Tweak to Epic Spellcasting [Archive] - Wizards Community

Tweak to Epic Spellcasting [Archive] - Wizards Community

Post/Author/DateTime Post
IceFractal
04-07-07, 01:54 PM An idea I'm considering for a tweak to Epic spellcasting, that should hopefully put combat-use less far behind and require a bit less DM intervention. Either:

1) Mitigation only applies to the cost of developing the spell, not the DC to cast it. Or,
2) Mitigation applies fully to the cost of developing the spell, but only 1/2 or 1/4 to the DC to cast it.

With this, mitigation factors can also be made somewhat more generous.

The basis of this is that on the one hand, Epic spells cost too much. Without mitigation being possible, they tend to bankrupt a PC altogether too quickly, and render Spellcraft skill almost pointless - anything you can afford to research, you can almost certainly cast. Conversely, much of the abuses of Epic spellcasting come from getting an effect much earlier than should be possible via mitigation.

So hopefully, by decoupling these to an extent, Epic spellcasters can use mitigation to reduce the hit to their pocket, without casting DC 100 spells at DC 1. And it somewhat reduces the suckitude of combat spells compared to buffs - buffs are still cheaper, but at least the same approximate magnitude can be achieved in both.

I'm not claiming it fixes the problems entirely, or that it doesn't still need DM oversight, but I think it could at help make things easier to adjudicate.

So - comments, ideas, anything big I'm forgetting?
Witch
04-07-07, 01:59 PM Selah, do you happen to have guidelines on which epic spells should be allowed and which shouldn't?
It is, after all, fairly easy to acquire a DC 15 spell by level 21 that grants a +20 armor bonus for a few days; it is also fairly easy to acquire a bonus that grants about 30 to an ability score. It doesn't even require really abuse of mitigating factors.

One problem with epic spellcasting is that the cost of the spell is based on the post mitigation DC. If anything, making a more powerful spell available earlier should cost you more to develop, not less.

This sums up my position somewhat :)
Loren Pechtel
04-07-07, 03:00 PM I think the simplest system is to have completely separate mitigation factors for development and casting.
bluemage55
04-07-07, 05:22 PM This sums up my position somewhat :)

I disagree with Kain. An epic spell that is heavily mitigated is not a more powerful spell. While it is made available earlier by mitigation, the effects are also less powerful because you have to pay certain costs, or the spell affects a smaller area, or does less damage, etc.

Mitigation is supposed to be a way to weaken a spell to the level that you desire.

The real problem is when you have mitigating factors that don't actually cost you anything, e.g. ritual casting long-term buffs.
Witch
04-07-07, 05:24 PM Technically, XP costs don't actually cost you anything either, because you'll just gain XP faster as a lower-level character.
Furthermore, backlash isn't significant on instantaneous spells either.
bluemage55
04-07-07, 05:26 PM Technically, XP costs don't actually cost you anything either, because you'll just gain XP faster as a lower-level character.

But you will always be behind, so it still leaves a permanent cost.

Furthermore, backlash isn't significant on instantaneous spells either.

I agree. I gave ritual casting as an example, but that was not intended to exclude other factors as being cost-less.

I feel that backlash however, is limited in its uses because it has a cap (although that cap may or may not deserve decreasing). I think that a cap on those "cost-less" factors is a good way to control for unreasonable amounts of "free" mitigation (the epic spells section of my revision thread strictly limits the amount of ritual mitigation you can get).
Witch
04-07-07, 05:28 PM These are the three most significant mitigating factors, though. I don't think Kain was refering to any of the others.

(Regaring that permanent cost: you'll likely already have that from crafting.)
bluemage55
04-07-07, 05:29 PM (Regaring that permanent cost: you'll likely already have that from crafting.)

But it might add up to more. Being behind two levels is definitely worse than being behind one level.
runestar
04-07-07, 11:21 PM Technically, XP costs don't actually cost you anything either, because you'll just gain XP faster as a lower-level character.
Furthermore, backlash isn't significant on instantaneous spells either.
It is a cost nonetheless. Just that it can be readily circumvented or mitigated. You could maybe rule that backlash damage is harder to heal or something.
askala3
04-08-07, 01:21 AM I'm going to suggest this:
3) Mitigation applies only to the DC to cast the spell, not to the cost of developing it.

