Post/Author/DateTime	Post
Tequila_Sunrise 03-21-08, 05:57 PM	TS' Epic Level Handbook (http://lucasbuchanan.com/Downloads): Comments and criticism welcome.
rob_douglas 03-23-08, 09:15 PM	Hey TS Just to let you know, I downloaded it. Looks interesting. I like the Path to Divinity alternate. Neat idea. Granting +1 BAB to all after epic does deal with many issues others had. I'll post other thoughts as I have time to review. Thanks for making this available! ROB
Tequila_Sunrise 03-24-08, 10:03 PM	Lookin' forward to what you have to say. :)
Allarian 03-28-08, 02:35 AM	I'm looking at it. I don't know when I'll be able to have some constructive critism though. It looks pretty nice.
Kain_Darkwind 03-28-08, 12:10 PM	Just downloaded it, TS. I'll check it out. One thing though. The 'adage' is 'when you assume, you make an ass out of you and me.' Not 'you and I' See, assume, when broken apart is ass - u - me An ass out of u and me. ;)
Tequila_Sunrise 03-28-08, 01:35 PM	Just downloaded it, TS. I'll check it out. One thing though. The 'adage' is 'when you assume, you make an ass out of you and me.' Not 'you and I' See, assume, when broken apart is ass - u - me An ass out of u and me. ;) I'm not sure whether I'm laughing right now or having an embarrassing flashback to 7th grade English class.
Kain_Darkwind 03-29-08, 02:48 PM	Alright. Most of this is going to be negative, because the stuff that is good you don't have to do anything with. 1. BaB. You've chosen to do the same thing as the ELH with Epic Attack Bonus. The only difference is that you've ensured that it will force Armor Class in epic to have to increase faster to remain competitive. If Armor Classes increased automatically per level, say with a defense bonus, this would make some sense. (This is the case with save DCs, so the saves do need to keep pace) But as they don't....you are sort of urging a numbers inflation without providing a boon to the game. 2. Barbarian Rage. I like the idea of increasing the potency of the rage, although given your Mission Statement of "Epic isn't different", it seems weird that you cut off the number of rages per day. Also, the pre-epic pattern for rage potency increase is per 10 levels, not per 5. 3. Druid Shapeshift. I'm unfamiliar with how this variant works, but I immediately notice that its strength increase vastly outpaces the non-spellcasting Barbarian Rage. I'm not sure if you are a fan of CoDzilla, but it seems you are giving the stereotype some major love. But considering it gets your advanced spellcasting and an animal companion, I guess it wouldn't feel properly rounded out if it wasn't also the most powerful melee class of the game too. 4. Fighter. Wow. You did nothing for this class. It is identical to its ELH counterpart. I'm a little surprised. You've extended out spellcasting, improved all of these other things...but the fighter is just stuck with his old bonus feats? (And looking at those bonus feats, I'll have more to say about this) Keep in mind, most other classes improve every level. That means a fighter's epic feat needs to be equal to two levels worth of spellcasting or other special abilities. Is it? I don't think so. 5. Monk unarmed damage. Why play a stupid fighter with his stupid 2d6 greatsword and stupid 4 attacks per round? It seems like a more balanced solution would be to allow more quivering palms (your limit on uses per day doesn't actually apply to Stunning Fist, which is an aspect of the feat rather than a monk special ability.) and slow this damage creep. 6. Paladin. Ok, now I see a pattern. A paladin doesn't get more smites. A barbarian doesn't get more rages. A monk doesn't get more...quivering palms. But spellcasters get more and better spells? This seems to tip off into constant spellcaster love. Also, half caster level has to stop for both paladin and ranger. Into epic it needs to be level - 10, assuming they have 20 or more levels. You can't keep a 50% increase going and still maintain a viable d20 based mechanic. 