wis. Won't this make the monk suck at low lvs? A monk with 16 dex/wis (already considered generous under point buy) still starts off with only AC: 16 (though it can be boosted to 20 with mage armour). Under your houserule, a 1st lv monk only has an AC of 14. Doesn't seem like he will survive very well...:( You're overlooking the fact that armor severely caps your Dex bonus too, so a character with high Dex and Wis would definitely not bother with armor. Not to mention that bracers of armor are better anyway, and that the monk's belt basically tacks on a huge amount of free AC on top of that. And I am quite curious as to what sort of classes would have the high dex/wis scores anyways to be able to benefit from this?:confused: The only thing which comes to mind is the pit fiend. Throw it a monk's belt, and it gets an AC of 49, or 53 with unholy aura. Balors come in a close 2nd, followed somewhat behind with dragons.
Thorsbjorn 07-03-07, 07:50 AM	Won't this make the monk suck at low lvs? A monk with 16 dex/wis (already considered generous under point buy) still starts off with only AC: 16 (though it can be boosted to 20 with mage armour). Under your houserule, a 1st lv monk only has an AC of 14. Doesn't seem like he will survive very well...:( Unless I misunderstand Bluemage, his limit applies only to the Wisdom bonus to AC that's specific to the monk, not to the Dex bonus to AC that's general to everyone. The monk in your example would get only a +3 bonus to AC from Wisdom and thus not come up against the limit of +5, so he would still have an AC of 16. And I am quite curious as to what sort of classes would have the high dex/wis scores anyways to be able to benefit from this?:confused: I have to agree. In the case of the cleric in my campaign, with a monk's belt he would still short of the AC he would get with +5 full plate and +5 heavy shield, and he would still loses the electricity resistance 10 and the fire resistance 10. He's an unusual cleric in that as a cleric of Thor in my campaign he gets Weapon Proficiency (great hammer) and Weapon Focus (great hammer) with the war domain, so he uses a two-handed weapon when he fights. (Most clerics of Thor in most campaigns are limited to the weenie war hammer and use shields.) But when he's casting spells, which he does most of the time, he uses a shield. I guess too in your campaigns that everyone has an animated shield so the issue of losing a shield for a two-handed weapon doesn't arise anyway. So I don't really see a problem with the monk's belt, or even, for that matter with the monk getting the full benefit of his Wisdom score. The only thing which comes to mind is the pit fiend. Throw it a monk's belt, and it gets an AC of 49, or 53 with unholy aura. Balors come in a close 2nd, followed somewhat behind with dragons. I wouldn't let a balor use one because his fire (immolation) would destroy it in short order. The pit fiend description says that it's wreathed in flame, but it gets no benefit from that flame, so I'd probably let one use a monk's belt. Of course I wouldn't give every single pit fiend a monk's belt. :P
Balthanon 07-03-07, 09:41 AM	The only thing which comes to mind is the pit fiend. Throw it a monk's belt, and it gets an AC of 49, or 53 with unholy aura. Balors come in a close 2nd, followed somewhat behind with dragons. Personally, I don't think balancing NPC/monsters should be considered when it comes to magic items. Those are first and foremost a PC's domain and the DM is responsible for ensuring that encounters are balanced-- if having a Wisdom bonus to AC would throw it off too much, then it simply shouldn't be used. That said, for my own games, the monk's belt doesn't give the Wisdom bonus to AC anyway, so it's not really a concern for me. In terms of the costs associated with the level of monk versus full plate and shield, I was playing around with the costs last night and with a 16 and 14 in Wis and Dex respectively, it is possible to get a bit higher with pre-epic costs, though you are spending a lot more on the Wis to AC. Getting up into actually using epic items though, the costs do turn around eventually-- I think it was at +11 full plate (mithral, nimbleness to start-- the shield eventually cancelled out the bracers of armor) where it broke even. To me, that isn't really a major problem, since it was also at level 40 or so and sacrificing a caster level.
rob_douglas 07-03-07, 10:09 AM	The issue with AC occurs most prominently when you add in +5 inherent bonuses for Dex and Wis, and +6 items. Say you have a fighter with 10 Wis and Dex. He only needs +4 Gloves of Dex to max out his AC with Mithral full plate +5, +5 shield. AC32, not including protection and natural, and other stuff that he could get regardless of which approach he uses. With the Monk's belt, Items of +6, and +5 inherent, and bracers +10, he gets AC31. And technically he could also get a Robe +1 of Heavy Fortification, Soulfire, and all 5 Energy Resistances 30. Given that the Fighter could probably swing something > 10 in Dex or Wis to start, and/or gets +1 to either, he gains +1 AC. Also, he can benefit from a Shield spell, which would be trivial to make available for every fight, granting +4 more to AC. Sure, it costs more - before Epic levels, this is not much of a problem, as armor is a better way to get your AC and special abilities cheaper. But once you hit epic, it is cheaper to increase you AC this way than to pay for +6 armor and shields. This was really what bothered me. To say nothing of how valuable such a thing is to a wizard or sorcerer, who couldn't wear armor anyway, but with a monk's belt costing only 13,000gp can gain a nice +6 or more to AC. As for level dipping - sure, in game the Lawful alignment makes some characters not choose it for role-playing reasons, but the alignment restriction is not a real game mechanical limitation. Anyone could say they were lawful long enough to become a monk, and now they aren't. ROB
Thorsbjorn 07-03-07, 11:08 AM	The issue with AC occurs most prominently when you add in +5 inherent bonuses for Dex and Wis, and +6 items. Say you have a fighter with 10 Wis and Dex. He only needs +4 Gloves of Dex to max out his AC with Mithral full plate +5, +5 shield. AC32, not including protection and natural, and other stuff that he could get regardless of which approach he uses. With the Monk's belt, Items of +6, and +5 inherent, and bracers +10, he gets AC31. And technically he could also get a Robe +1 of Heavy Fortification, Soulfire, and all 5 Energy Resistances 30. Given that the Fighter could probably swing something > 10 in Dex or Wis to start, and/or gets +1 to either, he gains +1 AC. Also, he can benefit from a Shield spell, which would be trivial to make available for every fight, granting +4 more to AC. Sure, it costs more - before Epic levels, this is not much of a problem, as armor is a better way to get your AC and special abilities cheaper. But once you hit epic, it is cheaper to increase you AC this way than to pay for +6 armor and shields. This was really what bothered me. To say nothing of how valuable such a thing is to a wizard or sorcerer, who couldn't wear armor anyway, but with a monk's belt costing only 13,000gp can gain a nice +6 or more to AC. As for level dipping - sure, in game the Lawful alignment makes some characters not choose it for role-playing reasons, but the alignment restriction is not a real game mechanical limitation. Anyone could say they were lawful long enough to become a monk, and now they aren't. ROB I have to disagree. A cleric of a chaotic god cannot become lawful briefly to "dip" into monk. Neither can characters with barbarian rage. I've found, furthermore, a marked reluctance among players to play lawful characters. There isn't a single lawful character in my current campaign. There was a paladin for a while, but dipping into monk wasn't an option for him. There was also a nindurai (a base class in my campaign that combines aspect of samurai and kensai), but that class is specifically designed to allow taking monk levels. He did take a dip into monk and it increased his AC by a whopping +2 as he chose the air warrior route and didn't wear any armor. Despite the +2 from his level of monk he always suffered with a lower AC than the other melee specialists in the party who ran around in armor. Beyond that, I'd say that if a player plays his character as non-lawful and suddenly claims to have shifted to law in order to take a level as a monk, but isn't really shifting, I simply wouldn't allow the character to take the monk level, whatever the player says. I have to confess that I haven't ever had this problem, but rather than modifying the rules to punish a whole character class, just impose the restraint on these munchkins youself (or don't let them play in your group).
Balthanon 07-03-07, 12:13 PM	Alignment isn't really an issue in my mind-- Wisdom to AC is available fairly readily. There are variants on monk that work for chaotic people, or ninja levels, etc.... When I was comparing armor versus monk's AC (again, not taking into account the monk's belt as an option personally), I was just doing very high level comparisons. I basically compared the cost of increasing Dexterity and bracers of armor to the cost of full plate and a shield-- those are the "basics" in my mind, with most other bonuses possible for each to gain. I assumed this was going to be on a character that was exclusively increasing Wisdom (i.e. a cleric) and so I ignored the costs associated with increasing Wisdom since it would be taking place regardless. I just sketched it out quickly, so it probably isn't accurate, but like I said, the costs didn't offset the initial pre-epic expenditure until about a +10 or +11 suit of full plate, which I assumed was at least 20 or 30 levels into epic if you were also increasing other aspects of AC. (It also didn't take into account shield and the monk's belt at the time-- that would move things up if you were trying to keep the ACs the same.) Of course, personally, I've had exactly one character that actually wore full plate in about 8 years-- I've always put a lot of weight on the mobility you lose with heavy armor. So there are other considerations to add to the comparison, however, in general, I don't see limiting class abilities that were given no caps in pre-epic like that. Honestly, if a limit were going to be put into effect for something like the monk's AC or the paladin's saves, I would say cap it at the "pre-epic" standard stat limits (18+5+6+2+5=36) without extra levels. Ultimately though, this is bluemage55's thread, and I don't have a problem taking what I feel should be implemented and leaving the rest-- this isn't an official errata document, just suggested fixes for epic level.
Thorsbjorn 07-03-07, 01:02 PM	You know, I completely forgot the cleric in my campaign has a +6 belt of giant strength anyway, so he doesn't have room for a monk's belt.
Balthanon 07-03-07, 01:40 PM	You know, I completely forgot the cleric in my campaign has a +6 belt of giant strength anyway, so he doesn't have room for a monk's belt. Since the Magic Item Compendium came out, he could just add +6 Str to a monk's belt anyway-- it doesn't cost more than buying the belt on its own.
Thorsbjorn 07-03-07, 08:43 PM	Since the Magic Item Compendium came out, he could just add +6 Str to a monk's belt anyway-- it doesn't cost more than buying the belt on its own. I don't know what you're talking about. You could always have added to a monk's belt a +6 enhancement bonus to Strength under the item creation rules going back to 3.0. It just costs 50% more. Does the Magic Item Compendium have some new munchkin rule that lets you add a +6 enhancement bonus to Strength for free?! :confused: In the case of this specific cleric, he specifically needs a belt of giant strength go to along with his gauntlets of ogre power and hammer of thunderbolts. While I'd probably allow him got get a Dexterity enhancement added to his gauntlets, I wouldn't let him add the monk's belt abilities to his belt of giant strength. The monk's belt just differs too much from the belt of giant strength.
Balthanon 07-03-07, 09:44 PM	I don't know what you're talking about. You could always have added to a monk's belt a +6 enhancement bonus to Strength under the item creation rules going back to 3.0. It just costs 50% more. Does the Magic Item Compendium have some new munchkin rule that lets you add a +6 enhancement bonus to Strength for free?! :confused: Yes. The Magic Item Compendium revised the rules for several of the "core" benefits for which people use magic items. Things like ability bonuses, resistance bonuses, energy resistance, etc... can be added to other items without the old 50% increase in cost. The reasoning behind the change, and I think it is valid, is that this allows players to pick up magic items that are perhaps a bit more flavorful, but just can't be afforded due to the opportunity cost of losing something like a +5 resistance bonus. While it introduces some power creep (presumably the "munchkin rule" part), I think it does make it possible to pick up interesting magic items that you might have ignored completely before this.
Thorsbjorn 07-03-07, 09:54 PM	Yes. The Magic Item Compendium revised the rules for several of the "core" benefits for which people use magic items. Things like ability bonuses, resistance bonuses, energy resistance, etc... can be added to other items without the old 50% increase in cost. The reasoning behind the change, and I think it is valid, is that this allows players to pick up magic items that are perhaps a bit more flavorful, but just can't be afforded due to the opportunity cost of losing something like a +5 resistance bonus. While it introduces some power creep (presumably the "munchkin rule" part), I think it does make it possible to pick up interesting magic items that you might have ignored completely before this. The problem then lies in the new munchkin rule, not in the old monk's belt or the monk ability.
runestar 07-03-07, 11:06 PM	Well, I suppose a lawful wizard might be willing to start off as a monk with the kung-fu genius feat to get int mod to AC...:) The scenarios where this is game-breaking seem few and far apart indeed.
bluemage55 07-04-07, 10:27 PM	Keep in mind that characters who use armor do not benefit from their Dexterity scores, and suffer speed penalties, ASF, armor check penalties. With the combination of bracers of armor, a monk's belt, and Dex/Wis boosting, you get far better AC than using armor. A character wearing Full Plate +5 and Shield +5, for example, gets a +13 armor bonus and a +7 shield bonus, and can benefit from an additional +1 bonus if they have 12 or more Dex. The total benefit is +21. A character with bracers of armor +10, a constant shield spell, a double-strength monk's belt, and at least a total of +5 from Dex and Wis will have an equal AC, but does not suffer from the disadvantages of armor, and has a significantly higher touch attack AC and AC against incorporeal attacks. As Dex and Wis go up, it's impossible for real magical armor to keep up, and wearing true armor actually reduces your armor class, in addition to its penalties.
bluemage55 07-04-07, 10:32 PM	Won't this make the monk suck at low lvs? A monk with 16 dex/wis (already considered generous under point buy) still starts off with only AC: 16 (though it can be boosted to 20 with mage armour). Under your houserule, a 1st lv monk only has an AC of 14. Doesn't seem like he will survive very well...:( A 1st-level monk, following standard point-buy, can be expected to have 15 Wis and 14 Dex. This means that post-errata, his AC is only dropping by one point, to AC 13 instead of AC 14 (but it's really going to be AC 18 dropping to AC 17, since mage armor is always crucial to the low-level monk's survival).
Balthanon 07-04-07, 10:53 PM	Keep in mind that characters who use armor do not benefit from their Dexterity scores, and suffer speed penalties, ASF, armor check penalties. ... A character with bracers of armor +10, a constant shield spell, a double-strength monk's belt, and at least a total of +5 from Dex and Wis will have an equal AC, but does not suffer from the disadvantages of armor, and has a significantly higher touch attack AC and AC against incorporeal attacks. You're comparing regular magic items with epic magic items and custom spells/magic items here-- that doesn't really show the problem in the best light. Prior to higher epic levels, I honestly don't think this is a problem, period. There are specific characters that are going to have an advantage using this-- but other characters will benefit from the armor route. Getting into higher epic levels, it starts overtaking the standard armor set-- but again, only for specific characters that rely upon Wisdom or Dexterity. They will have an advantage later on, but at lower levels, the two have their advantages and disadvantages. (For instance, being flat-footed-- which can cause significant difficulty for a character relying on their Dexterity.) And at higher levels, the most significant weaknesses can usually be overcome (for instance, the movement speed penalty being negated or offset by a high fly speed.) Also, for early levels, you're basing the monk's ability scores on a 25 point buy-- 4d6 is the default and 28 and 32 seem far more common than 25 for point buy. This could significantly drop a monk's AC in that area.
bluemage55 07-05-07, 02:32 AM	You're comparing regular magic items with epic magic items and custom spells/magic items here-- that doesn't really show the problem in the best light. Prior to higher epic levels, I honestly don't think this is a problem, period. There are specific characters that are going to have an advantage using this-- but other characters will benefit from the armor route. Getting into higher epic levels, it starts overtaking the standard armor set-- but again, only for specific characters that rely upon Wisdom or Dexterity. None of the items I suggested are epic. Additionally, a character with 10 Dex and Wis and +6 enhancement bonuses on both wind up with higher AC by going with the unarmored route. Also, for early levels, you're basing the monk's ability scores on a 25 point buy-- 4d6 is the default and 28 and 32 seem far more common than 25 for point buy. This could significantly drop a monk's AC in that area. The default is 4d6 drop lowest die, which results in average results of 15, 14, 13, 12, 10, 8, which is the same as 25-point buy.
Thorsbjorn 07-05-07, 03:39 AM	Well, I suppose a lawful wizard might be willing to start off as a monk with the kung-fu genius feat to get int mod to AC...:) The scenarios where this is game-breaking seem few and far apart indeed. I concur. If a player abuses some rule, just don't let the player do it, rather than radically altering the rule. There's always going to be some player somewhere who finds an abuse you didn't consider in advance. :)
Krispieman 07-05-07, 06:38 AM	Oddly enough, the only player in my campaign who uses a monk's belt is the monk himself. At level 21: the 16 Dex, 32 Wis priest actually uses a mithril shirt +5, ring of protection +5, +4 buckler, +4 defending mace and a dusty rose ioun stone for a total AC of 34 (+9armor, +5deflection, +5shield, +4defending, +1insight), and the 21 Dex, 22 Wis Druid, while actually having a monk's belt, doesn't use it much, as most of the time he's shifted into another form that doesn't allow for magic items to function. Though, while we're discussing it, maybe we should consider naming the monk's bonuses to AC, because as it stands the Wisdom bonus (which I think is the main problem) is nameless, and while changing it to an insight bonus, probably the most logical choice, won't solve much it does add to consistency and disallows a select few options to AC enhancement like the dusty rose ioun stone. Oh, and if anyone has some spare time, please take a look at my intelligent epic item suggestions. Would be nice to know what others think before I start using it IMC. K-man :cool:
Balthanon 07-05-07, 12:10 PM	None of the items I suggested are epic. Additionally, a character with 10 Dex and Wis and +6 enhancement bonuses on both wind up with higher AC by going with the unarmored route. You used +10 bracers of armor in your example, those are epic. Plus a double strength monk's belt, which presumably means as a 10th level monk rather than 5th (not epic, but definitely custom). The permanent shield spell is also difficult to pull off unless you are an arcane caster or have decent ranks in Use Magic Device, since shield is a personal spell and (I believe) can't be brewed. A character with 10 Dex and Wis and +6 enhancement bonus items plus bracers of armor will have 6 (ability bonuses) + 8 (bracers) + 4 (shield spell, maybe) for a total of 28 AC prior to other types. (29 if using a standard monk's belt, rather than a single level of monk.) A character with 10 Dex and Wis and +5 mithril full plate, enhancement bonus item for Dex, and a +5 heavy shield will have 3 (dex) + 13 (full plate) + 7 (shield) for a total of 33. With approximately 36,000 more to spend on other items. Unless I missed something, that doesn't leave him with a lower AC unless you're talking about touch AC.
runestar 07-05-07, 12:54 PM	You used +10 bracers of armor in your example, those are epic. To be fair, I think it is still debatable if bracers of armour +10 are epic or not. The DMG lists bracers only up to +8, but the ELH/SRD lists epic bracers of armour from +11 onwards, so the status of bracers of armour +9 and +10 are currently unknown at the moment. It can be argued either way.:)
Thorsbjorn 07-05-07, 01:52 PM	To be fair, I think it is still debatable if bracers of armour +10 are epic or not. The DMG lists bracers only up to +8, but the ELH/SRD lists epic bracers of armour from +11 onwards, so the status of bracers of armour +9 and +10 are currently unknown at the moment. It can be argued either way.:) Given the sloppy nature of the ELH, I'd put more weight on the DMG ending at +8 bracers than the ELH starting at +10 bracers, and start epic at anything above +8. :)
bluemage55 07-05-07, 03:46 PM	The DMG does not have to list all items that are possible under the non-epic rules. The fact is that bracers of armor +10 are not classified as epic by the ELH, and they have been present on high-level NPCs equipped without epic items (as the epic pricing would generally put it beyond their wealth when it is added to their other possessions). I miscalculated the total possible AC for a character using full plate, by disregarding mithral armor. With mithral in the mix, you actually need a total of +7 from Dex/Wis to have equal AC.
Thorsbjorn 07-05-07, 06:21 PM	The DMG does not have to list all items that are possible under the non-epic rules. The fact is that bracers of armor +10 are not classified as epic by the ELH, and they have been present on high-level NPCs equipped without epic items (as the epic pricing would generally put it beyond their wealth when it is added to their other possessions). I miscalculated the total possible AC for a character using full plate, by disregarding mithral armor. With mithral in the mix, you actually need a total of +7 from Dex/Wis to have equal AC. That fact is that you of all people know that the ELH is so sloppy that we can't rely on it. I see no reason to assume that the limits for bracer of armor bonuses listed in the DMG aren't the upper limits. If bracers with +9 and +10 bonuses weren't epic, they easily would have fit under the non-epic price limits. Where are these non-epic NPCs with +9 or +10 bracers?
bluemage55 07-05-07, 08:55 PM	Don't forget that the key limitation on the bracers, like the limitation on everything else, is caster level. Enhancement bonuses cap at +6 because you need to have a CL three times as much as the bonus you want. +7 would require CL 21, which is epic. SR caps at 32 (even though it does not use epic pricing, an epic crafting feat is still required) because maximum SR = CL +12. Likewise, bracers cap at +10 because you would need to have a CL of 22 for a +11 bonus.
