Post/Author/DateTime	Post
DoveArrow 04-29-08, 03:51 PM	I may be wrong, but epic spells seem prohibitively expensive until very high levels. So I'm wondering, is it okay to give the PCs an epic level spell at 24th level? The spell I'm planning to give them summons a phaerimm (I don't remember what age the phaerimm is, but it's a CR 15 creature), which I doubt is game breaking, but it just seems weird to me that epic level spells and magic items cost so much, and it makes me wonder if maybe the reason they cost so much is because PCs shouldn't have access to them until they're of a much higher level. I don't know. What has been your experience with epic level magic items and spells? At what level do you think the PCs should have access to these kinds of items?
Tequila_Sunrise 04-29-08, 09:45 PM	I may be wrong, but epic spells seem prohibitively expensive until very high levels. So I'm wondering, is it okay to give the PCs an epic level spell at 24th level? The spell I'm planning to give them summons a phaerimm (I don't remember what age the phaerimm is, but it's a CR 15 creature), which I doubt is game breaking, but it just seems weird to me that epic level spells and magic items cost so much, and it makes me wonder if maybe the reason they cost so much is because PCs shouldn't have access to them until they're of a much higher level. I don't know. What has been your experience with epic level magic items and spells? At what level do you think the PCs should have access to these kinds of items? My attitude is that if a feat has a prerequisite of Spell Craft 24 ranks, it should be useful at 21st level onward. I don't see anything wrong with epic spells at 21st level--at least not anything wrong with them that isn't more wrong with them at 100th level--and my suspicion is that others would agree with me. Unfortunately, I don't think that epic spell costs and the epic wealth by level guidelines take each other into account. I generally have a very poor opinion of the ELH, and this is one of the reasons; the epic WBL and high epic spell and magical item costs encourage PCs to buy non-epic items with every funky stat bonus they can think of (luck, profane, insight, etc...) and to ignore epic spell casting until about 30th level. This is an unnecessary complication to the game that not only runs against the general 3e design philosophy but also unbalances the game to a great degree, IMO. As to your specific epic spell question, I don't think that summoning a CR 15 creature would be too powerful for a 24th level caster, unless it has any potentially disruptive special abilities. How long does the spell last and how long does it take to cast? Try comparing it to summon monster IX, which lasts for effectively one fight and can at best summon creatures of 13 CR with no significant special abilities. So if a caster can summon a CR 13 creature at 17th level, it shouldn't in theory be unbalancing for a 24th level caster to summon a CR 15 monster. Hope that helps, TS
DoveArrow 04-30-08, 10:03 AM	My attitude is that if a feat has a prerequisite of Spell Craft 24 ranks, it should be useful at 21st level onward. I don't see anything wrong with epic spells at 21st level--at least not anything wrong with them that isn't more wrong with them at 100th level--and my suspicion is that others would agree with me. Unfortunately, I don't think that epic spell costs and the epic wealth by level guidelines take each other into account. This has generally been my assessment as well. I also feel like if you're going to devote the time and energy to running and/or playing in an epic campaign, you should be able to use all the cool stuff from the Epic Level Handbook, including epic spells. That's why I decided to add the epic spell as treasure. I want my epic game to feel different from a regular campaign, and I think the best way to do that is to let my players use epic spells. As to your specific epic spell question, I don't think that summoning a CR 15 creature would be too powerful for a 24th level caster, unless it has any potentially disruptive special abilities. How long does the spell last and how long does it take to cast? Try comparing it to summon monster IX, which lasts for effectively one fight and can at best summon creatures of 13 CR with no significant special abilities. So if a caster can summon a CR 13 creature at 17th level, it shouldn't in theory be unbalancing for a 24th level caster to summon a CR 15 monster. That was my assessment as well. In fact, I looked at summon monster ix when I was creating the spell to make sure I wasn't giving my players the ability to summon a creature that's too powerful. As far as significant special abilities, the phaerimm cast spells like a sorcerer equivalent to their Hit Dice. I'll have to look it up later, but I think this phaerimm has 13 Hit Dice. I don't imagine that's too game breaking, but even if it is, it