Post/Author/DateTime	Post
BigGus 01-10-08, 11:13 PM	Introduction As anyone who’s tried to play an epic game knows, a lot of stuff ends up broken once you get much past level 20, and the ELH introduces more broken stuff of its own. Sections 2 and 3 are my suggestions on how best to fix the worst of these. Sections 4 and 5 contain my variant rules for epic games, mostly concerned with trying to make spellcasting and class progressions more like their nonepic versions, since many of the changes in the ELH seem unneccessary to me, and in some cases, frankly a bit of a cop-out. There are still some parts of it I’m not entirely happy with, but I’ve been fiddling with this damn thing for ages (for years, on and off, in some cases) and in the end you have to say “OK, if I want to get this on the boards before 4th Edition comes out, I’m going to have to bite the bullet and put it up as it is”. Section 6 contains a list of questions about the stuff I’m least sure of. Acknowledgements To be fair to others, I need to say straight-out that this is not all my own work. Thanks are due to Paladin’s Pride, Tequila Sunrise, Upper Krust (Immortals Handbook), and all the Dicefreaks regulars. However, to be fair to myself, also need to say that much of the stuff which is similar to theirs I’d already come up with independently; most often, the people listed above clarified my thinking on a given issue, or pointed out things I’d missed. Where I’ve taken something directly from someone else, I’ve tried to give credit. Apologies if I’ve missed anyone! EDIT: Some of these sections are very long, if you can't be bothered/ don't have time to read it all, please just read the bits that interest you most and comment on those. I'd sooner get partial feedback than none at all. Thanks.
BigGus 01-10-08, 11:17 PM	1. Terminology An epic level character is any one whose level is 21+. However, “21+” is an infinitely large spectrum, and the kinds of problems you encounter running level 20-something games are not the same as in level 80-something games, never mind level 180-something games. For this reason, I have broken epic level up into 3 wide bands, and I discuss the problems relevant to each seperately; Level 21-40: I call this Core Epic, because as far as I can see, these levels are what the epic system is really designed for. Firstly, because the vast majority of the published WotC material relates to these levels; for example, all published epic feats (as far as I am aware) can be taken by level 32 and all class abilities (including those of epic prestige classes) by level 34, the highest-level NPC statted in the ELH is level 37, and only 6 of the 50-odd monsters in the ELH have CRs over 40. And secondly, because at these levels, there are relatively few things in epic which are really broken. I use level 40 as the cut-off just because it’s a nice convenient number, twice 20 which is the maximum for non-epic. Levels 41-100: I call this Advanced Epic. The epic system is explicitly designed to be playable up to any level, and the ELH mentions levels in this range quite a few times; for example, the highest monster CR is 66, there are skill DCs listed as high as 170, the example epic spellcaster Canabulum in chapter 2 is level 64, and there are 5 epic spells with DCs of 140+. However, at these levels quite a lot of stuff ends up broken; many of the fixes I detail are not needed until these levels. Levels 101+: I call this Beyond Epic. There is basically no WotC-published material relating to these levels; the only things in the ELH which would require a level over 100 are the epic spells Vengeful Gaze of God and Dire Winter. For this reason, I don’t really deal with these levels here; I’d advise anyone looking for material relating to ultrahigh-level characters to check out Upper Krusts Immortals Handbook site instead: http://www.immortalshandbook.com/index.htm
BigGus 01-10-08, 11:21 PM	2. Core Epic Fixes If you’re not planning to play past level 40, there are relatively few things that are really broken. They are: Multispell If there’s one thing that unbalances casters against other classes, it’s this. A character with ISCx4 and MSx3 can cast four 9th-level spells in a round, and still have their whole action left (possible by L.30 under standard rules), and that’s before we even get into Time Stop. I’d suggest either: 1) Ban it entirely, or 2) Allow it to only be taken once. However, if it can be taken even once, it allows Wiz/ Cler/ Dru to cast 2 quickened spells/ round, while Sorcs still can’t cast any. For Sorcs to remain viable, I suggest also allowing either the Rapid Metamagic feat from CMage, and/ or the Metamagic Specialist variant class feature from PHB2, both of which give Sorcs the ability to cast metamagic spells without increasing the casting time. EDIT: There's another important way of balancing Multispell; change it to Multiaction, which allows an additional free/ swift action per round for any class. I'd recommend still limiting how frequently you can take it (once at Core epic or once every 20 levels at Advanced Epic) because some classes benefit from extra free/ swift actions more than others. One version might be: Multiaction Prerequisite: Improved Initiative, Lightning Reflexes, Dex 21 Benefit: The character gains an additional free/ swift action per round. Special: This feat can be taken multiple times, but not more than once every 20 levels. (Thanks to strenoth and Avatar of Kokusho for suggesting this one). Mage’s Disjunction A spell which automatically allows you to dispel magical effects regardless of caster level? Not a major problem pre-epic, because you need a CL of 17 minimum to cast it where the maximum CL is 20, and 9th-level spell-slots are severely limited, so people aren’t going to be using it at the drop of a hat. But at epic, when you have CL30+ effects automatically dispelled by a 17th-level caster, and epic casters with ISC who have enough L.9+ spell slots to cast it pretty much at will, it does become a major problem. Again, I can see two solutions: 1) Add a reasonably high XP cost (I’d suggest 1000XP, maybe more). This should convince most casters to save it for BBEGs only; they certainly won’t be using it 5 times per day. 2) Change it so that it works more like Greater Dispel Magic, ie you still have to make a dispel check for it to work, and you have to choose whether to make a targeted or area dispel, rather than affecting everything within the spells area. Make the maximum caster level bonus to the dispel check +30. You may also wish to rule that it can only affect minor artifacts, not major. (Thanks to Witch for this one). Note that these two are not mutually exclusive; you could keep MDJ as it is, but add the XP cost, and add a second 9th-level spell called something like Superior Dispel Magic which works as described above. True Seeing This spell makes the whole Illusion school of magic obsolete, and for Clerics it’s only 5th level! This is bad enough for level 9-20 characters, but at epic levels, where everyone can afford a Gem of True Seeing (or five), it’s really unbalancing. I’d suggest – 1) Separate it into two spells, True Seeing and Lesser True Seeing. Increase the level of True Seeing to 8th (for Clerics) or 9th (for Sorc/ Wiz/ Druids) and change the level 5/6/7 version so that it doesn’t penetrate illusions of level 6+. As well as increasing the spell level, this more than doubles the cost of a Gem of True Seeing (I’d say 192,000GP). 2) The epic spell seed Delude doesn’t specify how it interacts with True Seeing, which implies True Seeing penetrates it, since it penetrates all other illusions. I’d rule instead that it requires an opposed caster level check, like the Conceal seed. Heavy Fortification This ability is almost unique, in that it makes an entire class (the Rogue) effectively useless in combat. I advocate nerfing Fortification to: Light: 25% Medium: 50% Heavy: 75% This allows Fortification to provide a worthwhile protection, without making Sneak Attacks (and hence Rogues) completely obsolete. Vorpal Having looked on these boards, there seems to be a lot of dispute about whether protection from critical hits prevents the Vorpal effect from working; if you rule that it does, it’s not such a big problem, since Fortification protects against the Vorpal effect, and even if you nerf it as above, Heavy Fort. still means 75% of natural 20’s won’t result in decapitation. (Many monsters will still be vulnerable to it, however, so you may wish to nerf it anyway). If you rule that protection from crits doesn’t affect Vorpal, however, it’s definitely too powerful for a “mere” +5 bonus. There are several options: 1) Allow a save to prevent the effect. I’d suggest Fortitude, DC23. 2) Change it so it increases the critical multiplier by +5, and any creature killed by this much damage is decapitated. (The Immortals Handbook version, thanks Upper Krust). 3) Increase the enhancement bonus cost (I’d suggest +8). This can be used in conjuction with 1) or 2), to give Lesser and Greater Vorpal effects. Massive Damage As discussed in the ELH, when epic warriors do 50+ damage every time they get a critical hit, can do 5 attacks per round (Hasted) or 10 with Perfect Two-weapon Fighting, and often have threat ranges of 17-20 or even 15-20, it becomes a game of russian roulette who rolls a 1 on their Fortitude save first. There are several possible modifications; this is my preferred one (I use this at non-epic levels as well); Your massive damage threshold is 25 + (HDx2) The base DC is 10. For every 5 points the damage exceeds 25, the DC increases by 1. (Thanks to Tequila Sunrise for inspiration with this part).