7. Ranger. The 3.5 class got something every level up to epic. You say that Epic play isn't different from regular play, but the only classes that get to live up to this are the spellcasters. Every other class loses growth of their special class abilities. Most of these epic progressions are actually weaker than the standard 3.5 epic progressions, because they lack the bonus epic feats. Only the spellcasters remain strong in their progressions, further supporting their absolute dominance of the epic game. I read the justification you gave for this, but it isn't fair. Not only do very few games in my experience apply the 4 encounter per day rule, but spellcasters low level spells provide a battery of buffs and defenses that greatly contribute to their combat effectiveness. The only real benefit a higher level spell has is a higher DC, which only applies to offensive spells that offer a save. Lower level spells provide massive utility that isn't being properly applied to the formula here. Feats The blinding speed restriction is silly, given how horribly nerfed Haste was from 3.0 to 3.5. Also, I think it should be an immediate action to activate. Damage reduction and the similar stacking feats (energy resistance, fast healing) are bad. The way they are designed encourages massive stacking, which tends to render characters immune to certain forms of attack. And this was a problem for the original ELH, not just your approach. A better way to do this would be to make separate feats. Damage Reduction: DR 2/-, stacks with other non-feat based DR /-. Greater Damage Reduction: DR 5/-, stacks with other non-feat based DR /-, prereq Damage Reduction, BaB +30. Superior Damage Reduction: DR 10/-, stacks with other non-feat based DR/-, prereq Greater Damage Reduction, BaB +40. Etc. This means one can reasonably expect a 30-39th level NPC to have up to DR 5/- (more if barbarian, dwarven defender), energy resistance 20, etc. Rather than wondering whether they will have DR 40/- or Energy resistance 100. This also applies to your "you can take this feat once per six, eight, twenty levels" feats. Epic Combat Casting is utterly stupid. Consider. A 20th level cleric can cast 10th level spells under your system. DC to cast defensively is DC 25. Ranks alone give you a +23 bonus to that roll. You fail only on a 1. If you have even a +1 Constitution modifier, you never fail. DC to cast while grappling or pinned is DC 20. The 20th level cleric has more ranks than the DC. Auto-success. Now, take a 30th level cleric. Can cast...15th level spells. DC 30. He has more ranks than the DC of his check. He can make it automatically. That is all ignoring the fact that a cleric would have to be an absolute moron to take a feat that gives him a +4 bonus to a limited skill check when he can take Epic Skill Focus-Concentration and gain a +7 minimum scaling bonus to all skill checks. Epic Far Shot is more useless than Far Shot. Far shot increases your range increment. EFS reduces your range increment penalty to -1 rather than -2 per increment. Which means one of these lets you actually shoot farther, the other just increases your liklihood of hitting within that range. Now, it if eliminated the max 10 range increments and reduced the penalty to -1 per increment, that would be something worth taking. Epic {Save} has been neutered by you. Why? This feat should never be allowed to stack, because eventually it will throw off the d20 balance that you've achieved by epic save progression. It should be a one shot feat and a +4 bonus isn't unreasonable. Consider that someone with a bad pre-epic Will save will be 6 points behind his good pre-epic Will save buddy. The pre-epic Iron Will and epic Epic Will will bring him up to good save status, which is +2 advantage on saves where all other things are equal (same level and ability modifier). Epic Item Creation...personally, I disagree with this entire concept. To be decent at making magic items, a spellcaster must sack his actual combat power. I'd prefer if there was just "Item Creation" the feat, that allowed you to make any magic item you want, and "Epic Item Creation" the feat, that allowed you to make any epic item you want. Or, epic items should be made from the base item creation feats. +6 weapons require at least caster level 21 to pull off. Etc. But nailing people two feats for each subset of magic item they make....bad design in my opinion. Epic Speed: Why was this neutered? Epic Spellcasting Harrier is a useless feat for the same math evidenced with Concentration checks above. Eventually, a spellcaster's Concentration ranks exceed the DC to cast their highest level spells. Even with a -4 penalty, they aren't going to fail. Epic Toughness: Are you kidding? 2 + level? When Improved Toughness gives you your level stacking in hit points? My version of epic toughness is the same as taking Improved Toughness twice. I think it is the only increase of hit points that is actually worth sacking a feat for in epic. And that's it for now. I'll try to tackle your epic spells later, but spells and spell balance are my weak point. However, I notice your first spell refers to Meteor Strike. I think you mean Meteor Swarm.