takes 1 minute to cast, it involves three casters, who have to expend 2,000 XP each, two of whom have to expend two 3rd level spell slots. So in the grander scheme of things, I don't think it will be too bad. Anyway, here's the spell, if you're interested. Phaerimm Ally Conjuration (Summoning) Spellcraft DC: 46 Components: V, S, Ritual Casting Time: 1 minute Range: 75 ft. Effect: One summoned mature adult phaerimm Duration: 20 rounds Saving Throw: None (see text) Spell Resistance: Yes (see text) To Develop: 306,000 gp; 12,240 XP; Seed: summon (DC 14). Factors: summon creature other than outsider (+10 DC), summon CR 18 creature (+32 DC). Mitigating Factors: two additional casters contributing 3rd level spell slots (-10 DC), burn 2,000 XP per caster (-6 DC). This spell summons an elder phaerimm. It appears where you designate and acts immediately. It attacks your opponents to the best of its abilities. You can direct the phaerimm not to attack particular enemies or to perform other actions. This is a ritual spell requiring two others spellcasters, each of which must contribute an unused, 3rd-level spell slot to the casting. Note: Normally in order to summon a phaerimm, the caster must be able to overcome the creature's spell resistance, and the creature must fail its saving throw. However, if the caster is an ally of the phaerimm, the creature automatically foregoes its spell resistance and saving throw. XP Cost: 2,000 XP (per caster). Note: The reason I didn't have the casters contribute a higher level spell slot in order to reduce the Spellcraft DC (and thereby the casting time) is because most of the spellcasters in my party are paladins and rangers. I only have one full wizard, and I imagine he's going to be the one using the epic spell. So while I might have been able to make it a 1 action casting time, I decided that it was better to reduce the Spellcraft check, because I want them to be able to cast the spell with a greater than 50% chance.
Selgard 04-30-08, 10:14 AM	Maybe i'm missing something or forgetting something about that race- but is a CR 15 creature worth 2k exp to summon? Compare it with: http://www.d20srd.org/srd/epic/spells/dragonKnight.htm Summons and adult red dragon, CR 14, no XP loss. (ritual, 2 8th level spell slots) for only slightly higher DC (38)
betrayor 04-30-08, 01:22 PM	Why would anyone use that epic spell that you created and not gate? I mean Gate costs olny 1000 xp and it is olny one standard action to cast and needs olny one caster and you can call a much stronger creature. A good idea would be to look at the epic spell people here created, in this thread which contains low dc epic spells. http://forums.gleemax.com/wotc_archive/index.php/t-431391
Frozen_Flame 04-30-08, 01:22 PM	For 2k each results in 6k xp to summon a cr 15 creature? I'd rather set a wish by myself for 5k and hope my DM feels nice, and get the monster in a standard action (could be 'cause my DM is an very nice old friend, but that's off point).
Tequila_Sunrise 04-30-08, 02:19 PM	I agree that this spell sucks and I place the blame squarely on the shoulders of the epic spell casting rules. Epic spells tend to either suck if you don't know how to twink the hell out of them or to be too good if you do know how to break the rules. Additionally some spell seeds seem to be designed to suck while other seem to beg to be broken. And this is why I don't use the epic spell casting rules anymore. I'm going to suggest a different route for DoveArrow: make Summon Phaerrim a normal high level spell. Even though the ELH doesn't explicitly say you can do this, there's nothing wrong with simply writing up your own 10th+ level spells. Of course this requires that your casters have Improved Spell Capacity, but that's one of the first feats that an epic caster takes anyway. I'd say Summon Phaerrim would make a perfect 11th level spell, and that's assuming you drop the 1 minute casting time, extra casters and XP burn. TS
DoveArrow 04-30-08, 05:25 PM	Maybe i'm missing something or forgetting something about that race- but is a CR 15 creature worth 2k exp to summon? Compare it with: http://www.d20srd.org/srd/epic/spells/dragonKnight.htm Summons and adult red dragon, CR 14, no XP loss. (ritual, 2 8th level spell slots) for only slightly higher DC (38) Again, the casters in my group won't be able to contribute spell slots higher than 4th level, tops, because most of them are either paladins or rangers. Also, not all of them are straight classed, so they don't necessarily have access to their highest level spells. This is why I have them contributing 3rd level spell slots, instead of higher level ones, because I know that they will have access to these slots by the time they reach 24th level. Nevertheless, I have made some adjustments to the original spell description based on your feedback (see above). Let me know if these changes make the spell seem more reasonable.
