[3.5] An Epic Combo

[Slipperychicken]

Uncanny Forethought + Epic Spellcasting. Uncanny Forethought, in addition to its intended use (letting a Wizard cast semi-spontaneously), can be used to change casting times to Full-Round actions. Epic Spells' Spellcraft DCs can be mitigated by, among other things, increasing casting times.



The idea here is to create an Epic Spell with, say, 100 days and 10 minutes of additional casting time (the maximum time increase allowed), for a -220 to the Spellcraft DC. We don't need to prepare the spell, but to reserve the Epic Slot as per Uncanny Forethought. Then we spontaneously cast our 100-day spell as a Full-Round action, bypassing the increased casting time, and gaining an effectively-free -220 to Spellcraft DC.



Is this legal? Any thoughts, comments, suggestions?

[tyckspoon]

I.. think that can be made to work, yes; even if the Epic Spell Slots themselves don't work, you can take Improved Spell Capacity and do it with one of the regular level 10+ slots you get that way, because Epic Spells are considered to be level 10. The only thing I can think of right now that might prevent doing this is the rather esoteric question of whether or not you know an Epic Spell- a spell known by a spontaneous caster is one selected as a Spell Known, a spell known for a Wizard is one written in their spellbook, and a spell known by a cleric or other full-list caster is simply one that is on their spell list.. but none of those things apply to Epic Spells, so it may actually be a spell you can cast without actually *knowing* it, as far as rules go. Which would disqualify doing it spontaneously via Uncanny Forethought.

[Slipperychicken]

whether or not you know an Epic Spell


SRD; Epic Spell Development
Before it can be cast, an epic spell must be developed. The process of development can be a time-consuming and expensive process. It is during development that a caster determines whether a given epic spell lies within his or her abilities or beyond them. The basis of that determination lies in an epic spell’s Spellcraft DC.

The easiest way to develop an epic spell is to use one already given. The description of each of these unique spells gives the amount of gold, time, and experience points required to develop the spell. If a character pays a spell’s development cost, he or she develops (and thus knows) that spell.

For information on developing an epic spell completely from scratch, see Developing Epic Spells.

I was looking at this for "knowing" epic spells.

[Jasdoif]

There is this line about epic spells:
Metamagic feats and other epic feats that manipulate normal spells cannot be used with epic spells.Now, strictly speaking it wouldn't apply here since Uncanny Forethought isn't an epic feat...but I honestly can't recommend any approach that relies on "it works better because it's not epic!".

[Slipperychicken]

There is this line about epic spells:Now, strictly speaking it wouldn't apply here since Uncanny Forethought isn't an epic feat...but I honestly can't recommend any approach that relies on "it works better because it's not epic!".

I get the feeling they were trying to prevent situations in which one would use things like [Epic] Spell Knowledge to learn epic spells for free, but they felt that non-epic feats (like Spell Focus) were reasonable to apply to epic spells, so they let those go through.

[Alleran]

The idea here is to create an Epic Spell with, say, 100 days and 10 minutes of additional casting time (the maximum time increase allowed), for a -220 to the Spellcraft DC. We don't need to prepare the spell, but to reserve the Epic Slot as per Uncanny Forethought. Then we spontaneously cast our 100-day spell as a Full-Round action, bypassing the increased casting time, and gaining an effectively-free -220 to Spellcraft DC.

Is this legal? Any thoughts, comments, suggestions?
I think it might be legal by RAW, noting the fact that Uncanny Forethought technically isn't a metamagic or epic feat that manipulates a normal spell. If any DM allowed it, though, then you're already well beyond the bounds of RAI.

As a bonus, though, if you can shorten the casting time to a standard action above and beyond the Uncanny Forethought abuse, then you can take Dweomerkeeper levels for Supernatural Spell, which allows you to ignore XP costs for an additional 200 DC of mitigation (otherwise you'd need to use "spell is cast as a standard action" for +20 DC and then apply the XP, so you'd only get a -180 out of it in total).

[Bogardan_Mage]

Epic Spells are considered to be level 10.
No, Epic Spells are treated as though they were 10th level in some situations. Casting an Epic Spell in a 10th level spell slot is not one of those situations.