Tequila_Sunrise 03-30-08, 04:41 PM	Thanks for your thoughts, Kain. I'll answer your questions as best I can, though as I am discovering in the Iron Siege thread, often what it will come down to is that I just have conservative ideas of what epic options should be. 1. BaB. You've chosen to do the same thing as the ELH with Epic Attack Bonus. The only difference is that you've ensured that it will force Armor Class in epic to have to increase faster to remain competitive. If Armor Classes increased automatically per level, say with a defense bonus, this would make some sense. (This is the case with save DCs, so the saves do need to keep pace) But as they don't....you are sort of urging a numbers inflation without providing a boon to the game. My assumption with epic AC is that players will one way or another be given access to the appropriate items to keep their AC rising at the same steady pace as pre-epic. Whether by magic item shoppe, conveniently placed magic loot, or by some other means, PCs should gain about +1 AC per level. Now of course this isn't meant to "keep up" with epic AB, just as it wasn't meant to "keep up" with mid- and high-level AB. AC beyond low levels is supposed to prevent massive power attack, not actually stop primary attacks from hitting. 2. Barbarian Rage. I like the idea of increasing the potency of the rage, although given your Mission Statement of "Epic isn't different", it seems weird that you cut off the number of rages per day. On page 18 I made a note of why I stopped ability uses per day. Basically with 7 rages per day already, whatever balance was supposed to have been had with the 4 encounter per day ideal is already shaky at best. Also, the pre-epic pattern for rage potency increase is per 10 levels, not per 5. For class ability progressions I not only looked at pre-epic rate of advancement, but also total advancement by level 20. 3. Druid Shapeshift. I'm unfamiliar with how this variant works, but I immediately notice that its strength increase vastly outpaces the non-spellcasting Barbarian Rage. I'm not sure if you are a fan of CoDzilla, but it seems you are giving the stereotype some major love. But considering it gets your advanced spellcasting and an animal companion, I guess it wouldn't feel properly rounded out if it wasn't also the most powerful melee class of the game too. As much as I'd love to redo the druid from level 1, I think it would mostly be an exercise in futility. The shape shift variant from PHBII is an abstract version of wild shape; it lets you turn into forms like generic "forest avenger" or "elemental fury" which provide natural attacks and enhancement bonuses to things like Str, natural armor and saves. Although it is at-will from level 1, it is often considered more balanced than wild shape at least because it removes your animal companion, makes spell casting impossible while shape shifted and means that players can't search through every splat book under the sun to find the most broken form possible. The standard it sets for bonuses to Str and natural armor is +1 per druid level, so I simply continued it into epic. Like I said if I were to redo the druid, I'd likely make it even less powerful from level 1 but that would be a whole other project. 4. Fighter. Wow. You did nothing for this class. It is identical to its ELH counterpart. I'm a little surprised. You've extended out spellcasting, improved all of these other things...but the fighter is just stuck with his old bonus feats? (And looking at those bonus feats, I'll have more to say about this) Keep in mind, most other classes improve every level. That means a fighter's epic feat needs to be equal to two levels worth of spellcasting or other special abilities. Is it? I don't think so. My assumption is that if someone thinks that the epic fighter sucks, they're also going to think that the pre-epic fighter sucks and as a result they won't be playing one anyway. 5. Monk unarmed damage. Why play a stupid fighter with his stupid 2d6 greatsword and stupid 4 attacks per round? It seems like a more balanced solution would be to allow more quivering palms (your limit on uses per day doesn't actually apply to Stunning Fist, which is an aspect of the feat rather than a monk special ability.) and slow this damage creep. I've been on the fence about the unarmed damage thing, so I may remove its epic progression. 6. Paladin. Ok, now I see a pattern. A paladin doesn't get more smites. A barbarian doesn't get more rages. A monk doesn't get more...quivering palms. But spellcasters get more and better spells? This seems to tip off into constant spellcaster love. Though it is a flawed philosophy using RAW spells, my philosophy is that only a caster's highest level spells effectively constitute his abilities per day. Although I never said as much in the pdf, I really think that my variant spells (TS Spell Book) or something like them, are required to balance epic casters. Even abruptly cutting off spell progression at 20th level, as RAW does, doesn't really balance things because a caster will eventually have such a high casting stat that he'll be effectively casting time stop at will. Also, half caster level has to stop for both paladin and ranger. Into epic it needs to be level - 10, assuming they have 20 or more levels. You can't keep a 50% increase going and still maintain a viable d20 based mechanic. Another one I've been on the fence about; suggestion noted. Damage reduction and the similar stacking feats (energy resistance, fast healing) are bad. The way they are designed encourages massive stacking, which tends to render characters immune to certain forms of attack. And this