Thorsbjorn 07-05-07, 09:08 PM	Don't forget that the key limitation on the bracers, like the limitation on everything else, is caster level. Enhancement bonuses cap at +6 because you need to have a CL three times as much as the bonus you want. +7 would require CL 21, which is epic. SR caps at 32 (even though it does not use epic pricing, an epic crafting feat is still required) because maximum SR = CL +12. Likewise, bracers cap at +10 because you would need to have a CL of 22 for a +11 bonus. That's a good argument. I still won't allow bracers with greater than a +8 bonus without an epic feat and epic pricing until such time that I see an official ruling to that effect, and making +9 and greater epic would also reduce your monk/monk's belt problem a tiny bit too. I think the problem's grossly overblown and haven't experienced it in any game. Monks, on the contrary, most often have serious trouble keeping up with the melee specialists who use armor and shields.
runestar 07-05-07, 11:29 PM	The epic item SRD also has the following checklist on what constitutes an epic item... • Grants a bonus on attacks or damage greater than +5. • Grants an enhancement bonus to armor higher than +5. • Has a special ability with a market price modifier greater than +5. • Grants an armor bonus of greater than +10 (not including magic armor’s enhancement bonus). • Grants a natural armor, deflection, or resistance bonus greater than +5. • Grants an enhancement bonus to an ability score greater than +6. • Grants an enhancement bonus on a skill check greater than +30. • Mimics a spell of an effective level higher than 9th. • Has a caster level above 20th. • Has a market price above 200,000 gp, not including material costs for armor or weapons, material component- or experience point-based costs, or additional value for intelligent items. It would seem that bracers of armour +10 might be non epic...but like I said, it still seems quite uncertain.:) Also, do you think that augmented alchemy should not be an epic feat but instead just rolled into the expanded uses for alchemy related checks? Plus, I feel that epic reputation should not be a feat as well, but perhaps given for free at lv21 if the player is willing to roleplay this aspect.
Balthanon 07-05-07, 11:59 PM	The only specific reference I've seen to it was in an alternate ruling (Arms and Equipment Guide I think) where it stated you could add armor special abilities to bracers of armor similar to armor, going up to +8 and then adding up to +5 more in special abilities. Given that that was also 3.0 and I don't think I've seen it in 3.5, it doesn't necessarily count for much, but it might speak to intent. The only other thing I've seen that is similar to the DMG is the table in the Magic Item Compendium detailing the price for increasing particular bonuses (+2 Dex to +4 Dex costing 12,000 gold for instance), which also maxes out at a +8 bonus to armor. For the +10 limitation, I have a feeling that was actually referencing actual armor and special abilities/enhancement bonus combinations, but... *shrug* For augmented alchemy, I see no reason for those checks to require an epic feat-- if they are too accessible prior to epic level, I would just say that you must be an epic spellcaster, rather than simply a spellcaster.
bluemage55 07-06-07, 01:23 AM	Also, do you think that augmented alchemy should not be an epic feat but instead just rolled into the expanded uses for alchemy related checks? Yes I do. It's already in the revisions. Plus, I feel that epic reputation should not be a feat as well, but perhaps given for free at lv21 if the player is willing to roleplay this aspect. Why do you feel this way?
bluemage55 07-06-07, 01:27 AM	For the +10 limitation, I have a feeling that was actually referencing actual armor and special abilities/enhancement bonus combinations, but... *shrug* If that is true, then there is no specified limit. Either way, the most appropriate way to look at it is based on the CL. Since +10 bracers are CL 20th, it seems fine for them to be non-epic.
runestar 07-06-07, 02:00 AM	I dunno - why is reputation a feat? It would be something which comes naturally to you over the course of your adventures or something.:P
bluemage55 07-07-07, 04:11 PM	There are things that could come naturally but are represented as feats. I mean, wouldn't you think that Leadership would come naturally based on how you treat the people you meet (picking up a cohort and followers by using Diplomacy)? Or how about Epic Weapon Focus resulting from using the same weapon for 30 levels?
runestar 07-20-07, 10:29 PM	The latest epic adventure from the Oerth PDF file made me realize something about the Xexical. Why the heck does an ice-themed monster have access to meteor swarm, which is a fire-based spell? Probably replace it with polar ray, though any other high lv ice spell (are there any?) would suffice.:)
rob_douglas 07-21-07, 12:00 AM	I just assume it is a cold energy substituted ice storm myself. I think they wanted the targeted no save feature. I like it better than Polar Ray, because that is more like a nice scalpel, whereas the meteor swarm is more chaotic - like a bloody axe and hammer. :) ROB
bluemage55 07-21-07, 07:40 AM	While I agree with Rob with the scalpel vs. hammer idea, I don't like that using meteor swarm would require Energy Substitution (which is not found in PHB, DMG, or MM) because it would require a reference to outside sources, which the ELH should avoid completely. I do think polar ray would be the most effective substitute. I also question why the Xixecal has hold person on its list when it has dominate monster. The only time hold person is more effective is against a humanoid opponent shielded with protection from evil and not immune to paralysis. It should probably be hold monster instead.
runestar 07-21-07, 09:17 AM	Or we could just call it blizzard storm or something, and add in parenthesis (as meteor swarm, but cold damage instead of fire) or something like that. Maybe upgrade hold person to mass hold monster, as opposed to dominate monster? They are both 9th lv spells...:D
rob_douglas 07-21-07, 03:14 PM	I prefer both of those updates. It needs a Mass effect, and hold monster is redundant with dominate many times. I think it is clear they were going for the blasting flavor of meteor swarm, and not the fiery flavor, so I would keep it, with runestar's paren notation. ROB
bluemage55 07-24-07, 04:26 AM	Or we could just call it blizzard storm or something, and add in parenthesis (as meteor swarm, but cold damage instead of fire) or something like that. Is there any precedence for this? If so I would agree with it.
runestar 07-24-07, 06:30 AM	Is there any precedence for this? If so I would agree with it. I think I have seen it being used in a few books here and there. Most notably in assorted FR books where their penchant for cramming tons of summarized info into as few pages as possible typically leaves little room for actual stats. For example, I think that in the Arachnomancer prc entry in Underdark, you add summon spider spells to your spell list, and the blurb simply states (as summon monster, except you summon spiders of blah-blah size instead), with no further elaboration anywhere else. I will touch more on this if I come across such examples again.
bluemage55 07-25-07, 07:24 AM	For example, I think that in the Arachnomancer prc entry in Underdark, you add summon spider spells to your spell list, and the blurb simply states (as summon monster, except you summon spiders of blah-blah size instead), with no further elaboration anywhere else. That type is different, and occurs even in the PHB. The PHB domains often have restrictions on how certain spells may be cast (for example, summon monster, resist energy, elemental swarm). However, none of these actually allow you to do exchange the regular function of a spell for an alternative one.
Thorsbjorn 07-25-07, 07:07 PM	The latest epic adventure from the Oerth PDF file made me realize something about the Xexical. Why the heck does an ice-themed monster have access to meteor swarm, which is a fire-based spell? Probably replace it with polar ray, though any other high lv ice spell (are there any?) would suffice.:) Maybe that's all the heat that the xixecal absorbs. As I recall the remorhaz, another cold creatures, gives off searing heat.
runestar 07-29-07, 09:58 AM	A query about the epic ranger favoured enemy progression. Favored Enemy (Ex) The epic ranger gains one additional favored enemy (and his bonuses against all existing favored enemies go up by +1) every five levels after 20th (25th, 30th, and so on). This seems like a direct copy and paste job from the 3.0 ELH (where FE bonuses did scale by +1 every 5 lvs). Since FE works in its own way in 3.5 (you choose to improve any one FE by +2), should the epic FE progression for ranger be revised or just left as is?
rob_douglas 07-29-07, 12:43 PM	It should be changed. It is clearly another case of them just forgetting to do the work. At each 5 levels, you get a new enemy at +2, and get to add +2 to one old enemy of your choice. ROB
runestar 07-29-07, 11:43 PM	And what about the improved FE epic feat? I don't see anything wrong with it power-wise, just that it is not consistent with the way FE bonuses scale in 3.5. Improved Favored Enemy [Epic] Prerequisite Five or more favored enemies. Benefit Add +1 to the bonus on Bluff, Listen, Sense Motive, Spot, and Survival checks and damage rolls against all your favored enemies. Special You can gain this feat multiple times. Its effects stack.
bluemage55 07-30-07, 04:04 AM	This seems like a direct copy and paste job from the 3.0 ELH (where FE bonuses did scale by +1 every 5 lvs). Since FE works in its own way in 3.5 (you choose to improve any one FE by +2), should the epic FE progression for ranger be revised or just left as is? That's odd. My SRD shows +2. And what about the improved FE epic feat? I don't see anything wrong with it power-wise, just that it is not consistent with the way FE bonuses scale in 3.5. I'm fairly certain it got lost in translation. It should be +2. I'll add the fix.
rob_douglas 07-30-07, 08:45 AM	Hmm Mine says +2 as well. I didn't see the change in the Update booklet, but I didn't check the SRD itself. As for Improved FE, I have a concern with making it +2. The problem is, unlike the normal FE advancement, it applies to ALL favored enemies. Technically it also seems to apply only to the ones you have at the time you take the feat (take it at 21st level, get +1 to 5 FEs, take it at 27th, +1 to 6). Normal FE advancement gives +2 to one, and +2 to any other one. I am concerned that the effects of the feat depend so greatly on when you take it (I think this should be minimized as much as possible - I know, INT bonuses mess that up, but other than that, are their any feats whose effects change based on when you take them?) Further, I think that +2 to all is way more powerful than the class feature it is improving. I think that either it should stay +1, and just go ahead and apply it to all future favored enemies as well (so if you gain another FE, you get +3 against it right off the bat) or make it +2 against a single FE of your choice, which is a lot weaker than +1 to all, but more consistent. I think I am leaning toward the first one, +1 to all, leaving the SRD as is. I don't think that it was a mistake as much as I first did, especially now that I see they DID fix the SRD for FE advancement. ROB
runestar 07-30-07, 09:23 AM	I think I am leaning toward the first one, +1 to all, leaving the SRD as is. I don't think that it was a mistake as much as I first did, especially now that I see they DID fix the SRD for FE advancement. Hmm...I was using the hypertext SRD. My mistake, I suppose.:embarrass
bluemage55 07-31-07, 06:53 AM	As for Improved FE, I have a concern with making it +2. The problem is, unlike the normal FE advancement, it applies to ALL favored enemies. Technically it also seems to apply only to the ones you have at the time you take the feat (take it at 21st level, get +1 to 5 FEs, take it at 27th, +1 to 6). Normal FE advancement gives +2 to one, and +2 to any other one. I am concerned that the effects of the feat depend so greatly on when you take it (I think this should be minimized as much as possible - I know, INT bonuses mess that up, but other than that, are their any feats whose effects change based on when you take them?) Further, I think that +2 to all is way more powerful than the class feature it is improving. I think that either it should stay +1, and just go ahead and apply it to all future favored enemies as well (so if you gain another FE, you get +3 against it right off the bat) or make it +2 against a single FE of your choice, which is a lot weaker than +1 to all, but more consistent. I mistakenly thought that the 3.0 -> 3.5 update only changed the ability to +2 for all enemies instead of +1, after reading Runestar's post. The feat should allow a progression identical to the normal ones gained per level, so it should grant one additional favored enemy and improve one enemy bonus by +2.
Thorsbjorn 07-31-07, 07:15 AM	I mistakenly thought that the 3.0 -> 3.5 update only changed the ability to +2 for all enemies instead of +1, after reading Runestar's post. The feat should allow a progression identical to the normal ones gained per level, so it should grant one additional favored enemy and improve one enemy bonus by +2. I concur. :)
rob_douglas 07-31-07, 11:13 AM	But 3.0 IFE doesn't mimic the ability - in that it doesn't grant a new FE, just bonuses to existing ones. In that case, you should allow IFE to grant +2 to any 1 FE that you already have. Like I said, +1 to all didn't seem out of balance, and they did actually update the Ranger in the SRD, so it may have been intentional. I am quite certain that not granting a new FE was intentional. ROB
Thorsbjorn 08-01-07, 12:54 AM	But 3.0 IFE doesn't mimic the ability - in that it doesn't grant a new FE, just bonuses to existing ones. In that case, you should allow IFE to grant +2 to any 1 FE that you already have. Like I said, +1 to all didn't seem out of balance, and they did actually update the Ranger in the SRD, so it may have been intentional. I am quite certain that not granting a new FE was intentional. ROB You make two good points. I seriously doubt that they paid any attention to the epic porton when they updated the ranger in the SRD, so I wouldn't put any weight on the fact that they didn't update the epic feat. I think though that either way--granting +1 against all favored enemies or +2 against 1 favored enemy--would work. Either way I wouldn't have it grant a new favored enemy too. Isn't there already a non-epic feat that grants an extra favored enemy anyway?
rob_douglas 08-01-07, 01:05 AM	But they did update the "Epic Ranger" in the SRD. The section that got changed in there matches the 3.5 change to the Ranger, but they did actually edit those changes in. Anyway - can anyone come up with a way to resolve this one? I prefer to leave it as is, since it is not clearly wrong, or broken. ROB
Thorsbjorn 08-01-07, 01:11 AM	But they did update the "Epic Ranger" in the SRD. The section that got changed in there matches the 3.5 change to the Ranger, but they did actually edit those changes in. Anyway - can anyone come up with a way to resolve this one? I prefer to leave it as is, since it is not clearly wrong, or broken. ROB I thought you knew what I meant, but I guess I needed to be more specific. They made the big changes to the epic material, like switching the ranger from a d10 to a d8, but they did a very rushed, sloppy, incomplete job so that the absence of a change doesn't indicate with any certainty an intention not to make a change. I'd just keep it as it is since there's no pressing need to change it.
bluemage55 08-01-07, 08:17 AM	Anyway - can anyone come up with a way to resolve this one? I prefer to leave it as is, since it is not clearly wrong, or broken. I believe that the designer intent behind 3.0 -> 3.5 with changing the ranger bonus from +1 for all FEs each time it improves to +2 to a single FE was so that the ability would actually be more specialized (like the flavor of having a favored enemy woud suggest) rather than giving the ranger differing proficiency in combatting every type of creature. I do agree with the suggestion that the feat not grant a new FE, as this would be consistent with how the feat worked for 3.0. For now I am changing it to a +2 bonus for a single FE.
runestar 08-01-07, 09:13 AM	Another minor nitpick - given the new 3.5 weapon sizing rules, should the Hecatoncheires be wielding large or huge longswords instead of greatswords? Since it is huge in size, it should be wielding huge longswords (3d6). But its entry has it using greatswords (2d6), which are mathematically the equivalent of large longswords. :P While not technically an error, I would update its entry to incorporate the +5 to-hit/damage from its greater magic weapon. Since it can use it at will, it simply has to spend 10 minutes every 2 days casting GMW on all of its 100 weapons.
rob_douglas 08-01-07, 02:36 PM	Yeah, the new stat blocks usually take into account standard tactics and at will spells, so it would make sense to update it with the +5 from GMW as the default. It also has +52 BAB and Power Attack, so I think that a standard 10-point power attack should be included too. And you are right about the weapon sizes. 3d6 per sword....nice. :) And include the constant Shield as well.... With those changes: Armor Class: 74 (-2 size, +30 natural, +20 insight, +12 armor [+5 half plate], +4 Shield) Attack: Huge longsword +68 melee (3d6+35/17-20/10-pt power attack); or boulder +55 ranged (2d8+20/19-20) Full Attack: 100 Huge longswords +68 melee (3d6+35/17-20/10-pt power attack); or 100 boulders +55 ranged (2d8+20/19-20) Abominations blindsight seems extreme. It was in line with 3.0 dragons, but now they have had theirs reduced significantly. Should it be reduced to 120 ft.? ROB
runestar 08-02-07, 12:14 AM	The halfplate is another eyesore as well (with its dex15). Give it mithral fullplate or something... In addition, it is missing a feat in its entry (it has only 17 feats, where it should have 18 from its 52 HD). Also, it still has the now-defunct multidexterity feat. Lastly, given its superior multi-weaponfighting (SMW) special ability, I am not sure how relevant its multiweapon fighting feat is (since the feat's benefit would technically be superceded by its SMW ability. Note that the ettin has a similar benefit, despite not having the TWFing feat). This would give it an additional 2 or 3 feats (depending on how necessary you deem its MWFing feat). Any ideas on what to give it? Maybe dire charge or penetrate dr (adamantine or cold iron?) Plus, is that thing really a cr57? Seems to have far too few HD. A holy word could kill it. Its saves would suck compared to the DCs of a lv50+ party - eg: devastating crit would at least have a dc of 60+. You could give it heavy fortification, but my point is that it appears to have great difficulty making any of its saves (since it will likely fail them even on a 19 or lower). Though I admit I have no idea on how to extrapolate crs past lv20+, but it looks like a cr40 at best?:confused:
bluemage55 08-02-07, 02:40 AM	Yeah, the new stat blocks usually take into account standard tactics and at will spells, so it would make sense to update it with the +5 from GMW as the default. It also has +52 BAB and Power Attack, so I think that a standard 10-point power attack should be included too. And you are right about the weapon sizes. 3d6 per sword....nice. :) And include the constant Shield as well.... I refuse to update all of the monsters in the Epic SRD to the new stat blocks. When WotC gets around to updating the Monster SRD, they probably will do the same for the epic monsters. In the meantime, I do not get paid enough (seeing as I do this for free) to spend that much of my time and effort. ;) Abominations blindsight seems extreme. It was in line with 3.0 dragons, but now they have had theirs reduced significantly. Should it be reduced to 120 ft.? It seems that most of the Epic creatures with blindsight have extremely large amounts. They should probably all be reduced, but I'm not at all certain what numbers would be more appropriate for 3.5. I'm going to do a comparison of different 3.0 monsters to see if I can come up with some method that the designers used.
bluemage55 08-02-07, 02:56 AM	The halfplate is another eyesore as well (with its dex15). Give it mithral fullplate or something... Have you seen what the monster looks like? I'm not certain the thing should be capable of wearing any armor at all, let alone half-plate. In addition, it is missing a feat in its entry (it has only 17 feats, where it should have 18 from its 52 HD). Also, it still has the now-defunct multidexterity feat. Lastly, given its superior multi-weaponfighting (SMW) special ability, I am not sure how relevant its multiweapon fighting feat is (since the feat's benefit would technically be superceded by its SMW ability. Note that the ettin has a similar benefit, despite not having the TWFing feat). This would give it an additional 2 or 3 feats (depending on how necessary you deem its MWFing feat). Any ideas on what to give it? Maybe dire charge or penetrate dr (adamantine or cold iron?) I think it has MWF to qualify for Multiweapon Rend. Plus, is that thing really a cr57? Seems to have far too few HD. A holy word could kill it. Its saves would suck compared to the DCs of a lv50+ party - eg: devastating crit would at least have a dc of 60+. You could give it heavy fortification, but my point is that it appears to have great difficulty making any of its saves (since it will likely fail them even on a 19 or lower). Though I admit I have no idea on how to extrapolate crs past lv20+, but it looks like a cr40 at best?:confused: As it is, I would estimate it to be around CR 39. I think I'll work on substantially revising the monster with a target CR of 78 (after all, they're supposed to be used to take down deities).
