4th lvl spells in E6

[Darth_Versity]

So as you probably know, E6 by its design stops PCs getting 4th lvl spells and higher. But would you allow them through special means?

For example, a sorcerer with a bloodline feat (or the draconic legacy feat) that gives access to 4th lvl spells, with versatile spellcaster to use 2 3rd lvl slots to cast it.

Would access to a very limited list of spells like this be to strong for E6 or not make much difference.

Also what are the other (not to cheesy) ways to get higher spells in E6?

[candycorn]

Dragonwrought Kobold with greater Rite of Power would get you casting as a level 8 sorceror. With Loredrake, you'd get level 10 sorceror, for level 5 spells.

[Kobold-Bard]

I read some of Gnorman's special E6 classes & the mages gave a single 4th level spell as their capstone. I've never played E6 at level 6 so I can't say for sure, but people seemed to like them.

[Darth_Versity]

With Loredrake...

I thought I said nothing too cheesy..:smallbiggrin:

Also, I thought greater draconic right would only get 7th lvl, so still 3rd spells.

[candycorn]

I thought I said nothing too cheesy..:smallbiggrin:

Also, I thought greater draconic right would only get 7th lvl, so still 3rd spells.

"too cheesy" is very relative.

[Darth_Versity]

"too cheesy" is very relative.

I think most people would agree that loredrake kobolds fall firmly into the 'cheese' category! :smalltongue:

[Malachei]

I think E6 was made exactly to stop these tricks and play a more gritty, more medieval feel?

Even in 3.5, I'd not allow Versatile Spellcaster to cast a spell above a level your character would have spells known or per day (a positive number on the appropriate table, or a 0 and a bonus spell (such as for bards), but not "-").

I think an E6 game should be more restrictive than a normal game, because bending the limits would be more significant: If everybody is normally restricted to 3rd level spells, having 4th level spells will be an immense advantage.

Obviously, Dragonwrought cheese would not fly in my game, as well.

[unundindur]

I would not allow it. Already at 3rd level spells casters are starting to get ahead of the rest, so if anything I would boost non-casters instead.

Just as an example you have Lesser Globe of Invulnerability, making you immune to 3rd level spells and below. That is not anything I want as a regular spell in E6. This is also true for Celerity and so on.

Anything above 3rd level spells would be special rituals if I GM.

[Venusaur]

Artificer can make scrolls and such of 4th level spells in E6, so that would be the easiest way.

[Biffoniacus_Furiou]

Dread Necromancer 6, Versatile Spellcaster, Sanctum Spell, Split Ray, Ocular Spell, Twin Spell, Arcane Thesis: Enervation, a Lesser Rod of Maximize, and either the E6 feat Swift Metamagic for Twin Spell twice (requires Swift Metamagic three other times) or Easy Metamagic twice.

Sanctum Spell gives you knowledge of the 4th level spells on your class list. You can spend two 3rd level spell slots to cast Enervation. When outside of your sanctum, a Sanctum Enervation is considered a 3rd level spell, and due to Arcane Thesis it requires only a 3rd level spell slot to cast.

Set up two Sanctum, Split, Maximized, Ocular, Twinned Enervations ahead of time. Each takes a 3rd level spell slot:
Sanctum Enervation is a 3rd level spell, 1 metamagic
Lesser Rod of Maximize, +0, 1 metamagic
Split Ray, +2 (or +1 Easy), 1 metamagic (or 2 Easy)
Ocular Spell, +2, 1 metamagic
Twin Spell, +0 Swift (or +3 Easy), 1 metamagic (or 2 Easy)

With Swift Metamagic, that's a 3rd level spell at +4 metamagic and 5 metamagic feats, so it takes a 3rd level spell slot.
With Easy Metamagic, it's a 3rd level spell at +6 metamagic, with 7 metamagic feats, so again it takes a 3rd level spell slot.

As a full round action, you can release your Ocular Spell to fire four rays at up to four separate targets within 30 ft. of each other, each of which deals eight negative levels. In E6, eight negative levels is guaranteed to kill anything with class levels, and you can hit the same opponent with multiple rays for up to 32 negative levels in a single hit.



Then you have the Venerable Spellhoarding Dragonwrought Desert Kobold Loredrake with the Greater Draconic Rite of Passage, who goes Martial Wizard 1/ Stalwart Battle Sorcerer 4/ Mindbender 1. Get Collegiate Wizard (via a flaw), Improved Initiative, Draconic Reserve, Mindsight, Abrupt Jaunt (Conjurer), proficiency and weapon focus with any martial weapon, and proficiency with any light or one-handed martial weapon. Your Draconic Rite of Passage spell-like ability is Charm Person, to qualify for Mindbender. That gets 9th level Wizard spellcasting ability, with eight 4th and four 5th level spells known, and no risk of ever losing your spellbook, plus all the other Spellhoarding tricks.

[Altair_the_Vexed]

Um, no - in an E6 game, I would not allow access to 4th level spells through special means.

The whole point of E6 is to get rid of 4th level and higher spells. In an E6 world, they do not exist. You might be able to get more 3rd level spells, but nothing higher.

[Malachei]

As a full round action, you can release your Ocular Spell to fire four rays at up to four separate targets within 30 ft. of each other, each of which deals eight negative levels. In E6, eight negative levels is guaranteed to kill anything with class levels, and you can hit the same opponent with multiple rays for up to 32 negative levels in a single hit.

Then you have the Venerable Spellhoarding Dragonwrought Desert Kobold Loredrake

*snip*

plus all the other Spellhoarding tricks.

Have you read the OP?


Also what are the other (not to cheesy) ways to get higher spells in E6? (emphasis mine)

[Kobold-Bard]

Have you read the OP?

(emphasis mine)

In order to get higher spells than a character of your level could normally cast requires cheese. Otherwise the spells would just be lower level. Artificer scrolls or Gnorman's Classes (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=215986) are the only ones I know designed to exceed that limit.

[JadePhoenix]

In order to get higher spells than a character of your level could normally cast requires cheese.

So the answer is simple, you just find a way to get 4th level spells without since. You already mentioned the Artificer, even.
The OP requested how to do it in a non-cheesy way and what you mentioned is certainly cheesy. Congratulations on remebering a build you saw posted a few weeks ago, but that's not what the OP requested.

[Biffoniacus_Furiou]

Have you read the OP?

(emphasis mine)

A Dread Necromancer with Versatile Spellcaster to gain access to 4th level spells is at the bottom of the cheese spectrum. However, as I pointed out, gaining access to 4th level spells opens the door to some extreme levels of cheese that wouldn't be possible without it.

Fell Drain with Easy/Practical Metamagic, Power Word: Pain, and a Lesser Rod of Extend is pretty much guaranteed to kill most opponents anyway. Add on Chain Spell with Easy/Practical Metamagic and Arcane Thesis, and you kill entire encounters for a 1st level spell slot.

[Zombimode]

The whole point of E6 is to get rid of 4th level and higher spells. In an E6 world, they do not exist. You might be able to get more 3rd level spells, but nothing higher.

Uhm, no, Im pretty sure that "get rid of 4th level spells" is not the whole point of E6. E6 is a means to sustain a certain powerlevel in a setting without limiting character advancement to a certain point. A consequence of that is that 4th level spells are generally unavailable for player characters and most NPCs. But there is nothing inherent in E6 that would deny the mere existance of higher level abilities. You can choose to desing your setting that way, of course, but its not mandatory.

[Lonely Tylenol]

EDIT: My TL;DR is longer than the body of my regular post. :smallannoyed: You might as well just skip to the TL;DR though; it contains more relevant information. Spoilering the rest.

I built a feat chain into my game that gives you the ability to cast fourth-level spell slots. Typically, though, this means casting your domain spell slot (for Clerics), your specialist or domain slot (for Wizards), or 0+bonus spells (for spontaneous casters). If you're feeling generous (and I was), you could introduce it as a flat 0+bonus spells+miscellany (domain or specialist). I didn't have to write this in since I have no prepared divine casters in this game (my group's divine caster is Spontaneous variant, since he doesn't want to deal with the bookkeeping), but I do not allow it to advance spells known into the fourth level for prepared divine casters such as Druids and Clerics, outside of the spells they can spontaneously cast, by default ONLY, which is to say the SNA or Cure line, barring an official WotC variant that lets you cast other, such as the Druid's spontaneous Cure (though I did allow it for the Warmage, Dread Necromancer, and Beguiler, who spontaneously know their whole list and could use the love). Beyond that point, fourth-level spells known is DM-controlled. This, ostensibly, lets a Cleric or Domain Wizard cast their 4th-level domain spells, or prepare a lower-level spell in the higher-level slot (presumably with Metamagic attached).