Tequila_Sunrise 04-30-08, 09:41 PM	This is supposed to be a non-combat spell right? Will your casters have +36 spell craft bonuses at 24th level? TS
DoveArrow 04-30-08, 11:44 PM	This is supposed to be a non-combat spell right? Will your casters have +36 spell craft bonuses at 24th level? TS Yes. My main wizard in the party has a Spellcraft of 35 at 21st level. Assuming that he continues to max out his Spellcraft, and assuming that he does nothing else, he should have a 38 on his Spellcraft check by 24th level.
Tshern 05-01-08, 04:54 AM	This is supposed to be a non-combat spell right? Will your casters have +36 spell craft bonuses at 24th level? TS If they are taking Epic spellcasting they definitely should have. It's not that difficult after all, maxing out intelligence with a human should still result in intelligence 34 with no epic items by level 20. Throw in maximized ranks and you have +36 at level 20. Oh yeah, synergy bonus too, so +38. And that spells seems pretty, well, lacking. One minute casting time makes it relatively useless in combat, but I must admit I do not know that monster, so it might have some abilities that are amazing out of combat. Just me two coppers.
DoveArrow 05-01-08, 09:51 AM	Really what's driving me nuts is that summoning a creature other than an outsider adds a +10 to the Spellcraft DC. That, combined with the fact that reducing the casting time would increase the Spellcraft DC by +20, has just frustrated me to no end. However, I'm not quite ready to diss the rules, until I understand them better. So let me explain how I think my spell would work in practice, and see what other people think. The way I see it, the PCs would most likely cast this spell before going into combat with a creature that they've already encounterd, but were unable to defeat on their own. Either that, or they would cast it as a preparatory spell before going into a combat with a creature that they know is going to be tough and who is just on the other side of a door. In either event, the phaerimm that they summon is likely going to be around for the duration of the combat, and will be able to do things like buff up the party, deal damage to other enemies, soak up damage, etc. On the other hand, I don't have the experience with epic level play that the rest of you have. In fact, I have no experience with epic level play, so I don't know that this spell would really be as utilitarian as I think. Let me ask you this: How is dragon knight better than the gate spell? Both have 1 action casting times, but gate could potentially call a creature with more Hit Dice and a higher CR than dragon knight, it involves the actions of only one caster, as opposed to three casters in the same round, and uses up only one high level spell slot, as opposed to three. To me, it seems like a dangerous risk to try and use this spell in the middle of combat, because you're assuming that summoning the dragon will be more beneficial than using two 8th level spells that could potentially be used to heal an ally, bolster an ally, deal damage to an enemy, or dispel a magical effect. Sure, gate has an XP cost, but at that level, how much does 1,000 XP really matter when you're talking about resource use? In any event, the reason I'm asking is because I want to understand why dragon knight is considered more powerful than gate. On that note, why is my spell not considered nearly as powerful as dragon strike? After all, it uses up fewer, powerful resources, and could summon a creature that's theoretically more powerful than an adult red dragon (CR 18 vs. CR 15). Granted, the casting time sucks, but is that enough to offset the potential benefit of casting this spell? And please note, I'm not asking because I'm trying to defend my spell. I'm asking because I'm trying to understand why the casting time is considered to be more of a disadvantage than using up two 8th level spell slots. I'm also asking because I simply don't have the experience with epic level gameplay to know. For example, I've never cast dragon strike. Heck, I've never even cast gate and I've been playing the game for nearly ten years. So I'm trying to understand the logic, because to me, it seems like a 1 minute casting time is just as sucky as having to use up two 8th level spell slots. But again, I don't have the experience that the rest of you have, so I'm trying to determine if my perception is wrong in this regard.
