Epic Spell: Ruin - Pathetic or misprint?

[Kittenwolf]

So, talking about the Epic Spell Ruin (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/epic/spells/ruin.htm).
Is this a misprint or possibly the most pathetic excuse for an "Epic" spell ever? Yes, the range is great (assuming you have the spot check to see that far), but it's full round action, offers a save, allows SR and costs 2000XP per cast, all for 20d6 damage? I mean, if it was 200d6 damage it'd be reasonable, but seriously?

[Hirax]

Honestly, the ELH is one of the most poorly written 3.X books put out, which is unfortunate due to it being the primary source of info for level 21+ play. Another gem from that book is that monks are the only class that get an epic feat every 5 levels, every other class gets them every 2, 3, or 4 levels. Notably, wizards and clerics get them every 3 levels.

[FearlessGnome]

That is weak. Most Epic spells are really bad for the investment, and once you figure out how to make a good spell there isn't really any natural cut off point between good and broken. Epic rules were not written to handle even remotely optimized players. Balance goes completely out the window, in a way that dwarfs even no-epic differences.

1: Is enemy on his own plane?
2: If yes, retreat to own plane. If no, roll initiative.
3: Win Initiative?
4: If yes, win. If no, lose.

[Jack_Simth]

So, talking about the Epic Spell Ruin (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/epic/spells/ruin.htm).
Is this a misprint or possibly the most pathetic excuse for an "Epic" spell ever? Yes, the range is great (assuming you have the spot check to see that far), but it's full round action, offers a save, allows SR and costs 2000XP per cast, all for 20d6 damage? I mean, if it was 200d6 damage it'd be reasonable, but seriously?
Epic Spellcasting is often regarded as broken - in the 'does not function as thought to be intended' sense. The example spells are... ah... not very good. However, as noted by FearlessGnome, good spells are definitely possible... and likewise as noted by FearlessGnome, there's no clear distinction between "good" and "broken".

[Kittenwolf]

It's certainly seeming like an exercise in idiocy at times reading through those spells :)

Unfortunately I don't get to create my own, I'm playing my Shapeshifter (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=216630)class in a level 30 game so I do get SLAs (though still have to pay the XP form them) of any creature I turn into, and a few critters do have Epic Spells as SLAs.
Some of them are quite nasty (such as the "Always surrounded by a Crown of Vermin" creature) but some (notably the blasty ones) are.. so utterly lackluster you really do expect a misprint.

[Doug Lampert]

Honestly, the ELH is one of the most poorly written 3.X books put out, which is unfortunate due to it being the primary source of info for level 21+ play. Another gem from that book is that monks are the only class that get an epic feat every 5 levels, every other class gets them every 2, 3, or 4 levels. Notably, wizards and clerics get them every 3 levels.

Well yes, but you see wizards get only a d4 in HP per level and the same epic bonuses to BAB and saves as anyone else, no new slots or spell levels or anything. They need a huge number of epic feats to keep up with monk's AWESUM POWER of getting a d8 for HP, +10' to movement every 3 levels and +1 to AC every five levels.

The monk's levels are flat out better after level 20 than the wizard's levels unless the wizard gets more epic feats to ballance the monk's extra 2 HP per level, irrelevent movement bonus, and unnoticable AC increase. :)

You have to admit it's balanced better than level 17 where the monk got "timeless body" and "tongue of the sun and moon" while the wizard got nineth level spells. Heck, it's better balanced than level 18 where the monk got +10' to movement and the wizard got a caster level increase and a couple of slots.

Re Epic Spells:
When the ELH first came out there was a challenge posted to the usenet D&D group (then fairly active) to find a single spell in the Epic casting section which was actually designed correctly by the rules given. No one managed it, there were a couple of half hearted suggestions, which were fairly trivially shot down by pointing out fairly obvious violations of the alleged rules.

The epic casting rules were published without any input from playtesting whatsoever (or the mismatches between rules and spells would have been noticed by anyone trying to use the rules) and without anyone able to understand the rules ever really reading them and having any input.

Note that the authors are also possible readers and definitely have input, which means either the authors never bothered to check their work or they were incapable of reading and comprehending a rules set. Or it could be both of course. In fact I'd bet on both.

DougL

[Telonius]

I suspect that the supposed "awesomeness" of this spell was probably supposed to be its range. You can hit somebody or something for 20d6 damage from over two miles away!

Yeah, kind of underwhelming even so.

[Runestar]

It's just a casualty of the shortcomings of epic spellcasting when it comes to damage dealing spells. To be fair, champions of ruin had some cool ones, only problem is their DC is way too high (100+, IIRC). :smalleek:

[Zaq]

I saw someone (I forget who it was . . . sorry) on this very forum statting out Cone of Cold (not a very good spell to begin with) using the epic spellcasting rules. The results were . . . illuminating. I'm too lazy at the moment to recreate it, but it's not hard to do it yourself. Just look up the relevant seeds (they're all quite basic), add together all the Spellcraft factors, convert it to the appropriate XP/GP costs, and see what you get. (EDIT: Found it! (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showpost.php?p=11721360&postcount=14) It was Vael.)

Epic spellcasting is broken in more ways than just one.

[Killer Angel]

Another gem from that book is that monks are the only class that get an epic feat every 5 levels, every other class gets them every 2, 3, or 4 levels.

That's clearly a Karma's punishment.

[Jack of Trades]

It is not a misprint and not particular pathetic because it was just meant as an example. No one should actually try to use it. Higher DCs are possible even for a beginning epic wizard.

For example, an actual use would have increased the DC by +2 to make it a one action casting instead of one round.

The Greater Ruin is more of an actual usage epic spell. Although damage-wise it is only 35d6 (35-210, avg 123, 61 with save).

It is interesting to note, that due to mitigating factors, the higher DC you go the more they become more in-combat useful. At least where direct damage is concerned. If the epic seeds had a casting time of a full round instead of 1 minute it would make them significantly more useful in combat.

My problem with the Epic Level Handbook, and epic spells in other books, has always been the accuracy of the DC calculations. I have a hard time finding a single one that was correctly calculated. They should have added a page of DCs-to-development costs in the ELH. And banned backlash out right. Or at least eliminated any backlash past the inital damage and removed the Death by Massive Damage feature.

I mean... really. Try to figure out how they came up with the DC for Cataract of Fire or the Deluge one.