Thorsbjorn 08-02-07, 04:41 AM	Have you seen what the monster looks like? I'm not certain the thing should be capable of wearing any armor at all, let alone half-plate. I think it has MWF to qualify for Multiweapon Rend. As it is, I would estimate it to be around CR 39. I think I'll work on substantially revising the monster with a target CR of 78 (after all, they're supposed to be used to take down deities). The drawing depicts it wearing half plate--basically the top part--around its trunk. Unlike with a creature of humanoid shape though it doesn't really cover most of itself with the half-plate. It has many, many torsos sticking out of the top of the half plate, not to mention substantial roots sticking out below. But you know, it's just a fantasy game, so things don't have to be perfectly "realistic." So I agree with Rune--just give it mithril armor, plate or half-plate, so it can get its full Dexterity bonus. While you could just say that the superior multiweapon fighting ability simply replaces the similar feat, I always saw the feats as being prerequisites for having the ability in the first place, so I'd probably leave them. I'm not sure what CR gods of various ranks are supposed to have. Has anyone tried running a combat between a god and a hecatoncheires? I tend to like to bump up the power of the gods substantially anyway, so I'd probably be inclined toward a more powerful hectancheires unless it turns out that the current version could already, say, defeat Thor. Assuming otherwise, or assuming that you bump up the power of gods, I'd probably give the hecatoncheires Overwhelming Critical and Devastating Critical, since it seems to be primarily a physical (and especially melee) combatant.
runestar 08-02-07, 07:07 AM	I'm not sure what CR gods of various ranks are supposed to have. Has anyone tried running a combat between a god and a hecatoncheires? Just the thought of having to roll all those 100 attacks is enough to turn me off from ever running one. I would probably just assume it takes 10 on all its attacks and deals average damage per hit, if I ever did use one.:P The cr does seem wonky. The closest I can find for direct comparison is the ancient prismatic dragon, and even that does not seem very strong (for its cr, that is). Consider the rules for advancing MM dragons. A great wyrm white dragon (cr21) advanced to cr57 has 100 dragon HD compared to the prismatic dragon's 68, and has superior str/con scores (but inferior mental stats). I think it has MWF to qualify for Multiweapon Rend. Crap, you are right. What a waste...
Balthanon 08-02-07, 08:18 AM	Just the thought of having to roll all those 100 attacks is enough to turn me off from ever running one. I would probably just assume it takes 10 on all its attacks and deals average damage per hit, if I ever did use one.:P Nah-- you assume 5 20s, 5 19s, 5 18s, 5 17s, 5 16s, etc... ;) If anything should get the full distribution on a d20, it's 100 attacks in one round. :)
runestar 08-02-07, 09:11 AM	It is times like this which makes me wonder how much of the stuff wotc spews forth actually gets playtested. Entries like 100 attacks/round or the Phane's time duplicate and time regression abilities are easy enough to describe on paper, but look like they might be logistical nightmares in actual gameplay. I mean - how the heck are you supposed to simulate "turn back time by 4 rounds"?:rolleyes:
Thorsbjorn 08-02-07, 10:31 AM	It is times like this which makes me wonder how much of the stuff wotc spews forth actually gets playtested. Entries like 100 attacks/round or the Phane's time duplicate and time regression abilities are easy enough to describe on paper, but look like they might be logistical nightmares in actual gameplay. I mean - how the heck are you supposed to simulate "turn back time by 4 rounds"?:rolleyes: Actually with the hecatoncheires you're in luck, because it can direct no more than 15 attacks per round at a medium-sized target. That makes things much easier for you. So let us know how it goes, will you? :D
runestar 08-02-07, 10:56 AM	Actually with the hecatoncheires you're in luck, because it can direct no more than 15 attacks per round at a medium-sized target. That makes things much easier for you. So let us know how it goes, will you? Yeah, but it can still throw up to 85 rocks in addition to the 15 melee attacks it makes. So a typical combat scenario might involve it making a full attack on one of the PCs with 15 greatswords, while hurling 15 rocks at each of the other PCs (or 15 melee attacks if it can get within reach). I just realized that dire charge only lets you make a full attack against the person you are charging at, so that goes the flurry of boulders tactic.:( For a 4 member party, that is still at least 60 attacks I have to roll out (assuming the party fighter was not the recipient of a permanent enlarge person spell or playing a half-ogre or something), or up to 90 for a 6 member group. And I won't be running this scenario, due to lack of time and experience with epic gameplay. If someone want to take up this challenge, be my guest.:)
Thorsbjorn 08-02-07, 11:13 AM	Yeah, but it can still throw up to 85 rocks in addition to the 15 melee attacks it makes. So a typical combat scenario might involve it making a full attack on one of the PCs with 15 greatswords, while hurling 15 rocks at each of the other PCs (or 15 melee attacks if it can get within reach). I just realized that dire charge only lets you make a full attack against the person you are charging at, so that goes the flurry of boulders tactic.:( For a 4 member party, that is still at least 60 attacks I have to roll out (assuming the party fighter was not the recipient of a permanent enlarge person spell or playing a half-ogre or something), or up to 90 for a 6 member group. And I won't be running this scenario, due to lack of time and experience with epic gameplay. If someone want to take up this challenge, be my guest.:) Oh, I wasn't suggesting running a combat between a hecatoncheires and a party, but rather between a hecatoncheiries and a god, say, Thor. :)
runestar 08-02-07, 01:10 PM	Where can I find stats for gods? I think those salient divine abilities would make short work of the hecatoncheires long before it got anywhere near one. It seems little more than a pure melee monster, and deities should be able to handle these sort of foes the most readily.:P
rob_douglas 08-02-07, 01:31 PM	Well, that was always a concern - that the big-H didn't live up to his fluff billing. Stats for gods are in Deities and Demigods, and are notoriously weak for dealing with Epic (you can find better at Dicefreaks - same number of hit dice, but better use of epic feats/skills/abilities), but certainly if you start with those. Most SDAs affect mortals more than immortals, and I put the Abominations in the Immortals category, being DvR 0 beings. Looking at Thor, from Deities and Demigods is 20-HD outsider, barb 20, Rngr20, 1260hp, always first in initiative, AC 77, +109 to hit with +5 holy chaotic distance ghost touch mighty cleaving distance returning thundering warhammer (always rolls a 20 - so he hits AC 129 automatically). Damage is 4d8+84 - this is without power attack, which he has +40 to use if he wants. Saves +61/+61/+59. STR 92!!! But that is from the belt. No one else has that level. Can be any shape or size, and has annihilating strike SDA - which is an autowin for him unless you kill him in the surprise round. DC to survive will be well over 120! There has to be some rework of the deity rules as well to give epic stuff a chance. ROB
Thorsbjorn 08-02-07, 02:55 PM	Well, that was always a concern - that the big-H didn't live up to his fluff billing. Stats for gods are in Deities and Demigods, and are notoriously weak for dealing with Epic (you can find better at Dicefreaks - same number of hit dice, but better use of epic feats/skills/abilities), but certainly if you start with those. Most SDAs affect mortals more than immortals, and I put the Abominations in the Immortals category, being DvR 0 beings. Looking at Thor, from Deities and Demigods is 20-HD outsider, barb 20, Rngr20, 1260hp, always first in initiative, AC 77, +109 to hit with +5 holy chaotic distance ghost touch mighty cleaving distance returning thundering warhammer (always rolls a 20 - so he hits AC 129 automatically). Damage is 4d8+84 - this is without power attack, which he has +40 to use if he wants. Saves +61/+61/+59. STR 92!!! But that is from the belt. No one else has that level. Can be any shape or size, and has annihilating strike SDA - which is an autowin for him unless you kill him in the surprise round. DC to survive will be well over 120! There has to be some rework of the deity rules as well to give epic stuff a chance. ROB That doesn't even include his mighty rage. Thor rules--hecatoncheires drools! :D
runestar 08-02-07, 09:51 PM	That doesn't even include his mighty rage. Thor rules--hecatoncheires drools! What is thor's size? I assume he is medium. Well, the hecatoncheires can deal up to 600 damage each round to thor (assuming it somehow wins initiative). I suppose that if you spent 480,000gp to equip it with 15 +1 unholy good-outsider bane longswords, it could deal an extra 60d6 damage, or around 810 damage. But it is still hitting the dirt...:(
Thorsbjorn 08-02-07, 11:43 PM	What is thor's size? I assume he is medium. Well, the hecatoncheires can deal up to 600 damage each round to thor (assuming it somehow wins initiative). I suppose that if you spent 480,000gp to equip it with 15 +1 unholy good-outsider bane longswords, it could deal an extra 60d6 damage, or around 810 damage. But it is still hitting the dirt...:( It looks like in while not raging Thor does an average of 18 +84 = 102 points of damage. Subtract 20 for the hecatoncheires' DR, and that leaves 82 points of damage per hit. The DC to avoid Thor's Annihilating Strike then would equal 20 + 19 + 82 = 121. The hecatoncheires has a Fort bonus of +39, so it can't make the saving throw. So yes, one hit and it's finis for the hecatoncheires. Of course Thor is a greater god and renown for his combat prowess, and there's nothing that says that the hecatoncheires can beat any god. I suspect there are quite a few lesser gods who'd have serious trouble with the hecatoncheires. And of course a hecatoncheires can advance all the way up to 140 hit dice, so it can be substantially more powerful even under the current rules. Now I'd love to see what a hecatoncheires with 140 hit dice looks like! :D
bluemage55 08-03-07, 08:25 AM	Annihilating Strike is a problematic SDA in and of itself. It bascially says that no being can realistically survive a single attack from a deity that has Annihilating Strike unless that being has equal or greater DvR. So according to the DD&G book, when Corellon poked out Grumsh's eye, he really should have been annihilating him. :rolleyes: The save DC would more appropriately be (10 + 1/2 deity's HD + DvR + Str modifier).
Gemstone 08-03-07, 02:54 PM	The save DC would more appropriately be (10 + 1/2 deity's HD + DvR + Str modifier). Alternativly, (10 + 1/2 deity's HD + DvR) to represent the divine ability... and that it's purely divine in power.
rob_douglas 08-03-07, 03:16 PM	I have used 20+DvR+ and ability mod (CHA usually) for all SDAs. It basically represents an SDA as a super-spell. I never included HD in my formula. I use the same for Divine Splendor. I would use STR for Annihilating Strike. This is the DC of Alter Reality and Hand of Death. Divine Aura and Fearful Presence, which are always on abilities, use 10+DvR+CHA. I think that is appropriate since they don't take an action. Are there any other SDAs that have saves, and what are their formulae? ROB
Balthanon 08-03-07, 05:10 PM	I have used 20+DvR+ and ability mod (CHA usually) for all SDAs. It basically represents an SDA as a super-spell. I never included HD in my formula. I use the same for Divine Splendor. I would use STR for Annihilating Strike. That seems way too watered down to me. For a high god, you basically base a base 40+ probably 10-20 for ability score-- there are 20th level characters who could make that without tremendous difficulty. A god should be something that should generally require at least 10 to 20 hit dice more than the god to have a chance of success in my opinion (which generally means CR 70 or so.)
Thorsbjorn 08-05-07, 09:28 AM	Annihilating Strike is a problematic SDA in and of itself. It bascially says that no being can realistically survive a single attack from a deity that has Annihilating Strike unless that being has equal or greater DvR. So according to the DD&G book, when Corellon poked out Grumsh's eye, he really should have been annihilating him. :rolleyes: The save DC would more appropriately be (10 + 1/2 deity's HD + DvR + Str modifier). In that case a non-raging, non-epic Thor's DC would be 10 + 30 + 18 + 41 = 99, still high enough to automatically annihilate the hecatoncheries anyway. Corellon has a much, much lower Strength score of only 30. With his sword Corellon does an average of only 40 points of damage. His Annihilating Strike has a book DC of 20 + 19 + 30 = 69. That is still too high for a base hecatoncheires to make, but what is the Fort save for one advanced to 140 hit dice? 140 - 52 = 88/2 = 44 + 39 = +83. It also increases in size from huge to colossal increasing the Constitution by 16, and thus the Fort save by another 8 to 83 + 8 = 91. Is that right? A fully advanced hecatoncheire could obviously survive the book version of Corellon's Annihilating Strike 95% of the time. It could even survive Bluemage's version of Thor's Annihilating Strike 65% of the time (roll 8 or higher). Gruumsh automatically makes his saving throw against a DC of 69 Correlon could improve his Annihilating Strike book DC using Power Attack. I'm not sure how they're calculating base attack bonus in Deites and Demigods. Are they just giving full base attack bonus for all levels? I think Rob used epic base attack bonus for Thor's second 20 class levels to get a base attack bonus of 40 (20 for 20 levels of barbarian and 20 for 20 hit dice of outsider) plus not allowing Thor to use epic attack bonus toward Power Attack. (Isn't epic attack bonus though supposed to count for all purposes except iterative attacks as base attack bonus?) Anyway if we use Rob's calculation Corellon has 39 points of base attack bonus. He could thus increase his Annihilating Strike book DC to 69 + 39 = 108, giving a fully-advanced hecatoncheire a 20% chance (roll 17 or higher) to resist. Gruumsh, however, fails against a DC of 108. Blue's method would produce a DC for Corellon's Annihilating Strike of 10 + (49/2) + 19 + 10 = 63. That's still too high for the base hecatoncheires to resist, but the fully-advanced hecatoncheires would resist 95% of the time. Gruumsh also automatically saves. I might add too that if you beef up the deities with epic levels, as I think is appropriate if you're allowing epic material at all, then the book method allows both of these deities to increase the DC with more Power Attack unless you use Rob's method of not treating epic attack bonus as base attack bonus for purposes of Power Attack. Actually I just double-checked the rule, and according to the errata you do treat epic attack bonus as base attack bonus for all rules other than iterative attacks. In that case, Thor even without epic levels (but assuming the epic attack bonus rules in calculating his attack bonus, though I'm not sure that the Deities and Demigods uses that) actually has another +10 to throw into Power Attack, becoming +20 with two hands. With a total of +50 to throw into Power Attack, Thor could raise the DC by 100 under the book method, to 220! Corellon would get another +15 which would remain +15 points of extra damage under Power Attack. So his book DC would rise to 108 + 15 = 123, too high for even a fully-advanced hecatoncheire to resist. Anyway, the book method does really make it impossible for even an advanced hecatoncheires to resist an Annihilating Strike even from a relatively low-Strength but high-rank god like Corellon. Blue's method probably works better overall, although I am a bit troubled that the advanced hecatoncheires would basically ignore Corellon's Annihilating Strike. I wonder if there's any way to find a bit of a middle ground, where even the advanced hecatoncheires would have some real chance of getting annihilated? If we used Blue's method but also threw the Charisma bonus into the mix, Corellon's Annihilating Strike would have a DC of 63 + 9 = 72, still too low for the advanced hecatoncheires to miss except on a natural 1. In Thor's case though it would raise his DC to 99 + 9 = 108. Then even the advanced hecatoncheires would fail on a 17, or 80% of the time. I guess the problem comes in part from the variation in divine ranks, in part from the variation in hit dice, and in part from the wide variation in Strength scores and the resulting wider variation it causes in average damage per strike, especially with two-handed Power Attack. Let's look at Hercules with his 55 Strength. He does an average of 56 points of damage. Under the book method his Annihilating Strike would have a DC of 20 + 5 + 56 = 81. That's too high for a base hectoncheires to resist, but low enough for an advanced hecatoncheires to resist 95% of the time. In theory he could add another 30 x 2 = 60 to his DC with Power Attack, but as his overall attack bonus is only +67 and as a demigod he doesn't get an automatic 20 on his roll, he needs most of his base attack bonus to hit the hecatoncheires' AC of 70. He would actually miss the base hecatoncheires on a roll of a 2 even on his best iterative attack, so it actually has a 10% chance of surviving even his first attack, a 35% chance his second attack, a 60% chance his 3rd attack and an 85% chance of surviving his 4th attack. Raging adds +5 to his attack rolls, so the base hecatoncheries would have a 5% chance to survive the first attack, 10% the second, 35% the third, and 60% the fourth. He doesn't automatically win initiative either; on initiative he has +11 versus the hecatoncheires' +6, so it might actually go first. He has only 800 hit points, so if it won it probably couldn't take him out on the first round, but if it survived his first round of attacks, it would certainly kill him on the second round. The rage would add +10 to his book DC but only +5 to his DC under Blue's version. Adding +10 would raise his book DC to 91. The fully-advanced hecatoncheire, however, goes from huge to colossal, gaining +9 to natural armor but suffering -6 on AC from size, for a total increase in AC of 3 to 73. While raging Hercules gets an attack bonus increase of +5 to +72. So Hercules could afford to devote one point of base attack bonus to Power Attack, adding 2 points to his book AC, bringing it up to 93, not quite enough to lower the hecatoncheires’ chances of resisting below 95%. Of course Hercules could take a calculated risk and increase his chances of missing a bit in order to raise the hecatoncheire’s chance of failing to resist his Annihilating Strike. Under Blue’s method, Hercules’ Annihilating Strike would have a DC of 10 + 20 + 5 + 22 = 57. A base hecatoncheiries would have a 15% chance to resist it (although actually higher since Hercules doesn’t automatically hit it). Raging would raise the DC to 57 + 5 = 62, putting the base hecatoncheires back to a 10% chance of resisting (i.e. surviving only if Hercules misses) on the first attack, etc. The advanced hecatoncheries would resist 95% of the time whether Hercules raged or not. The advanced hecatoncheries would kill Hercules in two rounds. If Hercules had a chance to cast bull’s strength on himself before the combat, he would raise his book DC by 4 (with Power Attack), lowering the fully-advanced hecatoncheires’ chances of surviving to 65%. So the book method of calculating his DC could give him some (small) chance of defeating a fully-advanced hecatoncheires. I did a little reading and I see that the three hecatoncheires plus the Cyclopes and the titans defeated Uranus. Then the hecatoncheires plus the Cyclopes and the gods defeated Cronos. I don’t see anything about an individual hecatoncheires defeating a greater god one on one. Let’s see. What if we started with Blue’s method but added double the Strength bonus? I already double the Strength bonus for Grapple checks in my campaign anyway, so it has some appeal to me (though less to you all I’m sure. ☺ ). Thor: 99 + 41 = 140 Corellon: 63 + 10 = 73 Hercules: 57 + 22 = 79 Even this way, both Corellon and Hercules have basically no chance of annihilating a fully-advanced hecatoncheires. Corellon has only 993 hit points, so the fully-advanced hecatoncheires kills him too in only two rounds. (Of course Corellon has 20 levels of wizard, so he might be able to stand off and cast spells, or for that matter fire arrows, but Hercules is basically dead if he can’t flee—and it’s not like Hercules to flee. Corellan’s caster level of 20 too makes it impossible for him to overcome the hecatoncheires’ SR.) Thor’s Annihilating Strike is so powerful that even under Blue’s method pretty much nothing can survive a single strike from him—which actually fits most of the Norse stories. So the question becomes how best to run the Annihilating Strike for other gods. Only the book method gives even a greater god like Corellon or such a strong demigod notorious for defeating monsters as Hercules a shot at killing a fully-advanced hecatoncheires. What about epic characters? What sort of levels do they need to achieve to make saving throws against DCs in the 70s? How about against DCs in the 90s? Regardless of how a god with Annihilating Strike performs against a fully-advanced hecatoncheires, we’re left with the problem of the book method a basically making it impossible for gods of lower divine rank to resist Annihilating Strike. If deities had substantially more high dice/levels they would resist the book DC of Annihilating Strike better—but if deities continue to be able to add damage done to the DC of Annihilating Strike, increasing their hit dice/levels would also raise the DC, so that would be sort of like chasing our own tails. The only way I can see to allow gods a better chance to resist Annihilating Strike while still allowing deities with Annihilating Strike some chance of surviving a fully-advanced hecatoncheires would be to keep the book DC and simply grant deities a divine resistance to an otherwise successful Annihilating Strike. Maybe give greater gods 80% resistance, intermediate gods 60% resistance, lesser gods 40% resistance, demigods 20% resistance, and quasi-deities 10% resistance. I’m open to other ideas though. :)
Kurama Youko 08-05-07, 12:54 PM	I don't know if this has been said before, but I don't necessarily agree with the revision you have for Epic BAB when it comes to Racial Hit Dice. Epic lv is supposed to be the point in which all characters start to roughly come into the same area of power but you're penalizing non standard races who have level adjustments or racial hit dice by saying the minute they reach 20 hit dice from racial hit dice + class levels or otherwise the next lv they take will make them use the epic progression. 1.) I don't know of any playable race that has 20 hit dice that you could play at ECL 20 and then gain one lv of a standard class or prc to which then you rule says now you have you use the epic progression. The normal standard rules for epic BAB progression was, if you have racial hit dice you do not use the epic progression for such a character until they have 20 levels in a standard class or a combination of 20 class levels from standard class and prc mixture. Example a Protectar has 2 hit dice and a LA+3. They wouldn't use the epic progression until they took 20 class levels in some sort of combination of classes and prestige classes and then took either the next in some sort of class/prc. This in my opinion is done to keep BAB's fair and not underpowered. Going by you're ruling a humanoid like the lizardfolk who have 2 racial hit dice would be short a point by the time they reach 20 hit dice and thus on the next lv subject to your bab rules. It only gets worse for non full BAB races who have more hit dice. Like Nymphs.
runestar 08-05-07, 10:22 PM	The normal standard rules for epic BAB progression was, if you have racial hit dice you do not use the epic progression for such a character until they have 20 levels in a standard class or a combination of 20 class levels from standard class and prc mixture. Not really. A combination of racial HD and class lvs would be enough to trigger epic bab/saves progression if they total 21 or more, based on my interpretation of the ELH. Even Gerti's stats at the back of the book support this. However, this pattern is less consistent in other splatbooks, since most deviate from this trend, but serpent kingdoms did. This means that if you are a centaur (4 monstrous humanoid HD, LA+2) and went straight fighter, your 17th lv of fighter would start using the epic bab/save rules instead of their own normal progression. The only exception I know of are the dragon prcs in draconomicon, but only because the designer specifically stood up and said that they did not. Think about it - if your interpretation was correct, why then did they not give bab/saves progression for the epic prcs in the ELH? PCs with 21 or more class lvs are not the only people who can qualify for them. A solar with a few lvs in paladin could easily qualify for the divine emissary prc, for example. By your take, he should not yet incur epic bab/saves, yet if he does not, then we are in a pickle, since said prc does not have any bab/saves listed which we can use. This does suck in that a storm or cloud giant following this standard can never get that 4th attack though.:(
Krispieman 08-06-07, 12:15 AM	This does suck in that a storm or cloud giant following this standard can never get that 4th attack though.:(Which is quite easily solved by the "houserule" that EAB does grant iterative attacks, up to the normal maximum of 4. (It also helps Wizard 20/Fighter 20 to gain the same, dispite their stupid choice in classes) K-man :cool:
Thorsbjorn 08-06-07, 08:15 AM	Not really. A combination of racial HD and class lvs would be enough to trigger epic bab/saves progression if they total 21 or more, based on my interpretation of the ELH. Even Gerti's stats at the back of the book support this. However, this pattern is less consistent in other splatbooks, since most deviate from this trend, but serpent kingdoms did. This means that if you are a centaur (4 monstrous humanoid HD, LA+2) and went straight fighter, your 17th lv of fighter would start using the epic bab/save rules instead of their own normal progression. The only exception I know of are the dragon prcs in draconomicon, but only because the designer specifically stood up and said that they did not. Think about it - if your interpretation was correct, why then did they not give bab/saves progression for the epic prcs in the ELH? PCs with 21 or more class lvs are not the only people who can qualify for them. A solar with a few lvs in paladin could easily qualify for the divine emissary prc, for example. By your take, he should not yet incur epic bab/saves, yet if he does not, then we are in a pickle, since said prc does not have any bab/saves listed which we can use. This does suck in that a storm or cloud giant following this standard can never get that 4th attack though.:( I's probably allow a giant, other other monster that's supposed to be particularly nasty in physical combat, to either continue to advance with base attack bonus like dragons do, or at a minimum, to get up to the fourth iterative attack when its combination of base attack bonus and epic attack bonus equals 16.