For 2/3 casters, such as the Bard, Magus and Summoner, the same is true, but for third-level spells.

For 1/2 casters, such as the Spellthief, Paladin and Ranger, the same is true, but for second-level spells (although they can prepare them if that is part of their class, effectively extending their spells known into the second level).

Psionic casters use the same rule as spontaneous casters.

Initiators can gain, through a feat, one fourth-level maneuver per school (that school's "ultimate hidden technique") from which they know at least three maneuvers, which usually means one or MAYBE two fourth-level maneuvers, tops, for the Warblade and Crusader (barring liberal use of Martial Study), and more for the Swordsage, if they choose to build specifically toward learning fourths. These maneuvers work on a 1/day basis instead of a 1/encounter basis.

Strange casters (like the Shadowcaster) work on an individual basis. For instance, for the Shadowcaster, I created the feat "Extra Mystery (Apprentice)",
that allows them to learn extra mysteries. I then created, as an epic feat, "Extra Mystery (Initiate)", which lets them learn one fourth-level initiate mystery, with the restriction that they cannot have more initiate mysteries than they have completed paths.

TL;DR
In my game:
Prepared divine full casters (Cleric, Druid, Healer, Archivist) get 0+bonus+Domain spells per day of 4th-level spells, but DO NOT gain the ability to prepare from the list of 4th-level spells known (though they do retain the ability to spontaneously cast SNA, Cure, etc. into the fourth level). Learning 4th-level spells (such as Raise Dead) is DM-controlled, through a feat or a quest.
Prepared arcane full casters (Wizard) get 0+bonus+Domain or Specialist spells per day of 4th-level spells, but do not gain new spells known. Learning 4th-level spells (such as Raise Dead) is DM-controlled, through a feat or a quest.
Spontaneous divine and arcane full casters who gain spells known (Favored Soul, Sorcerer, Spirit Shaman) get 0+bonus spells per day of 4th-level spells, plus one spell known (my gift to them). Beyond that, learning 4th-level spells (such as Raise Dead) is DM-controlled, through a feat or a quest.
Spontaneous full casters who know their full list (Warmage, Dread Necromancer, Beguiler) get 0+bonus spells per day of 4th-level spells, and continue to know their whole list. Their lists do not expand for any reason (even with Arcane Disciple).
2/3 casters (Bard, Summoner, Magus, Inquisitor) and 1/2 casters (Paladin, Ranger, Spellthief, Hexblade) work the same way as their full-caster counterparts, but with level 3 and level 2 spells, respectively (and the Ranger and Paladin gain the ability to prepare level 2 spells from their list, as normal).
Psions work like spontaneous casters of the appropriate level (Psions and Wilders like spontaneous full casters; Psychic Warriors, Psychic Rogues, and Lurks work like spontaneous 2/3 casters; and Divine Minds work like spontaneous 1/2 casters).
Initiators can gain one maneuver per school in any school that they have three maneuvers known from, 1/day each.
Shadowcasters gain 4th-level initiate maneuvers up to a number of completed paths, 1/day each.
Truenamers can gain 2nd-level Lexicon of the Crafted Tool and 1st-level Lexicon of the Perfect Map utterances, but not 4th-level Lexicon of the Evolving Mind utterances (though they can learn extra 3rd-level Evolving Mind utterances as per a feat).
Binders gain the ability to bind one 4th-level vestige of their choice.
Material and XP components are generally multiplied by a factor of 10 (or eyeballed, to whatever is appropriate).
Casting time is either increased to a full-found action (for simple spells like Orb of Fire) or by a factor of 10 (or the next step up). For instance, Stoneskin has a casting time of 1 minute and Restoration 3 minutes (increasing by a factor of 10), and Lesser Planar Ally has a casting time of 1 hour (the next step up from 10 minutes).
All of this (including the actual list of available 4th-level spells) is DM-mitigated and requires epic feats.

[The Underlord]

In order to get higher spells than a character of your level could normally cast requires cheese. Otherwise the spells would just be lower level. Artificer scrolls or Gnorman's Classes (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=215986) are the only ones I know designed to exceed that limit.

Gnormans classes are homebrew(not official material), so they shouldn't be counted as a means of getting 4th level spells.

[Lonely Tylenol]

Gnormans classes are homebrew(not official material), so they shouldn't be counted as a means of getting 4th level spells.

Technically, E6 is also a homebrewed variant rule, so we're treading in dubious waters if we use that logic.

I mean, it is technically true that Gnorman's classes are different homebrew than the E6 rule set homebrew, but even if we look within the E6 rule set homebrew, there are ways to get 4th-level (and even 5th-level) spells, although they are very narrow. There are also suggested ways to add 4th-level and higher spells written into the same rule set that aren't covered explicitly in the homebrew feats, however.

[unundindur]

What is the actual point of this discussion?

Either you want 4th level spells in this context (thus making the powerlevel more akin to E8) or you want to keep it at E6.

Both are perfectly fine, but I really don't see a point in arguing if or how you can get more powerful inside a homebrew concept spesifically designed to stop it. E6 is E6 because the guy who came up with it liked level 1-6, if someone likes level 1-8, or 1-12 just go with the same logic and make it E8 and E12, with the problems are reliefs that brings :smallsmile:

[Darth_Versity]

What is the actual point of this discussion?

Either you want 4th level spells in this context (thus making the powerlevel more akin to E8) or you want to keep it at E6.

Both are perfectly fine, but I really don't see a point in arguing if or how you can get more powerful inside a homebrew concept spesifically designed to stop it. E6 is E6 because the guy who came up with it liked level 1-6, if someone likes level 1-8, or 1-12 just go with the same logic and make it E8 and E12, with the problems are reliefs that brings :smallsmile:

The main point I'm trying to find the answer for is how does access to a VERY limited selection of 4th lvl spells affect E6?

In my first example, a sorcerer with the penumbra bloodline feat and versatile spellcaster could cast Evards Black Tentacles at the cost of 2 3rd lvl slots. How would that effect balance? What about the other 4th lvl spells that can be accessed without extreme cheese?

[Malachei]

I think the OP's mentioning of cheese blurs the objective.

If you're asking this from a DM's perspective, with special consideration of balance, then my answer is: Don't allow it. It would seriously affect the game balance, especially since the 4th spell level really means a big step in terms of power level (evard's black tentacles, charm monster, dimension door, minor globe, stoneskin, all just from core, are examples).

IMO, you should rule out this use of Versatile Spellcaster based on the argument that a caster does not actually "know" a spell above the level he has slots in. Support this by showing players the tables with the dashes "-", and the text (example beguiler): "When you gain access to a new level of spells, you automatically know all the spells for that level on the beguiler’s spell list." Extend this for bloodline feats etc.

What is the source of the bloodline feat?

From a player's perspective, you'd need to specify what you mean by extreme cheese.

[nedz]

In E6 you can do these things through rituals IIRC, which means not in combat.

I like the idea of E6+1 (or maybe 2) spells higher than that for an epic caster, provided that these are very hard to get and a caster is very limited in options.

BUT this is no longer E6, though its not E8. So maybe we should call this E6+ ?

[Malachei]

E6+1 = E7 :smallbiggrin:

I think everybody can play his/her own E[n] easily by adapting E6.

[unundindur]

In E6 you can do these things through rituals IIRC, which means not in combat.

I like the idea of E6+1 (or maybe 2) spells higher than that for an epic caster, provided that these are very hard to get and a caster is very limited in options.

BUT this is no longer E6, though its not E7-8. So maybe we should call this E6+ ?

That would be E6 for non-casters and E8 for casters, which seems counterproductive to me at least :smalltongue:

[unundindur]

The main point I'm trying to find the answer for is how does access to a VERY limited selection of 4th lvl spells affect E6?

In my first example, a sorcerer with the penumbra bloodline feat and versatile spellcaster could cast Evards Black Tentacles at the cost of 2 3rd lvl slots. How would that effect balance? What about the other 4th lvl spells that can be accessed without extreme cheese?

This would be entirely dependant on what level 4 spells we are talking about. If we are talking about the weakest, they could easily be ruled to be level 3 spells (remove curse, secure shelter, Wall of fire), and the problem would be solved. If we are talking about the more powerful ones (those people actually want such as Polymorph, Greater invisibility, scrying, lesser globe of invulnerability, evards black tentacles, stoneskin etc.) I would strongly suggest avoiding it.

