PDA

View Full Version : Epic-level class choices



Counterpower
2007-05-21, 07:08 PM
How about "whatever I feel like?"

I saw this on the "Fighter feats" thread, about how completely useless a fighter is at those levels. That isn't even what I'm worried about. What gets my attention is the multitude of people who were suggesting inventive ways to get out of playing the given build or just flat out saying "you're doomed since you're not a caster." Here's a new thought: why should I care? Why should I not create the character I want to play? And before I get the "you'll die in combat or just watch while the wizard does everything" line, I would like to respectfully submit that a good DM is supposed to design challenging encounters and/or adventures. If someone at the table IS that bored, the DM is most assuredly not doing their job right. My fighter 27 will be looking a lot more effective after 96 hours with no chance to refresh spells. (This is epic. It's a distinct possibility, no?)

My next character may very well be a halfling swordsage whose life's dream is to wield Eventide's Edge (the Setting Sun discipline sword) in one hand and Umbral Awn (the Shadow Hand discipline sword) in the other. Sure, TWF isn't the most effective combat option. In fact, anything that just isn't a wizard apparently sucks. Even if that is the case, why would you try to get in my way of how I would like to play my game?

Raroy
2007-05-21, 07:12 PM
You can do whatever you want. And people really shouldn't care.

JaronK
2007-05-21, 07:15 PM
Here's the issue: if someone wants to play a fighter at epic levels, and the rest of the group has casters, they will not enjoy it. The fighter will just sit there being completely incapable of keeping up. Imagine, if you will, a role playing game where you must save the world from evil. Three people say "I'm playing a super warrior" and one says "I want to play a three year old toddler with a limp." The general advice there, too, would be "don't."

JaronK

Emperor Tippy
2007-05-21, 07:17 PM
How about "whatever I feel like?"

I saw this on the "Fighter feats" thread, about how completely useless a fighter is at those levels. That isn't even what I'm worried about. What gets my attention is the multitude of people who were suggesting inventive ways to get out of playing the given build or just flat out saying "you're doomed since you're not a caster." Here's a new thought: why should I care? Why should I not create the character I want to play? And before I get the "you'll die in combat or just watch while the wizard does everything" line, I would like to respectfully submit that a good DM is supposed to design challenging encounters and/or adventures. If someone at the table IS that bored, the DM is most assuredly not doing their job right. My fighter 27 will be looking a lot more effective after 96 hours with no chance to refresh spells. (This is epic. It's a distinct possibility, no?)

Let's see. All the things wrong with this. First, in the thread you are referring to the person doesn't want to take those levels. She pretty much asked for inventive ways to avoid them.

And no, the DM can't do anything about it. I can make a level 29 wizard that can not be killed by anything that doesn't have a caster level higher than his or a divine rank. This wizard also has the ability to kill anything within a thousand miles of him at will as a free action with a save that is so high most gods won't make it.

What will the DM do? AMF? My powers work inside them. Monsters? They die with a look. How exactly does a fighter contribute?



My next character may very well be a halfling swordsage whose life's dream is to wield Eventide's Edge (the Setting Sun discipline sword) in one hand and Umbral Awn (the Shadow Hand discipline sword) in the other. Sure, TWF isn't the most effective combat option. In fact, anything that just isn't a wizard apparently sucks. Even if that is the case, why would you try to get in my way of how I would like to play my game?

ToB classes are quite effective outside of epic. And there are only a few things that truly suck at high levels. Swordsage isn't one of them.

And at epic levels epic spellcasting really does win D&D. Nothing except other epic casters even stands a chance of beating you.

Dhavaer
2007-05-21, 07:19 PM
Out of curiosity, is Epic any more balanced without Epic spellcasting?

Fourth Tempter
2007-05-21, 07:22 PM
Yes, a thousand times more balanced--which is still very, very unbalanced, mind you.

Counterspin
2007-05-21, 07:25 PM
Another titanic hissyfit about other people expressing their opinions. If you don't want to hear people talk about fighters, maybe you should stay out of threads about fighters. We don't care how you play your game at home. No seriously, we don't, I promise. Additionally, if you don't want people to make suggestions about your build, maybe you should avoid posting them on forums that exist for that purpose.

People are trying to help you make an effective character so you can have more fun at your game. Stop acting like people are gathering around to take turns beating you with a stick.

SpiderBrigade
2007-05-21, 07:29 PM
It's not like there are a lot of threads where the poster just says "Oh hay guys I was thinking of playing a fighter isn't that cool?" and people jump down his throat with "OMG play a wizard, wizards are better than everything!"

What you DO see is people asking for optimization advice for a certain character concept. Let me repeat that: ASKING FOR OPTIMIZATION ADVICE. In this specific case, asking how to make an effective epic-level character with the given options.

I don't think it's at all out of place to at least point out that it's particularly difficult to make an effective epic character with 20 fighter levels. Nor is it inappropriate to mention that in epic play, spellcasters are even better than usual.

An analogy would be the following, on a pet-training forum. "Hey guys, I was wondering what would be the best way to train a pet to get along with small children. Oh btw it's a rabid hyena." I don't think it's out of place to point out that you're going to have trouble doing that with a rabid hyena, and you might have better luck with a kitten or puppy.

PaladinBoy
2007-05-21, 07:39 PM
I understand the OP's point.

Frankly, I think that your DM isn't being very intelligent if he can't come up with a way to give the fighter a way to contribute. Even if that means letting the epic wizards duel while the high level fighters have their fight, then the fighter is still doing something. Whether or not it's a major contribution depends on how much the enemy fighters help the other wizard. And last I checked, "29th level wizard plus 3 29th level fighter bodyguards" can beat "29th level wizard" any time. So you can say that the fighter and his help are absolutely essential fot the PC wizard's survival. Meatshield might not be the most glamorous job, particularly given the wizard's flashy spells, but it is a job.

Conterspin: That might be true, except most of the advice I've seen about playing fighters at epic (including the thread the OP mentioned) boils down to: "You're screwed. Play something else." That's not helping someone make an effective character, that's telling them that they can't.

Jimp
2007-05-21, 07:48 PM
I seriously think that we should just sticky two topics at this stage: 1. Let's Talk About PHB Melee and 2. Let's Talk About Full Casters.

My contribution to the the topic:
Once you get 3rd level spells it's wizard city baby.

Emperor Tippy
2007-05-21, 07:48 PM
I understand the OP's point.

Frankly, I think that your DM isn't being very intelligent if he can't come up with a way to give the fighter a way to contribute. Even if that means letting the epic wizards duel while the high level fighters have their fight, then the fighter is still doing something. Whether or not it's a major contribution depends on how much the enemy fighters help the other wizard. And last I checked, "29th level wizard plus 3 29th level fighter bodyguards" can beat "29th level wizard" any time. So you can say that the fighter and his help are absolutely essential fot the PC wizard's survival. Meatshield might not be the most glamorous job, particularly given the wizard's flashy spells, but it is a job.

Those 3 fighter would buy the wizard MAYBE a round. You don't get it, do you? My AC is 1,000,000. Every one of my saves is 1,000,000. All my ability scores are 1,000,000. My resistance to Slashing, Piercing, and Bludgeoning weapons is 1,000,000 (meaning you have to deal more than a million damage of 1 of those types to damage me for the round).

All of those fighters also have to make a DC 1,000,000 will save or they will turn on the wizard and attack him.


Conterspin: That might be true, except most of the advice I've seen about playing fighters at epic (including the thread the OP mentioned) boils down to: "You're screwed. Play something else." That's not helping someone make an effective character, that's telling them that they can't.

You can't make an effective epic level fighter if epic magic exists like it does in RAW. It realyl isn't possible.

Jimp
2007-05-21, 07:52 PM
29th level fighter

Counter: Forcecage

Emperor Tippy
2007-05-21, 07:57 PM
Counter: Forcecage

Why waste a spell? I just say you die and the fighter falls over dead. All I lose is 1 swift action. Which since I took many spell multiple times is something I can cast a bunch of.

Epic magic is just that broken.

Counterpower
2007-05-21, 08:14 PM
Those 3 fighter would buy the wizard MAYBE a round. You don't get it, do you? My AC is 1,000,000. Every one of my saves is 1,000,000. All my ability scores are 1,000,000. My resistance to Slashing, Piercing, and Bludgeoning weapons is 1,000,000 (meaning you have to deal more than a million damage of 1 of those types to damage me for the round).

All of those fighters also have to make a DC 1,000,000 will save or they will turn on the wizard and attack him.



You can't make an effective epic level fighter if epic magic exists like it does in RAW. It realyl isn't possible.

You don't seem to get it either, actually. Let me put this simply: actually playing D&D isn't all this theoretical "i can have uber-win saves." Let me point out that regardless of what the book says, that if one of my players tried to create a way by which they could do that, my answer would be no. There is a DM on the other side of the table. In my case, right now, I am that person. If one of my players tells me "I'm going to cast this epic spell and have an AC of 6,000" I wll refuse to allow that. Epic magic is only that broken when the DM allows it to be. Is there a DM in the world who would actually allow such insanity?

And for the scenario that PaladinBoy posted: there is a wizard on both sides here. An arms race between the players and the DM will inevitably end with the players in pieces. Even then, it would be nice to know exactly by what mechanic you would do any of that. Leadership cheese? It isn't a given to make a 29th-level fighter fall over dead. How are you going to mitigate the DC?

Also: this isn't "trying for help creating an epic character." The original thread was "need 19 feats for this build."

JaronK: The analogy doesn't seem right. There is no way a toddler with a limp could be useful. Given a canny DM and a group of people who weren't trying to create demigods, a epic-level fighter could be useful.

Finally: If I want optimization advice on my fighter build, it would be really helpful if people would actually provide it. Instead of saying "you're going to suck anyway. Go play a wizard." Had I been the first person to respond to the aforementioned thread, it might have gone something like "well, fighters aren't all that great at epic level anyway. But, if you're sure, these feats are nice." That wasn't what the OP of that thread got. In fact, my "optimization" efforts generally revolve around what my character is trying to do.

JaronK
2007-05-21, 08:22 PM
JaronK: The analogy doesn't seem right. There is no way a toddler with a limp could be useful. Given a canny DM and a group of people who weren't trying to create demigods, a epic-level fighter could be useful.

The issue here is that the power level of an epic fighter, compared to that of an epic spellcaster, is roughly equivalent to the power of a toddler with a limp compared to the terminator. It's so completely not in the same league that there is nothing the fighter could contribute to that the wizard (or druid, or cleric, or whatever) couldn't do with a mere thought (or more to the point, a swift action). Wizards can cast spells like "find the person I name, regardless of where they are or what plane they are on, and kill them unless they make a DC 250 fort save" or "tell me where the magic item I'm searching for is automatically" or "Kill everything of X race" or "make me effectively immune to getting hurt by any physical attack." That's what epic spellcasting does. The fighter just can't even get close.

JaronK

Emperor Tippy
2007-05-21, 08:23 PM
You don't seem to get it either, actually. Let me put this simply: actually playing D&D isn't all this theoretical "i can have uber-win saves." Let me point out that regardless of what the book says, that if one of my players tried to create a way by which they could do that, my answer would be no. There is a DM on the other side of the table. In my case, right now, I am that person. If one of my players tells me "I'm going to cast this epic spell and have an AC of 6,000" I wll refuse to allow that. Epic magic is only that broken when the DM allows it to be. Is there a DM in the world who would actually allow such insanity?

What the DM allows or not doesn't matter. You are nerfing the wizard to make the fighter stand half a chance. You are acknowledging that the fighter can't keep up in RAW at those levels.


And for the scenario that PaladinBoy posted: there is a wizard on both sides here. An arms race between the players and the DM will inevitably end with the players in pieces. Even then, it would be nice to know exactly by what mechanic you would do any of that. Leadership cheese? It isn't a given to make a 29th-level fighter fall over dead. How are you going to mitigate the DC?

Who said you need to mitigate the DC? The Spellcraft check is at well over 40,000,000 by this point.

And the wizard on the other side doesn't matter. He could destroy my fighters if I had them. But I don't. He can't 1 hit me and I can't 1 hit him. We would war for eons and the world woudl go up in flames around us but if both were played at peak ability and had exactly the same amount of time to do stuff then it would never end.


Also: this isn't "trying for help creating an epic character." The original thread was "need 19 feats for this build."

JaronK: The analogy doesn't seem right. There is no way a toddler with a limp could be useful. Given a canny DM and a group of people who weren't trying to create demigods, a epic-level fighter could be useful.

NO IT CAN'T. An Epic fighter is more of a liability than he is any potential use.


Finally: If I want optimization advice on my fighter build, it would be really helpful if people would actually provide it. Instead of saying "you're going to suck anyway. Go play a wizard." Had I been the first person to respond to the aforementioned thread, it might have gone something like "well, fighters aren't all that great at epic level anyway. But, if you're sure, these feats are nice." That wasn't what the OP of that thread got. In fact, my "optimization" efforts generally revolve around what my character is trying to do.

The best way to optimize a fighter is to not take more than 2 levels of it. We where offering optimization advice.

Counterpower
2007-05-21, 08:33 PM
The issue here is that the power level of an epic fighter, compared to that of an epic spellcaster, is roughly equivalent to the power of a toddler with a limp compared to the terminator. It's so completely not in the same league that there is nothing the fighter could contribute to that the wizard (or druid, or cleric, or whatever) couldn't do with a mere thought (or more to the point, a swift action). Wizards can cast spells like "find the person I name, regardless of where they are or what plane they are on, and kill them unless they make a DC 250 fort save" or "tell me where the magic item I'm searching for is automatically" or "Kill everything of X race" or "make me effectively immune to getting hurt by any physical attack." That's what epic spellcasting does. The fighter just can't even get close.