The mitigating factors are making it easier to cast the spell, but that doesn't mean the epic spell is any less complex to make (ok, that was just flavor text to back up the statement). Although with ritual spells it makes sense that it is still complex to make but easier to cast with the help of others.
IceFractal
04-08-07, 03:57 AM Well, the reason I'm in favor of lowering research costs, by any means possible, is this:

Meteor Swarm+
Spellcraft DC: 73
Components: V,S
Casting Time: 1 standard action
Range: 300 ft.
Area: 40-ft.-radius hemisphere
Duration: Instantaneous
Saving Throw: Reflex half
Spell Resistance: Yes
To Develop: 657,000 gp; 14 days; 26,280 XP. Seeds: energy (DC 19). Factors: 1-action casting time (+20 DC), add 15d6 damage (+30 DC), increase area by 100% (+4 DC).

This spell is slightly better than Meteor Swarm - it does 25d6 instead of 24d6. However, it lacks the option to hit people directly with it, which is arguably the best part. Oh well.

vs:

Metamagic Rod: Maximize, Greater: 121,500 gp.
Meteor Swarm, scroll + scribing costs: 4,725 gp.

Actually, this example kind of highlights the need to lower DCs in general for blasting-type effects. However, while an overall reduction in DC leads to +100 Int at 23rd level, an overall reduction in price will just let those Wizards afford a few more scrolls. And honestly, there's so many ways to break the economy in half by Epic level that it's not even funny.
rob_douglas
04-08-07, 02:17 PM Interesting, but your spell is actually much better than Meteor Swarm - which is BTW the suckiest few target attack spell out there - It does 2d6 Bludgeoning, and 6d6 fire 4 times. That is not the same as 8d6 and 24d6, because Fire resistance 30 completely negates all the fire damage from a Meteor Swarm. The only nice thing about it is the No Save to one target. Yours is better in that the total damage all applies to one attack and one Resistance, but it is worse without the Bludgeoning and No Save parts.

But I agree, I think that attack options should be more doable. I am considering a few changes that would make that possible. I am trying to outline my expectations ahead of time, then make the changes needed. Bluemage has done a good job of analyzing the rules as they are, and determining that the best use of Epic Spells is for Melee buffs. But if I don't want that to be the case, I should start with my goal in mind, and design rules that support it.

So my goal is a to have viable attack spells.

1) Grant the Save DC to be 10+1/2 Caster Level+ ability Mod. This is similar to the DC granted by most creatures Special abilities, and continues to scale. Just for Epic Spells.

2) Make the initial casting time of all Attack-oriented seeds be 1 standard Action or 1 Full Round. That is a -20 or -18 immediate reduction on the DC for an attack spell - since you can never really use them with a 1 minute casting time. I would also increase the casting time for Fortify and some of the others to 10 minutes, to cut out some of the obvious mitigation.

3) Increase the costs of buffs. Magic items scale geometrically with bonus, but the buffs all scale linearly. And once you reach the "epic" bonus, it gets more expensive as well. I think that Epic spells which bypass the bonus should also have a fixed additional cost.

4) Control Rituals - my thoughts on this are to make each caster involved have to make a concentration check each day that they are involved. They drop out if they fail. There would be a DC of 10+Spell Level contributed, and +2 per day added to that. That will put an upper limit on how long your Rituals could last, and how many low level helpers you could afford. You would need to plan to have more helpers than the spell calls for, because as they drop out, the DC to cast would keep going up. You could easily use group rolling, or a Spreadsheet to deal with the 100s of rolls needed to simulate a 100-day casting time. Speaking of which - yes, I would make the primary caster make a Concentration check as well - even when not casting a ritual, but just a long spell. 100-day casting should not be common, even ignoring the obvious interference in the daily campaign life issues.

Those are just my thoughts that I have been throwing around in my head for some time. I hope to actually go through the SRD and see what effect that would have on a bunch of spells....