BigGus 01-10-08, 11:23 PM	3. Advanced Epic Fixes If playing at level 41+, I recommend making the following changes, in addition to those already discussed in section 2: True Seeing Increasing TS to a level 8/9 spell is alright for Core Epic, but by level 41, PC wealth is so great that even 192,000GP is practically pocket change. For Advanced Epic, I suggest the following; For TS to penetrate an nonepic illusion (or magical darkness, etc.) make an opposed caster level check, with the True Seer gaining a +10 bonus to the check. Illusions created using epic spells also gain a +10 bonus to their check (which cancels out the TS bonus, making it a straight opposed check). Deities of rank 0 or higher gain an additional 10+DvR bonus to their CLC, whether they are the illusionist or the True Seer. This can be used in addition to or instead of the increased TS spell level from section 2. Epic Feats Multispell: As discussed in section 2, this feat is too powerful if allowed to be taken without limit. If you allow it, I’d suggest limiting it to once per 20 levels. Also, if you’re allowing it multiple times, making Rapid Metamagic and/ or Metamagic Specialist available is especially important. Great Smiting: While not such a problem at first, this feat gets out of hand if taken without limit. For example, a 100th-level Paladin who’s taken it 19 times adds 2000 to their damage with each Smite (and they have at least 21 per day by this point). I’d suggest limiting this to once per 10 levels. Epic Toughness: Even though this has been increased to +30HPs, that’s still pretty worthless when you’re level 70 and have 1500HPs already. The simple and obvious solution is to make it work like Improved Toughness instead, giving +1HP/HD. Improved Metamagic: The ELH version is too powerful. Taking this feat three times reduces nearly all MM feats to a +1 spell slot increase, which when you’ve got characters with level 20+ spell-slots is clearly not balanced. Use the nerfed version in the 3.5 DMG instead, which reduces the total spell slot adjustment by 1 instead. (I use a slightly altered version, where the minimum spell slot adjustment of a metamagic spell is +1 per MM feat applied, rather than a flat +1 minimum). Vorpal Strike: Use whichever nerf of the Vorpal effect you prefer (see section 2). Spell Damage As well as Multispell, there’s another way a caster can get vastly more damage than a noncaster per round; by using metamagic feats which stack geometrically (“two doublings equal a quadrupling”), rather than linearly (“two doubling equal a tripling”).The three feats that I know of (all from CArc) are; Energy Admixture, which adds the same damage again with a different energy type (or the same type) to any energy-damage spell. It costs only +4 spell slots, very affordable at higher epic levels. Twin Spell, which is even worse, because most Advanced Epic characters will have a Ring of Universal Energy Immunity, and hence not be vulnerable to Energy Admixture, although many monsters will (but see my discussion of immunity, below). Twin Spell can be applied to any spell, including ones such as Horrid Wilting and Disintegrate which don’t do energy damage, and hence aren’t affected by energy immunities. It also only costs a +4 spell slot increase. Split Ray, which allows an extra ray to be fired, at the same target or a different one, for any ray spell. If the original spell fires only a single ray, this doubles the damage. It costs a mere +2 spell slot increase. A Split Twinned Admixed Intensified Polar Ray is a 25th-level spell, and does 16x normal damage, maximised (total 2400). Each application of Enhance Spell increases this by a further 960. My recommendation is to simply ban these feats if you’re playing at Advanced Epic levels. Intensify Spell and Enhance Spell provide plenty of damage without further multiplication. EDIT: Rather than outright banning these feats, you could just rule that metamagic never stacks in this way. Energy Admixture would work, but any other MM feats applied (such as maximise spell) would only affect to one energy type (or the original number of damage dice, if Admixing a spell with its original energy type). Twin spell would cause the spell to recast, but without any of the other MM feats applied to it. And with Split Ray, the extra ray would not have any MM feats applied to it either. This way, the Split Twinned Admixed Intensified Polar Ray would do 75d6+300 damage, or 562.5 on average, a much more reasonable total. (Thanks to Tequila Sunrise for pointing this out). Immunity (Special thanks to Upper Krust and Paladin’s Pride for this section. Not all of this section relates only to Advanced Epic, but I wanted to keep it all together, so here it is). It’s been said before, but it bears repeating; there are just too many immunities at epic level, especially Advanced Epic where everyone can afford all the items they want. The list of attack options gets pretty thin when everyone’s immune to all energy types, death effects, sneak attacks, critical hits, etc. etc. Also, it makes no sense to me that low-level characters get abilities which are effective against epic level characters, and even deities…for example; Do you really believe Death Ward, a 4th-level spell castable by a 7th-level Cleric, protects you against Energy Drain or Power Word Kill cast by a greater deity with caster level 100? Or that a disease virulent enough to fell great wyrms and epic heroes like ninepins can’t affect a 3rd-level Paladin because of Divine Health? Or that an 60th-level Ranger with max ranks in Survival and the Legendary Tracker feat, who can track a mouse across bare rock on a moonless night after a week of snow without even trying, who can track across water or even underwater, can’t track a 3rd-level Druid because of his Trackless Step ability? Cos I don’t. I propose seperating immunities into two types; Immunity Bonuses and True Immunity. True Immunity is reserved for deities and intrinsic immunities (see below). Everyone else gets Immunity Bonuses instead. Energy: This really becomes a problem at higher levels, because all PCs will likely have a Ring of Universal Energy Immunity by about level 45, and all NPCs by about level 65 (based on standard wealth). Just as True Seeing makes most Illusion spells obsolete, UEI makes many Evocation (and some Conjuration) spells useless. I suggest that energy immnuity halves the damage, and then applies energy resistance 100. Damage up to 200 is negated completely; 500 damage becomes 150; 1000 damage becomes 400; and so on. This provides a very powerful protection against energy damage which remains useful even at higher Advanced Epic levels, without allowing you to be thrown into the heart of a star and take no damage. Saving throws: Abilities such as Divine Health should, in my opinion, give a bonus to saves, rather than flat immunity. I work it like this; The general formula is a +10 +1/4HD or level (rounded down), with no limit: - Magic (spells, SLAs, magic items): +10 +1/4caster level - Class features: +10 +1/4class level - Racial features: +10 +1/4total HD This gives low-level characters a large bonus while still giving high-level characters a chance to affect them, and amounts to near-total immunity for higher epic characters (but still allows the possibility of some ultra-powerful being getting though their defences). Unlike most other bonuses, Immunity bonuses stack with all other bonuses and with each other, except that you can’t stack bonuses from exactly the same source, such as the same spell cast twice. If you have one or more Immunity bonuses applying to a given save, you do not automatically fail on a natural 1 (although I recommend using the open-ended rolls variant from the ELH anyway; a flat 5% chance of success or failure regardless of the difficulty is just too high, especially at epic levels). Immunity bonuses allow you to attempt a save even if you’re not normally allowed one. If a save is not feasible/ appropriate, the effect is negated. Any partial effects on a successful save are negated. Note: Certain feats and abilities designed to overcome immunities will have to be altered if this system is adopted. Example: Music of the Gods (epic feat). Normal: Bardic music affects even those those normally immune to mind-affecting effects, although they gain a +10 bonus to their save. New: Instead of a +10+1/4HD bonus to saves, creatures with Immunity Bonuses vs. mind-affecting effects receive a flat +10 bonus, regardless of HD. Even if the creature has multiple Immunity bonuses from different sources, they still only receive a single +10 bonus. Skills: Skill-based immunities, such as a Druid’s Trackless Step, give bonuses in the same way as saving throws, except the bonus is 10+HD (so, for example, the Survival DC to track a 3th-level Druid is increased by 13). Critical hits: Gain a +10+1/4HD Immunity bonus to AC vs. critical hit confirmation rolls. Sneak Attacks: Need to beat AC by 10+1/4HD to successfully sneak attack. Evasion/ Improved Evasion: Reduce damage to 1/4 normal on a successful save, instead of negating it entirely. (Can’t remember who I nicked this one off, but thanks whoever you are!). Antimagic Fields: When a spell is cast into an AMF, the AMF’s caster makes a caster level check against a DC of 1+ opponents caster level. If the check succeeds, the magic is suppressed (this means that if their level is equal or higher than that of the creature casting into the AMF, the check automatically succeeds, with no roll required). Magic items must make a similar CLC to continue functioning. If the spell is an epic spell, the DC is increased by 10 (ie, it works as shown in the ELH). For spells cast or artifacts created by a deity of rank 0 or higher, the DC is increased by 10+DvR (for artifacts not created by deities, the DC is increased by 10). This stacks with the bonus for epic spells. Spells cast or artifacts created by deities of DvR 6 or higher automatically penetrate AMFs whose caster is level 20 or less, with no roll required. Intrinsic Immunity: When immunity is “built-in” (ie, it stems from a being’s fundamental nature rather than being a bonus of some kind) it is retained. Examples include: Lack a sense or ability score: retain any resulting immunities. Constructs/ Plants: retain immunity to mind-affecting effects. Oozes: immune to critical hits, sneak attacks, or any other form of precision-based damage. Undead: retain all immunities except to critical hits. Deities: any immunity which is related to their domains or portfolio, or otherwise has a special connection to their nature, is retained, since the deity is the living embodiment of that thing or process. A deity of winter would retain True Immunity to cold damage, for example.