JaronK

Right. May I point out, from the Epic Level Handbook:

Approval: This is the final step, and it's critically important. You must show your epic spell development work and reasoning to your DM and get his approval. If your DM doesn't approve, then the epic spell cannot be developed.
Emphasis mine. And I still would like to know how exactly you mitigate the insane DCs on those spells, or why they aren't that high.

Tippy: Did I ever once say that the fighter was the wizard's equal? I defy you to quote me in that. My point is that if I want to play a fighter 29, a little help in sorting through all of the possible feats would be welcomed. I wouldn't get that, would I?

Other points: how in the Nine do you get your Spellcraft to 40,000,000 at 29th level? Also, the split second you spend on his fighters is a split second you don't have fighting him. Finally: what if I want to create the best fighter I possibly can? What is wrong with helping someone optimize, as much as can be done, a fighter?

JaronK
2007-05-21, 08:37 PM
To mitigate the insane DCs requires summoning solars to help take down those DCs. It's something a Wizard can do trivially easy.

And yes, the DM is supposed to approve of new spells... but as written, the entire system is overpowered. Pretty much any epic spell is going to be insanely strong.

JaronK

Ulzgoroth
2007-05-21, 08:47 PM
The approval clause exists, but if you're using it to say either "you can't use the seeds, as printed." or "you can't directly adapt the pre-built epic spells", you're actually saying that you aren't even trying to use the epic magic system. Which is a good choice, it sounds like...

I am curious how you get a skill check above a million without doing something that the DM has every right and reason to simply deny... If it's a ritual spell you can do the 'arbitrarily many permanently summoned outsiders helping' trick to mitigate the DC, but not for things you pull out on a moment's notice.

Emperor Tippy
2007-05-21, 08:52 PM
Yeah, but for x5 to the DC you can make a spell permanent. And you can create spells that allow the use of Spell Like abilities at will as a swift action for the duration of the spell.

And the Skill boosts should be permanent in the first place. Same with all the protection spells.

If you want real broken though you use origin of the species to create a race that can do pretty much anythign at will as an ex ability that takes a swift action and that then reproduces and the child switches minds with you. You then dismiss the origional.

crazedloon
2007-05-21, 08:53 PM
Really the problem with all this is the idiotic assumption that all DM's are stupid and unfair. I can get CL 70+ as well as 10000 or so spells per day and every spell known as well as saves 70+ at level 20 (i.e. pre epic) if my DM is stupid enough not to restrict me. However it is also the responsibility of the player to restrict his own play style. Sure I can play the above character but 1 would it be fun for my group. 2. Would it be fun for me the answer of course is no it would be far from fun.

Emperor Tippy
2007-05-21, 08:57 PM
Oh, no. It's great fun.

You just have fun and do pretty much whatever you want.

I've played both the BBEG and the BBGG in the same game. I kept messing with NPC adventurers.

Tea with Boccob is always fun as well. So is conducting experiments on uninhabited worlds to see what happens when you do whatever.

Social experiments that can take thousands of years to mature are always fun as well.

You are kinda like Sarda the Sage from 8-Bit Theater.

I once spent multipel lifetimes just going around memorizing every book ever published. Nice AutoHypnosis skill.

Counterpower
2007-05-21, 09:01 PM
To mitigate the insane DCs requires summoning solars to help take down those DCs. It's something a Wizard can do trivially easy.

And yes, the DM is supposed to approve of new spells... but as written, the entire system is overpowered. Pretty much any epic spell is going to be insanely strong.

JaronK

I assume said solars would help with ritual epic spells? Because honestly, I'm having a hard time thinking of something that would count as a "fair trade" for such service. Actually, I can't see a solar agreeing to such service at all, and I can't see the powers that be being too happy with you bending such creatures to your will, especially considering why you're doing it. Annoying gods is one of the most effective ways of committing assisted suicide.

And technically, as written, it isn't necessarily overpowered. Technically, it's got the approval common-sense check as written. My problem with that is that some people seem to assume that they can cast these spells, when in an actual game with real people, I just can't see it happening.

Tippy: Um........... I would not allow such a massive skill boost in any case. Nor would I allow the origin of species insanity either. Why would you want to do such things in an actual game anyway? Also, have you even considered what effect that has on everyone else's fun? I am running a campaign that I plan to take epic. I can't say I would particularly appreciate a wizard just instantaneously winning everything, and I doubt my players would either.

Ulzgoroth: I can't imagine any problems I would have with the seeds as printed, as long as the fairly restrictive consequences remain intact. Vengeful gaze of god should not be used by a 23rd level caster with no backlash damage. That's not to say it can't be used, but there must be consequences. I can't imagine that 23rd level caster using the aforementioned modifications to that spell using the "summoned outsiders" method, and I would refuse that spell if a player asked. And it's not like I wouldn't know ahead of time. If a player submits a spell that required 1,000 9th level slots sacrificed, I think I would disallow that without a really good explanation.

Thank you, crazedloon.

dyslexicfaser
2007-05-21, 09:12 PM
Note to self: never play an epic game. Ever.

Emperor Tippy
2007-05-21, 09:12 PM
I assume said solars would help with ritual epic spells? Because honestly, I'm having a hard time thinking of something that would count as a "fair trade" for such service. Actually, I can't see a solar agreeing to such service at all, and I can't see the powers that be being too happy with you bending such creatures to your will, especially considering why you're doing it. Annoying gods is one of the most effective ways of committing assisted suicide.

And technically, as written, it isn't necessarily overpowered. Technically, it's got the approval common-sense check as written. My problem with that is that some people seem to assume that they can cast these spells, when in an actual game with real people, I just can't see it happening.

Oh, I've played in epic games where you do that kind of stuff. It can be quite fun.


Tippy: Um........... I would not allow such a massive skill boost in any case. Nor would I allow the origin of species insanity either. Why would you want to do such things in an actual game anyway? Also, have you even considered what effect that has on everyone else's fun? I am running a campaign that I plan to take epic. I can't say I would particularly appreciate a wizard just instantaneously winning everything, and I doubt my players would either.

Realize, these are extreme examples. Even with reasonable Epic Spellcasting it is broken.

It is fun when you have 3 or 4 people who all have the power and do stuff just for fun.

"Hey bill, want to each build an entire world and after they have evolved, say a million years from now, we let them duke it out in an epic battle?"

"Yeah, that would be fun. We still on for poker tomorrow?"

"Yeah, Boccob is bringing the beer this time."

PaladinBoy
2007-05-21, 09:18 PM
If that epic wizard uses his epic magic cheese, then it gets much harder.

PC: "HAH! There's no way that those fighters will succeed this DC 200,000 Will save!"

Enemy: "Counterspell."

PC: "Well..... I can do it 5 more times before the round ends!"

Enemy: "Counterspell. 5 more times. Congratulations on wasting your round."

As a DM, would I want to do that? No. If we've reached that type of arms race, then our game has severe problems, and I would be looking for a different way to solve them. Then again, the approval clause in the epic spell design section means that I wouldn't have to let it get that far.

Also, I do agree that this type of arms race is not likely to end. The two wizards will be foiling each other for a rather long time. And while this is happening, you would have no energy to deal with the enemy fighters....... against a min-maxed epic wizard, leaving him alone for a quarter of a second to deal with a lesser threat will probably be the quarter second he needs. Then again, leaving the fighters alone isn't a particularly good idea either....... the enemy epic wizard would likely massively buff his personal bodyguards. Of course, if you had some help, then you wouldn't have to worry. That's where the fighter comes in. Would it be more effective to play something else? Perhaps. But a fighter will work well enough. And if you want to play a fighter, and you want help optimizing your level 29 fighter, then you should be able to do both.

Counterpower
2007-05-21, 09:24 PM
Oh, I've played in epic games where you do that kind of stuff. It can be quite fun.



Realize, these are extreme examples. Even with reasonable Epic Spellcasting it is broken.

It is fun when you have 3 or 4 people who all have the power and do stuff just for fun.

"Hey bill, want to each build an entire world and after they have evolved, say a million years from now, we let them duke it out in an epic battle?"

"Yeah, that would be fun. We still on for poker tomorrow?"

"Yeah, Boccob is bringing the beer this time."

I guess we've finally found the inevitable point in any debate that the two opposing sides just can't resolve, then. I can see that being fun once or twice, but not more than that. As D&D goes, I prefer something with a little more plot and a little more challenge. I believe, for many of the reasons I've already stated, that epic level is capable of that, and can be prevented from degenerating into one PC saying "I win." Regardless of which class you want to play.

Emperor Tippy
2007-05-21, 09:27 PM
Get a fighter to deal over 1,000,000 damage per round, make a DC 1,000,000 Will Save, and hit an AC of 1,000,000.

Now make sure they can all do that every round. That is the only time the wizard ever has to worry.

AtomicKitKat
2007-05-21, 09:36 PM
I can make a level 29 wizard that can not be killed by anything that doesn't have a caster level higher than his or a divine rank. This wizard also has the ability to kill anything within a thousand miles of him at will as a free action with a save that is so high most gods won't make it.

Except for the pesky fact that anything with a Divine Rank is immune to Instant Death Effects(barring wacky DEM like Hind's Blood), as you mentioned in the first sentence.:smalltongue:

JaronK
2007-05-21, 09:37 PM
Note to self: never play an epic game. Ever.

More like never play an epic game with epic spellcasting rules.

It's better if casters just get a few more spell slots and access to 10th level slots (for metamagic) and nothing else. Heck, do it right and the melees might even start to catch up a bit.

But yes, epic, as written, is horribly broken, with spellcasters capable of literally warping reality on a whim.

JaronK

Emperor Tippy
2007-05-21, 09:41 PM
Except for the pesky fact that anything with a Divine Rank is immune to Instant Death Effects(barring wacky DEM like Hind's Blood), as you mentioned in the first sentence.:smalltongue:

Who said we were using instant death effects? Start naming gods that can survive 10,000,000d6 of untyped damage.

It's not an Instant Death Effect even if the effect of it is instant death. :smallbiggrin:

Counterpower
2007-05-21, 09:44 PM
Get a fighter to deal over 1,000,000 damage per round, make a DC 1,000,000 Will Save, and hit an AC of 1,000,000.

Now make sure they can all do that every round. That is the only time the wizard ever has to worry.

I really have already explained why that would not be a worry in any games I play. However, as I speculated in my previous post, our games are sufficiently different that it's unlikely we can even understand where the other is coming from.

Not that any debate is undertaken with the intent to convince the other side. It's the undecided people that a debate is intended for. And it's people like dyslexicfaser who are the casualties of those epic-level horror stories. People who ignore a possibly fun style of play based on stories that I don't believe even exist in normal gameplay.

JaronK: Does anyone play D&D as written with players determined to exploit the system? (since only those determined to find exploits will bother with many of the methods to do so?)

Tippy: Here's one: all of them, since all of them have access to the exact same exploits that you do AND have had more time to use them.

JaronK
2007-05-21, 09:45 PM
JaronK: Does anyone play D&D as written with players determined to exploit the system? (since only those determined to find exploits will bother with many of the methods to do so?)

Here's what you're missing. These are not exploits of the Epic Spellcasting system. They're the nature of the system. They're exactly how the system works.

JaronK

Emperor Tippy
2007-05-21, 09:48 PM
I've played D&D as written with players who I expect to exploit the RAW. That was pretty much the whole purpose of the game. The PC's knew that they where in a D&D world (like the OotS) and they where fully expected to be as powergamey as possible.

Well actually, you have a much higher caster level then most statted out gods. So really, no. They don't survive.

Ulzgoroth
2007-05-21, 09:52 PM
And the Skill boosts should be permanent in the first place. Same with all the protection spells.
What seed grants skill bonuses? I can't find it.

I assume said solars would help with ritual epic spells? Because honestly, I'm having a hard time thinking of something that would count as a "fair trade" for such service. Actually, I can't see a solar agreeing to such service at all, and I can't see the powers that be being too happy with you bending such creatures to your will, especially considering why you're doing it. Annoying gods is one of the most effective ways of committing assisted suicide.
Summon seed says nothing about fair trades. Use it, with duration enhancers. I don't know about dealing with angry gods...maybe mix it up, grab some solars and some other things? Is the Solar supply even finite, anyway?

Ulzgoroth: I can't imagine any problems I would have with the seeds as printed, as long as the fairly restrictive consequences remain intact. Vengeful gaze of god should not be used by a 23rd level caster with no backlash damage. That's not to say it can't be used, but there must be consequences. I can't imagine that 23rd level caster using the aforementioned modifications to that spell using the "summoned outsiders" method, and I would refuse that spell if a player asked. And it's not like I wouldn't know ahead of time. If a player submits a spell that required 1,000 9th level slots sacrificed, I think I would disallow that without a really good explanation.
I said seeds, not spells. Vengeful Gaze of God is a spell of the kind that should mechanically get automatic approval, since it follows the presented rules exactly, but there are other things besides backlash that fall under that. Including the ritual magic DC mitigation technique, regardless of how many casters are involved.

But really, debating the rules doesn't seem to be the point. If you're proposing to decide whether to approve something based on its intent rather than its mechanics, what the rules say doesn't actually matter.

Counterpower
2007-05-21, 10:08 PM
Here's what you're missing. These are not exploits of the Epic Spellcasting system. They're the nature of the system. They're exactly how the system works.

JaronK

I don't know what you prefer to call methods of messing with the intent of the rules to produce effects favorable to you. For me, the term "exploits" fits pretty well there. Seriously, summoning hordes of solars? Right. I definitely prefer the term "exploits."

Tippy: I'm glad to hear that worked for you, but I just can't see it working for me or anyone I know, or indeed most players of D&D.

Ulzgoroth: I was thinking gate, actually.