Voran_Illezou 05-01-08, 07:28 PM	Well, 1 minute = 10 rounds, so yeah.
Tequila_Sunrise 05-01-08, 07:52 PM	Really what's driving me nuts is that summoning a creature other than an outsider adds a +10 to the Spellcraft DC. That, combined with the fact that reducing the casting time would increase the Spellcraft DC by +20, has just frustrated me to no end. However, I'm not quite ready to diss the rules, until I understand them better. So let me explain how I think my spell would work in practice, and see what other people think. I applaud your attempt to understand the rules before messing with them. I myself have found that in order to make epic spells balanced (neither too good nor too shoddy), the DM usually has to ad hoc the seed DC, casting factors or even the entire spell. And at that point, I might as well be writing spells for the traditional spell slot system which is why I don't use epic spells anymore. Maybe your experience will be different. On that note, why is my spell not considered nearly as powerful as dragon strike? After all, it uses up fewer, powerful resources, and could summon a creature that's theoretically more powerful than an adult red dragon (CR 18 vs. CR 15). Granted, the casting time sucks, but is that enough to offset the potential benefit of casting this spell? I don't have my books with me so I can't comment on the specifics of gate or dragon knight but I can comment on casting times. When the PCs are able to plan a combat beforehand and give themselves the prep time they need, a 1 minute casting time isn't an issue. But there are plenty of combat situations that PCs have little control over with limited/no time to prep so that 1 minute casting time effectively makes the spell useless. So I guess it comes down to Summon Phaerimm being a good utility + offensive combat spell, while others are good utility + offensive + defensive combat spells. TS
DoveArrow 05-02-08, 04:56 PM	I applaud your attempt to understand the rules before messing with them. I myself have found that in order to make epic spells balanced (neither too good nor too shoddy), the DM usually has to ad hoc the seed DC, casting factors or even the entire spell. And at that point, I might as well be writing spells for the traditional spell slot system which is why I don't use epic spells anymore. Maybe your experience will be different. I certainly hope my experience will be different, because I think epic spells are part of what makes the game feel epic, at least to someone who is uninitiated like me.
The_Black_Hand 05-05-08, 10:48 AM	Short answer is 16, there is PrC ...
Thane26425 05-08-08, 06:26 AM	If I recall correctly, there was an Epic Spellcaster feat that one had to take in order to cast epic spells. If a mage, cleric or whatever qualified for that feat, then they could cast epic spells. Getting the money to research them and so forth is another matter though. That said, there are only a few of the epic spells in the ELH that really seemed worth the effort. Lower level spells could be metamagicked up or used in combination to get an equal effect to many of them.
Starmage21 05-10-08, 02:10 PM	We used to have a thread on these boards, that the WotC people never sought the need to sticky called "The Discount Epic Spell Empourium", and the purpose of the thread was to create ~DC 30 epic spells that were actually within the range of "just epic"(21st level) PCs. None of them were munchy, and all were pretty damn awesome for as cheap as they were. A real testament to the people on these boards.