BigGus 01-10-08, 11:27 PM	4. Variant Class Progressions I dislike idea that all classes get bonus feats instead of class features at epic levels; it’s OK for some (notably the Fighter and Rogue*, who already get them at nonepic levels) but for others, their progression completely changes from level 20 to 21. The following are my attempts to make class progressions which are as similar to those at level 1-20 as possible, while (a) keeping the classes balanced against each other and (b) avoiding rampant power inflation (the classes are a little more powerful than in the SRD, but only by about 1 epic feat per 10 class levels on average). All the spellcasting classes get less bonus feats; the Monk gets more, but I include an additional alternative progression where they do not. *Rogues may take a feat instead of a special ability All spellcasting classes get only one base spell slot per spell level, plus any they get for a high ability score, at each spell level they acquire above their normal class level 20 maximum, just as if they had taken Improved Spell Capacity. Any class features not mentioned are as per the SRD. Barbarian: Mighty Rage is now gained at 21st level instead of 20th (because it makes for a smooth progression, and because it lines up with the bonuses other classes get at levels 21, 41, 61 etc.). At 31st level and every 10 levels thereafter, the bonuses to Str and Con increase by a further +2, and the bonuses to Will saves increase by a further +1. Bard: Gains 7th level spells at 21st level, then additional spell levels at levels 24 and 27, and again at levels 31, 34, 37 and so on. Also gain access to new spells of 7th, 8th, and 9th level (see below). Bonus feats reduced from 1/3 levels to 1/6 levels. Cleric: Gains 10th-level spells at 21st level, then additional spell levels at levels 23, 25, 27, 29, 31, 33, 35 and 37, then again at levels 41, 43 etc. No longer receive any bonus feats. Druid: Spells as Cleric. Do not gain any extra uses per day of Wild Shape after level 20. No longer receive any bonus feats. Fighter: At level 21 and every 20 levels therafter, gains the benefits of the Epic Weapon Focus feat. At level 31 and every 20 levels thereafter, gains the benefits of the Epic Weapon Specialisation feat. The Fighter does not have to meet the prerequisites for these feats. They can be taken in the same weapon or a different weapon each time. If the same weapon, the effects stack. The bonuses stack with any non-epic Weapon Focus/ Specialisation feats the Fighter may have. They do not stack, however, with the epic feats EWFoc/ Spec (although these can still be taken for other weapons if desired). Monk: Increase bonus feats from 1/5 levels to 1/3 levels. Additional Monk variant: Improved Ki Strike If, like me, you still use V.3.0 damage reduction, you may like this version; Monk: At 21st level, the Monk’s unarmed strike is treated as a +4 weapon for purposes of overcoming damage reduction. At 29th level and every 8 levels thereafter, the bonus increases by a further +1. In addition, if using this variant the V.3.0 epic feat Improved Ki Strike may be taken at 21st level and once every 20 levels therafter. (Bonus epic feats remain at 1/5 levels). Paladin: Gains 5th-level spells at 21st level, then additional spell levels every 4 levels thereafter. Also gain access to new spells of 5th through 9th level (see below). Caster level increases +1 per class level after level 20. Bonus feats reduced from 1/3 levels to 1/5 levels. Ranger: As Paladin. Rogue: Increase bonus epic feats from 1/4 to 1/3 levels. Sorcerer: As Cleric. Wizard: As Cleric. Specialist Wizards gain a bonus spell per day of their specialised school at each spell level. Paladin/ Ranger / Bard: Spells up to 9th level. Since P/Ra/Bd get extra spell levels as standard class features instead of bonus feats, it seems only fair that they should get spells up to 9th level, instead of just spell slots (also, it makes the extra spell levels more valuable, which since all three are widely considered weak classes is no bad thing). These are mostly taken from the Cleric, Druid, and Sorcerer/ Wizard spell lists respectively. All are from the PHB unless stated. The following are those which I’m fairly sure are appropriate for each class; Bard Level 7 Hold Person, Mass Insanity Invisibility, Mass Power Word, Blind Sequester Shadow Conjuration, Greater Simulacrum Summon Monster VII Vision Level 8 Cure Critical Wounds, Mass Discern Location Mind Blank Power Word, Stun Screen Shadow Evocation, Greater Summon Monster VIII Level 9 Dominate Monster Hold Monster, Mass Mordenkainen’s Disjunction Power Word, Kill Programmed Amnesia (CArc) Shades Summon Monster IX Superior Invisibility (CArc) Paladin Level 5 Atonement Commune Cure Critical Wounds Disrupting Weapon Hallow Righteous Might Level 6 Bulls Strength, Mass Cure Light Wounds, Mass Dispel Magic, Greater Eagle’s Splendour, Mass Forbiddance Geas/ Quest Owl’s Wisdom, Mass Raise Dead Visage of the Deity (CDiv) Level 7 Cure Moderate Wounds, Mass Dictum Heal Holy Word Righteous Wrath of the Faithful (CDiv) Level 8 Brilliant Blade (CArc) Cure Serious Wounds, Mass Holy Aura Resurrection Shield of Law Level 9 Cure Critical Wounds, Mass Heal, Mass Miracle Storm of Vengeance Visage of the Deity, Greater (CDiv) Ranger Level 5 Awaken Binding Windings (CDiv) Control Winds Cure Critical Wounds Find the Path Summon Nature’s Ally V Wall of Thorns Wood Rot (CArc) Level 6 Bear’s Endurance, Mass Bull’s Strength, Mass Cat’s Grace, Mass Cure Light Wounds, Mass Energy Immunity (CArc) Liveoak Phantasmal Disorientation (CDiv) Summon Nature’s Ally VI Transport Via Plants Level 7 Animate Plants Control Weather Cure Moderate Wounds, Mass Heal Summon Nature’s Ally VII Wind Walk Level 8 Animal Shapes Command Plants Cure Serious Wounds, Mass Summon Nature’s Ally VIII Whirlwind Level 9 Cure Critical Wounds, Mass Regenerate Shambler Summon Nature’s Ally IX Unyielding Roots (CDiv) Whirlwind, Greater (CDiv) Bard spells known above 6th level The Bard gains spells known at levels 7, 8 and 9 according to the table below. They do not gain any further spells known after 30th level, and they do not gain any extra level 0-6 spells known after 20th level. At levels 23, 26 and 29 they can choose to learn a new spell in place of one they already know (this also does not continue after level 30). If playing with this variant, you may wish to make a small change to the nonepic Bard progression; 3rd, 4th and 5th level spells known top out at 4, and 6th level spells known tops out at 3. This is because if the Bard is given 7th, 8th and 9th level spells known, they end up with more spells known than a Sorcerer, who as a pure caster with minimal other class features should get at least as many*. Bd lvl...…..Spell lvl ………...…..7.…8….9 21….….....2………... 22……...….3………... 23……......3………... 24….…..….3….2…... 25….….....3….3…... 26….….....3….3…... 27….…..….3….3….2 28…....…..3….3….3 29….….....3….3….3 30….…..….3….3….3 *EDIT: Actually, a better solution might be to increase a Sorcerers spells known slightly (add one to their maximum spells known at levels 3 through 6). Most people say Sorcerers suck compared to other primary spellcasters anyway, so it shouldn't unbalance things much. Why Druids don’t get extra uses/day of Wild Shape According to WotC’s own guidelines for epic class progressions, they shouldn’t. The DMG says that class features which increase “as part of a repeated pattern (such as a Rogue’s sneak attack…)” should continue to accumulate, but a class feature which “slows or stops before 20th level” should not. Since the gaps between extra uses of Wild Shape at non-epic levels are 1, 1, 3, 4, 4, as far as I can see, it’s a slowing, non-repeating pattern, and hence should not continue to increase. But while all of the above is true, the real reason is more pragmatic: if they got full spellcasting and extra uses of Wild Shape (even at a reduced frequency) I’d be increasing their power compared to their SRD version more than any other class. Since Druids are widely considered the most powerful core class at level 20, this would not be a good idea. However, if Druids don’t get free extra uses of Wild Shape after level 20, consider adding this new epic feat: Epic Extra Wild Shape Prerequisite: Wild Shape 6/day Benefit: The character gains 3 additional uses/day of Wild Shape. If the character has the ability to Wild Shape into an elemental, they also gain 1 additional use of this ability per day. To my mind, the non-epic feat Extra Wild Shape (CDiv) is overpowered. I’d suggest reducing it to either 2 extra Wild Shapes/ day or 1 extra Wild Shape and 1 extra Elemental Wild Shape/day (players choice, can’t be altered once made). Why Paladin/ Ranger caster level increases +1 per class level after 20th The main reason for this is dispelling; if caster level carries on increasing 1/2 levels, they remain vulnerable to Dispel Magic cast by a 10th-level Wizard (for example) until 39th level and Greater Dispel Magic cast by a 20th-level Wizard until 59th level. It makes many of their spells almost useless if characters so far below their level can dispel them. Also, it’s part of my overall attempt to make spellcasting more viable for the epic P/ Ra. Since many players don’t take ISC for them under standard rules as their spells are so weak compared to full casters of the same level, I thought that if I’m giving them automatic spell levels instead of extra bonus feats, their spellcasting needed to be improved to keep the class worthwhile (especially since P/ Ra are generally considered relatively weak classes at non-epic levels). Why I chose the spell level patterns I did. W/C/D is simple; they get new spell levels every odd level except 19, so the pattern just repeats. Sorcs don’t get any more spells/ day than other classes at epic levels, so they get the same progression (no one-level lag). Bd is more complicated; their spell levels follow an irregular pattern giving 6 spell levels over 20 class levels, so I averaged them out to a regular 3/10 for simplicity. P/ Ra was the most difficult; they get no spells at all for the first 3 levels then 4 irregular levels after that. I tried various different patterns, but nothing seemed particularly satisfactory, so in the end I settled on 1/4 levels as the simplest solution. I didn’t give W/ S/ C/ D a straight new-spell-level-every-odd-class-level progression for two reasons; first, I wanted to minimise power inflation, and second, at higher epic levels it becomes practically impossible for them to get any bonus spells at their highest spell levels anyway, so there wouldn’t be much point. Note that level 0 spells are ignored in the above calculations. They’re so weak compared to other spells that I don’t think they really count as a significant class feature. Multiclass Characters The problem with increasing the power of epic classes is that it makes multiclass characters less viable. There are several possible solutions to this: 1) Remove all XP penalties for multiclassing (a lot of people do this anyway). 