[Rejusu]

I think it might be legal by RAW, noting the fact that Uncanny Forethought technically isn't a metamagic or epic feat that manipulates a normal spell. If any DM allowed it, though, then you're already well beyond the bounds of RAI.

I think when you start talking about 100 day cast times you've not only passed the bounds of RAI but treading into the murky depths of TO.

[Myth]

I would not allow it in my game. It's RAW but not RAI as far as I'm concerned.

However, what's stopping you from being a Lich, Necropoiltan or Elan and just sit back in your private demiplane and cast the spell for 100 days?

In 220 DC + whatever your Spellcraft check is (100 EASILY though 200 can be achieved without shady TO) so around 300-400, you can make yourself immune to 10 attacks/round and spells from levels 1 to 9 and probably a few other things.

I like it.

[Malachei]

I'm not sure. I think you can interpret it either way. Many here seem to agree that it is surely not RAI. -- and I wouldn't allow it in my games. So here, I'm trying to find support for a DM who'd like to tell a player "no" on this, without seeming entirely relying on DM fiat:

I admit it is nitpicking, but the exact wording of Uncanny Forethought links the open spell slot to a spell level.

While an epic spellcaster has epic spell slots, these slots do not have a spell level --> in this understanding, Uncanny Forethought's text would not match, and an epic spell slot would not meet Uncanny's requirement.


Epic Spells are considered to be level 10.


No, Epic Spells are treated as though they were 10th level in some situations. Casting an Epic Spell in a 10th level spell slot is not one of those situations.

These two quotes address the issue, IMO. The question is to what extent epic spells are treated as having a level. If there is a solid quote from RAW saying an epic spell is treated as a 10th level spell, then my point is invalid, of course.

[Alleran]

These two quotes address the issue, IMO. The question is to what extent epic spells are treated as having a level. If there is a solid quote from RAW saying an epic spell is treated as a 10th level spell, then my point is invalid, of course.
From d20srd:

"Epic spells have no fixed level. However, for purposes of Concentration checks, spell resistance, and other possible situations where spell level is important, epic spells are all treated as if they were 10th-level spells."

They're treated as 10th level for a situation where spell level is important, but otherwise have no fixed level.

[Rejusu]

That may as well say that they're always treated as 10th level spells. I mean if spell level is even a factor then that automatically means it's important.

[Malachei]

Thanks for the quote.


"Epic spells have no fixed level. However, for purposes of Concentration checks, spell resistance, and other possible situations where spell level is important, epic spells are all treated as if they were 10th-level spells."

Note it does not generalize and state "all other situations". I think it is pretty clear that the purpose here is to not block concentration checks, caster level checks etc. from functioning when they should apply to epic spells. "And other," in this context, then, IMO, means other similar situations.

The statement they have "no fixed level" implies you cannot define a spell slot of the same or higher level for an epic spell.

Since you cannot prepare an epic spell in a 10th level spell slot, I'd say you cannot use a 10th level spell slot to cast an epic spell -- uncanny forethought included.

[The Glyphstone]

When does spell level matter for Spell Resistance?

[Malachei]

No idea. The SRD seems to think so, though.

Perhaps they think of the special case of creatures immune to spells below a certain level and effects such as Globe of Invulnerability. But Spell Resistance would still be the wrong term, then.

[Cieyrin]

When does spell level matter for Spell Resistance?

The ELH was written for 3.0, so, though I don't recall having spell level accounted for during that era, there was some use for it then? Either that or a writer was just covering all possible bases, even when it didn't make sense or wasn't relevant.

[Jasdoif]

The ELH was written for 3.0, so, though I don't recall having spell level accounted for during that era, there was some use for it then? Either that or a writer was just covering all possible bases, even when it didn't make sense or wasn't relevant.There's also the very first item in the errata:
Delete all references to the feat Spell Resistance. This feat does not exist.Aside from sounding sinisterly conspiratorial, it's remotely feasible that this expunged feat (that had the misfortune of sharing its name with a mechanic) had operated only on spells of certain spell levels.