As long as your games have only a few battles between rests, flashing power is much better than long term consistency (read: fighters). By allowing a wizard to use lower level slots to cast higher level spells you effectlivly leverage this advantage, which I would find sad, and bad from a balancing perspective.

Evards black tentacles is a high-power 4th level spell, and definantly something I would not allow. If allowed it would be through an artifact or other plot device that could be used by any character, and thus negating a casters native advantage.


If you for some reason feel that casters need a boost, I suggest giving them more first level slots at higher levels, thus giving them the ability to be relevant in prolonged battle-sequences (a casters current weakness). In my games casters can cast 0-level spells at will, except that cure minor wounds is banned. This is in line with this thinking.

I also wonder why you want 4th level spells. As far as I can see there are virtually no staple fantasy spells at that level. Fly, fireball, lightningbolt etc are all 3rd level spells :smallsmile:

[Malachei]

That would be E6 for non-casters and E8 for casters, which seems counterproductive to me at least :smalltongue:

Indeed. That's why I called it E7 or E(n) -- it should apply to everybody.

[Darth_Versity]

I think the OP's mentioning of cheese blurs the objective.

If you're asking this from a DM's perspective, with special consideration of balance, then my answer is: Don't allow it. It would seriously affect the game balance, especially since the 4th spell level really means a big step in terms of power level (evard's black tentacles, charm monster, dimension door, minor globe, stoneskin, all just from core, are examples).

IMO, you should rule out this use of Versatile Spellcaster based on the argument that a caster does not actually "know" a spell above the level he has slots in. Support this by showing players the tables with the dashes "-", and the text (example beguiler): "When you gain access to a new level of spells, you automatically know all the spells for that level on the beguiler’s spell list." Extend this for bloodline feats etc.

What is the source of the bloodline feat?

From a player's perspective, you'd need to specify what you mean by extreme cheese.

I'm coming from a DM perspective. I'm currently running my first E6 game and was curious to what effect higher spells would have given the limited options.

Bloodline feats are from Dragon Compendium.


That would be E6 for non-casters and E8 for casters, which seems counterproductive to me at least :smalltongue:

Well i have already put in feats to allowyou to increase your BAB by 2, so warriors can reach the BAB of an 8th lvl character. I have a feat that lets skillmonkeys get more ranks. So allowing a caster to get a bit better casting isn't so bad.

[Urpriest]

4th level has some qualitatively different stuff than later levels. In particular, Lesser Planar Ally and Polymorph give players access to monsters in a much more dramatic way than they had before, thus dramatically widening the gap between casters and mundanes. Just as a brief example, Lesser Planar Ally is the first spell that can be reasonably used to get access to Nightmares, and thus Astral Projection.

[Answerer]

4th level spells are the reason that E6 stops at 6, specifically. The entire point is to prevent 4th-and-higher spells from coming online.

Because yes, 4th-level is that much worse than 3rd, and it only gets worse from there. A trivial example is Solid Fog: non-casters are basically totally screwed with absolutely no defense by that spell.

[Malachei]

I'm coming from a DM perspective
Bloodline feats are from Dragon Compendium.

I am open to all official content, but not Dragon magazine, for good reason.



Well i have already put in feats to allowyou to increase your BAB by 2, so warriors can reach the BAB of an 8th lvl character. I have a feat that lets skillmonkeys get more ranks. So allowing a caster to get a bit better casting isn't so bad.

I'd say +2 BAB or a few ranks are on a completely different level than 4th level spells.

[MukkTB]

It comes down to DM intent. Personally I wouldn't allow spells beyond lvl 3. I feel strongly that E6 is should limit the abilities players have. There are some major abilities unlocked at lvl 4 spells.

At most it might make sense for those spells to be castable as rituals that require days of work and multiple casters/cultists with strange and unearthly costs. Something a BBEG might do as a majot plot point.

I feel that 4th level spells are particularly unfair to non spellcasters. If you really want 4th level spells why not play E8 so that everyone else can have the benefits that come from higher level as well?

[Sutremaine]

A trivial example is Solid Fog: non-casters are basically totally screwed with absolutely no defense by that spell.
Indeed. You could rewrite the spell so that it allows a Reflex save to evade or a Strength or Escape Artist check to escape, but then you'd find yourself rewriting every 4th-level screw-you spell.

[Red_Dog]

***Sry, I'll have to TLDR this. I did conduct a word search before posting, and didn't find this "technically lvl4 spells casting" = ]***
***EDIT Wooooopsy... I think I TLDRed the intention of the thread... sry gentlemen and ladies... = \ Anyways, the suggestions still somewhat stands as it seems like a very limited way to obtain evocation only spells and ergo, perhaps a "balanced" way to grant characters 4-5lvl spells. The only issue is that it boosts Arcane casters, which we ALL know, didn't need any boosting. Anyways... Ignore the post below if you aren't simply looking on the "how to get those" advice***


Rod of Shadowblending. p.128 of Complete Mage.

3/day as swift action you can morph a casting of Major Image spell[lvl3] into Shadow Evocation[lvl5! spell] which in turn emulates lvl4 Evocations. DCs are adjusted according to Shadow evocation which means +2DC over a 3rd lvl spells of your competitors ^^

All this, for a neat price of 9k! Yes its 3/day, yes its Shadow Evocation/Conjuration[with minor Image btw], but think of your DMs face when you cast lvl5 spells in a game when they shouldn't exist ^^.

So did I win? ^^

P.S. All jokes aside, this can get you smacked across the face in E6 as the answer "lvl4 and above Doesn't exist" can be valid. And even if you are allowed to do this, you DM might hold a grudge on principle ^^ So yeah, don't tempt fate, yada yada ^^

Good luck!^^

[Lonely Tylenol]

My question to all of you, from a DM's perspective:


If you're asking this from a DM's perspective, with special consideration of balance, then my answer is: Don't allow it. It would seriously affect the game balance, especially since the 4th spell level really means a big step in terms of power level (evard's black tentacles, charm monster, dimension door, minor globe, stoneskin, all just from core, are examples).


This would be entirely dependant on what level 4 spells we are talking about. If we are talking about the weakest, they could easily be ruled to be level 3 spells (remove curse, secure shelter, Wall of fire), and the problem would be solved. If we are talking about the more powerful ones (those people actually want such as Polymorph, Greater invisibility, scrying, lesser globe of invulnerability, evards black tentacles, stoneskin etc.) I would strongly suggest avoiding it.


4th level has some qualitatively different stuff than later levels. In particular, Lesser Planar Ally and Polymorph give players access to monsters in a much more dramatic way than they had before, thus dramatically widening the gap between casters and mundanes. Just as a brief example, Lesser Planar Ally is the first spell that can be reasonably used to get access to Nightmares, and thus Astral Projection.


4th level spells are the reason that E6 stops at 6, specifically. The entire point is to prevent 4th-and-higher spells from coming online.

Because yes, 4th-level is that much worse than 3rd, and it only gets worse from there. A trivial example is Solid Fog: non-casters are basically totally screwed with absolutely no defense by that spell.

Why on Earth would you use the most broken, most-DMs-in-normal-games-ban-this-crap spells as a hyperbolic example of what is going to happen in E6 with the inclusion of 4th-level spells?

The one fundamental assumption you can make of all E6 games is that it involves a tacit agreement between player and DM that the game ends level progression at 6th level, and that anything that comes online after that point is entirely up to the DM. We are talking about a game where the effective all of the usual assumptions of D&D exist (namely, that the DM has the final say on what actually sees play), with the added assumption that the game ends at 6th level/3rd-level spells, except for what the DM allows to see play. So for any of those arguments to make sense in the context of this game, you have to find a DM who would not only allow 4th-level spells to exist (of which I am one), but who would also allow those 4th-level spells to exist (of which I am not). Suddenly the subset of permissive DMs running E6 narrows drastically.

If a DM willing to stagger in 4th-level spells has a strong grasp of content control, then they will know how to, say, discern between Fire Trap, Orb of Force, Arcane Eye, Crushing Despair, Fire Shield, Illusory Wall, Contagion and Stone Shape, and, say, Lesser Globe of Invulnerability, Solid Fog, Scrying, Lesser Geas, Defenestrating Sphere, Greater Invisibility, Enervation and Polymorph, or know of a reasonable way to temper borderline spells like Stoneskin or Animate Dead, to the point where they stop being spells that you just assume can be used to break the game. Any E6 DM willing to allow Polymorph into their game either doesn't know how to control content (doesn't know what is too powerful and what isn't), doesn't know how to control their players (and is literally letting them walk over him/her), or doesn't care all that much about the balance and is probably trying to balance on the edge of a knife between high-power and high-mortality (in which case it's understood that the game is basically rocket tag with smaller rockets).