betrayor 05-10-08, 10:35 PM	We used to have a thread on these boards, that the WotC people never sought the need to sticky called "The Discount Epic Spell Empourium", and the purpose of the thread was to create ~DC 30 epic spells that were actually within the range of "just epic"(21st level) PCs. None of them were munchy, and all were pretty damn awesome for as cheap as they were. A real testament to the people on these boards. Actually the thread still exists in the archive of the WoTC.Here is the link. http://forums.gleemax.com/wotc_archive/index.php/t-431391
ikki 05-11-08, 04:10 PM	And with enough mitigating effects.. like simulcras providing spells.. any effect can be turned into a dc 1 spell ;)
Bloodsoul 05-11-08, 07:07 PM	Epic Spells can definitely be headache inducing, especially with the whole ad hoc business (tried statting Karsus' Avatar for the heck of it), but indispensible. I've a cleric who only has two spells at Lv30, Epic Mage Armor and a custom healing spell that's non-verbal, non-somatic, quickened, and basically tries to do everything in the Heal Seed description. So worth the 81 DC (which she can barely make on a 10, thank you +30 comp on Spellcraft item!!).
DoveArrow 05-12-08, 11:39 AM	Out of curiosity, did I misread the Epic Level Handbook or did they reduce the mitigating factor on the XP component? The reason I'm asking is because the d20 SRD says that for every 100 XP the spellcasters spend, they can reduce the Spellcraft DC by -1. I seem to remember it being 1,000 XP in the Epic Level Handbook. However, I don't have the book with me, so I may have misread it. In any event, if it's only 100 XP, that almost solves my problem. I can decrease the casting time to 1 round (+18 DC) and have all three participants expend 600 XP (-18 DC). However, there is still the problem that a 24th level caster could use gate to summon a 48 HD Solar angel- which is a CR 37 creature- that will stick around for 24 rounds (as opposed to 20), and whose summoning only costs 1,000 XP. Personally, I'm starting to think that the gate spell is broken, and that the rules for epic summoning are just fine.
Count Arioch the 28th 05-13-08, 10:04 AM	There's no reason to make an epic spell with a spellcraft DC higher than 0.
DoveArrow 05-13-08, 11:43 AM	There's no reason to make an epic spell with a spellcraft DC higher than 0. Well if you can come up with a way to make this spell DC 0, while taking into account the limitations that I'm up against, I would love to hear it, because personally, I'm at a loss.
Kain_Darkwind 05-16-08, 04:48 AM	While I fundamentally disagree with Count's suggestion, due in large part to DM restrictions being a specific and stated part of epic spell design (and a minimum DC equal to the spell seeds utilized is a rule I've both played and DMed under), I'm reasonably certain he is knowledgeable of a vast amount of mitigation methods. To answer the thread title's question though: 21st.
DoveArrow 05-19-08, 11:17 AM	Yeah, I wondered how long it would take people to realize that I wrote the title wrong. :P
elondir 05-19-08, 11:54 AM	To me, the ELH was the most amazing book I ever read. Until I started using it. There are certain things in the ELHthat are just so far off that they need complete reworking. I'm hoping 4e fixes some of them without getting rid of the fun stuff. Among the things that need reworking are magic item prices and challenge rating. These were broken at non-epic, then they threw on a x10 cost multiplier for no reason other than to prevent 14th level characters from running around with epic gear. MIC lowered prices VASTLY, which tells me that the DMG and ELH need to have their prices reworked vastly as well. Figure out how much an item is worth by how much your PCs use them. If they don't bother with them, make them cheaper; if they get a hold of them too soon, make them more expensive. As a rule of thumb, figure on +1 at 3rd, +2 at 6th, +3 at 9th, +4 at 12th, and +5 at 15th. By that measure (and seconded by 9th level spell access for sorcerers by 18th level), I'd say epic really starts at 18th level. However, I DM'd a 11th level party with level appropriate gear, allowing all splatbooks, that took on multiple CR 21s without getting hurt much. So, in that sense, CRs need vast reworking, but as they are, epic starts around 11th level if you're using every splatbook as written. So, I suggest ditching the x10 cost multiplier and enforcing minimum caster level for creation. In epic, the caster level is more of a hinderance to creation than the gp cost is.
Kain_Darkwind 05-19-08, 12:42 PM	Yeah, I wondered how long it would take people to realize that I wrote the title wrong. :P Was actually the first thing I noticed, but I didn't just want to spam. So I waited until I had something useful to say as well. ;)