Balthanon 08-06-07, 11:55 AM	I think the main reason that they put the exception in about monster BAB in 3.5 was for the DMs sake, not so players could pick up an extra 10 or so base attack bonus over an otherwise equal level fighter in Epic. If you have the exception that BAB from racial stats doesn't count against the countdown to epic attack bonus, then DMs don't need to worry about it until they slap 20 levels onto a monster. Simplifies the bookkeeping considerably.
rob_douglas 08-06-07, 02:32 PM	Thirsbjorn: I did use all of Thor's BAB + EAB. He has +20 BAB from 20 Outsider HD, and +20 EAB from 40 levels beyond 20HD. This was explained in the Deities & Demigods FAQ - the epic level rules were being developed simultaneously and that is how they were supposed to work. You don't get BAB for class levels taken after 20th character level (which is defined as total HD). Furthermore, Annihilating Strike should be based on something less than damage, if merely because every other SDA is. This is an ability that triggers 4 or 5 times a round. If it has the highest DC in the game as well, then it really isn't balanced with Hand of Death, etc. The formula for Divine abilities seems pretty standard in most cases. Yes, most things survive on a 2 or better. They're supposed to. ROB
Thorsbjorn 08-06-07, 08:28 PM	Thirsbjorn: I did use all of Thor's BAB + EAB. He has +20 BAB from 20 Outsider HD, and +20 EAB from 40 levels beyond 20HD. This was explained in the Deities & Demigods FAQ - the epic level rules were being developed simultaneously and that is how they were supposed to work. You don't get BAB for class levels taken after 20th character level (which is defined as total HD). Furthermore, Annihilating Strike should be based on something less than damage, if merely because every other SDA is. This is an ability that triggers 4 or 5 times a round. If it has the highest DC in the game as well, then it really isn't balanced with Hand of Death, etc. The formula for Divine abilities seems pretty standard in most cases. Yes, most things survive on a 2 or better. They're supposed to. ROB Obviously not. :P
rob_douglas 08-07-07, 10:08 AM	I thought I had been part of a thread on SDAs before. Unfortunately, it is now archived, but if anyone wants to peruse: http://forums.gleemax.com/wotc_archive/index.php/t-426747 Upper_Krust and I talked about Annihilating Strike, Alter Size, and many others....I think the key difference between AS and Devestating Critical I missed then is that AS does not require a critical, and overcomes critical immunity. 20+DvR+STR is more than fair given all that, IMO. ROB
runestar 08-07-07, 10:12 AM	I tried looking back at "Storm Lord's Keep" article to see how the author statted his epic npcs, but apparently, he was not that proficient with the epic rules himself back then, considering he uses ECL to determine when npcs are treated as epic. That and I could not seem to find any unifying mechanic either. Are the epic rules destined to be one of life's greatest mysteries, never to be resolved?:P
Thorsbjorn 08-07-07, 10:39 AM	I thought I had been part of a thread on SDAs before. Unfortunately, it is now archived, but if anyone wants to peruse: http://forums.gleemax.com/wotc_archive/index.php/t-426747 Upper_Krust and I talked about Annihilating Strike, Alter Size, and many others....I think the key difference between AS and Devestating Critical I missed then is that AS does not require a critical, and overcomes critical immunity. 20+DvR+STR is more than fair given all that, IMO. ROB The gods in the 3rd Ed Deities and Demigods are weak enough compared to epic characters without further weakening them. From what people have posted on this thread and others on the epic boards they routinely play PCs who could easily kill most of the gods in Deities and Demigods. So if there are a few who can still kill the PCs because of Annihilating Strike, more power to them!
bluemage55 08-08-07, 08:19 AM	The gods in the 3rd Ed Deities and Demigods are weak enough compared to epic characters without further weakening them. From what people have posted on this thread and others on the epic boards they routinely play PCs who could easily kill most of the gods in Deities and Demigods. So if there are a few who can still kill the PCs because of Annihilating Strike, more power to them! That's not the right way to go about it. The deities should be updated to incorporate Epic material, and then it would not be necessary for unbalancing SDAs. Besides, Annihilating Strike creates problems between the deities themselves, not just between them and mortals.
Thorsbjorn 08-08-07, 09:18 AM	That's not the right way to go about it. The deities should be updated to incorporate Epic material, and then it would not be necessary for unbalancing SDAs. Besides, Annihilating Strike creates problems between the deities themselves, not just between them and mortals. Making it totally useless is absolutely the wrong way to go about dealing with the problems it causes among deities. I've suggested a balanced way to deal with the problems it causes among deities.
rob_douglas 08-08-07, 10:54 AM	But you haven't explained why that one ability should be exponentially more powerful than every other SDA on the books (barring Divine Splendor, which offers no save at all). Basing the save on damage is inconsistent with the rules on all other special attacks. Sure, for a skill check (see Concentration) it makes sense, but as a saving throw - definitely not. ROB
Thorsbjorn 08-08-07, 05:51 PM	But you haven't explained why that one ability should be exponentially more powerful than every other SDA on the books (barring Divine Splendor, which offers no save at all). Basing the save on damage is inconsistent with the rules on all other special attacks. Sure, for a skill check (see Concentration) it makes sense, but as a saving throw - definitely not. ROB How is it exponentially more powerful? Are you just engaging in a little hyperbole? I explained in great detail in a previous post the need for including damage in the saving throw--otherwise it becomes useless very quickly. Since it's much less powerful than Divine Splendor, how can you object to it as being too powerful? And the rule makes perfect sense: the more damage you take, the greater the chance of being annihilated. You could hardly get more sensible than that. :)
bluemage55 08-09-07, 03:35 AM	Making it totally useless is absolutely the wrong way to go about dealing with the problems it causes among deities. I've suggested a balanced way to deal with the problems it causes among deities. Reducing the DC does not make it useless. It is still incredibly valuable for killing weaker enemies, and auto-kill effects are not supposed to be affecting epic adversaires anyway. And what pray tell was your balanced way to deal with it? It's rather simple why the ability is overpowered. It turns deity combat into a mere measure of who has more DvR. It is virtually impossible to survive the save that AS forces you to make. Thus the feat is far stronger than any other, as it is effectively a one-hit kill weapon for any deity that takes it. The rule might seem to make sense from a flavor standpoint, but it's horrendously unbalanced, and inconsistent with all other save DCs.
Gemstone 08-09-07, 06:58 AM	Reducing the DC does not make it useless. It is still incredibly valuable for killing weaker enemies, and auto-kill effects are not supposed to be affecting epic adversaires anyway. And what pray tell was your balanced way to deal with it? It's rather simple why the ability is overpowered. It turns deity combat into a mere measure of who has more DvR. It is virtually impossible to survive the save that AS forces you to make. Thus the feat is far stronger than any other, as it is effectively a one-hit kill weapon for any deity that takes it. The rule might seem to make sense from a flavor standpoint, but it's horrendously unbalanced, and inconsistent with all other save DCs. Agreed. It should be a tough save for an opponent 5 CR's lower than you, and nigh impossible for an opponent of 10 CR's below you... but at your own, or equal CR? well, then it should be a standard save, and night impossible to loose.
runestar 08-09-07, 07:12 AM	To change the topic, since I know nuts about the rules governing deities, has anyone found it laughable how they chose to fill up the extra feats slots most epic monsters got in 3.5 with filler feats like weapon focus/epic weapon focus? For example, look at the Xixecal. It has epic weapon focus in bite, claw and stomp, granting it +3 to each of these attacks. Or you could just spend all those feats in epic prowess, granting it +6 to-hit with all its attacks instead. Though it does require weapon focus for overwhelming crit.... Also, the Xexical should not have blinding speed (of which it has 4) since it does not meet the requirement of 25dex. That and its to-hit value for claw and stomp are slightly erroneous (they should be +90 to-hit, not +89). Minor yeah, but I am in a nit-picky mood at the moment...:embarrass
Gemstone 08-09-07, 07:16 AM	To change the topic, since I know nuts about the rules governing deities, has anyone found it laughable how they chose to fill up the extra feats slots most epic monsters got in 3.5 with filler feats like weapon focus/epic weapon focus? For example, look at the Xixecal. It has epic weapon focus in bite, claw and stomp, granting it +3 to each of these attacks. Or you could just spend all those feats in epic prowess, granting it +6 to-hit with all its attacks instead. Though it does require weapon focus for overwhelming crit.... Also, the Xexical should not have blinding speed (of which it has 4) since it does not meet the requirement of 25dex. That and its to-hit value for claw and stomp are slightly erroneous (they should be +90 to-hit, not +89). Minor yeah, but I am in a nit-picky mood at the moment...:embarrass Actually, those are good comments. I suggest we either change it to epic prowess when possible (so that it doesn't invalid other feats). We could also grant the Blinding Speed feats as Bonus feats to up the challenge of the Xexical a bit... most epic monsters are weak for their CR, right?
runestar 08-09-07, 08:07 AM	This is my version of the slightly revised Xexical. Thank goodness for the new statted version in the Oerth PDF adventure, else, I probably would be too lazy to rearrange all the stats. Hail the creator of copy and paste...:P Xixecal CR 36 Epic Level Handbook 167 CE Colossal Outsider (Chaotic, Cold, Evil, Extraplanar) Init +9; Senses blindsight 500ft, telepathy 1000ft; Spot+74, Listen+68 Aura cold, dire winter Languages Abyssal, Celestial, Elven, Infernal AC 62 (-8 size, +1 Dex, +4 deflection, +55 natural), touch 7, flat-footed 61 hp 1,728 hp (72 HD) damage reduction 20/good and epic and adamantine; fast healing 30; regeneration 30 Immunity abomination traits, cold Resistances spell resistance 48 Fort +57 Ref +47 Will +41 Spd 140 ft. Melee 2 claws +80 (2d8+48, 19-20/x2) and bite +80 (4d6+34, 19-20/x2) and stomp +80 (4d6+34, 19-20/ x3) Space 50ft. Reach 50ft. Base Atk +76; Grp +116 Atk Options Haste, Great Cleave, Power Attack, Rend Special Atks – breath weapon (300ft. cone, 12d6 cold damage Reflex DC 58), constitution drain, rend 4d8+42, spell-like abilities, summon white dragon Spells-like Abilities (CL 36th; +36 vs. SR) At will - blasphemy (DC 29), cone of cold (DC 27), desecrate, dominate monster (DC 31), greater dispel magic, greater invisibility, mass hold monster (DC 31), true seeing, unholy aura (DC 30), wall of ice (DC 26); (5/day) - haste, polar ray (+73 ranged touch attack) Abilities Str 66, Dex 13, Con 40, Int 12, Wis 8, Cha 34 SQ fire vulnerability, non-detection Feats Cleave, Great Cleave, Improved Critical (bite), Improved Critical (claw), Improved Critical (stomp), Improved Initiative, Improved Multiattack, Improved Sunder, Improved Toughness, Multiattack, Power Attack, Quicken SLA: Haste Epic Feats Dire Charge, Epic Fortitude, Epic Prowess x 8, Epic Reflexes, Epic will, Superior Initiative Skills Climb +103, Concentration +90, Hide -9, Jump +28,Knowledge (arcana, religion, the planes) +76, Listen+68, Search +76, Spellcraft +76, Spot+74 Abomination Traits (Su): Divine Rank 0, Abominations are immune to polymorph, petrifaction, or any form-altering attack. They are not subject to energy drain, ability drain, or ability damage. They are immune to all mind-affecting and detection spells and effects including (charms, compulsions, phantasms, patterns, and morale effects), and are immune to one of five energy types (specific to the abomination). ability damage. They are immune to all mind-affecting and detection spells and effects including charms, compulsions, phantasms, patterns and morale effects, and are immune to one of five energy types (specific to the abomination). Abominations are not subject to death from massive damage, and they have maximum hit points per Hit Die. Breath Weapon (Su): Cone of cold, 300 feet, 3/day, damage 12d6, Reflex half DC 61. The DC is Constitution-based. Cold (Su): A hit from a Xixecal’s melee attack induces numbing cold. The opponent must succeed at a Fortitude save (DC 58) or be affected as though by a slow spell for 10 rounds. The DC is Charisma-based. Constitution Drain (Su): This effect permanently reduces a living opponent’s Constitution score by 4 when the creature hits with a slam, bite, or rend, or twice that amount on a rend or critical hit. The creature heals 20 points of damage (or 40 on a rend or critical hit) whenever it drains Constitution, gaining any excess as temporary hit points. These temporary hit points last a maximum of 1 hour. The attack allows Fortitude save (DC 58). The DC is Charisma-based. Dire Winter (Su): A Xixecal always stands at the center of a permanent dire winter (epic spell) spell effect. If dispelled, the effect returns 1 minute later— the only way to permanently remove the effect is to slay the Xixecal that generates it. Rend (Ex): If the Xixecal hits with both claw attacks, it latches onto the opponent’s body and tears the flesh. This attack automatically deals an additional 4d8+42 points of damage. Summon White Dragon (Sp): Five times per day a Xixecal can summon an old white dragon. Note - A Xixecal’s natural weapons are treated as epic, evil, and chaotic-aligned for the purpose of overcoming damage reduction. Xixecals take normal damage from Lawful weapons, and double damage from burning or fiery weapons. Some notes: As pointed out, it does not qualify for blinding speed. However, it has the haste SLA, so I gave it quicken SLA: haste to replicate the benefits of blinding speed. This has the side-benefit of freeing up 4 feat slots as well. Assume it is always under the benefit of unholy aura. Typical combat sequence has it activating haste as a free action, then charging at the nearest foe. Dire Charge lets it make a full attack. I was contemplating whether to give it quicken SLA: blasphemy or mass hold monster or not. The assumption is that PCs are pretty much assumed to be warded against such conventional modes of attack, yet a blasphemy can be fairly punishing against the PC caught off-guard this way. I dunno...you decide. I had it use power attack to get +20 damage at the expense of -20 to-hit, just to improve its damage potential. I am actually a little leery of giving it improved crit - what PC is not immune to crits at that lv? But just left it in anyways. Some minor feat revisions to make the overall selection a lot more efficient. All the save-boosting feats made way for their epic counterparts. As mentioned, all the weapon focus feats were replaced by epic prowess as well. Epic toughness caved into the superior improved toughness, and multiattack to further improve its secondary attacks.
Gemstone 08-09-07, 08:34 AM	This is my version of the slightly revised Xexical. Thank goodness for the new statted version in the Oerth PDF adventure, else, I probably would be too lazy to rearrange all the stats. Hail the creator of copy and paste...:P ... Some minor feat revisions to make the overall selection a lot more efficient. All the save-boosting feats made way for their epic counterparts. As mentioned, all the weapon focus feats were replaced by epic prowess as well. Epic toughness caved into the superior improved toughness, and multiattack to further improve its secondary attacks. Sounds good to me. I suggest we enter that into the index here.