[Answerer]

Most DMs ban Solid Fog?

I have... never seen a DM do that.

Really, you want to go through the list?

Globe of Invulnerability is ridiculous when it's exceptionally rare to have spells higher than 3rd.

Black Tentacles will screw over a lot of people.

Death Ward: yay, blanket immunities.

Dimension Door is Dimension Door; need I say more? Hey, it rhymes!

Divination, never have to guess again.

Enervation, in a realm where no one has more than 6 HD? Ahahahaha.

Freedom of Movement is literally never having to worry about grapples ever again. Plus a bunch of other things.

Greater Invisibility, because the Wizard wasn't already safe enough.

Greater Magic Weapon replaces all enhancement bonuses...

Minor Creation can be absurd, and if nothing else puts some very odd pressures on the game's economy.

Lesser Planar Ally and Polymorph actually are banned in a lot of games, I'll give you those two.

This is just in Core (which, admittedly, is where most broken spells are, but still), and that's a lot of spells to ban. I don't see most of them getting banned that often.


I mean, sure, there are plenty of 4th-level spells that are harmless. But it really seems safer just to not open that can of worms at all, for one thing, and for another, and more importantly, the OP seemed to be suggesting 4th-level spells in general, not specific hand-picked ones.

[Lonely Tylenol]

Most DMs ban Solid Fog?

I have... never seen a DM do that.

I have, but more to the point, the spells that you all listed are exactly the list that people refer to when they talk about the "most broken" level 4 spells, or when they talk about the huge power shift between third and fourth, or why seven is the break point for full casters. I know this because they're the spells that I use for these discussions. You used Solid Fog yourself for this purpose; why bother denying it?


Really, you want to go through the list?

Globe of Invulnerability is ridiculous when it's exceptionally rare to have spells higher than 3rd.

Black Tentacles will screw over a lot of people.

Death Ward: yay, blanket immunities.

Dimension Door is Dimension Door; need I say more? Hey, it rhymes!

Divination, never have to guess again.

Enervation, in a realm where no one has more than 6 HD? Ahahahaha.

Freedom of Movement is literally never having to worry about grapples ever again. Plus a bunch of other things.

Greater Invisibility, because the Wizard wasn't already safe enough.

Greater Magic Weapon replaces all enhancement bonuses...

Minor Creation can be absurd, and if nothing else puts some very odd pressures on the game's economy.

Lesser Planar Ally and Polymorph actually are banned in a lot of games, I'll give you those two.

This is just in Core (which, admittedly, is where most broken spells are, but still), and that's a lot of spells to ban. I don't see most of them getting banned that often.

I think you're missing the point. The point I was making is that it's pointless to name-drop specific spells because any DM with any care for balance is willing to take any name you might drop and ban it, rendering the name-drop an exercise in futility. What you're left with are the 4th-level spells that are harmless.

I listed one example from every school that is clearly OK and one that is clearly not. I can't be arsed to list every single spell that might cause problems just to keep you from dropping names; if you can't draw, from my examples, that I am talking about the need to differentiate between spells that will cause balance issues and spells that won't, and continue to rattle off names of spells that clearly will, then we've already exhausted this discussion.

[gbprime]

Divination, never have to guess again.

Actually, you can pull this one as a 3rd level spell. Oracle domain, which you can get by taking your 6th and final level as Divine Oracle 1.

And in an E6 game, it's a great specialty for one party member to have, be they a cleric, druid, Beguiler, or what have you.

[Malachei]

Why on Earth would you use the most broken, most-DMs-in-normal-games-ban-this-crap spells as a hyperbolic example of what is going to happen in E6 with the inclusion of 4th-level spells?


My question to you is: If you think these spells need to be banned, which spells do you actually keep in your game?

And if you think these 4th level spells need to be banned in a normal game, what is the point of allowing 4th level spells in an E6 game anyway?

[darksolitaire]

Am I the only know who assumes that those 4th level spells would be used in one per day basis (or twice in rare occasions)? And in E6, you're supposed to eventually encounter foes with greater challenge ratings then normal 6th level characters.

I think that I'd allow 4th level spells in my E6 game, and I even think that I would ban only minor creation from Answerer's list.

[Darth_Versity]

Am I the only know who assumes that those 4th level spells would be used in one per day basis (or twice in rare occasions)? And in E6, you're supposed to eventually encounter foes with greater challenge ratings then normal 6th level characters.

I think that I'd allow 4th level spells in my E6 game, and I even think that I would ban only minor creation from Answerer's list.

This is one of the main things that led me to wonder about this. Assuming someone plays a max CHA kobold with greater draconic right to be a lvl 7 sorcerer and 2 additional 3rd level spells from feats.

That would still only be 4 spells of 4th lvl a day and even then thats only by sacrificing all 3rd lvl spells. On top of that it must be the same spell, at most they'd have a selection of 2. Even then, by the time they can get all this as well as some feats to keep them alive or up the DC's they'll be facing critters around 2-4 CR above them.

With that in mind would things like Evards Black Tentacles still be to powerful, or is it more a fear that the spellcaster will start to outshine the melee again?

[Malachei]

I guess if once or twice per day happens in the big end fight, the impact is pretty much the same.

[Lonely Tylenol]

My question to you is: If you think these spells need to be banned, which spells do you actually keep in your game?

And if you think these 4th level spells need to be banned in a normal game, what is the point of allowing 4th level spells in an E6 game anyway?

:smallannoyed:

My computer froze and it ate my post.

I'll be quick (WARNING: I really won't):

I'm not going to address the first point as I had before, except by saying that I am actually among the more lenient DMs I've played with, in real-life or otherwise (second only to a more casual DM who had no gameplay restrictions, where even I would hit Polymorph); that would be why I would, say, apply the "lean upward" approach to E6 to my own game. That said, I have played in games where, among the spells I've listed (in addition to Polymorph), Solid Fog, Dimension Door, Greater Invisibility, Lesser Planar Ally, and Enervation were banned (I may have had a hand in the last two), as well as others of level 4 or below. It's also been suggested repeatedly on these boards (not those ones, but these ones) that Scrying be banned, as it is a necessary component of "Scry-and-Die" tactics (hint: it's the first half) and allows the PCs to cheat at "Rock-Paper-Scissors" to such an extent that the game devolves into an elaborate system of building houses of cards just so the PCs can knock them over, which stops being fun for the DM after awhile. The follow-up to that, of course, is that the subset of PCs who use Scrying that would cry foul if "Scry-and-Die" was used on them before they ate breakfast is actually quite large, which creates an unfair double-standard. I didn't even touch Celerity.

But I digress.

Think critically about the following two lists I'm about to show you:


Fire Trap, Orb of Force, Arcane Eye, Crushing Despair, Fire Shield, Illusory Wall, Contagion and Stone Shape

And:


Lesser Globe of Invulnerability, Solid Fog, Scrying, Lesser Geas, Defenestrating Sphere, Greater Invisibility, Enervation, Polymorph

What would you say is the biggest difference between the two? After all, they're all Sor/Wiz 4 spells, and they're each a list of spells from each of the eight schools (in order of abjuration, conjuration, divination, enchantment, evocation, illusion, necromancy and transmutation), but if you had to guess, just comparing the first list with the second, one who didn't know better wouldn't even think them to be on the same level. Correct?

That would be because the first list clearly isn't broken, or representative of a qualitative shift in power in any game, even E6 (where they don't ordinarily even exist). I mean, let's look at the best among the first list: Orb of Force. 1d6/level force damage on a ranged touch, no save for half, no SR? Great. Unfortunately, I'll never be abusing Arcane Fusion with it, nor will I have metamagic mitigators (or higher-level spell slots) to fuss with it over, so it's to be taken at face value--which is a single-target d6/level spell, which can be cast at most 1/day as your "capstone" spell, which is decent, but not game-breaking, even for a game where nobody is higher than 6th level.