In fact, for everyone: Regardless of the "nature of the system" or what the book says, the DM is the final arbiter. If I want to play a fighter in an epic-level game, and my DM is willing to work with me and the rest of the party to make that fun, then it can and probably will happen. And if I want to do so and need help with determining some aspect of my build, I won't find it here. Is any of the above incorrect?

Jasdoif
2007-05-21, 10:17 PM
In fact, for everyone: Regardless of the "nature of the system" or what the book says, the DM is the final arbiter. If I want to play a fighter in an epic-level game, and my DM is willing to work with me and the rest of the party to make that fun, then it can and probably will happen. And if I want to do so and need help with determining some aspect of my build, I won't find it here. Is any of the above incorrect?The specifics of your build are irrelevant if the DM is tailoring the game to you. Take whatever the heck suits your fancy.

Ulzgoroth
2007-05-21, 10:17 PM
In fact, for everyone: Regardless of the "nature of the system" or what the book says, the DM is the final arbiter. If I want to play a fighter in an epic-level game, and my DM is willing to work with me and the rest of the party to make that fun, then it can and probably will happen. And if I want to do so and need help with determining some aspect of my build, I won't find it here. Is any of the above incorrect?
Well, I read the thread I think this is in reference to, and people do seem to have been...less helpful than they might have been. (Say it sucks, fine, but unless you're the first with that pearl maybe you could also contribute some kind of actual suggestion?)

However, asking people to build something without qualifications, and thus by implication under RAW, means they have to take the actual rules into account. If your game has relevant house-rules, like rules making epic magic into something not universe-destroying, you need to mention that. Kind of like you'd need to mention "we all have to take 2 flaws" or "feats every 2 levels instead of 3" or such things.

Talya
2007-05-21, 10:19 PM
A lowly fighter (with lycanthropy) in Forgotten Realms ended up being the God of Death...at this point Kelemvor would pretty much be a match for an epic wizard, too. See? There are ways to make an epic fighter viable. ;)

Of course, short of a divine rank, I'm not sure what else you could do...

Collin152
2007-05-21, 11:15 PM
Who said we were using instant death effects? Start naming gods that can survive 10,000,000d6 of untyped damage.

It's not an Instant Death Effect even if the effect of it is instant death. :smallbiggrin:

Any and Every God with Regeneration. Let's see... Just about any that could give themselves regenegeration would, so... any with alter reality.

Emperor Tippy
2007-05-21, 11:19 PM
Yeah, but it would take quite a while to regenerate that much damage. Giving the wizard time to come up with something else to kill you.

Quietus
2007-05-21, 11:33 PM
Yeah, but it would take quite a while to regenerate that much damage. Giving the wizard time to come up with something else to kill you.

Nah, Alter Reality wins. They can just decide that somehow the <insert magical system here> warped and you hit yourself with your own spell.

Can YOU survive that much untyped damage?

kyz
2007-05-21, 11:53 PM
Nah, Alter Reality wins. They can just decide that somehow the <insert magical system here> warped and you hit yourself with your own spell.

Can YOU survive that much untyped damage?

Of course, because casters are greater than anything zomg didn't you see I have ninety billion hp.

EDIT: ANd this thread has pretty much convinced me that epic magic is the most retarded thing in existence for DnD.

JaronK
2007-05-21, 11:54 PM
I don't know what you prefer to call methods of messing with the intent of the rules to produce effects favorable to you. For me, the term "exploits" fits pretty well there. Seriously, summoning hordes of solars? Right. I definitely prefer the term "exploits."

Let me guess... you also think casting Shivering Touch, a spell that does Dex damage with no save, on a target with a low touch AC and a poor dex score (such as a dragon) is an exploit?

It's not. It's just doing exactly what the spell says it does. The problem is the spell is too strong... it's not the fault of the player who notices that he's got the right tool for the job sitting right there in front of him.

Same deal with Epic Spellcasting. It says you can make whatever you want, all you need is enough helpers. You also have spells to summon unlimited numbers of helpers.

That's not an exploit, that's just being logical with the tools given... the problem is that the tools given are insanely powerful.

JaronK

Saph
2007-05-22, 05:13 AM
I've played D&D as written with players who I expect to exploit the RAW. That was pretty much the whole purpose of the game. The PC's knew that they where in a D&D world (like the OotS) and they where fully expected to be as powergamey as possible.

Well actually, you have a much higher caster level then most statted out gods. So really, no. They don't survive.

It sounds like you're using uber-overpowered characters in a system where the gods and NPCs were statted out assuming non-uber-overpowered characters.

If the players are playing like that, then it's the DM's responsibility to up the power levels of everything else in the game, too. I mean, really, are you saying that your characters are the only ones in the entire history of the multiverse who've figured out how to exploit the rules? No? Then there ought to be a bajillion other epic-level spellcasters around who've been doing the same stuff since far before you were born, and who as such are way more powerful than you.

This is what everyone always forgets about their pet 'OMG my character is so overpowered and cool!' builds. If you can do it, then other people can do it. If other people can do it, then other people have done it. If other people have done it, then a lot of other people will have done it, and will have done it better than you. Now it's up to you to convince your DM why those people should be allowing you to get where you are, or even exist, for that matter.

Allowing a player just to go Pun-Pun or Epic cheese and then go around like a giant in a kid's sandbox is lazy DMing. You're giving the PCs a huge advantage that they've done nothing to deserve.

- Saph

Saph
2007-05-22, 05:24 AM
Let me guess... you also think casting Shivering Touch, a spell that does Dex damage with no save, on a target with a low touch AC and a poor dex score (such as a dragon) is an exploit?

Of course it's an exploit! Honestly, what kind of answer did you expect to that question? Yes, the spell is too strong. That means that it shouldn't be in the game. Saying 'well it is, so now I'm going to use it because it's good' is just rationalising the exploit.

If you think this is fair play, how happy would you be if the DM used some mishmash of templates and abilities to send a monster at you that was technically CR-appropriate, but undefeatable by anything the party had available? I don't mean difficult, I mean literally undefeatable. What's wrong with that? After all, he's just 'using the tools he's been given', right?

What's wrong is that he's playing the game in a way that's making the game less fun for everyone - and that's what you're doing too, by making fights that should be exciting and challenging into one-sided yawnfests.

- Saph

TheLogman
2007-05-22, 05:39 AM
I am a lover of the Tome of Magic, so as most my posts are, I will not introduce something completely different from the Tome of Magic.

Karsites.
"My ancestor was a master of magic, just like you. But then, the Magic itself destroyed him. He became too powerful. I will spare you that same fate."

In short, he gets spell resistance 10+ class levels, Karsite is 2 level adjustment, so at level 27, you have 35 spell resistance.
He also gets human traits. All he loses are those 2 levels, and the ability to cast magic spells.
He can still use magic items, psionics, and binding. Items casting spell resistance could be bought with his huge wealth per level. Plus, at that level, an item of True Strike is actually feasible.
Against a wizard, Mr. Wizard has a 50% chance of actually effecting him, and since this is a Munchkin wizard with tons of meta-magic cheese, its doubtful he would waste a feat on that feat that gives spell resistance penetration. Oh, and every time the wizard fails to hit him, the fighter gets the spell level times 2 in hp back.

Of course, this was just said to show how a fighter could survive in a magic-heavy campaign.

How to make a fighter useful? Make him BIIIIIIIG. Enlarge person is your friend for getting an insane bab and saves. Also, consider becoming a Titan from the Monster Manuel without the spells. Just the levels of outsider gives a huge bab.
For feats? Try stuff that allows you to move and attack, preventing you from being stationary all the time. Maybe whirlwind and spring attack?

Arbitrarity
2007-05-22, 06:33 AM
Assay resistance.

Orb of X.

Solid/acid fog.

Epic Spellcasting.

Nice SR. You could have been a drow. Or a rakshasa, cause then you'd have SR 45.

BAB is nothing, compared to the BAB and class features. That's like saying you should take warrior, cause it give huge BAB. Titan isn't even a playable race, even without Sp abilities. And the racial HD and (theroetical) LA mean that you'll have junk class features.

Enlarge person does nothing for BAB. Move and attack? That's what the Warblade and ToB classes are for. Whirlwind attack does nothing for move and attack, and spring attack is just junk. Mobility? Think Dervish Dance.

Items "casting" spell resistance do nothing, as they don't stack with your SR.

Survival is of no importance. Being useful is of importance.

Oh yes. Arcane Mastery. And when your class levels are 2 fewer, that taking 10 autobypasses SR. That's a broken feat.

Closet_Skeleton
2007-05-22, 07:13 AM
My next character may very well be a halfling swordsage whose life's dream is to wield Eventide's Edge (the Setting Sun discipline sword) in one hand and Umbral Awn (the Shadow Hand discipline sword) in the other. Sure, TWF isn't the most effective combat option. In fact, anything that just isn't a wizard apparently sucks. Even if that is the case, why would you try to get in my way of how I would like to play my game?

Two legacy weapon is really gimping yourself but that's a problem with Legacy weapons being daftly designed.

SpiderBrigade
2007-05-22, 10:04 AM
Of course it's an exploit! Honestly, what kind of answer did you expect to that question? Yes, the spell is too strong. That means that it shouldn't be in the game. Saying 'well it is, so now I'm going to use it because it's good' is just rationalising the exploit.

If you think this is fair play, how happy would you be if the DM used some mishmash of templates and abilities to send a monster at you that was technically CR-appropriate, but undefeatable by anything the party had available? I don't mean difficult, I mean literally undefeatable. What's wrong with that? After all, he's just 'using the tools he's been given', right?

What's wrong is that he's playing the game in a way that's making the game less fun for everyone - and that's what you're doing too, by making fights that should be exciting and challenging into one-sided yawnfests.

- SaphThis is why the world would be so much better if these broken spells/abilities just weren't in the game. Because, seriously, it's unreasonable to expect the wizard to not use things that are right there in the book because they're too good.

I mean, how is the wizard supposed to pick his spell selection, by taking the spells that aren't any good for what he's trying to do?

"Oh, we're getting ready to invade the dragon's lair, let me memorize Disrupt Undead a few dozen times. Maximized." ? That makes no sense at all. Of course he's going to pick the spells that are good for what he wants to do! Is it his fault that Shivering Touch is too good?

Note that there's also a huge difference between Solar-army-mitigated Epic spells and little old Shivering Touch. The former is definitely taking the listed drawbacks Epic spellcasting and finding a way to work around/ignore them. It takes some dedication, and can't be done by mistake. So I would probably call that an exploit. Regular, non-Solar-enhanced Epic spells? Not an exploit. Still waay too strong though. That's the problem: the Solar trick, or similar techniques, push the power into the 150% ridiculous range. But even a plain vanilla epic spellcaster can outshine the fighter 9 times out of 10. And he's not exploiting.

For instance, you're faced with a horde of goblins. A single fireball will take them all out. Easy fight. If you use individual castings of Vampiric Touch instead, the fight will be really long and probably a lot harder. Does that mean Fireball is an exploit? Hardly!

Last_resort_33
2007-05-22, 10:18 AM
I think that Epic casters should be pointed in the direction of Rule 7

Inyssius Tor
2007-05-22, 10:36 AM
I think that Epic casters should be pointed in the direction of Rule 7

... Hit Steve with a folding chair?

Indon
2007-05-22, 10:55 AM
This is why the world would be so much better if these broken spells/abilities just weren't in the game. Because, seriously, it's unreasonable to expect the wizard to not use things that are right there in the book because they're too good.

I mean, how is the wizard supposed to pick his spell selection, by taking the spells that aren't any good for what he's trying to do?


I think this is rooted in the hugely problematic assumption that everything written in a D&D book should be freely availible in every campaign. Now, a DM who opens up everything for their campaign, that's all well and good, but a player should still talk with their DM about what is appropriate.

I mean, say you're in a campaign world without dragons, where your primary foes are super-powerful fae with zillions of DEX. Shivering Touch would be a pretty appropriate spell for this environment.

Similarly, epic spellcasting is great for NPC's who don't dedicate their existences to breaking D&D games with it, and it's good to have that sort of thing statted out for if your BBEG happens to want to create a world-destroying spell which your players must interrupt the casting of, or somesuch. Does that mean it's appropriate for PC wizards to be running around with it? That's a question a player should ask themselves.

Players that are playing with a DM who unwittingly allows all sources (or an exploitable combination of sources), and know how to exploit this, should be nice and notify their DM's of the possibility of exploitation. If the DM goes ahead with it, it's either because he expects exploitation (which is just a barrel full of potential problems) or because he trusts his players not to break the game.

The same point can even be made for different resources in the same book. Just because a game is in an oriental environment, doesn't neccessarily mean that every feat, class, PrC, or piece of equipment written for an oriental game is appropriate.

I know common sense isn't RAW, but that's no excuse to take advantage of the game. Be responsible for your own actions.

Saph
2007-05-22, 11:02 AM
This is why the world would be so much better if these broken spells/abilities just weren't in the game. Because, seriously, it's unreasonable to expect the wizard to not use things that are right there in the book because they're too good.

It's completely reasonable to expect the player not to use things that are too good. All good D&D players do it to one extent or other. I do, and so do all the players that I'd be happy to play with.


"Oh, we're getting ready to invade the dragon's lair, let me memorize Disrupt Undead a few dozen times. Maximized." ? That makes no sense at all. Of course he's going to pick the spells that are good for what he wants to do! Is it his fault that Shivering Touch is too good?

No, it's the player's fault for putting the spell in his character's spellbook in the first place. If you're experienced enough to know about Shivering Touch and how to abuse it, you're experienced enough to know why you shouldn't. Talking about Maximised Disrupt Undead is a straw man and you know it. There's a world of difference between deliberately gimping your character and avoiding broken spells.