Thorsbjorn 08-09-07, 07:06 PM	Reducing the DC does not make it useless. It is still incredibly valuable for killing weaker enemies, and auto-kill effects are not supposed to be affecting epic adversaires anyway. And what pray tell was your balanced way to deal with it? It's rather simple why the ability is overpowered. It turns deity combat into a mere measure of who has more DvR. It is virtually impossible to survive the save that AS forces you to make. Thus the feat is far stronger than any other, as it is effectively a one-hit kill weapon for any deity that takes it. The rule might seem to make sense from a flavor standpoint, but it's horrendously unbalanced, and inconsistent with all other save DCs. A 5% chance of success makes it useless. Deities with Annihilating Strike don't need it for weaker opponents. As Rob pointed out, it's not even the most powerful SDA in the book. I did offer a way to balance the use of the ability against other gods in my long post above. To Gemstone: where are you finding CRs for deities? This is my version of the slightly revised Xexical. Thank goodness for the new statted version in the Oerth PDF adventure, else, I probably would be too lazy to rearrange all the stats. Hail the creator of copy and paste...:P Some notes: As pointed out, it does not qualify for blinding speed. However, it has the haste SLA, so I gave it quicken SLA: haste to replicate the benefits of blinding speed. This has the side-benefit of freeing up 4 feat slots as well. Assume it is always under the benefit of unholy aura. Typical combat sequence has it activating haste as a free action, then charging at the nearest foe. Dire Charge lets it make a full attack. I was contemplating whether to give it quicken SLA: blasphemy or mass hold monster or not. The assumption is that PCs are pretty much assumed to be warded against such conventional modes of attack, yet a blasphemy can be fairly punishing against the PC caught off-guard this way. I dunno...you decide. I had it use power attack to get +20 damage at the expense of -20 to-hit, just to improve its damage potential. I am actually a little leery of giving it improved crit - what PC is not immune to crits at that lv? But just left it in anyways. Some minor feat revisions to make the overall selection a lot more efficient. All the save-boosting feats made way for their epic counterparts. As mentioned, all the weapon focus feats were replaced by epic prowess as well. Epic toughness caved into the superior improved toughness, and multiattack to further improve its secondary attacks. Weren't we just discussing how high level epic characters don't bother with armor anymore? How do people without armor get immunity to critical hits? Since 3.5 weakened haste, Blinding Speed has lost much of its value. Quickened haste is fine, but nothing to write home about. Now if you gave it the ability to take an extra action per round, that would be worth writing home about. :P
runestar 08-10-07, 04:05 AM	Weren't we just discussing how high level epic characters don't bother with armor anymore? How do people without armor get immunity to critical hits? Armour isn't the only way of getting immunity to crits. Draconomicon has the gem of fortification, Waterdeep has ring of fortification (essentially a ring of protection + fortification), a variety of spells grant crit immunity as well...:)
Gemstone 08-10-07, 06:14 AM	A 5% chance of success makes it useless Actually, having 5% chance of annihiliating an opponent of the same power as you, is a good chance of destroying him IMO. More than that, and you'll quickly get unstoppable if you win iniative. Deities with Annihilating Strike don't need it for weaker opponents. As Rob pointed out, it's not even the most powerful SDA in the book. I did offer a way to balance the use of the ability against other gods in my long post above. To Gemstone: where are you finding CRs for deities? For us who has a weak search fu, can you provide a link? There are no statted CR for deities, but seeing as two deities of the same rank should be roughly equal, there has to be something done to balance it :) I'm all for ( 10 + DvR + Strength bonus) or something like that. Weren't we just discussing how high level epic characters don't bother with armor anymore? How do people without armor get immunity to critical hits? I still don't get why epic characters don't bother with armor... It's cheaper, easier to get and most of all, you can get other stuff if you buy armor since the cost will make up for it. So I don't really see your point. Dex characters yes, rogues and rangers won't bother with armor. barbarians and figthters though...
runestar 08-10-07, 06:28 AM	I think he meant that at epic lvs, monsters' attack ratings typically scale faster than you will probably improve your AC, though you will still want armour, since each point of AC you have is usually 1 less point the monster in question is power attacking for. In the very least, you can't neglect it too much, even if you are going to be hit anyways. I suppose that you could start researching epic mage armour to cast on your party, and keep upgrading it every round (with DM's permission to just pay the difference). Also, I am looking at the various undead epic monsters, and some of them, like the lavawight have me kinda worried, mostly due to their low HD (and correspondingly, poor fort save). Perhaps I am placing too much emphasis on the disintegrate spell, but with a fort save of just 10 and 208 hp, a wizard with 32 int can fire off a maximized disintegrate spell with dc 27 (possibly more with dc boosting effects) dealing 240 damage, enough to kill it outright, and making the fort save is problematic enough. Even with great fortitude and epic fortitude (raising its fort save to 16), it still seems a little close for comfort. The Atropal and hunefer do not quite have this problem due to the sheer amount of undead HD they possess, so it is still okay.
rob_douglas 08-10-07, 11:07 AM	While I said that Divine Splendor is better with no save, it is actually not better in that it can't affect any deities. Annihilating Strike overpowers all other deities as written - 5 times per round, which means with Superior Initiative, against any deity with fewer ranks than you - you win, 99.999969% of the time (the odds that your target rolls 5 20s to save against your AS). The biggest problem as I said is that it is unique in that it doesn't follow the pattern for any other special ability in the game. As for not wearing armor, he was referring to the fact that you get better AC from bracers and monk's belts, and buffing your DEX and WIS. You can always wear a +1 Robe of Fortification/Soulfire etc for the other benefits of armor. Yes, it costs more, but less than making a suit of +6 armor, so once you max out the armor, what to spend money on? Anyway, we had this argument already - at some level, with certain ability scores armor drops out of an optimizer's game plan. YMMV. ROB
Thorsbjorn 08-11-07, 04:41 AM	Actually, having 5% chance of annihiliating an opponent of the same power as you, is a good chance of destroying him IMO. More than that, and you'll quickly get unstoppable if you win iniative. Actually deities of divine rank 1 or higher do not automatically fail on a roll of a 1, so under the non-book methods of calculating the DC, they are simply immune to the power of the Annihilating Strike. Corellon's Annihilating Strike calculated under Blue's method would be useless even against a mere demigod of divine rank 1. Armour isn't the only way of getting immunity to crits. Draconomicon has the gem of fortification, Waterdeep has ring of fortification (essentially a ring of protection + fortification), a variety of spells grant crit immunity as well...:) Since there are many useful magic items and many epic spells, and since the chances of getting hit by a critical are low compared to the chances of taking damage from other forms of attack, not everyone in a party is going to spend the money necessary to have 100% fortification. So rather than say that all PCs are immune to critical hits, I'd say that Improved Critical simply has somewhat less value at higher levels. :)
Gemstone 08-11-07, 09:53 AM	Actually deities of divine rank 1 or higher do not automatically fail on a roll of a 1, so under the non-book methods of calculating the DC, so they are simply immune to the power of the Annihilating Strike. Corellon's Annihilating Strike calculated under Blue's method would be useless even against a mere demigod of divine rank 1 IMO, that's fine. deities are supposed to be immune to death attacks anyway. But if you want them to be affected, it's true you need to change the DC
Thorsbjorn 08-11-07, 10:34 AM	IMO, that's fine. deities are supposed to be immune to death attacks anyway. But if you want them to be affected, it's true you need to change the DC First you argued that 5% isn't useless and now that I've shown that it is useless (because for deities there's no automatic 5% chance of missing a save) you're making an entirely different argument that it should be useless. Is there anything that anyone could say that could possibly change your mind about watering down the DC for Annihilating Strike to the point of uselessness? In any case an SDA should be useful otherwise there's no point in even having it. And to affect deities it needs to remain as it is, not be be changed. Maybe you meant to write "But if you want them affected, it's true that you need to keep the current DC."
bluemage55 08-12-07, 09:15 AM	First you argued that 5% isn't useless and now that I've shown that it is useless (because for deities there's no automatic 5% chance of missing a save) you're making an entirely different argument that it should be useless. Is there anything that anyone could say that could possibly change your mind about watering down the DC for Annihilating Strike to the point of uselessness? In any case an SDA should be useful otherwise there's no point in even having it. And to affect deities it needs to remain as it is, not be be changed. Maybe you meant to write "But if you want them affected, it's true that you need to keep the current DC." 5% is indeed useless, due to the lack of nat. 1 failure for deities. That's a good thing. Ultimately, it's an issue of scaling. If save DCs scale faster than saves, combat will be determined by initiative. If they don't, then instant-kill attacks only work against weaker opponents. To me, it makes sense to go with the latter. Combat between equally-powerful deities should not be ended in one round based on who wins initiative.
Thorsbjorn 08-12-07, 09:23 AM	5% is indeed useless, due to the lack of nat. 1 failure for deities. That's a good thing. Ultimately, it's an issue of scaling. If save DCs scale faster than saves, combat will be determined by initiative. If they don't, then instant-kill attacks only work against weaker opponents. To me, it makes sense to go with the latter. Combat between equally-powerful deities should not be ended in one round based on who wins initiative. As I demonstrated above, it's not just a matter of combat between equally-powerful deities; under your method, Corellan's Annihilating Strike doesn't work against an advanced hecatoncheires or Hercules either; Hercules' Annihilating Strike works against even less. Combat against the advanced hecactoncheires, meanwhile, comes down to death for both Hercules and Corellan in only two rounds. That's profoundly wrong. Another option I might consider, in order to deal with the problem of Annihilating Strike would be to use your formula, but substantially advance the deities with Annihilating Strike in strength, and more general advance all deities in hit dice. Then all except the very strongest deities would have trouble using Annihilating Strike against other deities, but would still find it somewhat useful against a non-divine threat like the advanced hecatoncheire.
Alias 08-12-07, 05:34 PM	To be fair, I think it is still debatable if bracers of armour +10 are epic or not. The DMG lists bracers only up to +8, but the ELH/SRD lists epic bracers of armour from +11 onwards, so the status of bracers of armour +9 and +10 are currently unknown at the moment. It can be argued either way. Given the sloppy nature of the ELH, I'd put more weight on the DMG ending at +8 bracers than the ELH starting at +10 bracers, and start epic at anything above +8. You would be correct. Here's why: I've been working on an artificing system (skill-based magic item creation using the Craft rules); I actually finished the first iteration a couple months ago, but I decided to go back over it again and tweak the DCs and crafting times. Now, in order to do the whole artificing system properly, I had to use the epic progression someone posted here awhile back (I can't recall who, or I'd give him credit), AND redo the wealth progression, because I use the "quarter wealth rule" (when you're making a PC, you can't buy an item that costs more than 1/4 of your starting wealth) and it spreads out the availability levels more evenly (that is, the levels at which you can buy stuff, like armor +1, armor +2, etc.). Long story short, here are the levels at which you can afford bracers of armor using both the official wealth progression and mine (and the quarter-wealth rule): Bonus Official Mine +1 4 4 +2 7 7 +3 9 9 +4 11 11 +5 13 13 +6 14 15 +7 15 16 +8 16 18 +9 19 20 +10 21 22 Personally, I think mage armor should scale - say, +4 base, and +1/4 levels. That gives you a cap of +9 at 20th level - it'd give the spell a little more oomph, and make it more logical for inclusion in bracers. But that's really here nor there. :)
Gemstone 08-13-07, 06:10 AM	First you argued that 5% isn't useless and now that I've shown that it is useless (because for deities there's no automatic 5% chance of missing a save) you're making an entirely different argument that it should be useless. Is there anything that anyone could say that could possibly change your mind about watering down the DC for Annihilating Strike to the point of uselessness? In any case an SDA should be useful otherwise there's no point in even having it. And to affect deities it needs to remain as it is, not be be changed. Maybe you meant to write "But if you want them affected, it's true that you need to keep the current DC." What I did mean, is that: 5% isn't useless against any normal creature A deity is hardly a normal creature IMO :) Having an instant kill each 20 attacks is very good, as it occurs once every 5 rounds if you have 4 attacks. Deities however, are immune to natural '1', which is ok in my book as deities aren't supposed to utterly annihiliate each other in a single blow. So if you want it to affect deities as well, then you need to change the DC, I can agree to that. But I don't agree that it's the best way to do it :)
Thorsbjorn 08-13-07, 10:02 AM	What I did mean, is that: 5% isn't useless against any normal creature A deity is hardly a normal creature IMO :) Having an instant kill each 20 attacks is very good, as it occurs once every 5 rounds if you have 4 attacks. Deities however, are immune to natural '1', which is ok in my book as deities aren't supposed to utterly annihiliate each other in a single blow. So if you want it to affect deities as well, then you need to change the DC, I can agree to that. But I don't agree that it's the best way to do it :) Remember though that using the book method allows Corellon, for instance, some chance of surviving an attack by a fully-advanced hecatoncheire. Using a weaker method allows the hecatoncheire to kill Correlon in only two rounds. If you have some other method of giving a melee-oriented greater deity a chance to succeed against a hecatoncheire, I'm open to it. I briefly suggested bumping the ability scores (or prime ability score anyway) and the hit dice of deities substantially. I didn't go through a lengthy analysis of how much and how it would work in practice because so far as I can tell, nobody bothered to read my first lengthy analysis. :P Personally, I think mage armor should scale - say, +4 base, and +1/4 levels. That gives you a cap of +9 at 20th level - it'd give the spell a little more oomph, and make it more logical for inclusion in bracers. But that's really here nor there. :) There is a 3rd level greater mage armor spell in the Spell Compendium that grants a +6 bonus. If regular mage armor were to scale, it should probably reach its maximum at 9th level (like magic missile). They produced errata limiting the scaling of other low-level spells, like divine favor, similarly. So even a scaled mage armor would probably just increase to +5 at 8th level, or if you wanted to scale it at +1/3 levels, then at +6 at 9th level. A scaled mage armor though would undermine the existing greater mage armor spell.
runestar 08-13-07, 10:16 AM	Would inertial armour provide a plausible precedent? It's AC bonus granted improves by +1 for every 2 PP sunk into it. This could be construed as adding +1AC for each spell lv increment. But would it be too weak for a 9th lv spell to grant +12AC when you have polymorph and shapechange easily exceeding that amount?
Thorsbjorn 08-13-07, 10:42 AM	Would inertial armour provide a plausible precedent? It's AC bonus granted improves by +1 for every 2 PP sunk into it. This could be construed as adding +1AC for each spell lv increment. But would it be too weak for a 9th lv spell to grant +12AC when you have polymorph and shapechange easily exceeding that amount? It seems like oftentimes as you try to do an effect at successively higher levels you get diminishing (but not negative) returns. So if raising the spell from by 2 levels from 1st to 3rd increases the bonus by +2 (to +6), it might be that raising it by 2 from 3rd to 5th would raise the bonus only by +1.5, and you'd need to raise the spell by another 3 for a total of 3 to 6th, in order to get another +2 (to +8). Maybe above that you'd only get +1.5 for 3 levels so you're reach a maximum of maybe +9 at 8th level. We have mixed views about whether bracers of armor +9 or +10 need the epic feat or not, but clearly the bracers of armor +12 (and +11) do and the bracers of armor +8 don't. I'd be reluctant to have any non-epic spell grant as much as +12, and I'd probably cap any at +8, but certainly at no more than +10. :) Edit: Remember too that higher armor classes achieved through polymorph or shapechange usually come in the form of higher natural armor (and sometimes higher dexterity) so that a higher-level mage armor spell complements rather than competes with those spells. Remember too that mage armor lasts 6 times as long a shapechange and 60 times as long as polymorph.
Thorsbjorn 08-14-07, 05:37 PM	I use the "quarter wealth rule" (when you're making a PC, you can't buy an item that costs more than 1/4 of your starting wealth) From where did you get that rule? Is it just a house rule or does it come from one of the books? Thanks. :)
Alias 08-14-07, 06:33 PM	From where did you get that rule? Is it just a house rule or does it come from one of the books? Thanks. It actually mentions it somewhere in the ELH, in one of the "Behind the Curtains" sidebars. I don't know exactly which page, since I don't have the book, but UK pointed it out to me - he uses the same rule. Oh, I figured out why bracers of armor +9/+10 are missing from the DMG... in 3.0, armor bonus included shields - large shield and tower shields grant a +2 bonus, hence bracers went all the way to +10 to account for them. When we went to 3.5 and shield bonus was split off, the bracers' cap was lowered to +8.
Thorsbjorn 08-14-07, 07:01 PM	It actually mentions it somewhere in the ELH, in one of the "Behind the Curtains" sidebars. I don't know exactly which page, since I don't have the book, but UK pointed it out to me - he uses the same rule. Thanks. I looked around in several places in the ELH but couldn't find it. If you or anyone finds it, please let me know where it is. Thanks. :) Oh, I figured out why bracers of armor +9/+10 are missing from the DMG... in 3.0, armor bonus included shields - large shield and tower shields grant a +2 bonus, hence bracers went all the way to +10 to account for them. When we went to 3.5 and shield bonus was split off, the bracers' cap was lowered to +8. That's a nice story, but unfortunately I'm looking at page 211 of the 3.0 DMG and bracers went up only to +8 under 3.0 as well. :)
rob_douglas 08-15-07, 11:13 AM	Thanks. I looked around in several places in the ELH but couldn't find it. If you or anyone finds it, please let me know where it is. Thanks. :) Page 23 - under Starting Wealth. It suggests that no one spends all their money on a single item, and that you should have nothing more than 25% of your total starting wealth, and only 3 items worth more than 10% of starting wealth. So a 30th level character with 4.3 million gold can have 3 items valued between 430,000 and 1,075,000gp. It is more a guideline than a rule, but is also good for checking when your players are getting out of hand. That's a nice story, but unfortunately I'm looking at page 211 of the 3.0 DMG and bracers went up only to +8 under 3.0 as well. :) I like it. Does anyone remember if Shields stacked with bracers in 3.0? Ah - here we go: Armor Bonus: The protective value of the armor. Bonuses from armor and a shield stack. This bonus is an armor bonus, so it does not stack with other effects that increase an armor bonus, such as the mage armor spell or bracers of armor. So you could not use a shield with 3.0 Bracers, but you can with 3.5 bracers. Interesting. Based on that, I am going to continue with the idea that in 3.5, Bracers above +8 are epic. That works well for me. ROB
Thorsbjorn 08-15-07, 11:36 AM	Page 23 - under Starting Wealth. It suggests that no one spends all their money on a single item, and that you should have nothing more than 25% of your total starting wealth, and only 3 items worth more than 10% of starting wealth. So a 30th level character with 4.3 million gold can have 3 items valued between 430,000 and 1,075,000gp. It is more a guideline than a rule, but is also good for checking when your players are getting out of hand. I like it. Does anyone remember if Shields stacked with bracers in 3.0? Ah - here we go: So you could not use a shield with 3.0 Bracers, but you can with 3.5 bracers. Interesting. Based on that, I am going to continue with the idea that in 3.5, Bracers above +8 are epic. That works well for me. ROB Thanks for the reference. I'm having a player start a 20th level character, so I'm not srue if they'd apply the suggestion to him anyway, but I've been starting new characters with NPC wealth rather than PC wealth because for a very long time the campaign didn't allow the acquisition of wealth using the standard amounts in the DMG. I didn't really design it to be stingy but the campaign predates 3.0 and it was hard to bring the wealth levels up to the 3.0 guidelines for a good part of the adventure which consisted of traveling from one country to another. Also they passed by many opportunities to go after treasure--like they fought some hydras on the road but didn't want to go find the "mother of all hydras" in the swamp so they didn't get all that nice hydra treasure. In another case they fought some evil monk/wizards along the road but again didn't bother to track them back to their base and get all their stored wealth. When they fought the kobold army holding the key bridge between the two countries, they didn't want to face the likely kobold traps inside the blockhouse and came back the next day to loot it--giving the kobolds time to sneak back and take the valuable stuff. With the monk/wizards and the kobolds at least they did get the personal items, but there was plenty of other stuff that they missed in both cases. I've been trying to compensate now so that the players with have enough wealth to buy or create more expensive magic items--and epic spells. So I told the new guy to make a list of items at the 220,000 gp starting wealth of a 20th-level NPC and then make a list of additional items and upgrades perhaps all the way up to the 760,000 gp starting wealth of a 20th level PC so that I could just take a look and compare to what the other party members have. Most likely I'll end up letting him have something in between, so rather than impose the guideline I'll probably play it a bit fast and loose as we did in the old days of D&D in the 1970s when elves shivered around undead because, well, because my first DM had that rule and so everyone who learned to play under him had that rule too and we passed it along to our players as well. :D If I let him have more than 220,000 I might impose some sort of rule as to limits per item. I'm pretty sure he's not going to spend the whole 220,000 on one or two items anyway. I'll know more tonight when he comes over. Now it's back to trying to figure out this coming semester's syllabus so that I can figure out which week I can go out of town for my father's tombstone dedication. :weep: Oh yes Rob, I concur on classifying bracers above +8 as epic. Thanks again for getting me the page number on the wealth guidelines.
Alias 08-15-07, 01:16 PM	That's a nice story, but unfortunately I'm looking at page 211 of the 3.0 DMG and bracers went up only to +8 under 3.0 as well. Huh. That's odd... wonder why the ELH starts at +10, then. I'm sure it was accounting for shields, but who knows? :confused:
rob_douglas 08-15-07, 09:37 PM	Bracers have always been hard to understand. ELH was 3.0, but they probably came up with +10 do to the rule that the minimum caster level for bracers is 2x the bonus, so 20th level gets you +10. Then there is the Arms and Equipment Guide (also 3.0) that had +8 as the max, but allowed for enhancement equivalents, up to +5, and it says then that the maximum allowed total bonus is +13. That implies a max of +8 and +5 in other abilities: bracers +8 Heavy Fortification is +13, non-epic, for 169K. If +10 was still non-epic, then you could go up to +15 total, but that would cost over the 200K limit, which would require Epic crafting, but not trigger the x10 price increase, so it would only be 225K. +14 would be non-epic and 196K. But again, this would contradict A&EGuide. So it leaves itself all a little confused. In the interest of increasing the benefits of armor - I am limiting it to +8. I haven't decided for sure about further enhancements, but I have so far been against allowing them in my campaign. ROB
bluemage55 08-19-07, 04:48 AM	As I demonstrated above, it's not just a matter of combat between equally-powerful deities; under your method, Corellan's Annihilating Strike doesn't work against an advanced hecatoncheires or Hercules either; Hercules' Annihilating Strike works against even less. Combat against the advanced hecactoncheires, meanwhile, comes down to death for both Hercules and Corellan in only two rounds. That's profoundly wrong. Another option I might consider, in order to deal with the problem of Annihilating Strike would be to use your formula, but substantially advance the deities with Annihilating Strike in strength, and more general advance all deities in hit dice. Then all except the very strongest deities would have trouble using Annihilating Strike against other deities, but would still find it somewhat useful against a non-divine threat like the advanced hecatoncheire. Your argument is silly. The fact that an advanced hecatoncheires can beat Corellon is not a problem of the Annihilating Strike feat. The problem is that the deities as statted are too weak for a sensible cosmology.
bluemage55 08-19-07, 04:50 AM	Bracers have always been hard to understand. ELH was 3.0, but they probably came up with +10 do to the rule that the minimum caster level for bracers is 2x the bonus, so 20th level gets you +10. Then there is the Arms and Equipment Guide (also 3.0) that had +8 as the max, but allowed for enhancement equivalents, up to +5, and it says then that the maximum allowed total bonus is +13. That implies a max of +8 and +5 in other abilities: bracers +8 Heavy Fortification is +13, non-epic, for 169K. If +10 was still non-epic, then you could go up to +15 total, but that would cost over the 200K limit, which would require Epic crafting, but not trigger the x10 price increase, so it would only be 225K. +14 would be non-epic and 196K. But again, this would contradict A&EGuide. So it leaves itself all a little confused. In the interest of increasing the benefits of armor - I am limiting it to +8. I haven't decided for sure about further enhancements, but I have so far been against allowing them in my campaign. ROB The reason the cap is at +10 is because of the caster level scaling. To create bracers of armor, you need to have a CL of twice the armor bonus. The most powerful bracer that a non-epic caster could create would be +10, so they set the limit there.