Solid Fog, on the other hand? In a game where items that grant Dimension Door or flight to non-casters are not a thing? Ridiculous because of the setting it's in (but good for many levels otherwise); same for Lesser Geas, which has a HD restriction of "every humanoid you will ever encounter", or Lesser Globe of Invulnerability, which has a spell restriction of "[almost] every spell you will ever encounter", which makes them patently absurd in E6 and E6 only.

And Polymorph? Ridiculous anywhere.

If you were to say, "it's an E6 game, and you have the option of either accepting all 4th-level spells, or rejecting all 4th-level spells", then I'd reject. There are simply too many bad eggs to ignore. But I'm also not talking about blanket acceptance/refusal, which is why the discussion of:

"4th-level spells in E6? But Polymorph is broken!"
"Polymorph is banned."
"But Greater Invisibility is broken!"
"Greater Invisibility is banned."
"But Solid Fog is broken!"
"Solid Fog is banned."
"But..."
etc.

Is sorta missing the point, but also necessary to have. The point is that you have to be able to distinguish between a spell that will unsettle the delicate break point of E6 and one that won't, and choose carefully between the two (if you are going to go this route at all). It is the DM's right and responsibility to be careful about how this is handled. The silver lining to that, however, is that you can pick and choose: the players have accepted the limitation against fourth-level spells already by choosing to play E6 (assuming that the guidelines were clearly stated and no player is explicitly out to break these restrictions), so you have total control over not only whether or not content seeps through this filter, but what content seeps through this filter.

And it's not entirely unheard of in an E6 game. The following spells are from the E6 guideline (suggested spells to be reduced to 3rd-level):


Cone of Cold

Change to 3rd level with 10d6 cap.

Acid Blast

Conjuration (Creation) [Acid]
Level: Sorcerer/wizard 3
Components: V, S
Casting Time: 1 standard action
Range: Close (25 ft. + 5 ft./2 levels)
Effect: One blast of acid
Duration: Instantaneous
Saving Throw: None
Spell Resistance: No

The following are capstone feats, again, written explicitly into the E6 guidelines:


Restoration [Spell]
Prerequisites: ability to cast 3rd level divine spells, Wisdom 18, Healing 9 Ranks
Benefit: You can use Restoration as the spell (paying the material component) once per day with a casting time of 1 hour.

Stone to Flesh [Spell]
Prerequisites: 6th level, ability to cast 3rd level arcane spells, Intelligence 18, Craft (Alchemy) 9 Ranks
Benefit: You can use stone to flesh, as the spell, with an expensive and secret magical ingredient with a market value of 1000 gp and a casting time of 1 day.

Atonement [Spell]
Prerequisite: Spellfocus (abjuration), Knowledge (religion) 4 ranks, divine caster level 6th.
Benefit: You can use atonement, as the spell (paying focus and XP costs normally), with a casting time of 1 hour.

The implication being, of course, that Cone of Cold, Orb of Acid, Stone to Flesh, Atonement, and Restoration clearly aren't too broken to exist in an E6 game, even though they are not 3rd-level or lower spells, therefore the argument of "it's too powerful for E6 because it's fourth level" is something even the creator didn't buy.

And to answer your second question, even though I'm not one of those types (if only by virtue of my generally lax behavior as a DM), try these spells on for size:

Sor/Wiz:

Abjur
Dimensional Anchor
Fire Trap
Remove Curse

Conj
Minor Creation (debatable)
Secure Shelter

Div
Arcane Eye
Detect Scrying
Locate Creature
Scrying

Ench
Charm Monster
Crushing Despair

Evoc
Fire Shield
Resilient Sphere
Shout
Wall of Fire
Wall of Ice

Illus

Hallucinatory Terrain
Illusory Wall
Rainbow Pattern

Necro
Bestow Curse
Contagion

Trans
Mnemonic Enhancer
Stone Shape

Cleric:

Control Water
Cure Critical Wounds
Dimensional Anchor
Discern Lies
Dismissal
Giant Vermin
Inflict Critical Wounds
Magic Weapon, Greater
Neutralize Poison
Poison
Repel Vermin
Restoration
Sending
Tongues

Druid:

Antiplant Shell
Blight
Command Plants
Control Water
Cure Serious Wounds
Dispel Magic
Flame Strike
Giant Vermin
Reincarnate
Rusting Grasp
Scrying
Summon Nature’s Ally IV

Can you tell me what's wrong with potentially allowing these spells into an E6 game, with the appropriate limitations (longer casting times, expensive material/focus/XP components, extremely limited number of available slots)? These are all core-only, by the way: I got lazy almost as soon as I opened up the Spell Compendium.

In sum: For every Polymorph, Lesser Globe of Invulnerability or Celerity, there are are ten Command Plants, Fire Trap, or Remove Curse. A blanket ban on 4th-level spells because of the former disregards the latter.

[Malachei]

Of course you can downgrade 4th level spells to 3rd level equivalents. Arguably, you can also find 4th level (and above) spells that are weaker than specific 3rd level counterparts.

If, for variety's sake, you need more spells in your E6 game, no problem. If you pick the weaker 4th level spells, no problem again. But probably, the non-casters will argue that they should, then get adequate options -- what about items, maneuvers and stances?


I am actually among the more lenient (...) I've played with

Me, too :smallbiggrin:

[Gnorman]

Obviously, I'm okay with adding 4th-level spells to E6, but I have to agree with the limitations proposed - I knew no matter what no spellcasting class I designed would gain the ability to cast Polymorph. I gave no classes Solid Fog or Lesser Globe of Invulnerability. I've allowed Greater Invisibility, Scrying and Celerity, but gave them to the least combat-capable spellcasting classes (and I still sometimes think about removing them). Probably the biggest offender in my system is Enervation (which belongs to the mage class with one of the more capable spell lists and powerful class abilities, albeit limited to one specific archetype), but for whatever reason people seem to be hesitant to play evil necromancer types, so it makes for a really nasty villain more than a powerful PC (this is not an argument in its favor, but merely an observation). By design, the more powerful spells were purposefully given to niche classes with less powerful in-combat options - Greater Invisibility and Celerity are restrained to the beguiler-like class, while Scrying is restricted to the priest-like. Coordinated mages may still be able to pull off the devastating combinations such spells are infamous for, but it becomes harder for one character alone to break the game. Keep in mind that all of my mage classes are spontaneous casters with limited spell lists, and so not really capable of the kind of abuse wizards and sorcerers are normally.

Long story short (or shorter): So far in playtesting, I haven't had terrible problems with making 4th level spells once-a-day spell-like abilities. No 4th-level slots means no metamagic abuse (no more so than regular E6, anyway), no bonus spells, nothing - once per day really means once per day. In the worst case, it offers a class an "I win this encounter" button once per day, which I don't find to be too awful and offers them a chance to feel the "epic" in "Epic 6". As a DM, if your encounters can be shut down with a single spell, it's not necessarily the spell's fault.

Real short version: Don't allow Polymorph, be real, real careful with the others, and 4th-level spells won't be the end of the world. Make sure you give non-spellcasting classes extra toys, too, though, or else they'll feel left out.

[Malachei]

No 4th-level slots means no metamagic abuse (no more so than regular E6, anyway), no bonus spells, nothing - once per day really means once per day.

I completely agree the aspect of limiting it to once per day and granting no spell slots is important.

Making it SLA's, however, means that they require no components, which makes them a very powerful tactic in a silence or similar situations.

[Cieyrin]

I am open to all official content, but not Dragon magazine, for good reason.

Dragon Compendium != Dragon Magazine. Dragon Mag material has jumped into official books more than once (Spell Compendium, Magic Item Compendium, numerous Completes) and Dragon Compendium is just a conglomeration of the best material from the magazine's history, cleaned up and offered for play in one source for easy referencing.

As for the discussion at hand, 4th level spells, powers, etc. (or higher) for anybody are something you need to discuss with your E6 group before you go in, as what's okay at one table is not kosher at another. There isn't a one-size-fits-all solution and expectations are going to vary, so they should vary by what house rules your individual E6 campaign is going to play by.

[Person_Man]

Not what you're looking for, but you can duplicate a few 4th or higher level spells effects via lower level soulmelds. It's worth mentioning because Soulmelds in particular work well in E6, since you can gain additional ones (plus essentia and chakra binds) with Feats. Examples include Dimension Door, Flesh to Stone, and Animate Dead.

[unundindur]

It sounds like we all more or less agree.