- Saph

SpiderBrigade
2007-05-22, 11:11 AM
INo, it's the player's fault for putting the spell in his character's spellbook in the first place. If you're experienced enough to know about Shivering Touch and how to abuse it, you're experienced enough to know why you shouldn't. Talking about Maximised Disrupt Undead is a straw man and you know it. There's a world of difference between deliberately gimping your character and avoiding broken spells.

- SaphMy point is that the spell isn't an "exploit" because you don't have to do anything special to use its power. You just learn and cast the spell. It's 100% possible to do that without purposely "abusing" the spell. I'm also not buying that anyone who knows about that spell is "experienced enough to know better," somehow. Lots of brand-new players will have picked up Frostburn, gone through it and said "hey, that's a cool spell! I want to use it!" What they are doing is using a legal spell from the book, not exploiting the game. Should their DM have a word with them? Yes. But it's a little unfair IMO to draw this line in the sand and say "you can't take spells that are above X level of goodness, or you are an evil exploiter."

the_tick_rules
2007-05-22, 11:17 AM
what book is shivering touch in again?

Saph
2007-05-22, 11:22 AM
My point is that the spell isn't an "exploit" because you don't have to do anything special to use its power. You just learn and cast the spell. It's 100% possible to do that without purposely "abusing" the spell. I'm also not buying that anyone who knows about that spell is "experienced enough to know better," somehow. Lots of brand-new players will have picked up Frostburn, gone through it and said "hey, that's a cool spell! I want to use it!" What they are doing is using a legal spell from the book, not exploiting the game.

I said: "If you're experienced enough to know about Shivering Touch and how to abuse it, you're experienced enough to know why you shouldn't." If they're just using the spell, that's fine. It's quite likely that they don't know how overpowered it is anyway.

If they're using Shivering Touch + Maximise Rod + Celerity + some reach ability to one-shot dragons, and they claim to be just a new player who's picked up Frostburn and said "hey, that's a cool spell! I want to use it!" . . . yeah, right. I've heard that story before. "But I just want to use this cool spell! Oh, you say that that combination one-shot kills almost everything in the game? I'm sure it's just a coincidence. Anyway, it's probably not as overpowered as you think. Not that I'd know, of course, I'm only a new player who doesn't understand these things."

- Saph

the_tick_rules
2007-05-22, 11:36 AM
well if your fighting a powerful dragon and he knows your gonna use that spell he could cast spell immunity or something on himself. Oh and I asked above but what book is shivering touch in?

Aquillion
2007-05-22, 11:42 AM
JaronK: The analogy doesn't seem right. There is no way a toddler with a limp could be useful. Given a canny DM and a group of people who weren't trying to create demigods, a epic-level fighter could be useful.If you're not trying to create demigods, why are you playing epic levels in the first place?

That much isn't some exploit. Epic levels are, explictly, supposed to put the players somewhere close to dieties. Being able to challenge gods with epic spellcasting or reach caster levels higher than the gods themselves isn't an exploit; it's supposed to be a feature.

I can understand people who say that they just want to RP and don't want to worry about making powerful characters... but once you get to epic levels, the fluff you're given is RPing obscenely powerful characters. Naturally fighters aren't as good at this as wizards (short of cutting the earth in two with a sword or aquiring a divine rank and, basically, leaving fighter-ness behind, how far can a fighter go?), but overwhelmingly absurd power is the whole idea.

Indon
2007-05-22, 11:44 AM
well if your fighting a powerful dragon and he knows your gonna use that spell he could cast spell immunity or something on himself. Oh and I asked above but what book is shivering touch in?

I'm pretty sure it's in Spell Compendium (as well as Frostburn, that is). Don't quote me on it, though, as I've not really used the spell.

NullAshton
2007-05-22, 11:56 AM
Let's try actually making these epic spells, shall we?

Let's go for AC first. Let's name it something simply like 'Caster's Ward'.

Seed: Armor seems like what we want. Base DC of 14, for +4 to armor. Increase it to a maximum DC of 32, if you want to cast it without fail. Up to a +13 boost in AC for one person, that lasts 24 hours. Hmmm, that's not much. Lets increase casting time to 10 minutes? +9 minutes to the casting time, for a total of +22 AC. Still a lot, but you are level 29 after all.

Not a million AC, you see. There is the whole 'contributing spell slots' cheese, mind you, but there are a few things stopping that. One, the leadership feat requires permission from the DM. Two, developing an epic spell requires permission from the DM. It wouldn't be reasonable for a DM to allow massive rituals like that.

Emperor Tippy
2007-05-22, 01:15 PM
Reasonable and what the rules expect are entirely different.

Using the summoning seed to summon solars is a perfectly reasonable use of that seed.

Using those summoned solars to contribute spell slots is a perfectly reasonable use of those solars.

Using the armor seed to UP your AC is a perfectly reasonable use of the Armor seed.

Every single thing that you use is being used as intended and written.

The only problem is that the writers didn't think of the scale that players could apply this stuff to.

And why does anyone care about fighting at Epic levels? Those fights don't happen. The game becomes freeform and gets very RP heavy.

JaronK
2007-05-22, 01:35 PM
See, the shivering touch thing is exactly my problem. People here are claiming that using the spell exactly as it's supposed to be used is an exploit... clearly, those people don't know what the word "exploit" means. It means you are in some way exploiting the rules, twisting them against their original use. But that's not the case with Epic casting, or with using Shivering Touch on a dragon, or with using a disrupting weapon on a Lich. The player is just using the right tool for the job, and using that tool exactly as given.

If you say to the player that they're using an exploit, you're basically saying "I want you to defeat X... but make sure you don't make it look too easy, okay? See if you can use the wrong tool and still get the job done, so that the fighter feels better, okay?"

The problem is not the player. The player is just doing exactly what they should do... thinking like their character and being creative, or clever, or just smart. The problem is that certain aspects of the game are not balanced, and epic level spellcasters are in that catagory. The problem is that epic casting is so unbalanced that people without it at high levels are not in the same league, and as such become completely unplayable.

JaronK

Saph
2007-05-22, 02:44 PM
The problem is not the player. The player is just doing exactly what they should do... thinking like their character and being creative, or clever, or just smart.

They're copying the strategy off a freaking message board. That's your definition of "creative, clever, and smart"? By your definition, making your character into Pun-Pun is the highest level of D&D play, instead of a game-breaking abuse, which is what it is.

If your character is destroying the balance of the game, making the campaign boring for everyone, and requiring the DM to overpower the challenges you face just to make for a half-balanced game, then yes, it most definitely is your problem. Blaming the rules is a cop-out. Other people can deal with it - why can't you?

Just read Logic Ninja's guide, for goodness sake. He's written an entire, huge guide exclusively dedicated to optimising wizards, and there are some spells that even HE refuses to use on the grounds that they're too cheesy. Isn't that enough to make you stop and think that maybe there's a line you should be drawing somewhere?


Every single thing that you use is being used as intended and written.

The only problem is that the writers didn't think of the scale that players could apply this stuff to.

Once again: if players can use it, NPCs can use it. That means that if your DM allows this stuff, then logically, your world should be being run by characters who've already done it long before your character was born.

And honestly, if Epic solar cheese counts as "reasonable" by your standards then being "reasonable" isn't a compliment.

- Saph

Emperor Tippy
2007-05-22, 02:56 PM
You don't get it Saph. I don't think it is reasonable and it would never be in any RPG I ever wrote. That isn't the point.

It is a reasonable application of the rules under which this specific RPG functions. In both fluff and crunch terms.


As for NPC's doing all of it. Yeah, they do. But you have to realize that surviving until you reach those levels is really not an easy thing.

Lets say that their are a billion people in the world.

Roughly 10% are adventurers.

So our population of potentially epic wizards is down to 100,000,000.

Roughly 1% of the adventuring class is wizards.

So now we are down to about 1 million wizards in the world at any given time.

What are the odds of a wizard surviving the first 5 levels? Maybe 1%.

So we are down to 10,000 wizards in the world at any given time that are over level 5.

How many of those survive until level 20? Maybe 5%. There are those who retire, those who die, those who lose magic, those who multi class, etc.

So we are down to about 500 wizards of level 20+.

And that is with fairly generous numbers.

Arbitrarity
2007-05-22, 03:10 PM
K, how about this?

Get a *gasps* custom item of +30 spellcraft (like a mantle of epic stealth, but cheaper). Get a rod of epic spellcasting. Get the fortify seed.
Use a moment of prescience.

Spellcraft should be at about +100. Use the fortify seed to make a +46 enhancement intelligence spell. DC 107. Take 10. (cost: 963k) This also, BTW, gives +20 on future checks.

Do the same for insight/circumstance/luck/morale/profane/sacred. Each gives +15 or so, at DC 107. Thus, +90 total, total cost: almost 7 million gp, thereby out of price range. Extend all of these 5x, make casting time 10 minutes each. Therefore, each lasts 4 days, and at lvl 27, you can cast all of them, and an extra 5 epic spells during the 4 day period.

Issue: out of RWT, as not abusing stuff. Second issue: Costs nearly 300000 XP.

Advantage: Gives +130 to intelligence.

Make a DC 89 will save, please.

Now, with backlash 20d6 on all of these, the DC's all go down 20 points, saving 1260000 gp, and 50000 XP. All mitigations have a pretty crazy effect.

Every -1 to the DC's decreases the cost by 63000 gp, and 2520 XP. Get your cleric friend to donate 7 6'th level slots over 4 days? 693000 gp saved, 25200 xp saved. Course, then you always need someone donating a 6th level slot. I recommend a pair of Schema's.

Draz74
2007-05-22, 03:17 PM
So, I'm familiar with the Oberoni Fallacy or whatever the one is named, which basically says that "Assuming the DM will just houserule things away doesn't mean that they weren't broken in the first place."

And I agree with it, in most situations.

But there comes a limit. A time when things are so broken that you just have to assume that every DM will use Rule 0 in some way to block the abuse in question. Once we agree to assume that, we can stop pointing out the abuse to people who come along trying to get meaningful answers to optimization questions.

Pun-Pun is clearly in this category. In fact, the entire POINT of Pun-Pun in the first place was to get people to realize this.

Epic Spellcasting with Solar cheese is also easily in this category, IMHO.

In fact, I'm in favor of including the entire Epic Spellcasting system in this category. Because I agree with the OP to some extent -- it can be very frustrating to get meaningful advice about an Epic game without it becoming a discussion of "Epic Spellcasting overshadows everything else!" thing. Can't we just assume, when people ask for advice about epic games, that their DM will be intelligent enough to set some harsh limits on Epic Spellcasting, and just give them advice that way?

I mean, even if our assumption is wrong and they are playing with Epic Spellcasting Unlimited and the poor guy who we gave advice to on this board ends up having a miserable game experience because his Fighter can't contribute at all ... maybe it's best for his group to learn by experience. At least, I don't think we'd get as many complaints of "You guys didn't warn me my Fighter would be useless and now I hate you all because I had a miserable game!" as the complaints we currently get of "Why can't you guys answer my questions without just talking about how much better Wizards are?"

Same goes for Shivering Touch. And so on. I appeal to the community here for an Increase in Assumed Level of Common Sense in DMs Everywhere. Please?

Indon
2007-05-22, 03:23 PM
So we are down to about 500 wizards of level 20+.

And that is with fairly generous numbers.

Except that epic level magic would easily allow you to traverse other universes (I'm sure you could find a perfectly reasonable way, eh?). So, really, you easily have any numbers of Pug clones criss-crossing the cosmos.

Saph
2007-05-22, 03:24 PM
So we are down to about 500 wizards of level 20+.

Who then, presumeably, live pretty much forever, so the population is constantly going up.

More to the point, those wizards will be ruling the world. Actually, for that matter, they'll have supplanted the gods, so the gods will have epic-wizard-style stats. This on its own won't make much difference to the people on the ground, but you'd also expect the rulers of kingdoms, etc., to be of similarly scaled power levels. In short, you're going to have to redo all of the NPC data for most regular worlds to scale the power up.

This means that it isn't at all "reasonable in fluff and crunch", because if this kind of stuff works, then most of the fluff for your D&D world is going to have to completely change. All the background for standard D&D worlds assumes that this kind of cheese isn't done. So either you have to come up with some very good reason why no-one is doing it (why aren't they?) or you have to restat everything.

- Saph

Counterpower
2007-05-22, 03:24 PM
The problem is not the player. The player is just doing exactly what they should do... thinking like their character and being creative, or clever, or just smart. The problem is that certain aspects of the game are not balanced, and epic level spellcasters are in that catagory. The problem is that epic casting is so unbalanced that people without it at high levels are not in the same league, and as such become completely unplayable.

JaronK

I disagree. A player using such tactics may be using every tool at their disposal. However, if said player is only concerned with being as powerful as possible and ignores the effect his power is having on the game and the other players involved, they must share some responsibility. What I get out of that is "the rules permit it, so even though I'm OHKing every single enemy and making this game no fun for everyone except me, it's not my fault that I chose to use these tactics."

Also, even if it is RAW, the DM has every right to deny it. What I'm getting from your posts is "I'm just using the tools from the books." All well and good, but you're not entitled to shivering touch. Or any spells that rely on an army of solars to cast.

Tippy: Just because the writers didn't anticipate people summoning armies of solars doesn't mean they intended for the rules to be used in that manner. Also, I find your blanket comment about epic games to be part of why I made this thread: who are you to tell me how I should play my game? I have every intent to play epic combat encounters, and I'm going to keep as much of the rules as I can and trust my players not to overly abuse them solely for the sake of more power.

And those 500 20+ wizards are ruling the world with similar tactics, and you can never catch up to them because they started billions of years ago.