was a problem for the original ELH, not just your approach. Good point. I'll add in "1 per X level" stipulations. Epic Combat Casting is utterly stupid. Consider. A 20th level cleric can cast 10th level spells under your system. DC to cast defensively is DC 25. Ranks alone give you a +23 bonus to that roll. You fail only on a 1. If you have even a +1 Constitution modifier, you never fail. Yeah I just recently realized the epic combat casting problem. The problem is really ingrained in the basic defensive casting DC, so I think I'll just get rid of ECC. Epic Far Shot is more useless than Far Shot. Far shot increases your range increment. EFS reduces your range increment penalty to -1 rather than -2 per increment. Which means one of these lets you actually shoot farther, the other just increases your liklihood of hitting within that range. Now, it if eliminated the max 10 range increments and reduced the penalty to -1 per increment, that would be something worth taking. I don't like the idea of being able to shoot a spaceman on the moon, but -1 per range increment is rather lackluster. Epic {Save} has been neutered by you. Why? This feat should never be allowed to stack, because eventually it will throw off the d20 balance that you've achieved by epic save progression. It should be a one shot feat and a +4 bonus isn't unreasonable. Consider that someone with a bad pre-epic Will save will be 6 points behind his good pre-epic Will save buddy. The pre-epic Iron Will and epic Epic Will will bring him up to good save status, which is +2 advantage on saves where all other things are equal (same level and ability modifier). I figure if someone wants to dump his epic feats into a bunch of +2 save bonuses, he deserves to never fail that save. Besides he can only take it once per 20 levels. Epic Item Creation...personally, I disagree with this entire concept. To be decent at making magic items, a spellcaster must sack his actual combat power. I'd prefer if there was just "Item Creation" the feat, that allowed you to make any magic item you want, and "Epic Item Creation" the feat, that allowed you to make any epic item you want. I too prefer a much simplified item creation system, but I wrote this to agree with core standards. I figure if DMs like you and I don't like those standards, then it isn't hard to change them. Epic Speed: Why was this neutered? +30 speed just seemed overkill, as it is not a bonus that increases with level. Also, I run games with the "class abilities as feats" variant so the barb fast movement ability is a pre-epic feat. So epic speed is just a continuation of that feat progression. And that's it for now. I'll try to tackle your epic spells later, but spells and spell balance are my weak point. However, I notice your first spell refers to Meteor Strike. I think you mean Meteor Swarm. Oops, I did indeed mean "true strike meteor swarm". If you do tackle epic spells, check out the TS Spell Book pdf as I think I will push this concept harder in my ELH. TS
Kain_Darkwind 03-30-08, 05:16 PM	Thanks for your thoughts, Kain. I'll answer your questions as best I can, though as I am discovering in the Iron Siege thread, often what it will come down to is that I just have conservative ideas of what epic options should be. Fair enough. I'm clearly more conservative than someone more involved in the CO boards like Tshern, but I think there exists a medium where a system can be largely balanced unless someone is making an effort to break it. My assumption with epic AC is that players will one way or another be given access to the appropriate items to keep their AC rising at the same steady pace as pre-epic. Whether by magic item shoppe, conveniently placed magic loot, or by some other means, PCs should gain about +1 AC per level. Now of course this isn't meant to "keep up" with epic AB, just as it wasn't meant to "keep up" with mid- and high-level AB. AC beyond low levels is supposed to prevent massive power attack, not actually stop primary attacks from hitting. Right. My point is that I could replace "AC" with "Attack" in your paragraph here and use it to defend the ELH's version of things. The only difference you create is a shift in priority. On page 18 I made a note of why I stopped ability uses per day. Basically with 7 rages per day already, whatever balance was supposed to have been had with the 4 encounter per day ideal is already shaky at best. Considering a barbarian can only rage once per encounter, I'm not sure how you feel this is true in this situation. For class ability progressions I not only looked at pre-epic rate of advancement, but also total advancement by level 20. Can you explain this further? I see +4 rage being the base, then a +2 increase per 10 levels. It seems to make sense that this increase would be kept. As much as I'd love to redo the druid from level 1, I think it would mostly be an exercise in futility. The shape shift variant from PHBII is an abstract version of wild shape; it lets you turn into forms like generic "forest avenger" or "elemental fury" which provide natural attacks and enhancement bonuses to things like Str, natural armor and saves. Although it is at-will from level 1, it is often considered more balanced than wild shape at least because it removes your animal companion, makes spell casting impossible while shape shifted and means that players can't search through every splat book under the sun to find the most broken form possible. The standard it sets for bonuses to Str and natural armor is +1 per druid level, so I simply continued it into epic. Like I said if I were to redo the druid, I'd likely make it even less powerful from level 