Don't allow it all, but if you want to allow the less powerful ones you can do it either by allowing a limited list of 4th level spells, downgrading some to 3rd level, or make them rituals that don't really interract with the regular spell system (akin to 4th edition). As I have said before, I am with the later crowd that prefer the rituals route, but as long as we all agree that allowing 4th level spells as such is a bad idea i am all cool :smalltongue:

[Gnorman]

It sounds like we all more or less agree.

Don't allow it all, but if you want to allow the less powerful ones you can do it either by allowing a limited list of 4th level spells, downgrading some to 3rd level, or make them rituals that don't really interract with the regular spell system (akin to 4th edition). As I have said before, I am with the later crowd that prefer the rituals route, but as long as we all agree that allowing 4th level spells as such is a bad idea i am all cool :smalltongue:

They're not a bad idea. I'd phrase it thusly:

"The addition of carefully-controlled, highly-limited 4th level spells will not utterly shatter the balance of E6."

[nedz]

Could the epic spellcasting rules be modified for 4th level spells ?

Since, in E6, they are.

[Gnorman]

Could the epic spellcasting rules be modified for 4th level spells ?

Since, in E6, they are.

Incantations are better. (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/variant/magic/incantations.htm)

Epic spellcasting is a disaster.

[Darth_Versity]

So would a simple answer to allowing a 4th level spell be a feat as a capstone ability.

Master of Magic (General)
Prerequisites: 6th character level, Caster Level 8, INT or CHA 18 (Arcane) or WIS 18 (Divine), Ability to cast 3 other spells of the same school as the chosen spell one of which must be at least 3rd level.
Benefit: Choose one 4th level spell available to your casting class that meets with your DM's approval. You must know and be able to cast at least 3 other spells of the same school, on of which must be at least 3rd level. You may cast the chosen spell once per day as a spell like ability.
Special: Unlike most spell like abilities, you must still perform any verbal or somantic components and pay any material or xp costs.

Would that be an acceptable way to deal with it?

With that in mind I assume a similar feat for Martial Adepts would be fine in E6.

Edit: Note I put caster level 8, thats because I have 2 feats that allow you to increase your CL by 1 each that can be taken at lvls 3 and 6. Similar to the BAB increasing feats I mentioned earlier.

[Malachei]

Dragon Compendium != Dragon Magazine. Dragon Mag material has jumped into official books more than once (Spell Compendium, Magic Item Compendium, numerous Completes) and Dragon Compendium is just a conglomeration of the best material from the magazine's history, cleaned up and offered for play in one source for easy referencing.

Please excuse my imprecise statement and be assured I am aware of that. For brevity, I think it is fair to include Dragon Compendium in the wider term Dragon Magazine, since the material origins there, is it not? :)

Also, would you agree that the statement official 3.5 RAW does not include Dragon Compendium?


It sounds like we all more or less agree.

Yes, but why make it a SLA?

And if not an SLA, why call it SLA and make an exception. Plus, SLA's do not profit from Spell Focus and such.

Also, why only for casting stat 18 characters? This basically forces every full caster to grab an 18 stat (or a 17 stat and raise at level-up). Not that they are not doing anyway, but still.

Darth_Versity, if I may expand on your suggestion:

Master of Magic
Prerequisites: Spellcraft 9 ranks, character level 6th, character has a minimum of three spell slots of third level via class feature and is able to cast three spells of the same school, one of which must be third level.
Effect: You gain one 4th level spell known. You can cast this spell once per day, as long as your spellcasting stat is high enough (i.e. 14), but not more, nor can you gain additional uses of the spell per day via any means (bonus spells, versatile spellcaster, or other rules do not apply to this spell).
This feat can be taken multiple times. Each time it is taken, you can choose to gain another spell or another daily use of the same spell.

Questions:
Do we agree this feat can be taken multiple times?
Can we / do we need to clean up the requirements a bit?

[Lonely Tylenol]

Yes, but why make it a SLA?

And if not an SLA, why call it SLA and make an exception. Plus, SLA's do not profit from Spell Focus and such.

Also, why only for casting stat 18 characters? This basically forces every full caster to grab an 18 stat (or a 17 stat and raise at level-up). Not that they are not doing anyway, but still.

If I may interject on this:

I have a casting stat 18 requirement on mine because the player essentially gains 0 4th-level spell slots, so the only way they could actually capitalize on it is to gain a 4th-level slot through bonus spells.

I have no idea why a SLA, though.

[Talya]

Play a nymph. (And be prepared to wait a LONG time until you get that first post-6HD advancement feat.)

[unundindur]

Could the epic spellcasting rules be modified for 4th level spells ?

Since, in E6, they are.

If you are thinking of epic spellcasting from 3.5; definantly not. Those rules are broken in and out already, and should not get any more attention than they already have.

The ritual system in 4th edition though is worth looking at. Basically you need a source (knowledge from a scroll for instance), you need a to reach a relatively low spellcraft DC and you need time on your hand, and possibly multiple casters.

The two latter aspects are those I really care about. Very few effects are problematic if it takes 1 hour to perform, and you need 5 wizards to do it.

[unundindur]

Yes, but why make it a SLA?

And if not an SLA, why call it SLA and make an exception. Plus, SLA's do not profit from Spell Focus and such.

Also, why only for casting stat 18 characters? This basically forces every full caster to grab an 18 stat (or a 17 stat and raise at level-up). Not that they are not doing anyway, but still.

Because making it an SLA takes away all the brokenness of the spellsystem. No longer will the GM and player have to argue over which 4th level spells are good and bad, its all unchartered territory, making it more obvious that this is GM-only territory. Also, as you mention you cannot make crazy feat-combinations with these (or you can, but it is more narrow, and difficult).

And I don't get the casting stat argument. Have I said you need a casting stat of 18?

[Malachei]

Because making it an SLA takes away all the brokenness of the spellsystem. No longer will the GM and player have to argue over which 4th level spells are good and bad, its all unchartered territory, making it more obvious that this is GM-only territory. Also, as you mention you cannot make crazy feat-combinations with these (or you can, but it is more narrow, and difficult).

And I don't get the casting stat argument. Have I said you need a casting stat of 18?

I'd say SLAs trade the brokenness of the spell system for the brokenness of the SLA system. :) I agree, however, that feat combinations may pose a threat. On the other hand, we're in a game allowing these feat-combinations for third-level spells, and now we're introducing hand-picked ("weaker") 4th level spells. I think a feat that poses no problem with a third-level should also pose no problem with a fourth-level spell. If anything, a potential feat issue with a 4th level spell should serve as an indicator that this 4th level spell is, after all, not a good candidate for E6. Which potentially abusive feats were you thinking about?

But that is not really my point. My point is mostly a consistency issue: An SLA never requires verbal and somatic components, nor XP or material components and is not affected by armor. It is also based on CHA.

I'd like to avoid something like "this is an SLA, but this SLA functions different from all other SLAs, and it really works more like a spell".

I would not like a new feat to deliver the precedent. Because by doing this, while introducing a comparably small change in a system, we touch something big.

[darksolitaire]

Play a nymph. (And be prepared to wait a LONG time until you get that first post-6HD advancement feat.)

:smalleek: Can you do that in E6? Nymphs have 6HD, level adjustment 7 and cast as Druid 7. *tries to look for subtle undertones of sarcasm.*

[Benly]

But that is not really my point. My point is mostly a consistency issue: An SLA never requires verbal and somatic components, nor XP or material components and is not affected by armor. It is also based on CHA.


Warlock and dragonfire adept SLAs have somatic components. Archmage SLAs have XP components. There is plenty of precedent for changing the general rule on this.

Moreover, you seem to have misunderstood. I don't think people are saying "let PCs pick any spell and convert it into an SLA", they're saying "you get an SLA off a restricted list". There are a limited number of spells that benefit substantially from the SLA conversion (essentially those with expensive material components or XP components); if those are not on the table, the primary effect of making it an SLA is to give a small advantage (you can cast your most powerful spell while Silenced) in exchange for preventing all manner of metamagic, Versatile Spellcaster, and other spell-slot-monkeying shenanigans intended to get around the restriction of "this one spell, once per day".

[Cieyrin]

Please excuse my imprecise statement and be assured I am aware of that. For brevity, I think it is fair to include Dragon Compendium in the wider term Dragon Magazine, since the material origins there, is it not? :)

Also, would you agree that the statement official 3.5 RAW does not include Dragon Compendium?