2) Allow multiclass characters to use their best 20 levels to determine their BAB, rather than their first 20. (I don’t advocate doing this for saves, since epic saves are already at the best speed they can normally be anyway, in contrast to EAB, which is at the worst speed it can normally be). 3) Make available feats which are of particular benefit to multiclass characters. The following is a list of those I know of, with the book they come from (most recent version): Ascetic Hunter (CSco) Ascetic Knight (CSco) Ascetic Mage (CSco) Ascetic Rogue (CSco) Ascetic Stalker (CSco) Daring Outlaw (CSco) DaringWarrior (CSco) Devoted Inquisitor (CAdv) Devoted Performer (CAdv) Devoted Tracker (CAdv) Expanded Ki Pool (CSco) Extra Favoured Enemy (MotW) Extra Music (CAdv) Extra Rage (CWar) Extra Smiting (CWar) Extra Stunning (CWar) Extra Turning (PHB) Extra Wild Shape (CDiv) Martial Stalker (CSco) Master Spellthief (CSco) Natural Bond (CAdv) Practised Spellcaster (CArc) Swift Ambusher (CSco) Swift Hunter (CSco)
BigGus 01-10-08, 11:28 PM	5. Other Epic Variants Epic Feat Variant: Per 20 Levels Feats I’ve already discussed in section 3 the idea of limiting Multispell to once every 20 levels. Here I’m going to suggest the opposite; that certain epic feats which can normally only be taken once would not be broken if allowed to be taken once per 20 levels. Many of these can already be taken multiple times, but must apply to a different weapon/ skill/ spell school/ item creation feat each time; in these cases, they can be taken multiple times for the same thing, but only once per 20 levels. I allow the following to be taken in this way; Efficient Item Creation* Epic Endurance Epic Fortitude Epic Reflexes Epic Skill Focus Epic Spell Focus Epic Spell Penetration Epic Weapon Focus Epic Weapon Specialisation Epic Will Superior Initiative *Does not multiply crafting speed by 10 each time; adds 10,000GP to the amount of crafting per day each time. Epic Spellcasting I dislike the separation of epic spellcasting into two different progressions; I don’t see the need for it. The system I use is closely based on the one in the ELH, but it uses spell levels instead of Spellcraft DCs. It works like this; - Convert the seed DCs back into spell levels (DC14 = level 1, DC17 = level 2, etc.). If using more than one seed, simply add the levels together. (Nonepic spells may also be used as seeds, if a particular spell closely simulates the desired effect, and none of the ELH seeds do. This is potentially abusable, so it requires DM approval to use). - Convert spell factor DC increases into level increases at the rate of +5 Spellcraft DC = +1 spell level (same for mitigating factors). Keep fractions at this stage. - Create the spell as normal. Once all the factors and mitigating factors have been applied, round the total up to the nearest whole spell level. The final spell level must be at least 10. Spells take 1 day, 50,000GP and 2000XP per final spell level to develop. They do not require Spellcraft checks to cast; they are cast like any other spells. Save DCs and Concentration checks are based on the spells actual level. Epic spells still cannot have metamagic feats applied to them. This is a balance issue; their potential power would simply be too great if you could. I don’t use the Knowledge ranks/10 formula to calculate epic spells per day. Epic spells are just like any other spells, and can be cast as often as you have spell slots of their level. There are a number of factors which prevent this getting out of hand; - Epic spells are very expensive to develop (slightly more so under my system than the ELH one) so casters won’t have many different ones until very high levels. Since the minimum spell level is 10, you can’t reduce the DC to a very low level with mitigating factors and develop them on the cheap. - Instead of getting extra spell slots for their epic spells (albeit only a few) they must be cast using regular level 10+ spell slots. Casters therefore have to choose between using their precious highest-level slots for casting epic spells or for metamagic nonepic spells. - I limit the maximum spell level before applying mitigating factors to 5x the highest spell level you can cast. This prevents casters creating “destroy-the-world” or “buff-myself-to-godhood” spells as soon as they hit level 21. - DM approval is still required for all epic spells. Other changes: Damage dice can’t be increased past d12. Maximum XP burned is 500 per caster level, with no limit. When increasing casting time, after adding on 10 minutes you then add hours on, up to a maximum of 10, before moving onto days. Material components are allowed, and reduce the spell level by 1 per 10,000GP of their value. Foci are allowed, and reduce the spell level by 1 for every 500,000GP of their value.
BigGus 01-10-08, 11:31 PM	6. Questions I’d be glad to hear any comments or suggestions, but I’d be particularly interested in answers to the following questions; Core Epic Fixes Which version of the Vorpal effect do you prefer? If you like the save, should it be Fortitude or Reflex, and is the DC about right? Any other ideas to nerf it if you don’t like these? Advanced Epic Fixes Should undead retain all their immunities (except to critical hits)? EDIT: I reduced the 10+HD immunity bonuses to saves to 10+1/4HD, because it occurred to me that it amounted to effectively total immunity by level 40 or so. Is this still too high? Should I further reduce it to something like 10+1/10HD? Or a flat +10 bonus? Variant Class Progressions 1) The balance of the classes is based on the assumption that the ELH class progressions are fairly well balanced against each other. Is this assumption valid? Are there any classes which you think are particularly weak/ strong (taking into account the other changes I’ve made, such as limiting Multispell)? Do any of you give more or less bonus feats to any class than in the ELH? 2) Any suggestions for other level 5-9 spells which should appear on the Bd/P/Ra lists? Any spells on the lists which you think aren’t appropriate? 3) Is 1/4 levels an appropriate spell level progression for P/ Ra? If not, what would you suggest? Other Epic Variants My epic spellcasting system hasn’t had much playtesting; are there any problems you can see with it? --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- If you’ve read this far, thanks! And thanks in advance for any input.
Avatar of Kokusho 01-11-08, 10:10 AM	Interesting. The version of vorpal that we use in our campaigns increases the crit multiplier by 3; it still allows for potential decapitiation of you deal enough damage. Limiting Multispell is probably a good idea; I know from personal experience that being able to spam four spells per round is kinda...ouch against pretty much anything, except those immune to energy damage:mad: Which brings me to the next point; as someone who plays a high-epic evoker-type, I love your system for energy immunity. Rings of universal elemental immunity annoy the CRAP out of me, and I have a running joke that somebody must be mass-producing them somewhere because damn near every enemy that has intelligence has one. Improved Metamagic: Okay, again, with personal experience. Yes, it gets stupid, very fast. The DMG version sucks horribly, though. What we use is that IMM reduces each feat applied to a spell to minimum of one. Yeah, that means a ton of metamagic can be applied to a spell, but not infinite. Also, we don't allow you to stack Enhance Spell...one time only. I find it funny that you used Polar Ray as an example...that's my character's signature spell. :) We have also been thinking about using a variant similar to yours with Disjunction; it's kind of ridiculous as it is, when every caster and bad guy throw that first-off to nullify a literal fortune in magic items.
Tequila_Sunrise 01-11-08, 04:12 PM	Glad to see your idea on the board, BG! I'll start with the first comments that come to mind, but I'm sure more will come later. I like your two ideas for MDJ, the caster level check more so than the XP cost. Heck, I'm all for just dumping MDJ and replacing it with a 9th level dispel magic. The XP cost is also a good idea, but eventually it will become trivial at very high epic levels no matter how costly you make it. True Seeing: I like the idea of splitting this spell, but have you considered using a caster level check? It might be simpler in the end. Fortification and SA: I also see this as a problem and did some research on it a few months back. I discovered an alternate rogue ability in Dungeonscape that allows a rogue to trade his Trap Sense progression for the ability to deal half SA damage against creatures who would normally be immune. I like this better than trying to fix Fortification because it's painless to the player (who wouldn't trade TS for half SA damage?) and because it works against the other no-SA situations. Ring of Universal Evoker Suckitude: I actually think your suggestion is too lenient, but then again I don't allow this item at all. Resist Energy and advanced spell versions and advanced armor/rings of energy resistance provide plenty of damage resistance, I think. Also, I don't think epic casters can metamagic their spell damage as much as you give them credit for. I remember reading in the errata/FAQ (?) that empower and maximize don't stack with each other, so a maxed empowered fireball does 60 + (half of 10d6) damage rather than 90 damage. If so, I think it's safe to rule that other metamagic feats also do not stack with each other. So a maxed admixed twinned fireball would only do 60 + 10d6 + 10d6 damage. Vorpal Weapons: I like UK's version best because if a x5 multiplier costs +5, it creates a nice even progression from x1 (+1) to xInfinity (+Infinity). Immunity Bonuses: I'm prone to thinking that a flat +10 bonus would be enough "effective immunity", but I'm not sure.