1 but that would be a whole other project. Right. My question here is, 'is it balanced with barbarian rage, a similar ability'? If the answer is 'absolutely not', then I think a change in the progression is in order. My assumption is that if someone thinks that the epic fighter sucks, they're also going to think that the pre-epic fighter sucks and as a result they won't be playing one anyway. That's such a sad way to look at things though. What if fighters got a bonus feat 2/3 levels? (making it so they get a feat every level) I still doubt they'd be any good, simply because epic feats are still less powerful than class abilities. Though it is a flawed philosophy using RAW spells, my philosophy is that only a caster's highest level spells effectively constitute his abilities per day. Although I never said as much in the pdf, I really think that my variant spells (TS Spell Book) or something like them, are required to balance epic casters. Even abruptly cutting off spell progression at 20th level, as RAW does, doesn't really balance things because a caster will eventually have such a high casting stat that he'll be effectively casting time stop at will. I actually support the spell progression thing. It is much better than epic spellcasting. What I don't like is that you've cut off your melee classes from their abilities, but added spellcasting to the spellcasters. Good point. I'll add in "1 per X level" stipulations. Er...actually that's not what I meant. I meant cut out the stacking feats entirely (which don't typically exist in pre-epic, remember our design philosophy here is that epic isn't different from core) and create singular feats for this purpose. Use adjectives like improved, greater, superior, legendary, epic, improved epic, greater epic, superior epic, legendary epic, ultimate....to distinguish. Then you can effectively set the level at which the benefit becomes available. I don't like the idea of being able to shoot a spaceman on the moon, but -1 per range increment is rather lackluster. Well, I'm glad you don't. The moon is 384,403 km away. Converted to feet, that is 1,261,164,700 feet. Converted to a range increment of a Composite Longbow with Far Shot (165 ft.), that is 7,643,422 range increments. So, if your character can take a -7.6 million penalty to their attack, they can hit someone on the moon. Now, under the same feat, (no max range increment, -1 penalty per range increment), an epic archer can aim at someone a mile away. Taking a -32 penalty to attack, they can hit someone at that range. A mile. Surely epic archery should be capable of multi-mile shots? 10 miles is a -320 penalty (with the composite longbow, anyways) so even that is going to be out of the range of most epic games. I figure if someone wants to dump his epic feats into a bunch of +2 save bonuses, he deserves to never fail that save. Besides he can only take it once per 20 levels. Right. But eventually, that 1 per 20 bonus throws off the ability of the system to scale. The line of thinking that says "if they want to sink all of their feats into something, they deserve to be perfect at it" is at odds with good DnD design philosophy. You should never be perfect at anything. That defeats the challenge of the game. You should never have the opportunity to sink 30 feats into obtaining Damage Reduction 60/- or 90/-. Giving someone the opportunity to have always successful saves is part of the reason that spells with saves become useless, and spells with no saves get used more and the epic game gets broken. No, you should allow players who choose to focus on something to be very very good at it. Not perfect. For epic, I would suggest a feat that grants a +2 bonus to all saves and a feat that grants a +4 bonus to each save. Assuming they take all four plus the three available at pre-epic, they will have a +8 bonus to their saves. This will give them a very good chance of making their saves (for their 'good save') all things being largely equal. But it won't snap the system entirely. +30 speed just seemed overkill, as it is not a bonus that increases with level. Also, I run games with the "class abilities as feats" variant so the barb fast movement ability is a pre-epic feat. So epic speed is just a continuation of that feat progression. Hmm. But the monk gets a +60 to their speed. Really, a +30 bonus ensures that the slower melee characters aren't utterly crushed by a Spring Attacking monk or scout. Oops, I did indeed mean "true strike meteor swarm". When you do tackle epic spells, check out the TS Spell Book pdf as I think I will push this concept harder in my ELH. I'll do that. But like I said, what I understand about spell balance could fit on the head of a pin. Your system seems similar to the Feanmerc system at Dicefreaks, have you checked that out? Either of those two (Feanaro {Spirit of Fire} or Mercucio {covert_mercucio}) could give you much better advice on spell balance than I could.