I don't think Dragon Compendium is any further outside RAW than any other WotC published book, as it's definitely 1st party. The articles and features than made it into the book received revisions, proofreading, editing and the work that other books in the 3.5 1st party library received (as circumspect as that is in places, considering this is WotC we're talking about). I see no reason to dismiss Dragon Compendium as if it was Kalamar, Dragonlance, Dark Sun or Ravenloft when, unlike them, DC was published by WotC and is as legitimate as any other official WotC 3.5 product.

[nedz]

Master of Magic (General)
Prerequisites: 6th character level, Caster Level 8, INT or CHA 18 (Arcane) or WIS 18 (Divine), Ability to cast 3 other spells of the same school as the chosen spell one of which must be at least 3rd level.
Benefit: Choose one 4th level spell available to your casting class that meets with your DM's approval. You must know and be able to cast at least 3 other spells of the same school, on of which must be at least 3rd level. You may cast the chosen spell once per day as a spell like ability.
Special: Unlike most spell like abilities, you must still perform any verbal or somantic components and pay any material or xp costs.

Would that be an acceptable way to deal with it?

With that in mind I assume a similar feat for Martial Adepts would be fine in E6.

Edit: Note I put caster level 8, thats because I have 2 feats that allow you to increase your CL by 1 each that can be taken at lvls 3 and 6. Similar to the BAB increasing feats I mentioned earlier.

Stat pre-reqs are normally odd.
This doesn't work for Bards, which may be fine ?
I take it the SLA is to stop exploiting the slot for metamagic. This is sorceror like rather than wizard like.
I like the school restiction for wizards, but does that work for Clerics and Druids ?
I would re-word the DM approval bit, maybe something along the lines of "should such a spell exist". This means the same thing, of course.
CL 8, suppose I don't want to bump my CL ?

[Stegyre]

I don't think Dragon Compendium is any further outside RAW than any other WotC published book, as it's definitely 1st party. The articles and features than made it into the book received revisions, proofreading, editing and the work that other books in the 3.5 1st party library received (as circumspect as that is in places, considering this is WotC we're talking about). I see no reason to dismiss Dragon Compendium as if it was Kalamar, Dragonlance, Dark Sun or Ravenloft when, unlike them, DC was published by WotC and is as legitimate as any other official WotC 3.5 product.
DC is published by Paizo, not WotC. (http://www.amazon.com/Dragon-Compendium-Volume-Dungeons-Dragons/dp/0977007146/ref=cm_cr_pr_product_top)

That . . . kind of derails your argument right there.

Of course, anyone is free to use whatever they want in their own campaigns, up to and including ruling various 1st-party publications in or out. The prejudice against Dragon material (including DC) is widespread and not without foundation. As a rule, I wouldn't allow it either, although I'd be open to particular instances.

[darksolitaire]

But it says 100% official Dungeons and Dragons content! They would put that on the cover if it were, say, 90% official, would they?

In addition,
In 2002, Paizo Publishing acquired the rights to publish both Dragon and Dungeon under license from Wizards of the Coast. It tied Dragon more closely to Dungeon by including articles supporting and promoting its major multi-issue adventures such as the Age of Worms and Savage Tide. Class Acts, monthly one or two-page articles offering ideas for developing specific character classes, were also introduced by Paizo.
-Wikipedia

And lastly, there is some broken stuff like Mind Mage in Dragon, but there's broken stuff in books published directly by Wizards. And then there is lots of stuff that isn't broken. As 3.5 was put down in 2007, Dragon magazine is the last place to scour "new" material.

As a quick side note, the book Dragonlance Campaign Setting, is 1st party.

[Cieyrin]

DC is published by Paizo, not WotC. (http://www.amazon.com/Dragon-Compendium-Volume-Dungeons-Dragons/dp/0977007146/ref=cm_cr_pr_product_top)

That . . . kind of derails your argument right there.

Of course, anyone is free to use whatever they want in their own campaigns, up to and including ruling various 1st-party publications in or out. The prejudice against Dragon material (including DC) is widespread and not without foundation. As a rule, I wouldn't allow it either, although I'd be open to particular instances.

Son of a... missed that it was just an officially Licensed Wizard product and not an actual WotC product. Well, I feel silly, now.

On the other hand, I find off-hand dismissing of material just based on its source silly as well, considering 3.5 et. al is just as out of print and at times just as unbalanced. Especially considering we're talking about essentially homebrew material that is E6. To each their own, I suppose.

I think I've also been off-tangent enough from the main thread topic, so I return you to 4th level E6 discussion. :smallwink:

Incidentally, Master of Magic could probably be generalized to work with whatever caster or subsystem by referring to the next higher level ability that can be gained at ECL 7th or 8th. Also applying the Epic tag to it, which since we're talking about E6, is generally used to refer to post 6th level feat advancement and will save you some text. That'll make it more generally useful, though a name change would probably be warranted, especially where ToB is concerned.

[Malachei]

Moreover, you seem to have misunderstood.

How I like to read this statement.

Be assured, I have not misunderstood the point you've been addressing (as I've been involved in the discussion of the restricted list). My point was that there are aspects of SLAs that have to be considered, as well.

For instance, the Empower SLA feat. Prerequisite: Caster level 6th. Ooops!

Only potentially an issue: Quicken SLA feat. Prerequisites: Caster level 10th. How does Practiced Spellcaster work in E6?

Also, SLAs are keyed off Charisma, does that favor Sorcerers and Dread Necromancers over several other spellcasting classes? As written, the SLA version of the feat is still keyed off Charisma, not off the characters primary spellcasting stat.

All I'm saying is before making this a SLA, make sure we have discussed the consequences.

@ Dragon Magazine / Compendium: I'd say the argument that 3.5 is unbalanced as well is in favor of leaving Dragon out, because you draw a line somewhere. Often, it is not the individual feats & spells that are the big issue, it is the combinations that break the game.

[Benly]

How I like to read this statement.
For instance, the Empower SLA feat. Prerequisite: Caster level 6th. Ooops!

Only potentially an issue: Quicken SLA feat. Prerequisites: Caster level 10th. How does Practiced Spellcaster work in E6?

These require CL 12 and 16 respectively to be applied to a level 4-equivalent SLA, and it's a lot harder to get around that than it is to apply "free" metamagic to normally-cast spells. "Ooops!", you say.

Edit: Specifically, they require that CL with that particular SLA, so most CL-boosting tricks won't help.


Also, SLAs are keyed off Charisma, does that favor Sorcerers and Dread Necromancers over several other spellcasting classes? As written, the SLA version of the feat is still keyed off Charisma, not off the characters primary spellcasting stat.

I'm fairly sure that there are specific SLAs in print keyed to other abilities, but since I'm not really up to digging through my books for the exceptions I'm not going to fight over that one. It should be made explicit in whatever SLA-granting ability or feat you choose to use, though, since as you say Cha is the general rule.

[Malachei]

"Ooops!", you say.

Thanks for pointing that out :)


Edit: Specifically, they require that CL with that particular SLA, so most CL-boosting tricks won't help.

I'd be interested in the source, because I'd really like to keep that handy for the future. I like that aspect, although I question it, because, IIRC, there are monsters with just a generic caster level, and not a caster level pointed out for each SLA separately. I know that when you gain an SLA (via feat, for instance), your caster level is set to your character level, so it is harder to boost. Did you dig up another source? I might have ooops'ed, though :)


I'm not going to fight over that one.

This is not about fighting, is it? It is the joint development of a good houserule, isn't it? Everybody's contributing, is it not? We're on one "project team", hey? :smallbiggrin:

Share the love!

[Cieyrin]

Practiced Spellcaster doesn't need to work differently in E6 than in regular, as all it does is raise your CL by 4, up to your HD, which means that it would stop at CL 6, not go past it, since no E6 characters have more than 6 HD (unless Lycanthropy kicks in, which seems an odd way of getting around E6 CL limits).

[Darth_Versity]

I'd be interested in the source, because I'd really like to keep that handy for the future. I like that aspect, although I question it, because, IIRC, there are monsters with just a generic caster level, and not a caster level pointed out for each SLA separately. I know that when you gain an SLA (via feat, for instance), your caster level is set to your character level, so it is harder to boost. Did you dig up another source? I might have ooops'ed, though!

It in the feat description, they limit what level of ability can be used.

[Malachei]

See? I knew I oops'ed it again. :)

My lack of familiarity with E6's finer secrets is only overshadowed by my laziness of not re-reading the SLA feats.

BUT (you knew there was a but, didn't you) we still have the casting stat issue.

What potential other issues can could come up?