Aquillon: you are correct. To fix my statement, I should say "players who weren't solely focused on sheer power."

Saph: thank you.

Could I have a spell that proves the statement "epic magic is too powerful without exploits"? One made by the "plain vanilla epic spellcaster" that SpiderBrigade mentioned?

Arbitrarity: About the 3rd bonus you went through, I would say "Enough and too much. This is devolving into insanity. I will only allow you to get specific types of bonuses from epic spells." I'd probably cap the total Intelligence you coud have at any given level, also. If that's what it takes to prevent my combat from devolving into "I cast my quickened epic spell. He dies instantly."

LotharBot
2007-05-22, 03:35 PM
But there comes a limit. A time when things are so broken that you just have to assume that every DM will use Rule 0 in some way to block the abuse in question. Once we agree to assume that

There are those who are unwilling to assume that. For what reason, I don't know. But there are those who insist on arguing RAW as if the RAW don't talk about the need for a DM. There are those who insist that if you're playing epic you must play it their way, and since fighters are useless in their way of playing, they'll tell you fighters are useless and that you should infinite gate solars instead. Which means you can never actually get worthwhile advice.


Can't we just assume, when people ask for advice about epic games, that their DM will be intelligent enough to set some harsh limits on Epic Spellcasting, and just give them advice that way?
....
I appeal to the community here for an Increase in Assumed Level of Common Sense in DMs Everywhere.

I agree. Great point. When someone asks for advice, give a little "epic spellcasting = win" caveat if you want, but then actually answer the question they asked under the assumption that they're playing a real game with a real DM who is willing to provide real opportunities for their character to contribute instead of simply playing pure RAW with a super-permissive DM.

Jasdoif
2007-05-22, 03:43 PM
Using shivering touch to deal Dexterity damage to take out a dragon is not an exploit of the spell. It's the spell being too dang good at what it's meant to do. The fundamental difference here, is that an exploit involves using outside conditions to make the spell better then it normally is. Here, the spell is just that powerful by itself.

With an exploit, you can ban the conditions that the exploit requires, allowing you to leave the original spell the way it was. When it's the spell that's too good, however, you need to alter or ban the spell itself.

JaronK
2007-05-22, 03:45 PM
They're copying the strategy off a freaking message board. That's your definition of "creative, clever, and smart"? By your definition, making your character into Pun-Pun is the highest level of D&D play, instead of a game-breaking abuse, which is what it is.

Copying off a mesage board? Maybe they thought of it themselves!

Now, Pun Pun is a different catagory. That is taking a bunch of obscure abilities and putting them together in an unforseen combo to achieve game breaking power. That is an actual exploit. That is very different from saying "gee, I have a spell that solves this problem. I think I'll use it." In that case, the problem is an overpowered spell, not the player.

Think of it this way. If someone said you're about to have to dual for your life, and the weapons you can chose from are a rapier, a dagger, a quarterstaff, or an AK 47, what would you pick? Is it your fault that one of the choices is so blatently more powerful than the others? And yet you'd call that an exploit? And now the players are forced into a situation which hurts roleplaying- they have to use metagame knowledge (this spell is overpowered) to change what their character would honestly do (they're fighting for their lives, of course they'll take the overpowered spell if it's available!). You end up with a situation where the player has to not only figure out how to overcome challenges, they also have to do it in a way that tricks the DM into thinking it was hard, because if they make it look easy, the DM will yell "Powergaming Munchkin!"


Just read Logic Ninja's guide, for goodness sake. He's written an entire, huge guide exclusively dedicated to optimising wizards, and there are some spells that even HE refuses to use on the grounds that they're too cheesy. Isn't that enough to make you stop and think that maybe there's a line you should be drawing somewhere?

Of course I've read the guide, and I was a regular on the Char Op boards long before he wrote it. And yes, I agree that a line should be drawn... the DM should ban those spells. They should not, however, complain at the players for using those spells if they're allowed. Usage of those spells, if allowed, is not an exploit... it's simply using the tools at hand. You're blaming the players for using what the DM is setting in front of them, claiming it's an exploit. I'm saying the players are roleplaying perfectly in that situation... it's the DM who let the spell in that's to blame. The problem with Epic, though, is that the whole system is super powered. Any use of the system at all is overpowered, so DMs have two choices... throw the whole thing out, or let the casters dominate. There's really no middle ground.




Once again: if players can use it, NPCs can use it. That means that if your DM allows this stuff, then logically, your world should be being run by characters who've already done it long before your character was born.

And honestly, if Epic solar cheese counts as "reasonable" by your standards then being "reasonable" isn't a compliment.

- Saph

Using a summoning spell to summon helpers is a perfectly reasonable thing for a character to want to do. The problem is that the system is broken, so doing the reasonable thing destroys it. And yes, Epic Wizards who existed before can remake reality, so it's just as silly and unbalancing for NPCs as it is for PCs. The whole system is broken... but that's not the player's fault, and it's not an exploit. It's like Tic Tac Toe. With a little thought, you can see exactly how to win. Using the right strategies in Tic Tac Toe isn't an exploit on your part... the problem is that the game is too easy.

Same issue with Epic casting.

JaronK

Indon
2007-05-22, 03:48 PM
I'd just like to note, again (much more tersely than last time because apparently nobody read my prior post to the same effect), that the more sources Wizards puts on paper, in order to create an interesting tabletop game with a wide variety of possible environments and a wide variety of interesting mechanics, the more likely it is that some possible combination of sources will be combinable in such a way that it becomes exploitive. D&D is such a game that even the core material contains a wide variety of these things, providing a rich variety of possible material for a DM's worldcraft.

This does inevitably lead to a significant number of clear exploits. The point is, without the things that make those exploits possible (a variety of mechanics and source materials), D&D wouldn't be as versatile a game.

What's that I hear? "But there are universal game systems that seem to do it better!" Other universal game systems can have a great deal of content versatility, yes, but not neccessarily mechanical versatility like D&D has. If you don't like mechanical versatility, then perhaps a universal game system that is lacking that design element, is more for you.

Edit: I fail so hard at being terse. Seriously.

Saph
2007-05-22, 03:48 PM
I appeal to the community here for an Increase in Assumed Level of Common Sense in DMs Everywhere. Please?

If I had a sig, I'd put this in it. :)

Too many people assume that because something is in the rulebooks, can be assumed to be allowed. But if virtually no DM will allow it, what's the point of advising people to use it? Most of the high-grade wizard cheese comes into this category.

If everything you say about D&D assumes that the DM will allow anything that's RAW-legal, no matter how abusive or game-breaking it might be, then your conclusions are going to be almost completely irrelevant to any actual D&D game.

- Saph

Jasdoif
2007-05-22, 03:56 PM
If everything you say about D&D assumes that the DM will allow anything that's RAW-legal, no matter how abusive or game-breaking it might be, then your conclusions are going to be almost completely irrelevant to any actual D&D game.And if everything you say about D&D assumes that the DM can or will deny something in the rules, then your conclusions are going to be completely irrelevant to any game not run by the same DM.

Any assumption based on DM behavior voids the discussion for anyone with a DM who doesn't do the same thing. And DMs, being people (in most cases :smalltongue: ), are going to do things differently from one another. That's why discussions center over the RAW, it's a common ground that allows rules discussions to be more then rants about how one DM is supposedly better then another.

Indon
2007-05-22, 04:01 PM
And if everything you say about D&D assumes that the DM can or will deny something in the rules, then your conclusions are going to be completely irrelevant to any game not run by the same DM.

Any assumption based on DM behavior voids the discussion for anyone with a DM who doesn't do the same thing. And DMs, being people (in most cases :smalltongue: ), are going to do things differently from one another. That's why discussions center over the RAW, it's a common ground that allows rules discussions to be more then rants about how one DM is supposedly better then another.

Which then leads to rules discussions to be rants about how the rules are bad because DM's don't exist, which is not neccessarily an improvement.

I'd advocate that the best course of action is the middle one; we assume DM's exist and have common sense, and no more. If you have a level 1 spell that can one-shot a CR 20 great wyrm dragon, rather than wasting time talking about how it's overpowered and makes fighters worthless, assume a DM wouldn't allow it, and that a DM unaware of its' power would be notified by players whose intent it is to not break the game.

Yes, I am aware I am advocating that people should assume that other people are benign and have common sense. I'm just saying it's slightly less absurd than the other extremes.

Saph
2007-05-22, 04:07 PM
Think of it this way. If someone said you're about to have to dual for your life, and the weapons you can chose from are a rapier, a dagger, a quarterstaff, or an AK 47, what would you pick?

I'm not dueling for my life. I'm a person who lives in the 21st century who plays a fantasy RPG for fun on weekends. This fantasy RPG is also a social game, which means I have obligations to the other players. One of those obligations is "Don't make a character that makes the game boring for everyone else". As part of this, I pretend some spells don't exist. I'm already playing a wizard, one of the most powerful characters in the game. I don't need the superpowered stuff; I'm quite strong enough already. Hence my character doesn't know about these spells and doesn't use them, the DM doesn't use them, and the party gets a good exciting battle instead of a one-shot kill. Everyone's happy.


You end up with a situation where the player has to not only figure out how to overcome challenges, they also have to do it in a way that tricks the DM into thinking it was hard.

What are you actually saying here? Of course the rules could use improvement. But that isn't happening any time soon. Are you seriously saying that until the rules are perfected and every one of those overpowered abilities and spells are taken out, you're going to continue exploiting them to the max? If you know which spells shouldn't be allowed, why don't you disallow them yourself? "The rules allow it!" is not a valid excuse for fracking up the game for everyone else.

- Saph

Saph
2007-05-22, 04:10 PM
And if everything you say about D&D assumes that the DM can or will deny something in the rules, then your conclusions are going to be completely irrelevant to any game not run by the same DM.

Completely wrong.

I can, and do, assume that most DMs will not allow you to play, say, Pun-Pun. This doesn't make my conclusions irrelevant to any game not run by my DM, because my assumption is RIGHT - most DMs won't allow it. If you assume that they do, then it's your conclusions that are going to be way off base, not mine.

- Saph

LotharBot
2007-05-22, 04:12 PM
That's why discussions center over the RAW, it's a common ground...

This thread clearly demonstrates that RAW is not common ground.

Can we please do away with the notion that "the RAW, the whole RAW, and nothing but the RAW" is where our discussions should start and end? Let's assume that everyone has access to rules, and everyone has a DM who intends to make a reasonable game. We don't have to assume their DM is a super-genius, just assume they're not a complete idiot.

Given those assumptions, when someone says "help me with my epic fighter", I see no problem with pointing out that "you should check with your DM to make sure they're not allowing certain epic spellcasting abilities, otherwise your fighter won't be very useful" and then describing good fighter feats. But I do have a problem with simply assuming "zomg fighters are useless in epic dont play one play a wizard you noob".

Counterpower
2007-05-22, 04:17 PM
Think of it this way. If someone said you're about to have to dual for your life, and the weapons you can chose from are a rapier, a dagger, a quarterstaff, or an AK 47, what would you pick? Is it your fault that one of the choices is so blatently more powerful than the others?

I don't believe that scenario accurately represents the circumstances. D&D is a game. The goal is for everyone involved to have fun. If a friend challenges you to a friendly duel to see how he's improved with his sword, are you going to pick up an AK-47, slide a clip home, point it at him, and say "You lose!"? I doubt it, since that would make the entire thing pointless.

It's not impossible for people to accurately RP their characters without saying "that spell is really good, and I'm fighting for my life here, so I should take it." Is it unreasonable to create a character that nearly got killed by a summoned outsider during his apprenticeship, and so instictively distrusts summoning spells? Or one that is completely fascinated with water and acid, and thus ignores spells like time stop (ugh, boring temporal stuff) in favor of an acid-flavored meteor storm? People are creatures of logic and emotion. Emotion can cause people to do some very interesting things.

One thing I like mentioning when this general topic comes up is this article (http://www.giantitp.com/articles/tll307KmEm4H9k6efFP.html) from the Gaming section, about roleplaying. There's also this one (http://www.giantitp.com/articles/XbsQgS9YYu9g3HZBAGE.html) about emotional responses.

Jasdoif
2007-05-22, 04:24 PM
This thread clearly demonstrates that RAW is not common ground.

Can we please do away with the notion that "the RAW, the whole RAW, and nothing but the RAW" is where our discussions should start and end? Let's assume that everyone has access to rules, and everyone has a DM who intends to make a reasonable game. We don't have to assume their DM is a super-genius, just assume they're not a complete idiot.The RAW is, in fact, being a common ground here. Some are claiming shivering touch is an exploit, others are claiming it's not an exploit but a powerful spell; but thanks to RAW we all know what the heck shivering touch actually is, what it does, and why it's powerful.

What this thread clearly shows, is that "a reasonable game" is not common ground. For instance, Counterpower and Emperor Tippy have completely different ideas about what can constitute "a reasonable game", with very different views on what epic spellcasting should allow.

Droodle
2007-05-22, 04:25 PM
If they're using Shivering Touch + Maximise Rod + Celerity + some reach ability to one-shot dragons, and they claim to be just a new player who's picked up Frostburn and said "hey, that's a cool spell! I want to use it!" . . . yeah, right. I've heard that story before. "But I just want to use this cool spell! Oh, you say that that combination one-shot kills almost everything in the game? I'm sure it's just a coincidence. Anyway, it's probably not as overpowered as you think. Not that I'd know, of course, I'm only a new player who doesn't understand these things."Or maybe they are just playing an Arcane Trickster or Arch-mage (either one can cast touch spells at range) who happened to have a DM dumb enough to let him have a Maximize Rod. Both PRC's are in the SRD, so a new player is rather more likely to end up selecting one. My first wizard became an Arcane Trickster (because I thought it was cool) and used to cast touch spells at range all the time.