Tequila_Sunrise 03-31-08, 04:01 PM	Right. My point is that I could replace "AC" with "Attack" in your paragraph here and use it to defend the ELH's version of things. The only difference you create is a shift in priority. Wait, are you suggesting something different than a standardized epic BAB progression? Considering a barbarian can only rage once per encounter, I'm not sure how you feel this is true in this situation. I don't increase rages per day because doing so would either by largely pointless or would shatter what remains of the 4 encounter per day concept, depending on your point of view. If your DM doesn't bother with the 4/day paradigm, then giving the barb another rage per day per 3 epic levels is largely pointless because your epic barb will never face more than 7 encounters per day. In this case, an epic barb's rage is effectively at-will. If your DM does adhere to the 4/day paradigm, then giving the epic barb more rages just makes his job more and more absurd, because he already has to prep 8+ encounters on at least some adventuring days to maintain a semblance of the balance that the 4/day paradigm is supposed to represent. Can you explain this further? I see +4 rage being the base, then a +2 increase per 10 levels. It seems to make sense that this increase would be kept. Over the first 20 levels, a barb gets four "rage bonus increments". I decided to duplicate those four increments over each 20 epic levels, rather than two increments over 20 levels, because I thought it was more appropriate and more balanced. I could be wrong, but those're my thoughts on epic rage. Right. My question here is, 'is it balanced with barbarian rage, a similar ability'? If the answer is 'absolutely not', then I think a change in the progression is in order. I think the epic shape shift is roughly balanced with rage and similar abilities. Not as finely balanced as I'd like, but in order to attain that fine balance I would feel the need to redo the ability from level 1, which I don't want to do. That's such a sad way to look at things though. What if fighters got a bonus feat 2/3 levels? (making it so they get a feat every level) I still doubt they'd be any good, simply because epic feats are still less powerful than class abilities. I don't think it's sad. Giving the fighter more than 1/2 a feat at each epic level wouldn't be appreciated by people who think the fighter is just fine the way he is--they do exist. In a group that does think the fighter sucks, the problem will have been fixed from level 1--either players will play barbarians and warblades instead or they will have fixed the fighter directly with some kind of variant which can easily be continued to epic levels. I actually support the spell progression thing. It is much better than epic spellcasting. What I don't like is that you've cut off your melee classes from their abilities, but added spellcasting to the spellcasters. I'm not sure I follow. Granted, I didn't continue granting classes like the ranger their random assortments of hodge-podge abilities at epic levels, but I did continue each and every class's primary ability. Er...actually that's not what I meant. I meant cut out the stacking feats entirely (which don't typically exist in pre-epic, remember our design philosophy here is that epic isn't different from core) and create singular feats for this purpose. Use adjectives like improved, greater, superior, legendary, epic, improved epic, greater epic, superior epic, legendary epic, ultimate....to distinguish. Then you can effectively set the level at which the benefit becomes available. I don't like the idea of removing stacking feats for a couple reasons. They're already part of the core game, especially things like Weapon F+S and they create nice and simple progressions for players to spend their feat slots. It just seems a waste of time and space to create a bunch of entries for regular, improved, greater, etc... Also, there are many feats in pre-epic that effectively stack with each other even if they don't do the exact same thing. For example, empower spell, maximize spell and the various other blaster caster feats might as well be combined into one feat that can be taken once per X number of levels. They're not technically stacking feats but they all do basically the same thing--boost damage. I can buy the argument that eventually stacking feats will cause auto-fail/auto-win situations, but it'll take a while. If an epic barbarian takes the DR feat at every opportunity, will he ever get to the point that a dragon of equivalent CR can't hurt him? Maybe he will, but I'm willing to bet that it'll take a whole lot of levels. Maybe I'm lazy, maybe I'm just not creative in this way, but I don't want to come up with 100 unique stand-alone epic feats. So using stacking feats is a convenient way to provide players with plenty of feats to choose from without having to go through that hassle. Surely epic archery should be capable of multi-mile shots? 10 miles is a -320 penalty (with the composite longbow, anyways) so even that is going to be out of the range of most epic games. I'll be changing this feat soon, though the idea of no range maximum just doesn't feel right to me...we'll see I guess. Hmm. But the monk gets a +60 to their speed. Really, a +30 bonus ensures that the slower melee characters aren't utterly crushed by a Spring Attacking monk or scout. Using this line of reasoning, shouldn't Epic Initiative grant a +12 stacking bonus to ensure that slower characters don't auto-fail initiative rolls against Dex-focused characters? I'll do that. But like I said, what I understand about spell balance could fit on the head of a pin. Your system seems similar to the Feanmerc system at Dicefreaks, have you checked that out? Either of those two (Feanaro {Spirit of Fire} or Mercucio {covert_mercucio}) could give you much better advice on spell balance than I could. I've heard great things about the Feanmerc system. I once gave it a glance but as it was based on the epic spell system, I admit that it didn't hold my attention for long. I'd love to have some good input on my spell system, so I'll post it over at dicefreaks.
Krusk 03-31-08, 04:40 PM	I think I've posted about this before, but Ill mention it again. If I ever run an epic game, I will be using these. My current game is just hitting 3, but we might get there someday.