setekh 01-11-08, 05:10 PM	Wouldn't simply allowing Sorcerers to use Quicken spell as it's meant to be, sort it out or is there some in-depth reason why a Sorcerer wanting to use a Quickened spell cannot? It's how I rule it, anyway. As for Multispell, I like your "Once per 20 levels" idea. Also, While I'm thinking on it, how does everybody like the NWN Epic progression? -That is, attacks continue to accrue (so a 30th fight has a BAB of 30 and Six attacks, a 30 Sorcerer has BAB15 and Three attacks, a 20fight 10 sorcerer has 25BAB and Five attacks and so on) And Epic Feats are gained every Odd Level (In addition to the standard ones)
Taeldrin Laesrash 01-12-08, 01:06 AM	I like some of these. The Multispell limitation is good, and your take on energy resistance I find very creative. To answer some of your questions, I believe undead should keep the resistances that aren't energy-related, which are the only ones that make sense. However, I do not like scrapping bonus feats for casters. Sure, you've given them extra spells, but noncasters are getting far more feats than them now. As new spell slots count as a continuation of class features in my book, I'd suggest doing away with the bonus slots and just give them the normal bonus feats. They may not even want the extra spell slots, and prefer to focus on automatic metamagic or something.
Avatar of Kokusho 01-12-08, 07:34 AM	Tequila Sunrise, you have now given me a new name to call that damned ring. Evoker Suckitude, indeed.:P You are correct in that most metamagic feats do not stack with themselves. However, Energy Admixture does, unlike just about every other one. The only way to reliably abuse this is IMM, though, as the level adjustment is too high to pull it off with any reliability when combined with other metamagics. If you maximize an admixed spell, AFAIK, all elements are maximized. Which means a +7 slot adjustment for just one admixture. Adding in Split Ray and Twin Spell (which is one of my favorite tricks with Polar Ray, I won't tell you what my character spends on spell slot adjustment as it is a blatant abuse of IMM combined with Magelord class abilities) would cost most casters too much in spell slots, so you don't see it often. I don't disagree with Multispell only every 20 levels; even most epic campaigns in my experience don't go much past level 35 or so, because believe me, it's hard to DM for a group that high. Undead immunities to critical hits and such should stay; if a character wishes to get past that, then she needs to figure out a way to do it herself. Casters should get the choice between bonus feats and ISC; some prefer to stick to normal spell levels and just load up on metamagic and item creation.
PrinceOfTheVoid 01-12-08, 11:28 AM	Undead immunities to critical hits and such should stay; if a character wishes to get past that, then she needs to figure out a way to do it herself. Truedeath Crystal?
Avatar of Kokusho 01-12-08, 11:30 AM	That's one way to do it, though they still haven't come up with one that works on elementals.
PrinceOfTheVoid 01-12-08, 02:53 PM	There's always that one scout feat too (swift hunter?) that let's them overcome precision immunity to their favored enemies, but that doesn't help rogues, does it?
TheCobra 01-12-08, 10:53 PM	Uh, doesn't seed: ward handily deal with disjunction? Or do some of y'all reject that interpretation?
strenoth 01-13-08, 02:46 AM	on multispell: to help out the swift-action characters a bit, i actually modified it several ways: Number 1) I altered the pre-req's to include thing slike Improved Init, Lightning Reflexes, and epic versions there of. Number 2) It's now multi-swift action, BUT you can still only use 1 immediate action between turns (you can burn as many 'imeddiate' actions as you like on your turn as swift actions, like using a standard action to do a move action). 2B) there's a seperate feat that increases the number of immediate actions you can take between turns. Number 3) there is a skill prereq, the prereq goes up by 10 ranks every time you take it. Short run is about the same as 1/20 levels, as the first tiem you cna take it is aroudn level 30, but in the long run allows it to be taken more often than your version. But hey, combine this with multi-boost, and a ToB meleer can kick some serious butt.
BigGus 01-13-08, 11:38 AM	Thanks all for the feedback! Also, we don't allow you to stack Enhance Spell...one time only. I remember reading in the errata/FAQ (?) that empower and maximize don't stack with each other, so a maxed empowered fireball does 60 + (half of 10d6) damage rather than 90 damage. If so, I think it's safe to rule that other metamagic feats also do not stack with each other. So a maxed admixed twinned fireball would only do 60 + 10d6 + 10d6 damage. You are correct in that most metamagic feats do not stack with themselves. However, Energy Admixture does, unlike just about every other one. The only way to reliably abuse this is IMM, though, as the level adjustment is too high to pull it off with any reliability when combined with other metamagics. If you maximize an admixed spell, AFAIK, all elements are maximized. Which means a +7 slot adjustment for just one admixture. I allow Enhance Spell multiple times because it only increases damage linearly, not geometrically. Using my variant class progressions as an example, a level 100 Wizard could do 1200 damage maximum using Enhance and Intensify only, but could do 7200 damage if Energy Admixture/ Twin Spell/ Split Ray were allowed. TS, you're right that Empower and Maximise don't stack. However, in the FAQ it says that Energy Admix does stack with Maximise Spell, and I asked on these boards if it also stacked with Empower Spell, and the reply was in the affirmative (I only got one reply, from dman11235). If both of these are correct, it seems fairly safe to assume that Intensify Spell also stacks with it. I searched the boards to see if Energy Admix stacks with itself, and there didn't seem to be a consensus; (see this thread: http://forums.gleemax.com/showthread.php?t=946404&highlight=energy+admixture), so I didn't include self-stacking in my calculations. Twin Spell actually casts the same spell twice, so I don't see how it can fail to stack geometrically. Split Ray I'm not so sure about; it's possible that doesn't, but as it's presented it appears to. Of course, it's possible to just rule that metamagic feats never stack geometrically, even Twin Spell, but according to my current understanding these three do, which is why I suggested banning them. True Seeing: I like the idea of splitting this spell, but have you considered using a caster level check? It might be simpler in the end. If you look at the start of "Advance Epic Fixes" you'll see I recommend doing exactly that if you're playing past level 40. Ring of Universal Evoker Suckitude Love it! Immunity Bonuses: I'm prone to thinking that a flat +10 bonus would be enough "effective immunity", but I'm not sure. I wanted it to scale a little with level, since there are plenty of ways to get save DCs up by more than +10 by higher epic levels. But then again, often save DCs are too easy at epic levels anyway. Anyone else got any thoughts? Wouldn't simply allowing Sorcerers to use Quicken spell as it's meant to be, sort it out or is there some in-depth reason why a Sorcerer wanting to use a Quickened spell cannot? Well, whenever a Sorcerer applies metamagic to a spell, it increases the casting time to one full round (or increases it by one full round if it already takes one round or more). You could of course just rule that Quicken Spell is an exception to this, but I wanted to present existing means to get over this, rather than suggesting additional rule changes which aren't strictly necessary. However, I do not like scrapping bonus feats for casters. Sure, you've given them extra spells, but noncasters are getting far more feats than them now. As new spell slots count as a continuation of class features in my book, I'd suggest doing away with the bonus slots and just give them the normal bonus feats. They may not even want the extra spell slots, and prefer to focus on automatic metamagic or something. Casters should get the choice between bonus feats and ISC; some prefer to stick to normal spell levels and just load up on metamagic and item creation. This is why I separated "fixes" from "variants". Fixes are suggestions for things which I think are broken about the epic system, and need addressing. Variants are just a different way of doing things, which some people might like. I didn't think that casters necessarily had to have bonus feats; other than Wizards, they don't get them at nonepic levels. One problem I will admit with my system; by level 75 or so, it becomes practically impossible to get bonus spells at your highest spell level. So I don't expect this variant would be popular with those who play at very high epic. If you were playing with the other variant classes I present, and you had a caster who wanted to keep her bonus feats, the simplest way would be to drop the extra spell levels to 1 per 10 class levels and give them the normal number of bonus feats from the ELH. That should balance them against the other classes. Uh, doesn't seed: ward handily deal with disjunction? Or do some of y'all reject that interpretation? My understanding, since Ward says that it can be dispelled, is that you could dispel the Ward first, then dispel any other magic with a second application. The problem is that under standard rules, a 40th-level caster (for example) would only have 4 epic spell slots per day, but could have over 20 level 9+ slots for nonepic spells, and the disparity gets greater the higher the level. So having to use 2 applications of MDJ to affect a Warded character isn't that much of a disadvantage. on multispell: to help out the swift-action characters a bit, I actually modified it several ways... I like the idea of changing Multispell to Multi-Swift Action a lot, it definitely makes things more balanced. But since multiple free/ swift actions are more useful to some classes than others, the frequency with which it can be taken is important in keeping balance, especially at higher epic levels. I'd say your version is fine up to about level 60, but for those planning to play to level 70+, I'd recommend 1/20 levels. Very good idea either way.