PinkysBrain
2007-05-22, 04:29 PM
If DM's outlawed everything broken in the game we wouldn't have to worry about fighters, because no one would be allowed to play them.

Emperor Tippy
2007-05-22, 04:32 PM
He is a wizard. He is more intelligent than any human who has ever lived in real life. Intelligence in D&D is largely based on Logic.

Yeah, sure. A wizard can know the spells. And even like using them. And even use them often. But it is utterly out of character for any wizard at level 20 to start using stuff like meteor swarm when fighting for their life.

If wizards casting was tied to pretty much any other stat you could make a very valid fluff reason that you won't use lots of spells. But so long as it is tied to intelligence, you really can't.

Well maybe if the person has like 5 wisdom or something. But most wizard have an effective wisdom of at least 12 around level 20. They are already far wiser than the average person.

Ulzgoroth
2007-05-22, 04:33 PM
I think I agree 100% with JaronK. Particularly, it is the responsibility of the DM (with the cooperation of the players, of course!) to identify and remove from the game broken components. Don't say "Shivering touch is really cheesy", say "Shivering touch doesn't exist. No one, PC or NPC, can ever learn or invent it."

Only one little point of dispute:

Now, Pun Pun is a different catagory. That is taking a bunch of obscure abilities and putting them together in an unforseen combo to achieve game breaking power. That is an actual exploit. That is very different from saying "gee, I have a spell that solves this problem. I think I'll use it." In that case, the problem is an overpowered spell, not the player.
Pun-Pun, classic version, didn't require any twisty combo (though twisty combos that make it even more cracked than 'arbitrarily high ability scores and every special ability in the game'. It's actually another case of a single feature having been written without any analysis. The Sarrukh ability (http://boards1.wizards.com/showthread.php?t=491801), just by existing, breaks the game. No combo required. The only reason the Sarrukh itself can't become Pun-Pun is that the ability explicitly excludes Sarrukh as targets (and reading the ability literally, one could mind control a kobold into giving oneself a version without that limit, then kill it). The single ability is in fact more powerful than Alter Reality, because as written it can grant Alter Reality. To a random passing reptile.

PaladinBoy
2007-05-22, 04:34 PM
Now, with backlash 20d6 on all of these, the DC's all go down 20 points, saving 1260000 gp, and 50000 XP. All mitigations have a pretty crazy effect.

I believe the rules state that backlash damage for a epic spell with a duration longer than instantaneous is applied every round the spell is in effect. Thus, applying backlash damage to an epic spell with a duration longer than a few minutes (particularly 20d6 damage) is rather dangerous unless you have access to some heavy-duty healing. Four days probably meets the definition of suicide.

JaronK
2007-05-22, 04:36 PM
I'm not dueling for my life. I'm a person who lives in the 21st century who plays a fantasy RPG for fun on weekends. This fantasy RPG is also a social game, which means I have obligations to the other players. One of those obligations is "Don't make a character that makes the game boring for everyone else". As part of this, I pretend some spells don't exist. I'm already playing a wizard, one of the most powerful characters in the game. I don't need the superpowered stuff; I'm quite strong enough already. Hence my character doesn't know about these spells and doesn't use them, the DM doesn't use them, and the party gets a good exciting battle instead of a one-shot kill. Everyone's happy.

But my point is that your character is fighting for his life every day, and if you were playing him honestly, he'd be using that AK 47. If you chose not to, you're doing so for metagame reasons.


What are you actually saying here? Of course the rules could use improvement. But that isn't happening any time soon. Are you seriously saying that until the rules are perfected and every one of those overpowered abilities and spells are taken out, you're going to continue exploiting them to the max? If you know which spells shouldn't be allowed, why don't you disallow them yourself? "The rules allow it!" is not a valid excuse for fracking up the game for everyone else.

I am saying that the DM needs to regulate potentially overpowered spells and abilities by removing them from the game... not by accusing his players of using exploits when they grab the obvious choice that the DM just put right in front of him. There's a huge difference between saying "this campaign will be about dragon slaying... oh, and I've taken shivering touch out of the game" and saying "hey, you killed the dragon with one spell? Munchkin!"

JaronK

Counterpower
2007-05-22, 04:36 PM
Or maybe they are just playing an Arcane Trickster or Arch-mage (either one can cast touch spells at range) who happened to have a DM dumb enough to let him have a Maximize Rod. Both PRC's are in the SRD, so a new player is rather more likely to end up selecting one. My first wizard became an Arcane Trickster (because I thought it was cool) and used to cast touch spells at range all the time.

Said person would undoubtedly realize what was going on after he OHKed a dragon the third time, and I have to think the rest of the party would as well. When that time rolls around, someone who became that powerful by accident would probably not have that many problems with choosing different spells the next time he prepared them.

Tippy: Re-read this line:

People are creatures of logic and emotion. Emotion can cause people to do some very interesting things.
I have not yet seen a single person who can completely divorce emotion from their decisions. Neither do I think a bunch of Vulcan wizards is more realistic than a group of human beings.

Counterpower
2007-05-22, 04:41 PM
JaronK: What happens when the DM misses one? Or tries to regulate things without completely banning them? Wouldn't it be nice if the players accept some responsibility and say, "In the interest of having a fun game for all, I'm not going to use shivering touch, even though you forgot to include it on your 6 page list of banned spells."

The DM can't possibly have the sole responsibility for preventing brokenness. Yet that's what you seem to be saying.

On the RPing: A person can have a perfectly valid reason for not using that AK-47. Maybe he's got a phobia tied to the smell of gunpowder, or the sound of an explosion.

JaronK
2007-05-22, 04:47 PM
JaronK: What happens when the DM misses one? Or tries to regulate things without completely banning them? Wouldn't it be nice if the players accept some responsibility and say, "In the interest of having a fun game for all, I'm not going to use shivering touch, even though you forgot to include it on your 6 page list of banned spells."

Obviously, the PC can bring the potencially broken spell to the DMs attention out of game, allowing the DM to ban it. The problem arises if the DM leaves such things in, then claims the PC is somehow being a munchkin or using an exploit when the PC uses the spell exactly as given in the book.


The DM can't possibly have the sole responsibility for preventing brokenness. Yet that's what you seem to be saying.

Of course not. But the DM shouldn't be a jerk by attacking the players for using exactly what he's given them.

And this brings us back to Epic casting. The whole thing is so overpowered that if it's used at all, it's already broken. No, it's not an exploit to read something that says "you can make a spell as powerful as you want, if you have enough helpers" then read "you can summon as many helpers as you want" and put two and two together. That's just using the rules exactly as written... not looking for some unforseen combination for three different books. If the DM lets Epic Casting into the game, he's telling the players to create their own spells, and if that means following the guideline in the book, of course the players are going to create whatever they want. A DM who then turns around and accuses those same players of doing exactly what he told them to do is a horrible DM.


On the RPing: A person can have a perfectly valid reason for not using that AK-47. Maybe he's got a phobia tied to the smell of gunpowder, or the sound of an explosion.

That's just silly. When you're fighting for your life, you use what you need to survive. A character with a phobia of gunpowder? Are you serious?

JaronK

Saph
2007-05-22, 04:50 PM
But my point is that your character is fighting for his life every day, and if you were playing him honestly, he'd be using that AK 47. If you chose not to, you're doing so for metagame reasons.

I am playing my character honestly. I've decided that as far as I'm concerned, the spell doesn't exist. Unless the other players start using it (unlikely) or the DM starts using it against me (even more unlikely), I'll continue to play my character in this way.


I am saying that the DM needs to regulate potentially overpowered spells and abilities by removing them from the game...

So it's the DM's job to pre-emptively discover and close every last loophole in the rules before the players can find them? Come off it. I'm DMing a game now, and if a player told me "Anything you've missed I'm going to use, and you're not allowed to complain about it because you already had your chance," I'd just laugh at him. I'm a DM, not a babysitter, and my players aren't two-year-olds. It isn't my responsibility to remove from their reach anything that they might use in the wrong way. They're adults -they're expected to have a minimum of common sense.

- Saph

Ulzgoroth
2007-05-22, 04:52 PM
JaronK: What happens when the DM misses one? Or tries to regulate things without completely banning them? Wouldn't it be nice if the players accept some responsibility and say, "In the interest of having a fun game for all, I'm not going to use shivering touch, even though you forgot to include it on your 6 page list of banned spells."

The DM can't possibly have the sole responsibility for preventing brokenness. Yet that's what you seem to be saying.

Unless you actually have an adversarial relation with the players, in which case petty concerns like preventing game-breakage can be ignored, rather than whipping out Shivering Touch, they point out that it should be removed and why. And if you (DM) say 'no, I think that's OK', they play accordingly.


On the RPing: A person can have a perfectly valid reason for not using that AK-47. Maybe he's got a phobia tied to the smell of gunpowder, or the sound of an explosion.
A person can. But there's not actually any reason a person has to either. You don't actually need constellations of vulcan-logical wizards to work the 'exploits'. You need just one in the universe. And, to be honest, a wizard with good judgment and no neuroses would be a lot more likely to make it to high levels...

Emperor Tippy
2007-05-22, 04:53 PM
Said person would undoubtedly realize what was going on after he OHKed a dragon the third time, and I have to think the rest of the party would as well. When that time rolls around, someone who became that powerful by accident would probably not have that many problems with choosing different spells the next time he prepared them.

I would. It is utterly OOC to not pick those spells. They work quite effectively and keep you alive. You are in a very dangerous profession.

The DM saying "Retcon. Shivering Touch never has and never will exist. It is impossible. You beat those dragons through sheer luckiness." IS what should happen.


Tippy: Re-read this line:

I have not yet seen a single person who can completely divorce emotion from their decisions. Neither do I think a bunch of Vulcan wizards is more realistic than a group of human beings.

D&D wizards are Vulcan's pretty much. The PHB says that Int is directly tied to logic. And that Each point of Int is the equivalent to 10 points of IQ.

At an Int of 40 you have an IQ of 400 (Steven Hawking's is around 200).

And are 400% more logical as the average person.

They don't act on emotion. Especially if they have a reasonable wisdom.

Jasdoif
2007-05-22, 04:54 PM
The DM can't possibly have the sole responsibility for preventing brokenness. Yet that's what you seem to be saying.The player doesn't decide if the spell will continue to be allowed in its current form. The DM does.

Players taking responsibility is certainly great, but if the DM feels something is breaking the game it's the DM's job to handle it. Either out-of-game by talking it over with the player, or in-game by altering/removing the source of the problem.

JaronK
2007-05-22, 04:56 PM
I am playing my character honestly. I've decided that as far as I'm concerned, the spell doesn't exist. Unless the other players start using it (unlikely) or the DM starts using it against me (even more unlikely), I'll continue to play my character in this way.

Then you run into the problem of oppinion. If there's a spell that you don't think is too strong, but your DM does, and he starts accusing you of being a munchkin, would that make the game fun for you? If you have to sit there worrying about every spell you have? Remember, my objection is not to sitting down and rationally deciding as players that some spell or ability shouldn't be allowed. My objection was to calling it an exploit when someone uses a printed ability that the DM allowed.




So it's the DM's job to pre-emptively discover and close every last loophole in the rules before the players can find them? Come off it. I'm DMing a game now, and if a player told me "Anything you've missed I'm going to use, and you're not allowed to complain about it because you already had your chance," I'd just laugh at him. I'm a DM, not a babysitter, and my players aren't two-year-olds. It isn't my responsibility to remove from their reach anything that they might use in the wrong way. They're adults -they're expected to have a minimum of common sense.

- Saph


Read the whole post you just responded to, please. Your comment here is obviously misguided, since this was adressed in that very same post.

JaronK

dyslexicfaser
2007-05-22, 04:57 PM
Obviously, the PC can bring the potencially broken spell to the DMs attention out of game, allowing the DM to ban it. The problem arises if the DM leaves such things in, then claims the PC is somehow being a munchkin or using an exploit when the PC uses the spell exactly as given in the book.



Of course not. But the DM shouldn't be a jerk by attacking the players for using exactly what he's given them.

And this brings us back to Epic casting. The whole thing is so overpowered that if it's used at all, it's already broken. No, it's not an exploit to read something that says "you can make a spell as powerful as you want, if you have enough helpers" then read "you can summon as many helpers as you want" and put two and two together. That's just using the rules exactly as written... not looking for some unforseen combination for three different books. If the DM lets Epic Casting into the game, he's telling the players to create their own spells, and if that means following the guideline in the book, of course the players are going to create whatever they want. A DM who then turns around and accuses those same players of doing exactly what he told them to do is a horrible DM.



That's just silly. When you're fighting for your life, you use what you need to survive. A character with a phobia of gunpowder? Are you serious?

JaronK

About that last bit. I know a guy who was in the London Blitz. He literally cannot get on a plane to save his life. He freaks out every time he just hears them go by overhead.

On the outside looking in, a phobia aqbout gunpowder seems irrational, but to the person involved, it's anything but.

Droodle
2007-05-22, 04:57 PM
Said person would undoubtedly realize what was going on after he OHKed a dragon the third time, and I have to think the rest of the party would as well. When that time rolls around, someone who became that powerful by accident would probably not have that many problems with choosing different spells the next time he prepared them.Not really. You don't become that powerful by accident. Anyone capable of reading spell descriptions and the PHB knows that wizards are best off using spells that target the weak saves of their enemies and will know right away that draining an important stat to zero with a maximized spell or two is a much more economical way of winning a fight than casting 6 direct damage spells. My first wizard specialized in using save or suck spells not accidentally, but because I actually read the spell descriptions before selecting them. It isn't powergaming to target a fighter's will save or a wizard's fortitude save. It's just being smart.

dyslexicfaser
2007-05-22, 04:59 PM
Not really. You don't become that powerful by accident. Anyone capable of reading spell descriptions and the PHB knows that wizards are best off using spells that target the weak saves of their enemies and will know right away that draining an important stat to zero with a maximized spell or two is a much more economical way of winning a fight than casting 6 damaging spells. My first wizard specialized in using save or suck spells not accidentally, but because I actually read the spell descriptions before selecting them. It isn't powergaming to target a fighter's will save or a wizard's fortitude save. It's just being smart.