ROB
Witch
04-08-07, 03:29 PM Interesting, but your spell is actually much better than Meteor Swarm - which is BTW the suckiest few target attack spell out there - It does 2d6 Bludgeoning, and 6d6 fire 4 times. That is not the same as 8d6 and 24d6, because Fire resistance 30 completely negates all the fire damage from a Meteor Swarm.
From the SRD:
Resistance To Energy: A creature with resistance to energy has the ability (usually extraordinary) to ignore some damage of a certain type each round, but it does not have total immunity.
My underlining. Where does it say that energy resistance applies to each attack?
NoldorForce
04-08-07, 04:42 PM Many spells and effects instead give energy resistance on a per-attack basis. For instance, Resist Energy, Energy Adaptation, and the [Energy] Resistance armor effects all work in this manner.

Additionally, Resistance to Energy has a separate entry in the SRD that conflicts with the per-round protection:Resistance to Energy (Ex): A creature with this special quality ignores some damage of the indicated type each time it takes damage of that kind (commonly acid, cold, fire, or electricity). The entry indicates the amount and type of damage ignored.

Also see Resistance to Energy under Special Abilities.Witch is quoting from the Special Abilities and Conditions section instead.
bluemage55
04-08-07, 07:17 PM I consider the version Witch quoted to be a typo that is a holdover from 3.0 (when energy resistance worked on a per-round basis).

The damage-per-round version is also verified by the D&D glossary on the WotC site, and the glossary in the PHB.
Witch
04-08-07, 07:27 PM Ah. That'd explain.
rob_douglas
04-09-07, 03:03 AM Yes, that per round thing was a hold over from 3.0. I did notice an error in my assessment though - since he Maximized the Meteor Swarm, it would get through resistance 30, for 6 points of damage per meteor, or 24 points total, for a failed save or the target of the touch attack. Add to that the 48 points of bludgeoning damage. 72 points of no save damage to one target, if something is not immune to Fire. That is better than the expected value of 25d6 Fire, save allowed, which would only get you 14 points of damage after save and 30 Resistance.