Avatar of Kokusho 01-13-08, 12:18 PM	Well, my group doesn't allow stacking of Enhance primarily BECAUSE of Twin Spell/Admixture and such. We also have the house rule of "anyone but my character can crit with a ray spell" for much the same reason. I allow martial adepts to take Multispell but call it Multiaction- prerequisites change somewhat but they certainly appreciate it.
BigGus 01-13-08, 03:27 PM	Well, my group doesn't allow stacking of Enhance primarily BECAUSE of Twin Spell/Admixture and such. If that works for you, cool. I put the "banning geometrically stacking metamagic" bit in the Advanced Epic Fixes section because it doesn't get really out of hand until level 60 or so. Most people don't play that high, so it generally isn't too much of a problem. But I wanted to make the system work up to at least level 100, because it's designed (supposedly) to work at any level, and looking at these boards I know there are a few people who do play very high epic games. [FONT="Georgia"] We also have the house rule of "anyone but my character can crit with a ray spell" for much the same reason. :rofl: [FONT="Georgia"] I allow martial adepts to take Multispell but call it Multiaction- prerequisites change somewhat but they certainly appreciate it. This Multiaction thing is looking like an important fix. I'll add a note about it.
BigGus 01-13-08, 08:59 PM	I like your two ideas for MDJ, the caster level check more so than the XP cost. Heck, I'm all for just dumping MDJ and replacing it with a 9th level dispel magic. That's what option 2 is; change it so it's just a better Greater Dispel Magic. Below that I suggest that you can use both if you like. The XP cost is also a good idea, but eventually it will become trivial at very high epic levels no matter how costly you make it. Been thinking about this, and I'm not sure it's true, unless by very high epic levels you mean level 1000 or something - and as I said in section 1, these fixes aren't intended for arbitrarily high levels, just up to level 100 or so. The point of the XP cost is not to stop people casting it altogether, or even make it an "absolute last resort" like Wish is for nonepic characters; it's just to stop them casting it on every opponent that presents the slightest challenge. For example, Limited Wish is castable by a 13th-level mage, and has an XP cost of 300. If a caster uses it once or twice per adventure, that's no big deal. But if they use it 5 times per day, they're really cutting into the XP they'll earn from that adventure. To have the same deterrent value for a 100th-level caster as Limited Wish does for a 13th-level one, MDJ would only need a 2300XP cost.
Tequila_Sunrise 01-14-08, 11:40 AM	TS, you're right that Empower and Maximise don't stack. However, in the FAQ it says that Energy Admix does stack with Maximise Spell, and I asked on these boards if it also stacked with Empower Spell, and the reply was in the affirmative (I only got one reply, from dman11235). If both of these are correct, it seems fairly safe to assume that Intensify Spell also stacks with it. I searched the boards to see if Energy Admix stacks with itself, and there didn't seem to be a consensus; (see this thread: http://forums.gleemax.com/showthread.php?t=946404&highlight=energy+admixture), so I didn't include self-stacking in my calculations. Wow, one thing you can say about D&D designers: consistency is not in their job description. Or maybe it's just the FAQ writers...who writes the FAQs anyway? I should make a note of this in my own thread; I rule that no metamagic feats stack. For example if you maximize and admix a fireball you must choose which energy type to maximize and then roll for the other. Ditto with split ray, twin spell, etc. (That said I also don't have a problem with multi-admixing the same spell to make it more than two elements.)
strenoth 01-14-08, 01:22 PM	Oh, on MDJ, I let it be a 'perfect' dispel magic, no cap instead of a +30 cap. I don't want to force people into epic spellcasting, soem folks find in a pain in the rear and don't want to fiddle with seeds.
rob_douglas 01-14-08, 02:35 PM	The other great thing about MDJ that would make it still work even just as an uncapped dispel magic is that it is a multiperson attack, that affects magic items too. So they get a caster level check AND a save under this new idea. The caster level check won't really change things with most of the items people carry around. A good portion of them are so low a caster level that a +30 or so caster level check will still hit them. This will really affect active spells more - those that used to be nixed will now likely survive. ROB
TheCobra 01-14-08, 03:42 PM	My understanding, since Ward says that it can be dispelled, is that you could dispel the Ward first, then dispel any other magic with a second application. My understanding is that it stops mage's disjunction completely. As the SRD says: The area or effect of any such spells does not include the area of the ward, and such spells fail to affect any target within the ward. It could be dispelled, but not by mage's disjunction. At higher epic levels, an epic spell would be required to remove the ward.
rob_douglas 01-14-08, 05:25 PM	My reading is that the Ward can protect something, but not itself. You could have a second Ward to protect the first one, but then you just get into a MDJ/Ward arms race. As for deisgners' intent on this one, I think it is well beyond what they even understood they were playing with. ROB
BigGus 01-14-08, 08:35 PM	I rule that no metamagic feats stack. For example if you maximize and admix a fireball you must choose which energy type to maximize and then roll for the other. Ditto with split ray, twin spell, etc. This makes sense. I'll add nonstacking as an alternative. Oh, on MDJ, I let it be a 'perfect' dispel magic, no cap instead of a +30 cap. I don't want to force people into epic spellcasting, soem folks find in a pain in the rear and don't want to fiddle with seeds. That makes sense, if you don't want to use epic spells. But it does make the Dispel seed pretty much obsolete. I included the limit because my assumption is that most players who reach epic caster levels will want to use ESC. My reading is that the Ward can protect something, but not itself. You could have a second Ward to protect the first one, but then you just get into a MDJ/Ward arms race. My point exactly. The ward could be brought down by a targeted dispel magic spell. The area or effect of any such spells does not include the area of the ward, and such spells fail to affect any target within the ward. Putting these two sentences together, it seems pretty clear to me that dispelling can't affect anything in the warded area, but it can affect the ward itself, as Rob says.
TheCobra 01-14-08, 09:34 PM	Putting these two sentences together, it seems pretty clear to me that dispelling can't affect anything in the warded area, but it can affect the ward itself, as Rob says. Needless to say, I disagree. I'm most curious about when this shift in board opinion happened. For a while, it seems to be accepted that seed: ward negated the threat from mage's disjunction.
BigGus 01-15-08, 07:49 AM	Needless to say, I disagree. I'm most curious about when this shift in board opinion happened. For a while, it seems to be accepted that seed: ward negated the threat from mage's disjunction. I haven't seen any other threads about this (but then I've only been on these boards for 9 months), it's just my interpretation of what the SRD says. I don't really understand your argument; could you explain to me how you get from "The ward could be brought down by a targeted dispel magic spell." to the interpretation that the ward can't be brought down by Mage's Disjunction? Or can you point me towards any threads where people make this argument?
rob_douglas 01-15-08, 11:42 AM	I can't point to the old threads anymore. I remember that the first thread I got involved in on this board was arguing specifically about Ward being used against MDJ. Ahh - so long ago. I thought that we did conclude you could still take the Ward down itself. I suppose the counter argument is that MDJ is not a targeted Dispel, which is why it might not work. However, the Ward is based off the Antimagic field school of spells, and that can be taken down by MDJ. Granted, an epic spell is more powerful, but rarely (never?) is the seed itself, plain vanilla, more powerful without additional factors, than the spell it is based on. Then there is my own personal reason for keeping MDJ potent - mythological descriptions of the gods and great heroes have them owning very few, highly potent, even artifact, items. One reason for this is that the prevalence of MDJs means that it is just not ever worth actually having many lesser powerful magic items. :) ROB
TheCobra 01-15-08, 02:10 PM	I don't really understand your argument; could you explain to me how you get from "The ward could be brought down by a targeted dispel magic spell." to the interpretation that the ward can't be brought down by Mage's Disjunction? Mage's disjunction isn't much like a targeted dispel effect. Also, the quoted text earlier. I don't think the spell would even get to the ward. The area of the ward isn't affected. I can't point to the old threads anymore. Yeah, they're gone. It's too bad. I thought that we did conclude you could still take the Ward down itself. Perhaps there have always been opposing camps. I know I'm not the only one who believes you can magic an epic spell to deal with the problem. I suppose the counter argument is that MDJ is not a targeted Dispel, which is why it might not work. Indeed.
BigGus 01-15-08, 06:15 PM	Ah, I see. The key word is targeted. In that case, you may well be right about epic wards stopping MDJ. The only problem I see with this as an argument not to nerf MDJ is that EVERY epic opponent who has any significant items or buffing/ protection spells then has to have such a ward cast on them every day, or they're effectively way weaker than their CR would suggest. Since no items (except major artifacts) can hold epic spells, this means that solo epic characters who aren't full casters (or teams without full casters) aren't really viable. I know such characters are at a disadvantage anyway, since full casters are generally reckoned the most powerful (or at least most versatile) classes, but MDJ as written would really screw them. So personally, I'd advocate nerfing MDJ anyway.