SokenzanMarauder 08-19-07, 01:24 PM	I've got a couple more nits that I've picked for ya bluemage. Though they're all aesthetic: - Under the feats section the word 'Benefit' under Automatic Silent Spell isn't bold. - Under the feats section the word 'Benefit' under Bane of enemies isn't bold. - Under the feats section the word 'Special' under Blinding Speed isn't bold. If you'd like to use it I made you a chart for the type of Bulwark of the Great Dragon found. D% Color Breath --------------------- 01-10 Black Line 11-20 Blue Line 21-30 Brass Line 31-40 Bronze Line 41-50 Copper Line 51-60 Gold Cone 61-70 Green Cone 71-80 Red Cone 81-90 Silver Cone 91-00 White Cone As always, thanks for all the hard work you do! -Gene
Thorsbjorn 08-19-07, 02:50 PM	Your argument is silly. The fact that an advanced hecatoncheires can beat Corellon is not a problem of the Annihilating Strike feat. The problem is that the deities as statted are too weak for a sensible cosmology. What's really silly is that while we all know the deities are too weak relative to epic material, neither you nor anyone else arguing for watering down one of the few abilities that gives a few deities a chance against epic material has responded to my other suggestions for empowering the deities or made your own suggestions. Any talk of watering down anything to do with the deities is silly in the extreme without drastically powering them up first. :P
bluemage55 08-20-07, 01:51 AM	What's really silly is that while we all know the deities are too weak relative to epic material, neither you nor anyone else arguing for watering down one of the few abilities that gives a few deities a chance against epic material has responded to my other suggestions for empowering the deities or made your own suggestions. Any talk of watering down anything to do with the deities is silly in the extreme without drastically powering them up first. :P I don't disagree that the deities are too weak. My point is that you are going about it the wrong way. Rather than giving deities overpowered abiliites, they should instead be rewritten with pure class levels (putting many at 60th level), and make use of epic feats, epic spells, and epic equipment.
Thorsbjorn 08-21-07, 03:37 PM	I don't disagree that the deities are too weak. My point is that you are going about it the wrong way. Rather than giving deities overpowered abiliites, they should instead be rewritten with pure class levels (putting many at 60th level), and make use of epic feats, epic spells, and epic equipment. As I indicated, I'd be willing to consider watering down Annihilating Strike if the deities are substantially powered up. This is the first that you or anyone else advocating watering down Annihilating Strike has acknowledged the need to substantially power up the deities. So welcome to the party--better late than never! :P
rob_douglas 08-21-07, 04:55 PM	Whoa there - this is what I said when this started: Stats for gods are in Deities and Demigods, and are notoriously weak for dealing with Epic (you can find better at Dicefreaks - same number of hit dice, but better use of epic feats/skills/abilities), but certainly if you start with those. Most SDAs affect mortals more than immortals, and I put the Abominations in the Immortals category, being DvR 0 beings. [snip] There has to be some rework of the deity rules as well to give epic stuff a chance. I do believe that the deities need rework too - but I would not advocate doing it in this thread for several reasons: 1) not everyone agrees on just how powerful they should be. I think a fully tanked Hec. should be able to take one on - as that is what the fluff says they are good for (and with 140HD to 70HD, that should help some). I think any Epic character should be able to make a save or have a chance against gods - there are too many no save I win abilities. But others want the gods to be supreme over all mortals. 2) not many folks need stats for deities and SDAs 3) There is a forum specifically for talking about deities and divine rules. AS I said, if you think the deities are too weak, as I do, look at the dicfreaks reworking - that goes a long way to fixing things that De&Dg messed up (though that is strong - they were written with 20th level cap in mind, and didn't properly conceive of Epic characters). http://dicefreaks.com/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=12 ROB
Thorsbjorn 08-21-07, 08:51 PM	Whoa there - this is what I said when this started: I do believe that the deities need rework too - but I would not advocate doing it in this thread for several reasons: 1) not everyone agrees on just how powerful they should be. I think a fully tanked Hec. should be able to take one on - as that is what the fluff says they are good for (and with 140HD to 70HD, that should help some). I think any Epic character should be able to make a save or have a chance against gods - there are too many no save I win abilities. But others want the gods to be supreme over all mortals. 2) not many folks need stats for deities and SDAs 3) There is a forum specifically for talking about deities and divine rules. AS I said, if you think the deities are too weak, as I do, look at the dicfreaks reworking - that goes a long way to fixing things that De&Dg messed up (though that is strong - they were written with 20th level cap in mind, and didn't properly conceive of Epic characters). http://dicefreaks.com/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=12 ROB Ok, I absolutely stand corrected on saying that Blue was the first to acknowledge the need for substantially raising the power of deities in the context of discussing the appropriate formula for Annihilating Strike. :D Thanks for the link to Dice Freaks. I took a quick look and saw a few of things I don't like: no outsider dice, an absolute limit on Strength scores, total hit dice not that much greater than in Deities and Demigods. I like their alter reality ability. I'm not entirely sure if I like all deities of rank 6 and higher automatically getting avatars. (I'm not sure that I dislike it either. :D) I like the opposed divine rank roll for determining if Annihilating Strike functions against deities. I think that Divine Celerity should still grant an extra action per round--just acting like the 3.5 haste spell really is too weak to qualify for a SDA. I just skimmed the thread so I'm sure I'm missing a great many things, both pro and con. I agree that the 3rd Ed deities are more powerful relative to non-epic characters than were the original D&D, 1st Ed, and especially 2nd Ed Deities. I wish though that Wizards, instead of just acknowledging the then-forthcoming Epic Level Handbook in Deities and Demigods had used the epic level material in the first place.
Thorsbjorn 09-01-07, 12:46 AM	Overwhelming Critical seems like a rather weak feat, especially for an epic feat, granting only an extra d6 for a x2 multiplier. I was thinking that maybe a better way to run the feat would be to have it just increase the multiplier by 1. What do people think? Thanks. :) Edit: Here's what someone said on the thread that originally got me thinking about this. My revised version of overwhelming critical increases x2 to x3, x3 to x5 and x4 to x7. Comments? Edit 2: It seems like the traffic on this thread had fallen off considerably just recently. What's happened to everyone? Have they gone off to argue about 4E? Which reminds me; are we going to lose this thread with 4E coming? How many people are going to keep playing epic 3.5? My players and plan to continue with epic 3.5 for the foreseeable future. In case we lose this board, is there any other place to post about epic 3.5 material? Thanks. :)
bluemage55 09-01-07, 02:26 AM	Overwhelming Critical seems like a rather weak feat, especially for an epic feat, granting only an extra d6 for a x2 multiplier. I was thinking that maybe a better way to run the feat would be to have it just increase the multiplier by 1. What do people think? Thanks. :) I would agree that the feat is rather weak, especially given the difficulty in landing a critical hit in epic, where heavy fortification is abundant. Increasing the multiplier would also be simpler for gameplay, as it would negate the need to roll yet more dice. Edit 2: It seems like the traffic on this thread had fallen off considerably just recently. What's happened to everyone? Have they gone off to argue about 4E? Which reminds me; are we going to lose this thread with 4E coming? How many people are going to keep playing epic 3.5? My players and plan to continue with epic 3.5 for the foreseeable future. In case we lose this board, is there any other place to post about epic 3.5 material? Thanks. :) When 4E comes, this thread will be a relic for those who continue to play 3.5. I myself will probably make the switch over to 4E should it prove to be as promising as WotC is making it sound, and I would be happy to propose a 4E Epic Revision Thread should its necessity occur. Additionally, should the epic support for 4E stop at 30th-level with no expansion book for 30+ planned, I would create a thread to update the 3.5 material to 4.0.
Thorsbjorn 09-01-07, 02:36 AM	I would agree that the feat is rather weak, especially given the difficulty in landing a critical hit in epic, where heavy fortification is abundant. Increasing the multiplier would also be simpler for gameplay, as it would negate the need to roll yet more dice. Did you prefer adding 1 to the multiplier of any weapon, or the progressive increase used by Kain? When 4E comes, this thread will be a relic for those who continue to play 3.5. I myself will probably make the switch over to 4E should it prove to be as promising as WotC is making it sound, and I would be happy to propose a 4E Epic Revision Thread should its necessity occur. Additionally, should the epic support for 4E stop at 30th-level with no expansion book for 30+ planned, I would create a thread to update the 3.5 material to 4.0. There's nothing wrong with being a relic; I've been playing D&D for 29 years and 5 editions, so that makes me sort of a relic myself. :P I'm sorry to hear though you'll likely be jumping ship. :(
bluemage55 09-01-07, 03:37 AM	Did you prefer adding 1 to the multiplier of any weapon, or the progressive increase used by Kain? Adding 1 would probably be sufficient. A progressive increase is a bit much, considering how much x7 can do. There's nothing wrong with being a relic; I've been playing D&D for 29 years and 5 editions, so that makes me sort of a relic myself. :P I'm sorry to hear though you'll likely be jumping ship. :( "Jumping ship" is a bit negatively connotating isn't it? I would prefer to think of it more like an upgrade.
runestar 09-01-07, 04:18 AM	Seems like overwhelming crit is nothing more than a filler feat meant as a prereq for devastating critical... I would probably improve the damage die, rather than increasing the crit multiplier though, to prevent any unwanted synergy with other properties like burst enchantments and the like.
Thorsbjorn 09-01-07, 06:12 AM	Seems like overwhelming crit is nothing more than a filler feat meant as a prereq for devastating critical... I would probably improve the damage die, rather than increasing the crit multiplier though, to prevent any unwanted synergy with other properties like burst enchantments and the like. Increasing the damage die, at least by only one step, would provide a rather weak benefit. For a greatsword, for instance, it would mean increasing from 2d6 to 3d6, or an average of 3.5 extra points of damage. That's actually exactly the same weak increase provided currently for a weapon with a multiplier of x2. For a weapon that does 1d6 the die would incrase to a d8, increasing the average by only 1 point, even less than the current benefit. Increasing the critical multiplier by 1 would bump the d6 weapons up by 3.5 + Strength bonus, but the d8 weapons by 4.5 + Strength bonus + Power Attack bonus, and the 2d6 weapons by 7 + Strength bonus + 2x Power Attack bonus. For the tarrasque's bite it would increase the damage by 18 + 17 + Power Attack bonus (so probably by 45) versus by only 9 with an increase to the next die step. If you're worried about burst enchantments you could always specifically rule that the increase in the multiplier doesn't apply to them. :) So what about you, Rune? Are you planning to jump ship to 4E too?
runestar 09-01-07, 06:40 AM	Increasing the damage die, at least by only one step, would provide a rather weak benefit. For a greatsword, for instance, it would mean increasing from 2d6 to 3d6, or an average of 3.5 extra points of damage. No, I mean increase the extra damage dealt on a successful crit. Currently, it is +1d6 for a weapon with a crit multiplier of x2. I am not sure what to raise it to though. So what about you, Rune? Are you planning to jump ship to 4E too? I really can't tell until I have previewed the new material in its entirety. Though it might probably be a while before I do pick up the new books, depending on my financial situation at that time (poor student...:( ), and I still have a fair amount of 3ed material which have not been fully utilized. 4e really has to blow me out of the water with its "wow!" factor for me to really consider jumping ship so quickly. And by blowing me out of the water, I mean radical new mechanics, not combat scenarios like this (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/drdd/20070822a), even as I admit that the numbers sound fairly impressive.
Thorsbjorn 09-01-07, 06:54 AM	No, I mean increase the extra damage dealt on a successful crit. Currently, it is +1d6 for a weapon with a crit multiplier of x2. I am not sure what to raise it to though. I really can't tell until I have previewed the new material in its entirety. Though it might probably be a while before I do pick up the new books, depending on my financial situation at that time (poor student...:( ), and I still have a fair amount of 3ed material which have not been fully utilized. 4e really has to blow me out of the water with its "wow!" factor for me to really consider jumping ship so quickly. Taking your concern about burst effects into consideration, I've added the following to my house rules under the Epic Level Handbook section: p. 63, Overwhelming Critical: Change the benefit to “When using the weapon you have selected, you increase the critical multiplier by +1. If the weapon has a magical special ability, like shocking burst, that relies on the multiplier to determine the amount of damage the ability does, the increased modifier doesn’t apply to the special ability’s damage.” As for 4E, when I first heard the rumors a few months back I discussed it with the player who has been in my group the longest, about 4 to 4.5 years now. We agreed that we really didn't want to see a new edition this decade. We'd both already bought two versions this decade, and didn't have any desire to buy new core books again for a good three years. He actually makes decent money, defending the country against terrorists (I live near DC), but I'm a poor adjunct college instructor, and as I joking like to say, "adjunct" is Latin for "junky pay." When Wizards officially announced 4E, I discussed it with the whole group, and nobody felt the slightest inclination to buy new core books and start the whole expenditure train over again. I think that even if 4E were an improvement--and from I've heard so far it sounds worse rather than better--we wouldn't likely switch when it comes out. Wizards has said that 4E will provide no conversion from 4E, and nobody here wants to give up their 20th-level or 21st-level character (higher by the time 4E comes out) in the middle of an ongoing adventure and start over again with weenie 1st-level characters. We started this campaign in 3.0, and converted mid-campaign with little fuss, but Wizards seems to be going out of its way to kill and bury 3.5--presumably to cut down on competition with 4E. They're taking exactly the opposite tact that took with the switch from 2nd Ed to 3rd Ed, where they make it not only easily convertible but published a free conversion guide too. Speaking of killing 3.5, I'm wondering if they won't, come May, drive 3.5 off the boards here. If so, do you know of any other boards that will continue to carry 3.5 conversation? I value the 3.5 conversations we have here. :)
Witch 09-01-07, 07:28 AM	Thanks for the link to Dice Freaks. I took a quick look and saw a few of things I don't like: no outsider dice, an absolute limit on Strength scores, total hit dice not that much greater than in Deities and Demigods. Allow me to ask the question as to why you dislike them. First, though, I will inform you of the reasons for these. No Outsider Hit Dice Using Outsider Hit Dice, especially the number D&Dg used (20), means that all Gods will be melee monsters. They will all have the same number of base attack bonus, and the same number of attacks. Their attacks will only vary somewhat by strength, and the use of them by feats. Dicefreaks wanted to ensure that Boccob wasn't as capable a melee combatant, as, say, some random intermediate deity of war. Absolute Limit on Strength Scores This is a design cap, not a hard cap. To coherently design within a cosmology, it is handy to know what is the highest potential one can ever reach. If the most intelligent being ever has 60 intelligence, then you don't need to give your God of Battle a 55 - or the comparison with your God of Knowledge may be rather bad, when that god only has a 56 or so. Fairly Low Total Hit Dice This goes together with a limit of maximum 50 HD on mortals - and even beings with 50 HD have transcended mortality in one fashion or another. Deities aren't considered as more powerful than cosmic outsiders, so they are kept somewhat below their HD (Salient Divine Abilities make up the difference in power). They are still firmly above the HD of mortals, except for those with pathetic creature types (e.g. vermin. Their HD is worthless anyway.)
Witch 09-01-07, 07:31 AM	Adding 1 would probably be sufficient. A progressive increase is a bit much, considering how much x7 can do. The progressive increase has obvious reasons. 18-20/x2 changing to 18-20/x3 is going to be a vastly better improvement than a 20/x4 going to a 20/x5. Doing the mathematics, you will find that the same improvement will be acquired if you change it to a x7 instead.
Thorsbjorn 09-01-07, 07:40 AM	Hey, is Dicefreaks going to stick with 3.5, or switch to 4E?
Witch 09-01-07, 07:45 AM	That is currently unknown. Dicefreaks has not taken a definitive stance on whether or not we will adopt 4ed rule set. It is likely we will not know until after 4ed has debuted. When I say "we" I am referring to minscfan, myself, Selah, and Kain Darkwind (as well, to lesser degrees, moderators and DICE). What factors will have an impact on adopting 4ed? A significant one will be the OGL. If, as it seems will be the case, 4ed does not allow for open content and 3rd party publishers, it would be difficult for me to justify transitioning the site in that direciton since I know that some of us would like to release official material for pay. Of course, it's possible that WotC can/will make adjustments to its current OGL for 3ed (including 3.5), which makes everything moot.
Thorsbjorn 09-01-07, 07:49 AM	That is currently unknown. Oh, Kain is at Dicefreaks too? I didn't know that. He's a good guy. :)
Thorsbjorn 09-02-07, 04:13 AM	Since under 3.5 barbarians already get mighty rage at 20th level, I've made the following addition to my house rules under the ELH: p. 62, Mighty Rage: Change the name to Epic Rage, and raise the bonuses to +10 on Strength and Constitution, and +5 on Will saves.
rob_douglas 09-04-07, 11:34 AM	Epic Rage seems about right. As for Overwhleming Critical, I think 1 step is enough. Don't forget that you have to have Imp Crit to get it, so there are no 20/x4 advancements. Using a Rapier to go to 15-20/x3 is ok, but how often can you actually hit with a 15. The big bonus that comes from giving more like x7 for x4 is that you get to multiply not only Strength, but enhancement, luck, morale, divine might, and smiting bonuses. A charging lance wielding paladin would get even more messy with this Overwhelming critical. And it is harder to write up and doesn't have any precedent. As for 4E, I too will wait to see what happens. I *think* it will work better for my group based on what I am hearing - being more focused on levels up to 30 (which is where we are and where I find a lot of breakage), allowing multiple actions/tasks (like healing and attacking in the same round). This could also make the monsters more reasonable. It seems to me they are trying to fix the lass of 3.0 Haste in 3.5 for example. A creature is able to do some "iconic" things as a swift or immediate action, in addition to melee if that is its niche. Almost makes me want to restore the Blinding Speed Epic feat to grant extra actions - make it more useful than Haste 5 rounds per day. ;) We shall see. As for no conversion - well, there has to be conversion, because I play in Greyhawk, and I need the world to remain internally consistent, even if it is not using the same stats. The same would apply to anyone who has invested in their world. Sure, they may want us to start new campaigns, but surely not throw out whole worlds. So there will be some conversion guidelines, if only through hearsay..... ROB
rob_douglas 09-04-07, 06:36 PM	I forgot to mention another change I see in 4E that might be good epic-wise. They want to get away from HD for feats being the same for all races. So Outsiders may gain back many feats, making them significantly more powerful. Imagine if they get 1/2HD? Of course they want to make feats and class features more common, so they will be less powerful. But I have hope that this will help make powerful outsiders more challenging to Epic PCs. We shall see.... Remember 3E had alternate HD strategies (esp. Fey) and that caused its own problems. I wonder if they found a middle ground. Feats based on INT sure made LeShay more potentially powerful. ROB
Balthanon 09-04-07, 08:27 PM	Remember 3E had alternate HD strategies (esp. Fey) and that caused its own problems. I wonder if they found a middle ground. Feats based on INT sure made LeShay more potentially powerful. ROB I don't think there are going to be any hard or fast rules along the lines of 3.0 for feats. It sounds more like they have some guidelines for how they affect a monsters power level and they add them as they desire, so you could have an epic monster with the same type and 2 feats or 20.