ROB

Post/Author/DateTime	Post
IceFractal 04-07-07, 01:54 PM	An idea I'm considering for a tweak to Epic spellcasting, that should hopefully put combat-use less far behind and require a bit less DM intervention. Either: 1) Mitigation only applies to the cost of developing the spell, not the DC to cast it. Or, 2) Mitigation applies fully to the cost of developing the spell, but only 1/2 or 1/4 to the DC to cast it. With this, mitigation factors can also be made somewhat more generous. The basis of this is that on the one hand, Epic spells cost too much. Without mitigation being possible, they tend to bankrupt a PC altogether too quickly, and render Spellcraft skill almost pointless - anything you can afford to research, you can almost certainly cast. Conversely, much of the abuses of Epic spellcasting come from getting an effect much earlier than should be possible via mitigation. So hopefully, by decoupling these to an extent, Epic spellcasters can use mitigation to reduce the hit to their pocket, without casting DC 100 spells at DC 1. And it somewhat reduces the suckitude of combat spells compared to buffs - buffs are still cheaper, but at least the same approximate magnitude can be achieved in both. I'm not claiming it fixes the problems entirely, or that it doesn't still need DM oversight, but I think it could at help make things easier to adjudicate. So - comments, ideas, anything big I'm forgetting?
Witch 04-07-07, 01:59 PM	Selah, do you happen to have guidelines on which epic spells should be allowed and which shouldn't? It is, after all, fairly easy to acquire a DC 15 spell by level 21 that grants a +20 armor bonus for a few days; it is also fairly easy to acquire a bonus that grants about 30 to an ability score. It doesn't even require really abuse of mitigating factors. One problem with epic spellcasting is that the cost of the spell is based on the post mitigation DC. If anything, making a more powerful spell available earlier should cost you more to develop, not less. This sums up my position somewhat :)
Loren Pechtel 04-07-07, 03:00 PM	I think the simplest system is to have completely separate mitigation factors for development and casting.
bluemage55 04-07-07, 05:22 PM	This sums up my position somewhat :) I disagree with Kain. An epic spell that is heavily mitigated is not a more powerful spell. While it is made available earlier by mitigation, the effects are also less powerful because you have to pay certain costs, or the spell affects a smaller area, or does less damage, etc. Mitigation is supposed to be a way to weaken a spell to the level that you desire. The real problem is when you have mitigating factors that don't actually cost you anything, e.g. ritual casting long-term buffs.
Witch 04-07-07, 05:24 PM	Technically, XP costs don't actually cost you anything either, because you'll just gain XP faster as a lower-level character. Furthermore, backlash isn't significant on instantaneous spells either.
bluemage55 04-07-07, 05:26 PM	Technically, XP costs don't actually cost you anything either, because you'll just gain XP faster as a lower-level character. But you will always be behind, so it still leaves a permanent cost. Furthermore, backlash isn't significant on instantaneous spells either. I agree. I gave ritual casting as an example, but that was not intended to exclude other factors as being cost-less. I feel that backlash however, is limited in its uses because it has a cap (although that cap may or may not deserve decreasing). I think that a cap on those "cost-less" factors is a good way to control for unreasonable amounts of "free" mitigation (the epic spells section of my revision thread strictly limits the amount of ritual mitigation you can get).
Witch 04-07-07, 05:28 PM	These are the three most significant mitigating factors, though. I don't think Kain was refering to any of the others. (Regaring that permanent cost: you'll likely already have that from crafting.)
bluemage55 04-07-07, 05:29 PM	(Regaring that permanent cost: you'll likely already have that from crafting.) But it might add up to more. Being behind two levels is definitely worse than being behind one level.
runestar 04-07-07, 11:21 PM	Technically, XP costs don't actually cost you anything either, because you'll just gain XP faster as a lower-level character. Furthermore, backlash isn't significant on instantaneous spells either. It is a cost nonetheless. Just that it can be readily circumvented or mitigated. You could maybe rule that backlash damage is harder to heal or something.
askala3 04-08-07, 01:21 AM	I'm going to suggest this: 3) Mitigation applies only to the DC to cast the spell, not to the cost of developing it. The mitigating factors are making it easier to cast the spell, but that doesn't mean the epic spell is any less complex to make (ok, that was just flavor text to back up the statement). Although with ritual spells it makes sense that it is still complex to make but easier to cast with the help of others.
IceFractal 04-08-07, 03:57 AM	Well, the reason I'm in favor of lowering research costs, by any means possible, is this: Meteor Swarm+ Spellcraft DC: 73 Components: V,S Casting Time: 1 standard action Range: 300 ft. Area: 40-ft.-radius hemisphere Duration: Instantaneous Saving Throw: Reflex half Spell Resistance: Yes To Develop: 657,000 gp; 14 days; 26,280 XP. Seeds: energy (DC 19). Factors: 1-action casting time (+20 DC), add 15d6 damage (+30 DC), increase area by 100% (+4 DC). This spell is slightly better than Meteor Swarm - it does 25d6 instead of 24d6. However, it lacks the option to hit people directly with it, which is arguably the best part. Oh well. vs: Metamagic Rod: Maximize, Greater: 121,500 gp. Meteor Swarm, scroll + scribing costs: 4,725 gp. Actually, this example kind of highlights the need to lower DCs in general for blasting-type effects. However, while an overall reduction in DC leads to +100 Int at 23rd level, an overall reduction in price will just let those Wizards afford a few more scrolls. And honestly, there's so many ways to break the economy in half by Epic level that it's not even funny.