BigGus 01-15-08, 07:22 PM	I've just been reading through this thread again, and there were a couple of things I noticed which I hadn't really understood, but had forgotten to ask about: Improved Metamagic: Okay, again, with personal experience. Yes, it gets stupid, very fast. The DMG version sucks horribly, though. What we use is that IMM reduces each feat applied to a spell to minimum of one. Yeah, that means a ton of metamagic can be applied to a spell, but not infinite. Do you mean that you use the ELH version as written? (That's what the line I've bolded seems to indicate). However, I do not like scrapping bonus feats for casters. Sure, you've given them extra spells, but noncasters are getting far more feats than them now. As new spell slots count as a continuation of class features in my book, I'd suggest doing away with the bonus slots and just give them the normal bonus feats. Do you mean "stick to the ELH progression for casters"? Or do you mean they should get extra spell levels and bonus feats?
TheCobra 01-15-08, 07:24 PM	I know such characters are at a disadvantage anyway, since full casters are generally reckoned the most powerful (or at least most versatile) classes, but MDJ as written would really screw them. Any epic character without access to epic spells is at a huge disadvantage in any case. That said, I'm not at all opposed to nerfing MDJ. I probably won't when my current campaign gets to epic levels, though.
Avatar of Kokusho 01-16-08, 08:11 AM	Yes, that's the one we use.
BigGus 01-17-08, 07:18 AM	Any epic character without access to epic spells is at a huge disadvantage in any case. That said, I'm not at all opposed to nerfing MDJ. I probably won't when my current campaign gets to epic levels, though. I don't know if I'd say Huge. Large, certainly. Like about 15'10" ;) But seriously, at higher epic levels, you're right, ESC is a big advantage (at lower epic levels you get very few epic spells, and you can't afford to develop them anyway, so its value is limited). I'm just thinking that MDJ as written makes the difference between those who have it and those who don't much bigger if ESC is the only way you can not lose all your items & active spells to it. Yes, that's the one we use. Hmmm...while the ELH version is definitely too powerful, I'll admit the DMG version is a bit on the weak side. Perhaps if it reduced the total spell level by 2 or something? I'm opposed to the ELH version for higher epic levels (I put the IMM fix in the "Advanced Epic" section; I don't think the ELH version is too overpowered at lower epic levels) because if a character has taken it 3 times, all MM feats (that I know of) except Intensify and Persistent are reduced to a +1 slot adjustment. For example, a 100th-level caster can Enhance x8, Twin, Admix and Intensify a spell for a +14 slot adjustment instead of a +47 slot adjustment; they're effectively getting 33 ISCs for the price of 3 (I know they don't get the extra spell slots, but still, it's just too much of a bargain). Disallowing multiple Enhances, as you do, stops this getting too out of hand; but to my mind, it's IMM, not Enhance, which is broken. Also, if you only allow one Enhance, after a certain point, spell damage tops out and can't be improved any more, unless there are lots of other MM feats which improve damage that I'm not aware of. So to conclude, I think perhaps a middle way needs to be found with IMM...do you think the double-powered version of the DMG one would work? Any other ideas?
Avatar of Kokusho 01-17-08, 07:43 AM	Yeah, it gets stupid, considering that through class abilities and IMM, my character reduces all metamagic costs by 5 slots. Now, at the level we are playing at, it's not so huge a deal, when you consider the other party members' abilities. However, that means you can pile on the metamagic, even if you are limited on what you can put on a spell. Now, if we decided to implement your fix (giving it a -2 reduction for each time it is taken) that would seriously crimp the power of said wizard, but it would probably be more balancing.
TheCobra 01-17-08, 11:51 AM	(at lower epic levels you get very few epic spells, and you can't afford to develop them anyway, so its value is limited) Depends on how much ritual cheese the DM in question allows. If you strictly follow the guidelines, getting epic spells for almost free is easy.
BigGus 01-17-08, 05:10 PM	Depends on how much ritual cheese the DM in question allows. If you strictly follow the guidelines, getting epic spells for almost free is easy. OK, fair point. I tend to forget some DMs allow DC 1 epic spell gorganzola (no-one I know does). But either way, up to level 36 you can't cast more than 3/day, so their impact isn't that great. BTW, does anyone know if a Wizard 5 Cleric 5 Mystic Theurge 17 with 30 ranks each in Knowledge (Arcana) and (Religion) would get 6 epic spells per day or 3? The SRD says "If the character meets more than one set of prerequisites, the limit on the number of spells he or she may cast per day is cumulative" but I'm not sure whether that means "the limit is cumulative, so they get epic spells from both classes" or "the limit is cumulative, so they don't get epic spells from both classes". Yeah, it gets stupid, considering that through class abilities and IMM, my character reduces all metamagic costs by 5 slots. Now, at the level we are playing at, it's not so huge a deal, when you consider the other party members' abilities. However, that means you can pile on the metamagic, even if you are limited on what you can put on a spell. Now, if we decided to implement your fix (giving it a -2 reduction for each time it is taken) that would seriously crimp the power of said wizard, but it would probably be more balancing. The more I look at it, the more convinced I get the DMG version is indeed underpowered. I'm now leaning towards this; IMPROVED METAMAGIC [EPIC] Prerequisites: Four metamagic feats, Spellcraft 30 ranks. Benefit: The total spell slot modifier of any metamagic spell is reduced by 2 levels, to a minimum of +1 per metamagic feat applied. Special: A character can gain this feat multiple times. The effects stack. This is better than the DMG version in that you get a -2 spell slot modifier, but worse in that the minimum modifier is +1 per metamagic feat, rather than +1 total. What does everyone else think? Is this the best compromise?
Avatar of Kokusho 01-17-08, 05:16 PM	I look at this from two sides- player and DM. As a player, it makes me want to cry compared to what I have been using. As a DM, it looks fairly well balanced and playable. Would this extend to class abilities that function like it? I would think so, as they were made to mimic the feat itself.
BigGus 01-17-08, 05:24 PM	Would this extend to class abilities that function like it? I would think so, as they were made to mimic the feat itself. :confused: Not sure what class abilities you mean. Can you give me an example?
Tequila_Sunrise 01-17-08, 05:44 PM	BTW, does anyone know if a Wizard 5 Cleric 5 Mystic Theurge 17 with 30 ranks each in Knowledge (Arcana) and (Religion) would get 6 epic spells per day or 3? The SRD says "If the character meets more than one set of prerequisites, the limit on the number of spells he or she may cast per day is cumulative" but I'm not sure whether that means "the limit is cumulative, so they get epic spells from both classes" or "the limit is cumulative, so they don't get epic spells from both classes". I believe it means that said 27th level character would get 6 epic spell slots. Hence, the epic MT's suckitude. A simple fix would be to add a clause to Epic Spell Casting along the lines of "the benefits of this feat only apply to one casting class. you may take this feat multiple times; each time you do it applies to a different class." Then the epic MT's CL progressions could be boosted to their pre-epic rate, making the class actually worth playing. This is better than the DMG version in that you get a -2 spell slot modifier, but worse in that the minimum modifier is +1 per metamagic feat, rather than +1 total. What does everyone else think? Is this the best compromise? Looks fine to me.
rob_douglas 01-17-08, 05:54 PM	Yes, Epic Spellcasting by the RAW grants the Mystic THeurge (and True Necromancer, etc) both sets of Epic Spells, so I house-rule that you need to take it once per spellcasting class. It also makes it clear which slots are arcane and which are divine (for Life and Heal seed issues). And give full progression to the MT. As for IM, I think it is fine at -1 per time you take it. Basically it balances against ISC. If you take ISC, you could presumably cast most of your spells by bumping them up a level with another metamagic. But you get fewer slots eventually, once you surpass your INT/WIS/CHA bonus level. So taking IM gives you more comparable spells. For example, you could take IM 3 times or ISC 3 times. If you took IM 3 times, your Quickened spells would be +1 level, so you could Quicken all your 8th and lower spells and put them in the higher slot. If you took ISC 3 times, you would have 12th level slots to use, so you could put 8th level Quickened spells in there, and 7th level Quickened in the 11th level slot. Basically, you can do about the same thing, but you have less flexibility with IM, but more spells affected per day, so it is a fair trade. Making IM work per Metamagic clearly overpowers it, as does making it give a -2 to MM level. Just make it -1 to the final level per time IM is taken, with the minimum being 1 per metamagic feat applied. It really is fair that way. ROB
Avatar of Kokusho 01-18-08, 06:27 PM	the incantatrix gets improved metamagic as a 10th level ability. The class is in Player's Guide to Faerun, or go look on the CO boards; it's a lot of people's opinion that the class is broken in half.
rob_douglas 01-19-08, 09:29 AM	And I count myself as one of them. :) ROB
Avatar of Kokusho 01-19-08, 09:31 AM	We've houseruled that you can't apply any of the abilities to modify a spell beyond what you can actually cast. That does help some.