runestar 09-04-07, 09:45 PM	I don't think there are going to be any hard or fast rules along the lines of 3.0 for feats. It sounds more like they have some guidelines for how they affect a monsters power level and they add them as they desire, so you could have an epic monster with the same type and 2 feats or 20. Guidelines might make more sense to make monsters more easily modifiable - maybe you could grant them bonus feats at a +1cr every 3 feats or something along that line. But that then raises another problem of its own - that a 1-size-fits-all approach rarely meshes well with dnd, where more often than not, you may need to deviate from established guidelines and figure out things independently for yourself.:(
Thorsbjorn 09-05-07, 12:06 AM	Epic Rage seems about right. As for Overwhleming Critical, I think 1 step is enough. Don't forget that you have to have Imp Crit to get it, so there are no 20/x4 advancements. Using a Rapier to go to 15-20/x3 is ok, but how often can you actually hit with a 15. The big bonus that comes from giving more like x7 for x4 is that you get to multiply not only Strength, but enhancement, luck, morale, divine might, and smiting bonuses. A charging lance wielding paladin would get even more messy with this Overwhelming critical. And it is harder to write up and doesn't have any precedent. As for 4E, I too will wait to see what happens. I *think* it will work better for my group based on what I am hearing - being more focused on levels up to 30 (which is where we are and where I find a lot of breakage), allowing multiple actions/tasks (like healing and attacking in the same round). This could also make the monsters more reasonable. It seems to me they are trying to fix the lass of 3.0 Haste in 3.5 for example. A creature is able to do some "iconic" things as a swift or immediate action, in addition to melee if that is its niche. Almost makes me want to restore the Blinding Speed Epic feat to grant extra actions - make it more useful than Haste 5 rounds per day. ;) We shall see. As for no conversion - well, there has to be conversion, because I play in Greyhawk, and I need the world to remain internally consistent, even if it is not using the same stats. The same would apply to anyone who has invested in their world. Sure, they may want us to start new campaigns, but surely not throw out whole worlds. So there will be some conversion guidelines, if only through hearsay..... ROB Kain made the point on the other thread that the current Overwhelming Critical favors higher critical multipliers, while switching to a constant increase in multiplier favors higher critical threat ranges. As for precedent, he took the increases directly from the Dragondoom feat on page 105 of Draconomicon. I still modified Overwhelming Critical to +1 critical modifier in my house rules, but I thought in fairness I'd provide his side of the argument too. :) It sounds like most of the regular posters here are going to jump ship. I'll miss you when you're gone.:weep:
Thorsbjorn 09-05-07, 12:37 AM	I don't have Complete Scoundrel, but someone on another thread suggested a scout/fighter build for a dervish, and suggested the Improved Skirmish feat from Complete Scoundrel. Improved Skirmish apparently treats the character as 8 levels higher for purposes of the skirmish ability of the scout class, giving the character an additional 2d6 points of skirmish damage and +2 bonus to AC. That seemed like a bit much to me, especially when I considered that the epic feat Improved Sneak Attack grants only 2d6 extra points of damage on a sneak attack--actually a bit less benefit than the non-epic Improved Skirmish feat. The suggester said that he'd seen the Improved Skirmish used in a game and that it wasn't game-breaking, and said that he things Improved Sneak attack is too weak for an epic feat. I noted that a feat need not actually rise to the level of breaking a game to be overpowered. I also noted that while the two feats add an average of 7 points of damage per attack, Epic Weapon Specialization adds only 4 points of damage per attack, so that unless that feat is too weak too, Improved Sneak Attack doesn't really seem too weak by comparison. So what do you folks think? Is the non-epic Improved Skirmish too powerful and the epic Improved Sneak Attack just fine? Or is Improved Skirmish fine and we need to improve Improved Sneak Attack. :D Thanks!
Gemstone 09-05-07, 03:58 AM	It sounds like most of the regular posters here are going to jump ship. I'll miss you when you're gone.:weep: If 4.0 is anything like Saga, I won't be jumping ship mate :) we'll be in there alone then... true, it's a heavy burden, but we can make it :D However, if the new edition proves to be extremely [insert random word here] good, I'll change. But I doubt it. why change socks before they stink?
Thorsbjorn 09-05-07, 07:02 AM	If 4.0 is anything like Saga, I won't be jumping ship mate :) we'll be in there alone then... true, it's a heavy burden, but we can make it :D However, if the new edition proves to be extremely [insert random word here] good, I'll change. But I doubt it. why change socks before they stink? Thanks! How is Saga different from 3.5? I'm afraid that even if we both stick with 3.5 we won't be able to discuss it here after May--I suspect that Wizards will shut down all the 3.5 threads to make it harder for 3.5 to compete with their new game. :weep:
runestar 09-05-07, 07:29 AM	Thanks! How is Saga different from 3.5? From what I gather, there is a lot more emphasis on standard actions (like ToB) and less on full-attacks. That is all I know though.:embarrass
Balthanon 09-05-07, 08:58 AM	I don't have Complete Scoundrel, but someone on another thread suggested a scout/fighter build for a dervish, and suggested the Improved Skirmish feat from Complete Scoundrel. Improved Skirmish apparently treats the character as 8 levels higher for purposes of the skirmish ability of the scout class, giving the character an additional 2d6 points of skirmish damage and +2 bonus to AC. Improved Skirmish doesn't just automatically increase damage and AC, it alters your skirmish so that if you move 10 feet or 15 feet you get your normal bonus and if you move 20 feet or more you get the extra 2d6/2 AC (which is a flat bonus, rather than termed as being 8 levels higher as well. Same effect, but there is a slight difference.) For a rogue or other character with sneak attack, having a feat that does the same thing would likely require an opponent to have a couple of different sneak attack conditions applied. So the rogue would need to be invisible and have the opponent flanked for instance.
Thorsbjorn 09-05-07, 09:38 AM	Improved Skirmish doesn't just automatically increase damage and AC, it alters your skirmish so that if you move 10 feet or 15 feet you get your normal bonus and if you move 20 feet or more you get the extra 2d6/2 AC (which is a flat bonus, rather than termed as being 8 levels higher as well. Same effect, but there is a slight difference.) For a rogue or other character with sneak attack, having a feat that does the same thing would likely require an opponent to have a couple of different sneak attack conditions applied. So the rogue would need to be invisible and have the opponent flanked for instance. Ok, thanks. So I've been misinformed about how the feat actually works. Since I don't have the actual text of the feat, I don't think I'll try to to use it.
Gemstone 09-05-07, 04:11 PM	Thanks! How is Saga different from 3.5? I'm afraid that even if we both stick with 3.5 we won't be able to discuss it here after May--I suspect that Wizards will shut down all the 3.5 threads to make it harder for 3.5 to compete with their new game. :weep: Well basicly, it mucks up skills into something I don't like and it goes away from what I like with d20 (IMO). But they wouldn't shut down 3.5 wouldn't they? That's like killing ½ of their fan-base... just stupid!
Thorsbjorn 09-05-07, 05:06 PM	Well basicly, it mucks up skills into something I don't like and it goes away from what I like with d20 (IMO). But they wouldn't shut down 3.5 wouldn't they? That's like killing ½ of their fan-base... just stupid! It does sound like they're dumbing down the skill system and trying to make characters of all classes more homogeneous when it comes to skills--a reversion to flaws of the pre-3rd Ed days. "Gee, my big dumb fighter is only good at jumping, climbing and swimming. He can't bluff at all. Whaaaaaa! Never fear, StupidE, er, 4E is here! Now your dumb fighter can be just as good at bluffing as the charismatic rogue!) I also don't like the fact that they're losing armor class, and icon of the D&D game from its inception. Mostly I don't like that it's the 3rd edition in 8 years, and the second in only 3. I don't have a crystal ball to see what Wizards will do in the future, but I predict that a smaller percentage of current customers will switch to the new edition this time than every before, and that Wizards will, to try to force the new system down as many throats as possible go to some extremes. I wouldn't be surprised if one of the extremes includes locking, archiving or even deleting all the 3.5 threads sometime in the coming year.
Gemstone 09-05-07, 06:10 PM	It does sound like they're dumbing down the skill system and trying to make characters of all classes more homogeneous when it comes to skills--a reversion to flaws of the pre-3rd Ed days. "Gee, my big dumb fighter is only good at jumping, climbing and swimming. He can't bluff at all. Whaaaaaa! Never fear, StupidE, er, 4E is here! Now your dumb fighter can be just as good at bluffing as the charismatic rogue!) I also don't like the fact that they're losing armor class, and icon of the D&D game from its inception. Mostly I don't like that it's the 3rd edition in 8 years, and the second in only 3. I don't have a crystal ball to see what Wizards will do in the future, but I predict that a smaller percentage of current customers will switch to the new edition this time than every before, and that Wizards will, to try to force the new system down as many throats as possible go to some extremes. I wouldn't be surprised if one of the extremes includes locking, archiving or even deleting all the 3.5 threads sometime in the coming year. Hmm... while I agree with you one some parts, I really hope it's not that bad. But lets keep from derailing the thread any further :)
Thorsbjorn 09-05-07, 06:19 PM	Hmm... while I agree with you one some parts, I really hope it's not that bad. But lets keep from derailing the thread any further :) It would be nice if I could keeping come here to discuss 3.5. Speaking of which, Blue, when are you going to add the revised Overwhelming Critical and Epic Rage to the lists at the top of the thread? :)
Alias 09-07-07, 04:30 PM	I myself will probably make the switch over to 4E should it prove to be as promising as WotC is making it sound, and I would be happy to propose a 4E Epic Revision Thread should its necessity occur. To hear Wizards say it, 4E is the best thing to happen to D&D, EVER. :rolleyes: That seemed like a bit much to me, especially when I considered that the epic feat Improved Sneak Attack grants only 2d6 extra points of damage on a sneak attack--actually a bit less benefit than the non-epic Improved Skirmish feat. Improved Sneak Attack grants +1d6, not +2d6. As for me, I don't think I'll be converting. Nothing they've shown us so far had made go "Wow, this is really cool!". Some of it, in fact, made me say "WTF?" Most of it's just... meh. :bored: I'm still following developments, but so far, they've failed to impress me.
runestar 09-07-07, 08:51 PM	To hear Wizards say it, 4E is the best thing to happen to D&D, EVER. Since it pretty much lets them repackage all their existing material and resell them...you can't get any more efficient than that...:D
Thorsbjorn 09-08-07, 04:43 AM	To hear Wizards say it, 4E is the best thing to happen to D&D, EVER. :rolleyes: Improved Sneak Attack grants +1d6, not +2d6. As for me, I don't think I'll be converting. Nothing they've shown us so far had made go "Wow, this is really cool!". Some of it, in fact, made me say "WTF?" Most of it's just... meh. :bored: I'm still following developments, but so far, they've failed to impress me. Oh, good call on the Improved Sneak Attack. That makes Improved Skirmish look even better by comparison. Since I don't even have the book that contains Improved Skirmish, I've decided not to try to use it. As for 4E, from what I've heard of it so far--no AC, homogenized skills that make the classes more similar, etc.--it doesn't sound like something I'd ever want to use. Since my players and I have no desire to spend money on yet another set of core books, and a set that renders all the other books useless, we'll have plenty of time to see just how good or bad 4E turns out to be. With any luck they'll be on to 5th Ed, making it return to a system more in line with D&D, by the time we decide we might be willing to switch editions. :P Edit: Does anyone think that Improved Sneak Attack should grant +2d6?
Alias 09-09-07, 11:49 AM	As for 4E, from what I've heard of it so far--no AC, homogenized skills that make the classes more similar, etc.--it doesn't sound like something I'd ever want to use. I'm not sure where you're getting this "no AC" thing... according to this thread (http://wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/drdd/20070822a) AC was mentioned and seems to have the same function as it does now. I don't see how else you're going to determine hits and misses... Edit: Does anyone think that Improved Sneak Attack should grant +2d6? No... I thought about doing an epic feat that was a catchall for class abilities, instead of 10,000 different feats like the +2/+2s - basically, it grants one "step" of advancement in the ability - +2 to a DC (death attack, e.g.), +1d6 sneak attack, or whatever - effectively, two levels' worth.
Thorsbjorn 09-10-07, 01:22 AM	I'm not sure where you're getting this "no AC" thing... according to this thread (http://wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/drdd/20070822a) AC was mentioned and seems to have the same function as it does now. I don't see how else you're going to determine hits and misses... No... I thought about doing an epic feat that was a catchall for class abilities, instead of 10,000 different feats like the +2/+2s - basically, it grants one "step" of advancement in the ability - +2 to a DC (death attack, e.g.), +1d6 sneak attack, or whatever - effectively, two levels' worth. I'd read on another thread that Wizards was going to combine Reflex saving throws and AC into one "defense roll." Perhaps they've changed their mind because of hostile feedback, or perhaps that article you cited predates the decision to combine the two. Why is "+2" one step when you can increase by increments of +1?
Alias 09-10-07, 06:38 PM	I'd read on another thread that Wizards was going to combine Reflex saving throws and AC into one "defense roll." Perhaps they've changed their mind because of hostile feedback, or perhaps that article you cited predates the decision to combine the two. Link me? I hadn't heard anything about that. Why is "+2" one step when you can increase by increments of +1? You can, but an epic feat isn't worth +1, IMO. Besides, stuff like Improved Sneak Attack is effectively two levels, since you're gaining +1d6/2 levels, so making everything else +2 just brings the other abilities into line with it. It also, incidentally, makes the abilities more worthwhile - a 10th level assassin's death attack is DC 15+Int bonus (16-18 most of the time) - not very useful against most stuff a 15th-16th level PC will be fighting. Adding +2 gives them a bit of a boost. Personally, though, I think PrC abilities should be DC 10 + class level + ability mod. :)
Thorsbjorn 09-11-07, 08:53 PM	Link me? I hadn't heard anything about that. You can, but an epic feat isn't worth +1, IMO. Besides, stuff like Improved Sneak Attack is effectively two levels, since you're gaining +1d6/2 levels, so making everything else +2 just brings the other abilities into line with it. It also, incidentally, makes the abilities more worthwhile - a 10th level assassin's death attack is DC 15+Int bonus (16-18 most of the time) - not very useful against most stuff a 15th-16th level PC will be fighting. Adding +2 gives them a bit of a boost. Personally, though, I think PrC abilities should be DC 10 + class level + ability mod. :) At this point I don't recall for certain which thread contained the defense roll stuff. It might have been this thread http://forums.gleemax.com/showthread.php?p=13749266#post13749266 or this thread http://forums.gleemax.com/showthread.php?t=905787&page=129 or even this thread http://forums.gleemax.com/showthread.php?t=916020&page=3#post13701046. Well it sounds like for some abilities you want the epic feat to increase them one step, and for others two steps. I agree with your examples above, and I think that's why an epic feat can't just say that it increases something by one step. For special abilities, don't most of them use 10 + 1/2 level + ability score bonus?
Balthanon 09-11-07, 09:03 PM	I'd read on another thread that Wizards was going to combine Reflex saving throws and AC into one "defense roll." Perhaps they've changed their mind because of hostile feedback, or perhaps that article you cited predates the decision to combine the two. That was done in Saga and they've mentioned in the past that Saga and Tome of Battle can both be considered precursors of 4th Edition. The idea that it would be in 4th edition came about as a result of that. They have since mentioned AC directly though, so the theory has more or less been disproved.
Thorsbjorn 09-12-07, 12:34 AM	That was done in Saga and they've mentioned in the past that Saga and Tome of Battle can both be considered precursors of 4th Edition. The idea that it would be in 4th edition came about as a result of that. They have since mentioned AC directly though, so the theory has more or less been disproved. Since they're still making changes to 4E, I'd say less rather than more. :P
Alias 09-12-07, 10:56 AM	Well it sounds like for some abilities you want the epic feat to increase them one step, and for others two steps. I agree with your examples above, and I think that's why an epic feat can't just say that it increases something by one step. True... the feat would be woreded something like this: Choose one class ability. That class ability gains a +2 to the save DC, or +1d6 damage, whichever is applicable. You can take this feat multiple times; each time you can apply it to the same ability, or different ones. Its effects stack. We could probably put a cap on that somewhere - maybe you can take it 10 times total? For special abilities, don't most of them use 10 + 1/2 level + ability score bonus? They all do - that's standard. It's why I suggested using the 10+level+ability mod instead.
Thorsbjorn 09-14-07, 02:26 AM	True... the feat would be woreded something like this: Choose one class ability. That class ability gains a +2 to the save DC, or +1d6 damage, whichever is applicable. You can take this feat multiple times; each time you can apply it to the same ability, or different ones. Its effects stack. We could probably put a cap on that somewhere - maybe you can take it 10 times total? They all do - that's standard. It's why I suggested using the 10+level+ability mod instead. Oh, are you suggesting replacing 1/2 level with level? Is that your point? :)
Alias 09-14-07, 12:00 PM	Oh, are you suggesting replacing 1/2 level with level? Is that your point? :) Not as a part of the feat, no - that's a separate suggestion. If you made saves 10+level, you probably wouldn't need that feat in the first place.
rob_douglas 09-14-07, 04:19 PM	I believe the reason that PrCs swtich to half- saves at epic is to keep pace with normal class saves. Assassin DC is 10 + Assassin level (max 10) + 1/2 (epic assassin levels above 10) + stat. Compare to a monk's quivering palm - 10 + 1/2 monk level + stat. A maxed out monk and assassin have the same save DCs post epic, which is desired. There are different reasons to base DCs on character level or class level, depending on what the ability is and how tied it is to the class. Depending on what you do, you still want the post epic to increase at a 1/2 basis. Special ability DCs already outstrip spell DCs, so this is not a problem. It is also clearly not a case of "We didn't think of that" but an obvious change put in for the given purpose. Changing it would be akin to changing BAB - fine for a house rule, but not good for the purpose of this thread. I say leave it be. ROB
Thorsbjorn 09-15-07, 12:23 AM	Not as a part of the feat, no - that's a separate suggestion. If you made saves 10+level, you probably wouldn't need that feat in the first place. Yes, I understood that you meant it as a separate issue. I agree with Rob's comments above. :)
Alias 09-15-07, 11:23 AM	Assassin DC is 10 + Assassin level (max 10) + 1/2 (epic assassin levels above 10) + stat. Compare to a monk's quivering palm - 10 + 1/2 monk level + stat. A maxed out monk and assassin have the same save DCs post epic, which is desired. Ooh... you know, for all the PrCs I've written, I never tweaked onto that. Shame on me. :embarrass . Ignore my suggestion about changing the DCs then - it wasn't intended as an "official" change, just something I tossed out there. What about the feat, though? Is it too much?
Thorsbjorn 09-16-07, 02:56 AM	Ooh... you know, for all the PrCs I've written, I never tweaked onto that. Shame on me. :embarrass . Ignore my suggestion about changing the DCs then - it wasn't intended as an "official" change, just something I tossed out there. What about the feat, though? Is it too much? Well besides the DC of death attack or the damage dice of a sneak attack, to what else would it apply? Would it grant +2 to a barbarian's damage reduction? What else? :)
CelestialBarbarian 10-26-07, 06:44 PM	Whatever happened to this thread? Did everyone abandon it for 4E? I think there's still plenty of room for revision of the epic material for those of us remaining with 3.5.
Gemstone 10-27-07, 01:43 AM	Whatever happened to this thread? Did everyone abandon it for 4E? I think there's still plenty of room for revision of the epic material for those of us remaining with 3.5. This thread inspired me to start my own revision :) I'll put up some of my ideas later... they mostly involve changes to the feats this far, as some feats are utterly ridiculus (Epic Spellcasting anyone?) while others are retardedly worthless...
CelestialBarbarian 10-27-07, 06:53 AM	This thread inspired me to start my own revision :) I'll put up some of my ideas later... they mostly involve changes to the feats this far, as some feats are utterly ridiculus (Epic Spellcasting anyone?) while others are retardedly worthless... Cool. Are you going to start your own thread? If so, you might want to send me a private message so that I don't miss it. Personally I prefer the intelligently worthless epic feats... ;) I've worked some revision to epic spellcasting myself. I've lowered the casting times on offensive seeds to allow a character to use Epic Spellcasting as a legitimate competition for offensive spell power to Improved Spell Capacity plus metamagic feats. I have, as suggested above, limited the minimum DC of any epic spell to the sum of the DCs of the spells seeds. I also limit the mitigating factors for a spell to the level of the caster creating it. I've lowered the (revised) casting time of the heal seed. So that Epic Spellcasting can seriously improve healing capability beyond what a 9th-level spell can do. The combination of higher minimum DCs, lower mitigating factors, and lower casting times seems to make Epic Spellcasting on the whole more balanced--more useful on the one hand, but less prone to abuse on the other. :)
BillTheManiac 10-27-07, 10:06 AM	I had a system where there were 3 kinds of spells: Short-term, medium-term, and long-term. Short-term: 1 round casting time (free), no additional caster mitigation Medium-term: 11 minute casting time (no bonus), some additional caster mitigation Long-term: 1 day casting time (no bonus), many [still limited] additional caster mitigation. the longer ones disallowed backlash IIRC.