[nedz]

I'd be interested in the source, because I'd really like to keep that handy for the future. I like that aspect, although I question it, because, IIRC, there are monsters with just a generic caster level, and not a caster level pointed out for each SLA separately. I know that when you gain an SLA (via feat, for instance), your caster level is set to your character level, so it is harder to boost. Did you dig up another source? I might have ooops'ed, though :)


There's a table in the back of the MM

[Malachei]

Yes, I have that book :smallbiggrin:

No, seriously, I know I had a funny streak in this thread. Forgive me for trying to get this a little bit lighter.

Oh yes, and: One for the team :smallbiggrin:

I knew about the SLA, my question was if there is a precedent for a creature having a different caster level for several of its SLAs. I guess it can be done, for instance if a creature who already has SLAs acquires another SLA via some method, but are there examples of creatures, right out of the book?

@Darth_Versity: As you are the OP, would you please be so kind and update the feat description you had proposed? Ideally, please include something along the lines of "The SLA's DC is determined based on the character's spellcasting attribute." and, perhaps, just for further clarification, "the SLA's spell does not represent a spell known for the character."

[Stegyre]

What potential other issues can could come up?
I cannot immediately lay hands on it, but I recall a feat for converting an SLA to a Su ability, which would open up certain feats that effectively apply metamagics to Su without the level restrictions for similar effects on SLAs. (e.g., Empower Su (ToM), usable once per day per feat.)

Per item creation rules, the SLA may also serve as the basis for an appropriate magic item:

A spell prerequisite may be provided by a character who has prepared the spell (or who knows the spell, in the case of a sorcerer or bard), or through the use of a spell completion or spell trigger magic item or a spell-like ability that produces the desired spell effect.(link (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/magicItems/magicItemBasics.htm)). Since wands may hold up to 4th-level spells, that may be one of the biggest RAW issues right there: a once-a-day SLA is suddenly the source of multiple 50-usage wands.

[Gnorman]

I cannot immediately lay hands on it, but I recall a feat for converting an SLA to a Su ability, which would open up certain feats that effectively apply metamagics to Su without the level restrictions for similar effects on SLAs. (e.g., Empower Su (ToM), usable once per day per feat.)

Per item creation rules, the SLA may also serve as the basis for an appropriate magic item:
(link (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/magicItems/magicItemBasics.htm)). Since wands may hold up to 4th-level spells, that may be one of the biggest RAW issues right there: a once-a-day SLA is suddenly the source of multiple 50-usage wands.

The Empower SLA, conversion to Su, Empower Su ability chain is much more laborious than simply picking up Sudden Empower. It's all a crapshoot anyway unless we insert a "no metamagic or feats/abilities that mimic the effects of metamagic may be applied to this spell/SLA" clause.

Relevant text from the Craft Wand feat:


You can create a wand of any 4th-level or lower spell that you know.

And from the rules on crafting wands:


The creator must have prepared the spell to be stored (or must know the spell, in the case of a sorcerer or bard) and must provide any focuses the spell requires

Since a spell-like ability is not technically a spell that you know, nor can it be "prepared" per se, you can't use it to craft wands. If anything, the potential for creating wands comes about through the conventional method of gaining the spell - the SLA is actually less abusable in this situation. I will acknowledge, however, that due to the following quote this is debatable territory:


A spell prerequisite may be provided by a character who has prepared the spell (or who knows the spell, in the case of a sorcerer or bard), or through the use of a spell completion or spell trigger magic item or a spell-like ability that produces the desired spell effect.

I hew to "specific trumps general" here, though, and also point out that while wands require you to prepare/know the proper spell, they do not technically have a "spell prerequisite", at least not in the way that Boots of Speed have a spell prerequisite of Haste. But that is one man's highly nitpicky interpretation of RAW.

Regardless, another clause to be inserted: "This spell/SLA cannot be used to craft items of any kind."

[Talya]

:smalleek: Can you do that in E6? Nymphs have 6HD, level adjustment 7 and cast as Druid 7. *tries to look for subtle undertones of sarcasm.*

Without using the optional rules for level adjusted races, and without a sane DM, absolutely.

Your REAL character level is your hit dice, period. All Level Adjustment does is influence the experience you get, and the amount of experience needed to advance. A goliath with LA +1 can still hit Barbarian 6, they just take 21,000 xp to do so instead of 15,000. In regular D20, a half-celestial level 20 crusader is not an epic character. They needed the experience to get to level 24, but they're still not epic, and couldn't take epic feats. They're entirely appropriate for a game in which epic levels aren't even allowed.

But yeah, it goes entirely against the spirit of E6 and a DM should shoot you for asking. (Not that a nymph would be all that overpowered in E6...they are rather weak for their hit dice.)

[Gnorman]

There are also clearly-stated rules for playing characters with LA in E6 that circumvent that - rather than starting out at the adjusted ECL, your point buy is reduced. However, they only provide guidelines for up to LA +4 (which receives a 0 point buy).


Q: With only 6 levels, how do races with a level adjustment work?
If you use races with a level adjustment, the 6th level cap is a big issue. Use the point buy rules in the DMG as follows:
LA Point buy
+0 32
+1 25
+2 18
+3 10
+4 00

If you wanted to get really wonky you could extend that table into the negatives to accommodate creatures with LA +5 and above, but that's veering straight into insanity.

[Eisenfavl]

There are also clearly-stated rules for playing characters with LA in E6 that circumvent that - rather than starting out at the adjusted ECL, your point buy is reduced. However, they only provide guidelines for up to LA +4 (which receives a 0 point buy).
But E6 is only the rule that you stop at level 6 and get feats at every 5000 xp beyond that. Everything else is just (further) homebrew, and not a necessary part of E6, like that LA table.
The idea of LA in E6 is inherently imbalanced. Either the XP is worth more to you than it is to others, or your template gives you plenty of attributes BEYOND your companions, in addition to awesome abilities.

[Malachei]

@Gnorman: Good points. Based on the last part you quoted, like you, I'd consider it debatable.

Now we're at the point where we define the restrictions towards the SLA much like we'd define restrictions towards the spell.

What is the advantage of

This SLA cannot be used to create items, cannot be the subject of metamagic and other feats, does not count as one of your spells known for all other purposes and requires verbal, somatic, material and XP cost as the spell would.

over

This spell cannot be used to create items, cannot be the subject of metamagic and other feats and does not count as one of your spells known for all other purposes.

?

My point: The second text is shorter.

[Darth_Versity]

@Darth_Versity: As you are the OP, would you please be so kind and update the feat description you had proposed? Ideally, please include something along the lines of "The SLA's DC is determined based on the character's spellcasting attribute." and, perhaps, just for further clarification, "the SLA's spell does not represent a spell known for the character."

Ok, how about this then

Master of Magic (General)
Prerequisites: 6th character level, Spellcraft 9 ranks, Caster Level 8, Ability to cast 3 other spells of the same school as the chosen spell one of which must be at least 3rd level.
Benefit: Choose one 4th level spell available to your casting class that meets with your DM's approval. You must know and be able to cast at least 3 other spells of the same school, on of which must be at least 3rd level. You may cast the chosen spell once per day as a spell of your casting class (with the usual DC's for a fourth level spell).
Special: Unlike most spells, you cannot use the chosen spell for the creation of magic items.

It stops the creation of wands and any abuse that would allow more castings per day.

[Malachei]

This looks great.

Do you wish the spell to be affected by metamagic feats? If not, we should include a sentence ruling this out.

How about versatile spellcaster? Though it says "once per day", a player using versatile spellcaster might still argue that using two third-level spells would entitle him to an additional use. If you want to rule this out, as well, we should include a sentence.

A suggestion would be: "The spell cannot be affected by feats, and other than taking this feat again, you cannot gain additional uses of the spell per day."

Of course, there's probably a better wording.

[Talya]

There are also clearly-stated rules for playing characters with LA in E6

Yes, I mentioned those.


Without using the optional rules for level adjusted races

[Stegyre]

Without using the optional rules for level adjusted races, and without a sane DM, absolutely.

Your REAL character level is your hit dice, period. All Level Adjustment does is influence the experience you get, and the amount of experience needed to advance.
'Not saying that reasoning could never fly, but I have a tough time seeing how it would. :smallconfused:

In my (admittedly-limited) experience, references to "character level" are nigh-universally understood to refer to ECL, which will include LA. The E6 LA rules are a work-around to allow LA+ races in a house-rule setting that would otherwise severely cripple or out-right prevent them.

I would be interested if any campaign thread permitted you to use a nymph in a "level 6 campaign" with this reasoning.