rob_douglas 04-08-07, 02:17 PM	Interesting, but your spell is actually much better than Meteor Swarm - which is BTW the suckiest few target attack spell out there - It does 2d6 Bludgeoning, and 6d6 fire 4 times. That is not the same as 8d6 and 24d6, because Fire resistance 30 completely negates all the fire damage from a Meteor Swarm. The only nice thing about it is the No Save to one target. Yours is better in that the total damage all applies to one attack and one Resistance, but it is worse without the Bludgeoning and No Save parts. But I agree, I think that attack options should be more doable. I am considering a few changes that would make that possible. I am trying to outline my expectations ahead of time, then make the changes needed. Bluemage has done a good job of analyzing the rules as they are, and determining that the best use of Epic Spells is for Melee buffs. But if I don't want that to be the case, I should start with my goal in mind, and design rules that support it. So my goal is a to have viable attack spells. 1) Grant the Save DC to be 10+1/2 Caster Level+ ability Mod. This is similar to the DC granted by most creatures Special abilities, and continues to scale. Just for Epic Spells. 2) Make the initial casting time of all Attack-oriented seeds be 1 standard Action or 1 Full Round. That is a -20 or -18 immediate reduction on the DC for an attack spell - since you can never really use them with a 1 minute casting time. I would also increase the casting time for Fortify and some of the others to 10 minutes, to cut out some of the obvious mitigation. 3) Increase the costs of buffs. Magic items scale geometrically with bonus, but the buffs all scale linearly. And once you reach the "epic" bonus, it gets more expensive as well. I think that Epic spells which bypass the bonus should also have a fixed additional cost. 4) Control Rituals - my thoughts on this are to make each caster involved have to make a concentration check each day that they are involved. They drop out if they fail. There would be a DC of 10+Spell Level contributed, and +2 per day added to that. That will put an upper limit on how long your Rituals could last, and how many low level helpers you could afford. You would need to plan to have more helpers than the spell calls for, because as they drop out, the DC to cast would keep going up. You could easily use group rolling, or a Spreadsheet to deal with the 100s of rolls needed to simulate a 100-day casting time. Speaking of which - yes, I would make the primary caster make a Concentration check as well - even when not casting a ritual, but just a long spell. 100-day casting should not be common, even ignoring the obvious interference in the daily campaign life issues. Those are just my thoughts that I have been throwing around in my head for some time. I hope to actually go through the SRD and see what effect that would have on a bunch of spells.... ROB
Witch 04-08-07, 03:29 PM	Interesting, but your spell is actually much better than Meteor Swarm - which is BTW the suckiest few target attack spell out there - It does 2d6 Bludgeoning, and 6d6 fire 4 times. That is not the same as 8d6 and 24d6, because Fire resistance 30 completely negates all the fire damage from a Meteor Swarm. From the SRD: Resistance To Energy: A creature with resistance to energy has the ability (usually extraordinary) to ignore some damage of a certain type each round, but it does not have total immunity. My underlining. Where does it say that energy resistance applies to each attack?
NoldorForce 04-08-07, 04:42 PM	Many spells and effects instead give energy resistance on a per-attack basis. For instance, Resist Energy, Energy Adaptation, and the [Energy] Resistance armor effects all work in this manner. Additionally, Resistance to Energy has a separate entry in the SRD that conflicts with the per-round protection:Resistance to Energy (Ex): A creature with this special quality ignores some damage of the indicated type each time it takes damage of that kind (commonly acid, cold, fire, or electricity). The entry indicates the amount and type of damage ignored. Also see Resistance to Energy under Special Abilities.Witch is quoting from the Special Abilities and Conditions section instead.
bluemage55 04-08-07, 07:17 PM	I consider the version Witch quoted to be a typo that is a holdover from 3.0 (when energy resistance worked on a per-round basis). The damage-per-round version is also verified by the D&D glossary on the WotC site, and the glossary in the PHB.
Witch 04-08-07, 07:27 PM	Ah. That'd explain.
rob_douglas 04-09-07, 03:03 AM	Yes, that per round thing was a hold over from 3.0. I did notice an error in my assessment though - since he Maximized the Meteor Swarm, it would get through resistance 30, for 6 points of damage per meteor, or 24 points total, for a failed save or the target of the touch attack. Add to that the 48 points of bludgeoning damage. 72 points of no save damage to one target, if something is not immune to Fire. That is better than the expected value of 25d6 Fire, save allowed, which would only get you 14 points of damage after save and 30 Resistance. ROB