Kain_Darkwind 03-31-08, 04:53 PM	Wait, are you suggesting something different than a standardized epic BAB progression? I continue the attack progressions as they existed pre-epic. I'll come right out and say that I design within a 40-50 max level epic, so my implementations are based on what is balanced there. I don't believe a d20 based mechanic can be carried out into hundredth and thousandth level. I aim to have target epic armor classes fall within the range of the medium attack bonus characters. At CR 50, this is assuming they have a base attack bonus of +37. Weak attack bonus have a +25, full attack bonus have a +50. As I see it, a weak attack bonus character should expect to probably miss, a medium should expect an average chance to hit and a full attacker should expect to be able to shunt a couple points to AC or damage via feats and still hit. Alternatively, the full attack characters should expect to be capable of a good chance to hit with his third and fourth attacks. I don't increase rages per day because doing so would either by largely pointless or would shatter what remains of the 4 encounter per day concept, depending on your point of view. If your DM doesn't bother with the 4/day paradigm, then giving the barb another rage per day per 3 epic levels is largely pointless because your epic barb will never face more than 7 encounters per day. In this case, an epic barb's rage is effectively at-will. If your DM does adhere to the 4/day paradigm, then giving the epic barb more rages just makes his job more and more absurd, because he already has to prep 8+ encounters on at least some adventuring days to maintain a semblance of the balance that the 4/day paradigm is supposed to represent. Over the first 20 levels, a barb gets four "rage bonus increments". I decided to duplicate those four increments over each 20 epic levels, rather than two increments over 20 levels, because I thought it was more appropriate and more balanced. I could be wrong, but those're my thoughts on epic rage. Ok, I see what you did there. And I can see it making sense. I still don't like the idea of claiming 'epic is the same as core' when the first class change you make strips the core progression though. It is semantics, I know, but it still seems at odds. It is possible that barbarians should have been able to rage once per encounter anyways, rather than once per day. Higher level should have gotten longer duration on their rage. I think the epic shape shift is roughly balanced with rage and similar abilities. Not as finely balanced as I'd like, but in order to attain that fine balance I would feel the need to redo the ability from level 1, which I don't want to do. I just can't see how you can say super spellcasting druids getting +25 Str during wildshape is balanced against a barbarian getting +10 Str. I don't think it's sad. Giving the fighter more than 1/2 a feat at each epic level wouldn't be appreciated by people who think the fighter is just fine the way he is--they do exist. In a group that does think the fighter sucks, the problem will have been fixed from level 1--either players will play barbarians and warblades instead or they will have fixed the fighter directly with some kind of variant which can easily be continued to epic levels. I see where you are coming from. But you adopted a 'fix' for the druid that you suggested folks use in place of the core. I don't know why you would say that there are less fans of wildshaping druids than there are of core fighters. My fighter gains an increase in weapon damage (as if one size category larger) every 10 levels. Also 4 skill points and an expanded skill list. There are others who have done more complicated (and quite possibly better balanced) versions as well. Surely if you can implement a change to the sacred druid, one to the fighter isn't that far off, is it? I'm not sure I follow. Granted, I didn't continue granting classes like the ranger their random assortments of hodge-podge abilities at epic levels, but I did continue each and every class's primary ability. Well, no, you didn't. Paladins get robbed on their smites, which unlike a barbarian, can be used more than once per encounter. But wizards keep on getting more and more spells. That isn't solid balance at all. I don't know if you use the martial adepts from Tome of Battle, but they also have a way to recharge their abilities in combat. Some which deal much more damage than smite evil. But you've capped the paladin from continuing. I don't like the idea of removing stacking feats for a couple reasons. They're already part of the core game, especially things like Weapon F+S No, Weapon Focus is the very core example I'm looking at. There is no "Weapon Focus, provides +1, can be taken every eight levels" Instead there is Weapon Focus, Greater Weapon Focus, Epic Weapon Focus, etc. and they create nice and simple progressions for players to spend their feat slots. It just seems a waste of time and space to create a bunch of entries for regular, improved, greater, etc... Also, there are many feats in pre-epic that effectively stack with each other even if they don't do the exact same thing. [quote]For example, empower spell, maximize spell and the various other blaster caster feats might as well be combined into one feat that can be taken once per X number of levels. Err...no such limitation. The epic feat is called Intensify Spell. Empower x2 + Maximize. I can buy the argument that eventually stacking feats will cause auto-fail/auto-win situations, but it'll take a while. If an epic barbarian takes the DR feat at every opportunity, will he ever get to the point that a dragon of equivalent CR can't hurt him? Maybe he will, but I'm willing to bet that it'll take a whole lot of levels. Maybe I'm lazy, maybe I'm just not creative in this way, but I don't want to come up with 100 unique stand-alone epic feats. So using stacking feats is a convenient way to provide players with plenty of feats to choose from without having to go through that hassle. How far does your epic expect to go? 100th level? 30th? 7000th? I'll be changing this feat soon, though the idea of no range maximum just doesn't feel right to me...we'll see I guess. I think someone with a +7.6 million bonus to attack should be capable of hitting someone on the moon. But what do you think about this? "Although no absolute maximum range exists, a character cannot strike targets whose range penalty causes their attack roll to be penalized into negative numbers." So, your +64 ranged attack archer can hit something 64 range increments away. Pretty simple, but still useful. Using this line of reasoning, shouldn't Epic Initiative grant a +12 stacking bonus to ensure that slower characters don't auto-fail initiative rolls against Dex-focused characters? Losing initiative isn't as frustrating as not being capable of hitting someone who keeps running/flying past you with a cheap shot to your neck, drawing no attack of opportunity, and moving beyond your charging range. This situation occurs on a light armored human fighter once the Spring Attacker has a movement range of 120 ft. It occurs on a medium/heavy armored human fighter (or dwarf fighter) once the spring attacker has a movement range of 80 ft. I've heard great things about the Feanmerc system. I once gave it a glance but as it was based on the epic spell system, I admit that it didn't hold my attention for long. I'd love to have some good input on my spell system, so I'll post it over at dicefreaks. No, it is actually not based on the epic spell system. It is based on taking existing spells and using them to create new higher level spells. Sound familiar?