But how would your character KNOW that a dragon has low dex, or whatever? He can't pick up a handy PHB and find out. Unless he's survived battles with dragons before, or has studied them to find their weaknesses, or whatever.

Cyborg Pirate
2007-05-22, 05:01 PM
But how would your character KNOW that a dragon has low dex, or whatever? He can't pick up a handy PHB and find out. Unless he's survived battles with dragons before, or has studied them to find their weaknesses, or whatever.

Things like low dex, low con, low str are things that should be visible to a player. You should be able to see it if someone seems strong or weak, tough or sickly, gracious or clumsy. No great study of the creature is needed, just a casual observation. Especially when the character in question has an astronimic int score.



[edit] And ofcourse there's always Trail-and-Error. If you've only got a dex-gimping spell, why not just cast it and see what happens ey?

Ulzgoroth
2007-05-22, 05:02 PM
But how would your character KNOW that a dragon has low dex, or whatever? He can't pick up a handy PHB and find out. Unless he's survived battles with dragons before, or has studied them to find their weaknesses, or whatever.
Knowledge Arcana. It's a favorite for wizards, and includes 'knowing stuff about dragons'. Knowing they don't ever dodge would be fairly basic, even if you'd never encountered one.

Arbitrarity
2007-05-22, 05:02 PM
Oh let's see...

Knowledge: Arcana (ancient mysteries, magic traditions, arcane symbols, cryptic phrases, constructs, dragons, magical beasts

Hmmm.... I don't know...

Droodle
2007-05-22, 05:05 PM
But how would your character KNOW that a dragon has low dex, or whatever? He can't pick up a handy PHB and find out. Unless he's survived battles with dragons before, or has studied them to find their weaknesses, or whatever.Knowledge is a class skill.:smallwink: This applies to other situations, too. He would also know that an undead creature has no constitution score, which makes it a sucker for spells like disintegrate. He would also know that the big, dumb Giant is probably going to fail its will save and he'll know that the Full-Plate wearing priest is going to have a low Dex score, too (so this spell is perfect for dropping CodZilla...or a fighter).

Emperor Tippy
2007-05-22, 05:05 PM
But how would your character KNOW that a dragon has low dex, or whatever? He can't pick up a handy PHB and find out. Unless he's survived battles with dragons before, or has studied them to find their weaknesses, or whatever.

Wizard: "Hmm, it's a big giant lizard. Very strong. Very hardy. So very good fortitude. So don't target Fort saves, Strength, or Constitution. Dragons are quite intelligent as well, so that's out. They can cast spell's, I remember that from magic school. So that means high Charisma.

Now do I go after Dexterity, Wisdom, Reflex, or Will saves? Well its a giant lizard, It can't be very nimble. Might as well try it"

*wizard uses shivering touch*
*dragon is in a coma*

Wizard: "Well that worked quite well. Now I know what to do if I ever run into any more dragons"

Or just make the DC 15+HD Knowledge:Arcane check. Figure that if Wrymlings aren't very dexterous the older ones aren't any better off.

dyslexicfaser
2007-05-22, 05:09 PM
Heh. You guys jumped all over that one.

Sorry, my bad. Didn't realize Knowledge (Arcana) covered magical creatures as well, since none of my characters have ever used it.

Saph
2007-05-22, 05:18 PM
Then you run into the problem of oppinion. If there's a spell that you don't think is too strong, but your DM does, and he starts accusing you of being a munchkin, would that make the game fun for you?

I'll worry about it if it happens, which so far it hasn't.


If you have to sit there worrying about every spell you have? Remember, my objection is not to sitting down and rationally deciding as players that some spell or ability shouldn't be allowed. My objection was to calling it an exploit when someone uses a printed ability that the DM allowed.

If the DM is allowing a seriously overpowered ability, then almost by definition he either doesn't realise what he's doing, or has some way to counter it (in which case it isn't overpowered anymore). In the second case there's no problem. In the first case you're exploiting his ignorance, and spoiling the game for everyone else. That's nothing to be proud of.


Read the whole post you just responded to, please. Your comment here is obviously misguided, since this was adressed in that very same post.

Please don't tell me to read your post. I already read it. You said " The DM needs to regulate potentially overpowered spells and abilities by removing them from the game." My response: If you know a spell is overpowered, know that it'll unbalance the game if you use it, and know that it'll make the game less fun for everyone, then why do you even need to ask whether you should be using it? Isn't the answer obvious already? And even if I said yes, are you going to knowingly spoil the game for everyone just because I made a mistake and then claim it's not your fault?

- Saph

PaladinBoy
2007-05-22, 05:30 PM
Everyone appears to be looking at this from the position of "my wizard has shivering touch; should I use it or not?" As a player, I think it's better to look at it as "my wizard doesn't have shivering touch, should he add it to his spellbook?" My answer would be no, he shouldn't, primarily because it's overpowered. While that might be slight metagaming, there is a mitigating factor.

My wizard has never seen shivering touch in any way, shape, or form. He doesn't know it exists. And since it's overpowered, I won't have him come up with the spell when he does his independent research for the next level and gains two spells. The roleplaying there is perfectly fine, particularly given that there isn't any. My wizard has no idea about shivering touch and can't make a decision about it either way.

Also, is there any problem with using common sense and saying that "this spell is broken, so I'm not going to use it"? If your DM makes a mistake and for whatever reason refuses to correct it, then why would you purposefully ruin the game? It might be better RPing to use the tools that you have, but if you value good RPing over the fun of the friends you're playing with, then there are going to be problems. (I'm not saying that any other poster thinks that way.)

Jasdoif
2007-05-22, 05:41 PM
If your DM makes a mistake and for whatever reason refuses to correct it, then why would you purposefully ruin the game?If your DM sees it happen in the game and refuses to correct it after that, then it's not a mistake in his or her game.

It's generally frowned upon for a player to try to break the game. But once a break happens, intentionally or not, it's up to the DM to resolve it. And if that resolution is not doing anything about it, then it was never a break in the first place.

Counterspin
2007-05-22, 05:51 PM
We all agree that Shivering Touch is broken. Why do we need to have this asinine argument about the role of the DM again? D&D is partially a game of optimization, thus things like Shivering Touch should be removed because a character should be using it otherwise. If you want to metagame away the spell go nuts. It's a laudable thing to do. But don't tell me that a bunch of guys who make their living killing other intelligent beings is going to pass on something as powerful as the capacity to down a dragon in a single strike. To do so borders on suicide. Simple as that.

Counterpower
2007-05-22, 05:59 PM
Obviously, the PC can bring the potencially broken spell to the DMs attention out of game, allowing the DM to ban it. The problem arises if the DM leaves such things in, then claims the PC is somehow being a munchkin or using an exploit when the PC uses the spell exactly as given in the book.



Of course not. But the DM shouldn't be a jerk by attacking the players for using exactly what he's given them.

And this brings us back to Epic casting. The whole thing is so overpowered that if it's used at all, it's already broken. No, it's not an exploit to read something that says "you can make a spell as powerful as you want, if you have enough helpers" then read "you can summon as many helpers as you want" and put two and two together. That's just using the rules exactly as written... not looking for some unforseen combination for three different books. If the DM lets Epic Casting into the game, he's telling the players to create their own spells, and if that means following the guideline in the book, of course the players are going to create whatever they want. A DM who then turns around and accuses those same players of doing exactly what he told them to do is a horrible DM.

What's the problem with banning spells that take advantage of such tactics, while allowing more reasonable epic spells?


That's just silly. When you're fighting for your life, you use what you need to survive. A character with a phobia of gunpowder? Are you serious?

JaronK

Dead serious. I actually used to be very afraid of heights. I just got a thrill of fear every time I stood at the edge of any kind of drop. Despite my rational mind telling me "there's a railing, it's just about completely impossible that you'll fall..." As dyslexicfaser pointed out, people will gladly do things that just don't seem rational to others.

The same thing goes for what Tippy said. People are not logical drones. I find a group of wizards all with their own little foibles and emotional responses far more realistic than a bunch of drones that don't allow emotion to influence them in the slightest. Did anyone read the articles I posted links to? Anyone?

Or this. I don't know any of the flavor text for shivering touch, but I think I can make a pretty good guess: it has something to do with cold. Would a wizard that grew up in an arctic region and absolutely loathed any reminders of that period in his life be particularly enamored of using such a spell? Also, about voluntarily giving up the spell: if I was ruining the fun of the rest of my group, including my DM, by turning what were supposed to be entertaining combat encounters into one-turn yawnfests, I would be absolutely eager to do something about it. I wouldn't dodge the responsibility I would have in such a situation by saying "It's not my fault! You didn't ban the spell! I can't do anything now!" Well, yeah. It IS partially your fault, and you can do something about it: stop using the spell. That doesn't mean the DM doesn't have any responsibility either, but foisting all of the blame on him is as incorrect.

Fax Celestis
2007-05-22, 05:59 PM
...don't tell me that a bunch of guys who make their living killing other intelligent beings is going to pass on something as powerful as the capacity to down a dragon in a single strike. To do so borders on suicide. Simple as that.

QFT. Exactly.

JaronK
2007-05-22, 06:02 PM
I'll worry about it if it happens, which so far it hasn't.

I've certainly seen it happen.


If the DM is allowing a seriously overpowered ability, then almost by definition he either doesn't realise what he's doing, or has some way to counter it (in which case it isn't overpowered anymore). In the second case there's no problem. In the first case you're exploiting his ignorance, and spoiling the game for everyone else. That's nothing to be proud of.

Or you're just playing epic. But again, there is the problem that maybe you think it's perfectly reasonable to use a save or suck spell that targets will saves against the dumb fighter, but since the GM thought the dumb fighter should be a challenge, he now accuses you of being cheesy. Again, Wizards have tons of spells that easily take down specific targets, and it's pretty reasonable that the guy in full plate isn't very dexterous and has a poor reflex save. Is using a reflex targeting save or lose spell against a guy in full plate exploitive? You seem to think so... I for one don't. But it's the same thing with shivering touch.


Please don't tell me to read your post. I already read it. You said " The DM needs to regulate potentially overpowered spells and abilities by removing them from the game." My response: If you know a spell is overpowered, know that it'll unbalance the game if you use it, and know that it'll make the game less fun for everyone, then why do you even need to ask whether you should be using it? Isn't the answer obvious already? And even if I said yes, are you going to knowingly spoil the game for everyone just because I made a mistake and then claim it's not your fault?



Obviously, the PC can bring the potencially broken spell to the DMs attention out of game, allowing the DM to ban it. The problem arises if the DM leaves such things in, then claims the PC is somehow being a munchkin or using an exploit when the PC uses the spell exactly as given in the book.

No, you really didn't. As you can see, I did mention that PCs should bring to the attention of the DM spells that they think, in advance, might be broken. I, for example, check in to find out what forms the DM thinks are valid for Alter Self, giving examples of some of the stonger uses, before attempting to use that spell in play.

JaronK

Saph
2007-05-22, 06:06 PM
We all agree that Shivering Touch is broken. Why do we need to have this asinine argument about the role of the DM again?

It's not an asinine argument. How much responsibility you're willing to take about this sort of thing is a huge factor in what you're like to DM for as a player.

I'm running a campaign at the moment. Four of the players don't go in for powergaming, two do. The two who do both subscribe to the "I'm going to make my character as powerful as I can, as long as I can get it past the DM" approach. What this means in practise is that I have to review pretty much everything these two players put on their character sheets, to see whether I've missed something that is going to become overpowered once they start using it. As a result, those two take up more of my time and energy than the first four players put together.

I can't really blame them for it - it's just the way they are - but it's tiring, like having to babysit a small child. This kind of thing is a major factor in DM fatigue.

- Saph

JaronK
2007-05-22, 06:08 PM
And really, those two players should be asking in advance about anything they think is strong.

Of course, the question here is whether you accuse those two players of being munchkins and exploiters every time they come up with something they think is cool.

JaronK

dyslexicfaser
2007-05-22, 06:11 PM
So, we have one side that feels that if the spell exists, it's their duty as homicidal adventurers to use it to kill dragons. Or humans, or whatever they're killing this week.

The other side says that they refuse to use it - to the extent of giving their character a phobia as to why they pass it up.

I really doubt you guys are going to convince the other side to come around to your way of thinking.

So... what was the point of this thread again?

Indon
2007-05-22, 06:14 PM
We all agree that Shivering Touch is broken. Why do we need to have this asinine argument about the role of the DM again? D&D is partially a game of optimization, thus things like Shivering Touch should be removed because a character should be using it otherwise.

I get the impression that many people in this thread think that just because it's written down in a sourcebook, it's in any given DM's campaign world, and a wizard knowing it is a matter of 'picking' something that's right in front of you.

I'd say it's not at all a matter of a wizard 'picking' anything. Unless the DM is having NPC's using the spell on your party already, the spell doesn't exist in that world. It's not a matter of the wizard going, "Wow, this spell is powerful! I want, I like powerful things!" rather it's a matter of YOU, the player, going, "Hey, DM guy, can I learn this really powerful spell I read in this sourcebook? I like one-shotting dragons!" and if the DM says yes, go for it!

As I've said before in this thread, just because it's in a book, doesn't mean it's in a campaign.