BigGus 01-22-08, 08:01 AM	Yes, Epic Spellcasting by the RAW grants the Mystic THeurge (and True Necromancer, etc) both sets of Epic Spells, so I house-rule that you need to take it once per spellcasting class. It also makes it clear which slots are arcane and which are divine (for Life and Heal seed issues). And give full progression to the MT. As for IM, I think it is fine at -1 per time you take it. Basically it balances against ISC. If you take ISC, you could presumably cast most of your spells by bumping them up a level with another metamagic. But you get fewer slots eventually, once you surpass your INT/WIS/CHA bonus level. So taking IM gives you more comparable spells. For example, you could take IM 3 times or ISC 3 times. If you took IM 3 times, your Quickened spells would be +1 level, so you could Quicken all your 8th and lower spells and put them in the higher slot. If you took ISC 3 times, you would have 12th level slots to use, so you could put 8th level Quickened spells in there, and 7th level Quickened in the 11th level slot. Basically, you can do about the same thing, but you have less flexibility with IM, but more spells affected per day, so it is a fair trade. Making IM work per Metamagic clearly overpowers it, as does making it give a -2 to MM level. Just make it -1 to the final level per time IM is taken, with the minimum being 1 per metamagic feat applied. It really is fair that way. ROB Hmmm...you make a good argument. How I was thinking of it was; if you take IMM, all your MM spells go down 1 level. If you take ISC, you can only MM as many spells per level as you get new spell slots, but you get more choice as to what MM you apply to what spell. If you just keep taking IMM, for example, you can never MM 9th-level spells, never add more than 1 MM feat to 8th-level spells, etc. (Perhaps the best strategy is to take ISC a few times first, then take some IMM?). So I thought they were fairly balanced as far as adding MM feats to spells were concerned, but ISC gives you extra spells per day, which IMM doesn't, so I thought ISC was better, which is why I suggested the -2 for IMM. But I'm honestly not sure which is more balanced. the incantatrix gets improved metamagic as a 10th level ability. The class is in Player's Guide to Faerun, or go look on the CO boards; it's a lot of people's opinion that the class is broken in half. Ah, right, I don't have PGtF. But yes, I'd apply the change to class abilities too. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ While I'm at it, I'll re-ask one of my questions which nobody's answered; are the ELH class progressions balanced against each other?
rob_douglas 01-23-08, 07:43 AM	Hmmm...you make a good argument. How I was thinking of it was; if you take IMM, all your MM spells go down 1 level. If you take ISC, you can only MM as many spells per level as you get new spell slots, but you get more choice as to what MM you apply to what spell. If you just keep taking IMM, for example, you can never MM 9th-level spells, never add more than 1 MM feat to 8th-level spells, etc. (Perhaps the best strategy is to take ISC a few times first, then take some IMM?). So I thought they were fairly balanced as far as adding MM feats to spells were concerned, but ISC gives you extra spells per day, which IMM doesn't, so I thought ISC was better, which is why I suggested the -2 for IMM. But I'm honestly not sure which is more balanced. Exaclty, IMM gives you more spells to cast at "higher level" since they are equivalents, but restricts you in total spells. ISC gives you more flexibility and new slots, but essentially only gives you 2 spells with 1 level of free MM per level (so 18 total). You get 10th level slots, move your metamagicked 9ths there with +1more in metamagic, then get 2 8ths as 9ths, 27ths as 8ths, etc. I believe this is balanced with IMM. The best strategy is to take ISC at least 1, maybe 2 times, then IMM. When you combine enough IMM, take another ISC. AS for balance, I suggest that if you don't have a good argument for why the SRD is unbalanced, leave it the way it is. This is how most people got to the AutoQuicken solution - taking it 9 times to AQ all spells is far, far inferior to taking ISC 6 times and IMM 3 times. You could still then essentially Quicken all your spells (since you will have added 12 spell slots, and Quicken is only +1) so you could be much more effective than wasting 9 AutoQuickens. Therefore, the new version of AQ in Complete Arcane is underpowered, and people stick with the ELH version. ROB
BigGus 01-23-08, 10:47 PM	As a famous Hobbit once said; oh, you're probably right...as usual.
rob_douglas 01-25-08, 12:18 AM	Thanks, :) On the other note, you asked about class progressions and fairness. I have always felt that since BAB and saves get standardized at epic, that spellcasting should as well. At least caster level. I have a fix in mind for all Epic half-casters and Epic PrCs. Caster level increases every level instead of the usual progression. A 30th level paladin would have caster level 20 instead of 15. This makes the idea of taking ISC more appealing. To further make it more appealing, I also suggest the DM come up with advanced spell lists for those classes. At any spell level you can cast, it is possible to research a spell, even one not on your class list. So it stands to reason that Epic Paladins might tend to research things like Heal, etc. I would also extend this to Epic PrCs, at level > 10. Spellcasting would advance at +1 per level. THis makes Epic Bladesingers viable (at 20th level they have at best Ftr2/Wiz8/Bl10 = caster level 13, so at 30th, caster level 23). This keeps them viable. I wonder if it is unfair to full casters, but with the potential to already be 10 caster levels ahead, I don't think so. I also grant repeats of 1/day spell-like abilities and powers at every 10 level increment that matches it. For example, Sacred Exorcist gets Holy Aura 1/day at 8th level. I increase that to 2/day at 18th, 3/day at 28th.... This does bring up the issue of 1/2 caster level Epic PrCs, like Cosmic Descryer and Holy Prostelytizer. I would grant them full caster progression. I don't think it would hurt. But you do need to cap the CD's cosmic connection. Only allow a bonus equal to the CDs class level - so +7 at 7th level. That is it so far. ROB
Avatar of Kokusho 01-25-08, 10:01 AM	Oh, how I so agree with a cosmic connection cap. I like the extra usage of 1/day abilities for PrCs that give them at 10th level, such as the dervish's 1000 Cuts ability. This I have implemented myself.
JobieJones 01-25-08, 10:36 AM	On a random side-note, for epic levels the feat Robilar's Gambit seems to be very broken. Take a -4 to AC +4 to damage to hit someone every time they try to attack you. Once you get high enough, hitting is normally either definite hit or definite miss, it's rarely close enough for the -4 to matter.
BigGus 01-25-08, 04:10 PM	Caster level increases every level instead of the usual progression. A 30th level paladin would have caster level 20 instead of 15. This makes the idea of taking ISC more appealing. To further make it more appealing, I also suggest the DM come up with advanced spell lists for those classes. At any spell level you can cast, it is possible to research a spell, even one not on your class list. So it stands to reason that Epic Paladins might tend to research things like Heal, etc. Did you read my "variant class progressions" section? I suggested doing both these things for P/ Ra, and I included possible spell lists for P/ Ra/ Bd for spells up to 9th level. I allow characters to research new spells, but I limit it; for example, a divine caster can't research spells which are only normally castable by arcane casters, and vice-versa. Beyond that, I play it by ear; if a spell fits the flavour for your class (IMO, and I'm the DM, so mine's the one which matters ;)) you can research it, if not, you can't. I would also extend this to Epic PrCs, at level > 10. Spellcasting would advance at +1 per level. THis makes Epic Bladesingers viable (at 20th level they have at best Ftr2/Wiz8/Bl10 = caster level 13, so at 30th, caster level 23). This keeps them viable. I wonder if it is unfair to full casters, but with the potential to already be 10 caster levels ahead, I don't think so. I also grant repeats of 1/day spell-like abilities and powers at every 10 level increment that matches it. For example, Sacred Exorcist gets Holy Aura 1/day at 8th level. I increase that to 2/day at 18th, 3/day at 28th.... This does bring up the issue of 1/2 caster level Epic PrCs, like Cosmic Descryer and Holy Prostelytizer. I would grant them full caster progression. I don't think it would hurt. But you do need to cap the CD's cosmic connection. Only allow a bonus equal to the CDs class level - so +7 at 7th level. Hmmm...I'd been wondering what to do about PrCs. The problem as I see it is those classes like Warpriest and Divine Agent which don't require levels in non-casting classes to take; with the Practised Spellcaster feat they could end up only 1 CL behind full casters, which does seem a bit too good to me. The best solution I can think of is to give all such classes (including the EPrCs you mention) 1/2 caster levels for the first 20 levels, then full caster levels thereafter, just like P/ Ra. That way even with the PSC feat they still end up 6 CLs behind full casters. I like your idea about 1/day class features repeating every 10 levels, I'll look into doing that myself. The cap to CC makes sense too.
BigGus 01-25-08, 08:03 PM	Oh yeah, another possible fix; limit "no body slot" items to one of each type. As it is, once you reach higher epic levels and the doubling of cost becomes trivial, you can wear effectively unlimited items according to RAW. I assume most DMs would put in some common-sense restrictions, like you can't wear more than one helmet or pair of boots at once, but with other items like rings, bracelets and amulets there's nothing to stop you wearing several times the usual number if you can afford them. Example: a 50th-level Wizard could wear rings of Evasion, Three Wishes, Protection +5 and Major Spell Storing, plus Amulets of Health +6, Natural Armour +5 and a Periapt of Wisdom +6 for 989,900GP (which is an insignificant amount of money for a character with wealth of 35,300,000GP) without taking up a single body slot. By level 70 or so, PC wealth is so vast that even the items in the ELH could be made NBS without really making a dent in their finances. Even the 4,320,000GP cost of a NBS Ring of Universal Elemental Immunity hardly matters when you've got 237,000,000GP to spend. There's a precedent for this with the epic feat Additional Magic Item Space, which allows an extra magic item to be worn, but must be applied to a different type of magic item each time you take it. Basically NBS items would work in the same way. Thoughts?