Tequila_Sunrise 04-01-08, 04:43 PM	I continue the attack progressions as they existed pre-epic. I'll come right out and say that I design within a 40-50 max level epic, so my implementations are based on what is balanced there. I don't believe a d20 based mechanic can be carried out into hundredth and thousandth level. Originally I continued the BAB progressions as pre-epic, but for every person who commented that they liked it, two others told me that it would cause the game to fold in on itself. I eventually decided to go with common opinion and switch to epic BAB +1/level. I didn't write my ELH with any hard level cap in mind. I myself would run a game to 60th (greater deity) level at the very highest, but probably no higher than 40th (quasi-deity) level. Optimally I'd like my rules to work well enough until 100th level, just because it's a nice round number and anyone who plays a higher level game than that probably isn't all that interested in balance anyway. You've given me something to think about and maybe I'll switch back to pre-epic BAB...we'll see. I aim to have target epic armor classes fall within the range of the medium attack bonus characters. At CR 50, this is assuming they have a base attack bonus of +37. Weak attack bonus have a +25, full attack bonus have a +50. As I see it, a weak attack bonus character should expect to probably miss, a medium should expect an average chance to hit and a full attacker should expect to be able to shunt a couple points to AC or damage via feats and still hit. Alternatively, the full attack characters should expect to be capable of a good chance to hit with his third and fourth attacks. This sounds like my monster design philosophy. When I wrote my Manual of Monster Construction, I made sure that no monster progression got more than +1.25 AC per CR so that character with average BAB would have at least a 50/50 chance to hit. (I assume that any combat oriented character will get +10 Str or Dex and a +5 weapon bonus every 20 levels.) It is possible that barbarians should have been able to rage once per encounter anyways, rather than once per day. Higher level should have gotten longer duration on their rage. Yeah that probably would have been better for balance. I just can't see how you can say super spellcasting druids getting +25 Str during wildshape is balanced against a barbarian getting +10 Str. The way I think of it is that shape shift is much better than rage, but not better than the barbarian over all. A druid has those awesome bonuses while in shape shift, but can't cast spells or gain benefits from any items. A barbarian gets rage plus better BAB, hit points, DR plus the full benefit of all his items. It may not be a perfect balance, but I am confident in calling it roughly balanced. I see where you are coming from. But you adopted a 'fix' for the druid that you suggested folks use in place of the core. I don't know why you would say that there are less fans of wildshaping druids than there are of core fighters. It's not that I think everyone would or should prefer shape shift to wild shape, it's that I just don't have the energy to deal with balancing wild shape at epic levels. It's got no mathematical pattern, but is rather based on size categories, seemingly arbitrarily. I could make a note in the druid entry for the standard wild shape to the effect of "If you use the standard wild shape rules, this ability does not progress in epic levels." So the difference between me recommending a druid variant at epic levels but no fighter variant is that the druid variant is much simpler than what it replaces, while a fighter variant would be equally simple than what it replaces at best and might also offend epic groups. Well, no, you didn't. Paladins get robbed on their smites, which unlike a barbarian, can be used more than once per encounter. But wizards keep on getting more and more spells. That isn't solid balance at all. I don't know if you use the martial adepts from Tome of Battle, but they also have a way to recharge their abilities in combat. Some which deal much more damage than smite evil. But you've capped the paladin from continuing. I make an important distinction between ability uses per day and ability potency. I advance ability potency across the board, but stop uses per day whenever possible. As I mentioned before, only a caster's current highest level spells effectively make up his ability uses per day which is why I continue granting epic spells automatically. No, Weapon Focus is the very core example I'm looking at. There is no "Weapon Focus, provides +1, can be taken every eight levels" Instead there is Weapon Focus, Greater Weapon Focus, Epic Weapon Focus, etc. My point is that the weapon focus tree and all the masses of similar feats like empower/maximize/admix/twin/etc might as well be single feats that "can be taken every eight levels" and make everyone's life and character sheet simpler. "Although no absolute maximum range exists, a character cannot strike targets whose range penalty causes their attack roll to be penalized into negative numbers." I think I'll cap it based on BAB. Losing initiative isn't as frustrating as not being capable of hitting someone who keeps running/flying past you with a cheap shot to your neck, drawing no attack of opportunity, and moving beyond your charging range. That situation is annoying, but a held action helps. No, it is actually not based on the epic spell system. It is based on taking existing spells and using them to create new higher level spells. Sound familiar? Hm I'll have to take a closer look at it.