Gemstone 10-27-07, 11:28 AM	Cool. Are you going to start your own thread? If so, you might want to send me a private message so that I don't miss it. I probably won't post them in a thread, but publish them as a PDF. Much simpler :)
Alias 10-27-07, 11:54 AM	Well besides the DC of death attack or the damage dice of a sneak attack, to what else would it apply? Would it grant +2 to a barbarian's damage reduction? What else? No.. only abilities that have saves, like, umm... *searches*... bardic music! I think this is more useful for PrCs than base classes... the base classes have so few abilities that require saves that the feat is useless for them. The feat might be totally useless in general - it looked like a good idea, but I forgot what little effect it actually had.
CelestialBarbarian 10-29-07, 02:34 AM	I probably won't post them in a thread, but publish them as a PDF. Much simpler :) Will you provide a link to it, or are you going to try to sell it? :)
Thorsbjorn 10-29-07, 02:44 AM	No.. only abilities that have saves, like, umm... *searches*... bardic music! I think this is more useful for PrCs than base classes... the base classes have so few abilities that require saves that the feat is useless for them. The feat might be totally useless in general - it looked like a good idea, but I forgot what little effect it actually had. I concur. :)
Gemstone 10-29-07, 04:51 AM	Will you provide a link to it, or are you going to try to sell it? :) Sell it? No, I will not try to sell it... That would be against some of my principles. I use the WotC SRD and rework it... It would feel strange to then make money of it. But sure.. I'll host it as soon as possible and provide you a link :)
CelestialBarbarian 10-29-07, 04:55 AM	Sell it? No, I will not try to sell it... That would be against some of my principles. I use the WotC SRD and rework it... It would feel strange to then make money of it. But sure.. I'll host it as soon as possible and provide you a link :) Thanks! :)
Gemstone 10-29-07, 08:40 AM	There are still some pretty large kinks in the update I'm making though... there's a feat called SPELL POWER that adds +3 DC to all the spells you cast (except epic spells). Im tempted to reduce it to +2, because of NPC saves, but that still makes monsters saves (and opted NPC's) far beyond the scope of normal spells.. I'm working on that one... The basic premise is that: Saves: +1/2 level from levels +1/3 level from items of protection This nets at least +5/6 levels. With my feat, this makes it possible to keep up with these save increases (+6/6 levels), but it may still be unbalanced... any ideas?
BillTheManiac 10-29-07, 10:45 AM	Well, wizards are 2 feats per 3 levels, so 1/3 of feats are ISC, 1/3 are +2 DC feats, and 1/3 are other feats. I would suggest magic items to boost save DCs, just like there are magic weapons.
Gemstone 10-29-07, 12:03 PM	Well, wizards are 2 feats per 3 levels, so 1/3 of feats are ISC, 1/3 are +2 DC feats, and 1/3 are other feats. I would suggest magic items to boost save DCs, just like there are magic weapons. Ah, it's not takeable as a wizard bonus feat, nor a caster bonus feat (as of now that is...) because that's a whole new box of goblins that I haven't the ECL to tackle yet. Btw. it's now up at: http://www.aer.cloudspike.com/EpicFeats.pdf Those feats I've edited or changed have a small Edit at the end of them, and the reason I've edited them :) All those feats are currently being playtested in an epic game with ECL of 31. err... I forgot to add "Before mitigating factors" when limiting the epic spellcasting. Consider that when you review my feats :)
rob_douglas 10-29-07, 02:30 PM	Nice - I like the editing it right in. I need to do that with my houserules. I was thinking of going ahead and using change bars too.... A couple of comments: I really think that making Dire Charge like 3.5E Pounce is better than the Dire Assault route you went with. Also, how does your Dire Assault work with Haste? Do you get the extra attack with the highest BAB? How about TWF? That leads to a Thri-kreen taking it 100 times to get all his bonus attacks - or he can get a Lion Charge totem and do it for a couple thousand gold. Epic Class is weird, but I see your goal there. Why not +5 levels and make it not stack with a monk's belt (the only one who has that option)? I guess the point is to give a +1 DC across the board where needed. Not sure I like the name - how about Class Devotion? :) Your Epic Spellcasting rewrite does deal with many issues - high DCs being based on ranks, not skill total, is good. You fixed the argument that you could get 3 sets of Epic Spell Slots, or 2 sets of divine ones as a Druid, and all that. I still think making you take it twice for dual-casters is a worthwhile change (i.e. you can choose Arcane or Divine each time you take Epic Spellcasting - and you can use that for whether or not Heal and Life seeds work, instead of the Knowledge ranks). I disagree with reducing damage from Epic Wpn Spec - I have never seen anyone argue that it made attacks too deadly. Though making it stack might do it! Someone takes that a few times and they could make it so they only need 1 hit. Your Improved Metamagic makes Automatic Silent and Still useless. You might want to note that in your editing notes. Otherwise, it does as most of us have ruled regarding multiple metamagic effects. I like your Overwhelming Critical. I think this is the right solution. I would change the name of Ranged Attack to be Reach Attack. That clears up confusion over Ranged vs. Melee. I thought it was going to make it so you could throw stuff. I would only grant +5' to reach, not double it. Too powerful in the hands of really big things with Large and In Charge and Combat Reflexes - or Spellcasting Harrier. Spell Power does seem too powerful to me - I see your math, but I do think that at epic you have to hit them with more spells, not just the same ones, to take people down. But really, who could afford to be a one trick pony and only take this feat. I see the need, but I will reserve judgment on it. I think Stacking metamagic needs more explanation. Are you saying a double-empowered fireball is level 8? I don't see the need for the +1 extra. And would you do (10d6*1.5)*1.5 or 10d6*2. I assume the second. It might be worth spelling out which metamagic can be stacked and how that occurs - obviously not heighten, maximize. ROB
Gemstone 10-29-07, 03:03 PM	I really think that making Dire Charge like 3.5E Pounce is better than the Dire Assault route you went with. Also, how does your Dire Assault work with Haste? Do you get the extra attack with the highest BAB? How about TWF? That leads to a Thri-kreen taking it 100 times to get all his bonus attacks - or he can get a Lion Charge totem and do it for a couple thousand gold. The very idea with the feat chain was to make it possible to make a full-attack after a charge, not to make more attacks than that. I'll have to clarify the chain to make it possible to only make a full attack at the end of the feat chain. Epic Class is weird, but I see your goal there. Why not +5 levels and make it not stack with a monk's belt (the only one who has that option)? I guess the point is to give a +1 DC across the board where needed. Not sure I like the name - how about Class Devotion? :) Not that bad :) I'll change it sometime. The reason I add +2 levels, is because it grants a flat +1 DC to most abilities that are based on class from prestige class. I'll probably remake it so that it includes all class abilities someday. Your Epic Spellcasting rewrite does deal with many issues - high DCs being based on ranks, not skill total, is good. You fixed the argument that you could get 3 sets of Epic Spell Slots, or 2 sets of divine ones as a Druid, and all that. I still think making you take it twice for dual-casters is a worthwhile change (i.e. you can choose Arcane or Divine each time you take Epic Spellcasting - and you can use that for whether or not Heal and Life seeds work, instead of the Knowledge ranks). Thanks, my players agreed on this change too. But when did I solve that argument? O.o I disagree with reducing damage from Epic Wpn Spec - I have never seen anyone argue that it made attacks too deadly. Though making it stack might do it! Someone takes that a few times and they could make it so they only need 1 hit. I reduced the damage and made it stackable, so that you can improve your damage output over time. the goal was to make it takeable forever basicly. Your Improved Metamagic makes Automatic Silent and Still useless. You might want to note that in your editing notes. Otherwise, it does as most of us have ruled regarding multiple metamagic effects. hmm... I disagree some you still get 4 levels free at the first time you take automatic, and then every time you get another two levels. they complement eachother rather nicely, but I see your point. I'll work on that. I like your Overwhelming Critical. I think this is the right solution. yeah... it's better than the standard. I would change the name of Ranged Attack to be Reach Attack. That clears up confusion over Ranged vs. Melee. I thought it was going to make it so you could throw stuff. I would only grant +5' to reach, not double it. Too powerful in the hands of really big things with Large and In Charge and Combat Reflexes - or Spellcasting Harrier. consider that done. excellent ideas. Spell Power does seem too powerful to me - I see your math, but I do think that at epic you have to hit them with more spells, not just the same ones, to take people down. But really, who could afford to be a one trick pony and only take this feat. I see the need, but I will reserve judgment on it. I'll playtest it at +2 dc instead as soon as possible. I hardly agree it's a onetrick though... you still have bonus feats, but at least you keep up. I think Stacking metamagic needs more explanation. Are you saying a double-empowered fireball is level 8? I don't see the need for the +1 extra. And would you do (10d6*1.5)*1.5 or 10d6*2. I assume the second. It might be worth spelling out which metamagic can be stacked and how that occurs - obviously not heighten, maximize. very true. I'll develop the explanation a bit. thanks for the comments :)
rob_douglas 10-29-07, 03:52 PM	The very idea with the feat chain was to make it possible to make a full-attack after a charge, not to make more attacks than that. I'll have to clarify the chain to make it possible to only make a full attack at the end of the feat chain. I am still not sure I understand - since a full attack includes all iterative, plus speed/haste, plus two/multiweapon fighting. So if you want the end result to have all that, you have to decide when to add them in. You could easily add in the bonus for two/multi-weapoin fighting at each branch - since they would come the same time you gain the primary attack. but when to allow the hasted attack. I have a problem with Perfect Two Weapon Fighting that carries over here. Once you have 4 attacks with your primary, and 3 attacks with your off-hand, is adding a 4th iterative attack with your off-hand weapon, at -15 to hit, really an epic benefit? Same with the end of this Dire Charge tree - you already have 3 attacks - is it worth another feat to get a 4th at -15? Thanks, my players agreed on this change too. But when did I solve that argument? O.o You properly added the word OR in all the right places, especially in the description of how you get Epic Spell slots when you meet more than one set or critieria. The originally says if you meet more than one, you get extra slots for each. Yours says that if you meet more than one you get nature or religion for your divine spell slots. Much clearer. hmm... I disagree some you still get 4 levels free at the first time you take automatic, and then every time you get another two levels. they complement eachother rather nicely, but I see your point. I'll work on that. This was in regards to Improved Metamagic and AutoStill spell. I guess I don't understand IM in your view. I thought that you could add Still spell (+1 adjustment) for free to any spell, including 9th - since you get 1 free level of adjustment, and that is a 1 level adjustment. AutoStill would only let you Still levels 0-3, and then you still have to pay for levels 4-9 by making them 5-10. Is that not how you saw this working? thanks for the comments :) Glad to help! ROB
Gemstone 10-29-07, 04:31 PM	I am still not sure I understand - since a full attack includes all iterative, plus speed/haste, plus two/multiweapon fighting. So if you want the end result to have all that, you have to decide when to add them in. You could easily add in the bonus for two/multi-weapoin fighting at each branch - since they would come the same time you gain the primary attack. but when to allow the hasted attack. I have a problem with Perfect Two Weapon Fighting that carries over here. Once you have 4 attacks with your primary, and 3 attacks with your off-hand, is adding a 4th iterative attack with your off-hand weapon, at -15 to hit, really an epic benefit? Same with the end of this Dire Charge tree - you already have 3 attacks - is it worth another feat to get a 4th at -15? The feat states that "up to the maximum number of attacks you can do as a full attack action", meaning that if you have 6 attacks as a full round action, you can make two attacks at the end of a charge. This is mostly to benefit twohanders, as they get their maximum number of attacks and has the best chance to hit (while two-weapon people also get the maximum number of attacks, they will miss more often). The feat chains is three feats to always make a full attack action at the end of charge. I find this quite balanced, as a full attack at epic levels is devastating to the one that takes the hit full on You properly added the word OR in all the right places, especially in the description of how you get Epic Spell slots when you meet more than one set or critieria. The originally says if you meet more than one, you get extra slots for each. Yours says that if you meet more than one you get nature or religion for your divine spell slots. Much clearer. hahaha, apparently I did :) My mind works in mysterious ways This was in regards to Improved Metamagic and AutoStill spell. I guess I don't understand IM in your view. I thought that you could add Still spell (+1 adjustment) for free to any spell, including 9th - since you get 1 free level of adjustment, and that is a 1 level adjustment. AutoStill would only let you Still levels 0-3, and then you still have to pay for levels 4-9 by making them 5-10. Is that not how you saw this working? I failed my Int check when I read your post and came up with a different answer than you did. This is true... But how to change this? Perhaps Improved Meta-Magic would give you a free level, but it would at least still be +1? This would basicly aquire the same effect, altough you couldn't reduce any spell to the normal spell slot while still having it meta magiced. This would basicly return the feat to the way it was before my change... But it really does make sense anyways... Any other suggestions?
Thorsbjorn 11-07-07, 10:41 PM	I was looking at the elder treant and noticed that it has as a spell-like ability healing circle. I believe that's been renamed mass cure light wounds in 3.5. I don't know if Blue's reading the thread anymore, but if so maybe he could add that to his monsters on the first page. I'd like to solicit some feedback on going beyond simply using the renamed spell and instead beefing up the elder treant's ability. It does have a CR 25 after all. In any serious combat where the treant would need to heal, healing 1d8+23 wouldn't really do that much good against a party that can routinely dole out 25-50 points of damage with one melee strike (not to mention scads of points of damage with spells). It's almost always going to be better off simply attacking to try to kill opponents before they can inflict such damage than to dink around healing so little damage. It can use the spell-like ability only three times per day, and it works only on plants. Would anyone object to just giving it mass heal three times per day?
rob_douglas 11-07-07, 11:40 PM	At that level, it does make more sense. I have to think on it more. The Elder Treant should be surrounded by multiple other Treants, and plant creatures, so its Healing Circle isn't just there for itself each round - but given the range of that spell, it doesn't do much good as you said - especially with large and larger treants - they eat up the affected area, cutting the total number that could be healed. ROB
Thorsbjorn 11-07-07, 11:58 PM	At that level, it does make more sense. I have to think on it more. The Elder Treant should be surrounded by multiple other Treants, and plant creatures, so its Healing Circle isn't just there for itself each round - but given the range of that spell, it doesn't do much good as you said - especially with large and larger treants - they eat up the affected area, cutting the total number that could be healed. ROB I concur. I'd imagined the elder treant animating trees, so healing them as well as himself, but you're right that he's probably got regular treants (some probably advanced, possibly to gargantuan) with him as well. With those big sizes that really does eat up the area of effect pretty quickly--something I hadn't even considered. Good call! :)
rob_douglas 11-07-07, 11:59 PM	As pointed out in another Thread, the Animate Dead seed needs to have the HD limits doubled. Bluemage - are you able to update these? ROB
Azuelle 01-17-08, 03:24 AM	Azuelle - Jeremy In Port Huron Michigan this part of the reply is something on my mind and i have no idea how to use the gleemax the way it's suppost to be used so here is my cut and paste!!! Hello my name is jeremy - Azuelle and i got into hack master and d&d one year ago, this is what i aquired this year! 16 core books 2 dummies books and 400 minitures, 6 out of 16 game mastery map sets and about 14 tile sets for me and my kids to have 2 of each of them, tons of game mastery cards decks (I hate the mundane cards) but love making my own rules for each item) NOW why should I move on with 4.0 if it isn't a better quality game we have a 3.5 rules compendium we told people to get the 3 rule books (for a dm) WE ARE THERE FOR EACH OTHER now i saw one book monsters and worlds and i like the beholder on the front but the book is not the beutifal attractive hard cover. what i want wizards to know is that these books in the 3.5 sold themselves compared to ad&d when i first saw them i was on a heavy drug for a time and when i found 3.5 i took every penny and got D&D stuff and my wife came back. but during the drug times the beauty of those book manifested i expect every kid that sees them covets to buy into the life of a gamer and i'm not sure wizards are doing the right thing by again discontinuing another edition and screwing me and my family! if you think 4.0 will be as enthralling as 3.5 suprise me.
Azuelle 01-17-08, 03:36 AM	Does anyone speak friggin hill gaint??? I've been in this cage trying to tell him all kinds of stuff!!!! - Azuelle Jeremy well how about the truename for hill giant i could use that!!!
PrinceOfTheVoid 01-18-08, 08:58 PM	Azuelle - Jeremy In Port Huron Michigan this part of the reply is something on my mind and i have no idea how to use the gleemax the way it's suppost to be used so here is my cut and paste!!! Hello my name is jeremy - Azuelle and i got into hack master and d&d one year ago, this is what i aquired this year! 16 core books 2 dummies books and 400 minitures, 6 out of 16 game mastery map sets and about 14 tile sets for me and my kids to have 2 of each of them, tons of game mastery cards decks (I hate the mundane cards) but love making my own rules for each item) NOW why should I move on with 4.0 if it isn't a better quality game we have a 3.5 rules compendium we told people to get the 3 rule books (for a dm) WE ARE THERE FOR EACH OTHER now i saw one book monsters and worlds and i like the beholder on the front but the book is not the beutifal attractive hard cover. what i want wizards to know is that these books in the 3.5 sold themselves compared to ad&d when i first saw them i was on a heavy drug for a time and when i found 3.5 i took every penny and got D&D stuff and my wife came back. but during the drug times the beauty of those book manifested i expect every kid that sees them covets to buy into the life of a gamer and i'm not sure wizards are doing the right thing by again discontinuing another edition and screwing me and my family! if you think 4.0 will be as enthralling as 3.5 suprise me. Well! That certainly gives me a new understanding of epic level play. Really, I find your revisions quite groundbreaking. [/sarcasm]
Azuelle 02-05-08, 12:00 AM	Well! That certainly gives me a new understanding of epic level play. Really, I find your revisions quite groundbreaking. [/sarcasm] I love poetry, and haven't got it all put into this computer I write the book of the undead and it has other stories like a medusa in new york, blah blan and takes over a prison as her home theory that evil won't turn to stone. and those that do repent also turn to stone and she is evil. ...ahh i just found my old page i made a year ago Mediforicmonster com
BillTheManiac 02-05-08, 09:24 PM	I love poetry, and haven't got it all put into this computer I write the book of the undead and it has other stories like a medusa in new york, blah blan and takes over a prison as her home theory that evil won't turn to stone. and those that do repent also turn to stone and she is evil. ...ahh i just found my old page i made a year ago Mediforicmonster com 1: You're in the wrong place to discuss this stuff. The 4th edition forums are over here (forums.gleemax.com/forumdisplay.php?f=693). This forum is for the discussion of epic-level play, and this thread is for the discussion of the rules found in the 1st post (on page 1). I don't know of any forum where you can share your D&D stories, you might be able to find one by navigating from the main page here (forums.gleemax.com). 2: Your grammar, especially punctuation, is terrible. This makes it hard to read and understand. If you post in the right forum and fix your grammar then you will get replies.
PrinceOfTheVoid 02-06-08, 09:05 AM	There's the Once Upon a Time forum, go to WIzard's Community from the main page, its under creative corner. But, in all honesty, I think this guy is just a troll.
Thorsbjorn 02-06-08, 09:15 AM	1: You're in the wrong place to discuss this stuff. The 4th edition forums are over here (forums.gleemax.com/forumdisplay.php?f=693). This forum is for the discussion of epic-level play, and this thread is for the discussion of the rules found in the 1st post (on page 1). I don't know of any forum where you can share your D&D stories, you might be able to find one by navigating from the main page here (forums.gleemax.com). 2: Your grammar, especially punctuation, is terrible. This makes it hard to read and understand. If you post in the right forum and fix your grammar then you will get replies. Well said, Bill! :)
BillTheManiac 02-06-08, 10:34 AM	There's the Once Upon a Time forum, go to WIzard's Community from the main page, its under creative corner. But, in all honesty, I think this guy is just a troll. who knows? Doesn't only flaming feed the trolls? Which you're doing, not me.
beej_silver 02-19-08, 06:09 PM	who knows? Doesn't only flaming feed the trolls? Which you're doing, not me. Wait, flame hurts a troll, not feed it. :D lol