Jasdoif
2007-05-22, 06:15 PM
Oh, sorry, missed this.


Could I have a spell that proves the statement "epic magic is too powerful without exploits"? One made by the "plain vanilla epic spellcaster" that SpiderBrigade mentioned?OK, let me take a shot at one. At level...29?

So that's 32 ranks in Spellcraft. We'll say (to be conservative) Intelligence of 22, then +6 from a headband of intellect, +4 from a tome or wishes; so a total of 32, for a modifier of +11. That makes the Spellcraft modifier +43, so an epic spell with a DC of 53 or lower we can make by taking 10.

Let's do something with slay (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/epic/seeds/slay.htm). Fort or die, partial on a save...DC 25 base. Add 20 to make the time a single action, and that's 45. And since we have spellcraft DC to spare, we'll increase the save DC by 4, upping the Spellcraft DC to 53.

Final result: as a standard action any living creature with 80 or fewer hit dice within 300 feet must make a Fortitude save (DC 35) or die, and takes 3d6+20 even if it makes the save. A level 29 fighter, or other creature with its first 20 levels in a good-Fort-save class, will have a base Fort save bonus of +16.

Saph
2007-05-22, 06:16 PM
No, you really didn't.

The post you just quoted wasn't the one I was responding to back there, and wasn't up at the time I was writing the post.


Of course, the question here is whether you accuse those two players of being munchkins and exploiters every time they come up with something they think is cool.

Cool it, please. (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/announcement.php?f=30&a=1)

- Saph

JaronK
2007-05-22, 06:16 PM
What's the problem with banning spells that take advantage of such tactics, while allowing more reasonable epic spells?

The problem is only that all of epic spellcasting is super powered. Now, personally, I'd ban all epic spellcasting entirely and rework the system, probably by just allowing epic feats but not epic casting and just giving casters a few more spell slots to work with, but that's just me. I can't assume every DM would do that. As such, I would always recommend that any player joining an epic game with epic spellcasting make sure they can cast along with the big boys, because if they don't, they won't get to do anything. I also tend to recommend that they just not play epic, since it really is that broken.




Dead serious. I actually used to be very afraid of heights. I just got a thrill of fear every time I stood at the edge of any kind of drop. Despite my rational mind telling me "there's a railing, it's just about completely impossible that you'll fall..." As dyslexicfaser pointed out, people will gladly do things that just don't seem rational to others.

And do you regularly roleplay characters who have phobias that leave them helpless in combat encounters? In a combat RPG? That seems like a bad plan, but hey, if that's what you find fun and your other players don't find it really annoying, go nuts.


The same thing goes for what Tippy said. People are not logical drones. I find a group of wizards all with their own little foibles and emotional responses far more realistic than a bunch of drones that don't allow emotion to influence them in the slightest. Did anyone read the articles I posted links to? Anyone?

But they are smart. All wizards are... or else they can't cast spells. Epic Wizards have an Int score of at least 19, so they're all geniuses. They've got quirks, but they are smart enough to come up with powerful plans.


Or this. I don't know any of the flavor text for shivering touch, but I think I can make a pretty good guess: it has something to do with cold. Would a wizard that grew up in an arctic region and absolutely loathed any reminders of that period in his life be particularly enamored of using such a spell?

If not doing so meant death? Absolutely. I'll tell you, I like not wearing too much clothing. I'm not a nudist mind you, I just don't like wearing a ton. But if I were in a war zone and someone offered me body armour, you can be darn sure I'd put it on. Remember, your characters are thrown into life and death situations on a daily basis. Assuming they won't use a spell that would save their lives simply because they don't like cold and the spell makes someone else cold is nuts, and certainly not realistic roleplaying.


Also, about voluntarily giving up the spell: if I was ruining the fun of the rest of my group, including my DM, by turning what were supposed to be entertaining combat encounters into one-turn yawnfests, I would be absolutely eager to do something about it. I wouldn't dodge the responsibility I would have in such a situation by saying "It's not my fault! You didn't ban the spell! I can't do anything now!" Well, yeah. It IS partially your fault, and you can do something about it: stop using the spell. That doesn't mean the DM doesn't have any responsibility either, but foisting all of the blame on him is as incorrect.

You'll note that I've said multiple times now that players should, OOC, consult with the DM about anything they think is particularly powerful ahead of time. However, should the DM allow such spells, the DM shouldn't turn around and yell exploit whenever the players use them. There's a huge difference between rationally deciding out of character that a spell is too strong, and accusing the players of being cheaters for using it in game. You're the one who claimed Shivering Touch is an exploit. I'm the one who said it's simply an overpowered spell that should probably be removed. One is the fault of the players for using what they've been given... the other is the fault of the writers, which the DM can correct.

JaronK

LotharBot
2007-05-22, 06:20 PM
the DM shouldn't be a jerk by attacking the players for using exactly what he's given them.

You act as though every one of us on the "other side" from you has an adverserial relationship with our players.

I'm not a "jerk" who "attacks" my players for using overpowered spells. I'm a DM who recognizes that what they're doing is turning challenges into non-challenges and either (1) accounts for the overpoweredness, or (2) asks the player not to use the spell, or (3) uses the spell against the players as well.

There's an expectation within my group that if the players think something is total cheese and they'd be pissed if I did it to them, they won't do it to the baddies either. There's a recognition within my group that the game is most fun when everyone is able to contribute, and everyone's character is worthwhile. So we all -- from the DM to the newest player -- work to make that a reality.

If one of my players came on this board and asked for help for their epic fighter build, and the response they got was the typical "zomg fighters suck at epic you should play a spellcaster", I'd be pretty upset. It's insulting to me as a DM, and it's insulting to my players, to assume that we won't be able to create a game where a well-built fighter can contribute. And that's really what set this whole discussion off.

JaronK
2007-05-22, 06:21 PM
The post you just quoted wasn't the one I was responding to back there, and wasn't up at the time I was writing the post.



Cool it, please. (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/announcement.php?f=30&a=1)

- Saph


You are actually correct here. You posted after my post, but were responding to a much earlier post at the time, so my appologies there.

That said, "I've already answered this, please read above" is not against the posting guidelines. I am not calling you names or insinuating you're a bad person here. I am saying you're wrong, and stating why, which is how debates work. Unless there's a specific part of the guidelines that you think I'm missing? Please tell me if so, I certainly haven't intended to break them.

I was, however, referencing what you said earlier:




Let me guess... you also think casting Shivering Touch, a spell that does Dex damage with no save, on a target with a low touch AC and a poor dex score (such as a dragon) is an exploit?

Of course it's an exploit! Honestly, what kind of answer did you expect to that question? Yes, the spell is too strong. That means that it shouldn't be in the game. Saying 'well it is, so now I'm going to use it because it's good' is just rationalising the exploit.

As you can see, right here you say that anyone who uses Shivering Touch in game is exploiting. I then said it's wrong to call someone who uses Shivering Touch an exploiter. Are you claming that's a personal attack?

JaronK

SpiderBrigade
2007-05-22, 06:24 PM
I said: "If you're experienced enough to know about Shivering Touch and how to abuse it, you're experienced enough to know why you shouldn't." If they're just using the spell, that's fine. It's quite likely that they don't know how overpowered it is anyway. Umm, just for the record, here's the exchange I was reacting to:
Let me guess... you also think casting Shivering Touch, a spell that does Dex damage with no save, on a target with a low touch AC and a poor dex score (such as a dragon) is an exploit?and then YOU said
Of course it's an exploit! Honestly, what kind of answer did you expect to that question? Yes, the spell is too strong. That means that it shouldn't be in the game. Saying 'well it is, so now I'm going to use it because it's good' is just rationalising the exploit.According to that, using Shivering Touch, at all, ever is an exploit. And I'm disagreeing with that. From what I quoted above, it sounds like you disagree too!

If they're using Shivering Touch + Maximise Rod + Celerity + some reach ability to one-shot dragons, and they claim to be just a new player who's picked up Frostburn and said "hey, that's a cool spell! I want to use it!" . . . yeah, right. I've heard that story before.Now THAT is an exploit. That's using all sorts of OTHER abilities together to multiply the already powerful spell.

What I'm saying is: learning Shivering Touch and casting it is not an exploit. It's just an overpowered spell, and not even the most overpowered. Putting it together with a bunch of other things which are ALSO broken, like Celerity for instance, THAT is an exploit. See the difference?

Counterpower
2007-05-22, 06:31 PM
...don't tell me that a bunch of guys who make their living killing other intelligent beings is going to pass on something as powerful as the capacity to down a dragon in a single strike. To do so borders on suicide. Simple as that.QFT. Exactly.

Okay. I'm going to say this again. Logic is not the only motivator of a actual human being's actions. I gave the example of a person who, while he does make his living killing things, would not want to use shivering touch. Possibly even if his life depended on it. The man that dyslexicfaser mentioned will not get on an airplane. I think if you poll the entire world's popluation, the vast majority would have some taboo or self-check on their actions, a line they would not cross for any reason. I have more respect for a person with such a line. I have absolutely no respect for people whose moral values change to suit their best interest in the current circumstances.

I kind of agree with dyslexicfaser, though. For the record, the original intent was to say that all of this about balanced or unbalanced spells was pointless. That if I want to play a Ftr29, there is nothing stopping me from doing so.

Jasdoif: now assume that the Ftr has Con 30, and his Fort save jumps to +26. He's already most likely succeeding the save. Add in a cloak of resistance.........

JaronK: No, I don't play such characters. I'm the DM right now. But if it was absolutely essential for me to come up with an in-character reason for such actions, that might be a good explanation. Besides, I'm hardly "helpless." There's a bunch of effective spells that aren't broken, in case you didn't notice.

Intelligence and emotion is not an either-or issue. It is well and truly possible to have emotional attachments or qualms and still be capable of logical reasoning.

Are you telling me you would do anything to save your life? Is there anything you wouldn't do? Another point: not using shivering touch is hardly a death sentence, and at the time it comes down to "shivering touch, or I die" it's not like the wizard can decide then.

What I seem to get from you is that the DM has to be the one to fix the problem. (S)he doesn't. There are almost always two ways to fix a problem, and this is no different. 1. The player doesn't use broken spells. 2. The DM bans broken spells. Either one is as effective in getting those spells out of the game, no?

Saph
2007-05-22, 06:34 PM
According to that, using Shivering Touch, at all, ever is an exploit. And I'm disagreeing with that. From what I quoted above, it sounds like you disagree too! Now THAT is an exploit. That's using all sorts of OTHER abilities together to multiply the already powerful spell.

What I'm saying is: learning Shivering Touch and casting it is not an exploit. It's just an overpowered spell, and not even the most overpowered. Putting it together with a bunch of other things which are ALSO broken, like Celerity for instance, THAT is an exploit. See the difference?

Oh, I see what you mean.

I was assuming that pretty much anyone who uses the spell is going to use it in an exploitative way - about the only time anyone refers to it on these boards is in the context of Dex-killing things which should be too powerful for them on the CR scale. But yeah, you're right, there are ways of using it which aren't overpowered or broken, like the aforementioned example with loads of high-Dex fae around.

- Saph

dyslexicfaser
2007-05-22, 06:38 PM
This is kind of off-topic, but if high-level wizards have 30-40 int (which I'm not disputing), why are they so often described as having such bizarre affectations? Best example I can think of is Elminster of Forgotten Realms.

Practically a demi-god, power-wise.

Also squirrelly as hell.

If we were going purely by numbers, shouldn't all wizards be practically Vulcans?

PaladinBoy
2007-05-22, 06:45 PM
And do you regularly roleplay characters who have phobias that leave them helpless in combat encounters? In a combat RPG? That seems like a bad plan, but hey, if that's what you find fun and your other players don't find it really annoying, go nuts.

I think there's a difference between being completely helpless and picking the second most effective option.

Really I think the phobia idea is just there to provide a reason why the character's being played that way. It doesn't even have to be as extreme as a phobia; simple emotions can cause you to pick a different option.


But they are smart. All wizards are... or else they can't cast spells. Epic Wizards have an Int score of at least 19, so they're all geniuses. They've got quirks, but they are smart enough to come up with powerful plans.

And if they don't like summoning? To the point where they don't know any Conjuration (summoning) spells? And would prefer to spend their time mastering other magic?


If not doing so meant death? Absolutely. I'll tell you, I like not wearing too much clothing. I'm not a nudist mind you, I just don't like wearing a ton. But if I were in a war zone and someone offered me body armour, you can be darn sure I'd put it on. Remember, your characters are thrown into life and death situations on a daily basis. Assuming they won't use a spell that would save their lives simply because they don't like cold and the spell makes someone else cold is nuts, and certainly not realistic roleplaying.

Emotions defy the rules of logic, particularly strong emotions. Completely ignoring emotions seems very unrealistic, and emotions based on childhood experience are the strongest and longest-lasting emotions. They're hard to ignore.

Also, why are we assuming that the wizard even knows about shivering touch? He doesn't pick the spells for his spellbook out of a giant book like we do. He develops them himself or copies off other wizards. And if our wizard doesn't like cold to the point where he prefers to go with other things, then he wouldn't develop a cold spell and he wouldn't want to copy the spell off another wizard, unless the other wizard provided a situation in which use of that spell was absolutely necessary.

Even better, the wizard isn't inviting death by not using shivering touch (unless he's stupid enough to be hunting great wyrms at 5th level), he's just using a different tactic to get a dead dragon. And since he's smart, he would work on it to the point where it had a near-certain chance of succeeding. Since he can come up with a alternate tactic which has nearly the same chance of working, he will decide not to use a tactic which he has qualms about.


Final result: as a standard action any living creature with 80 or fewer hit dice within 300 feet must make a Fortitude save (DC 34) or die, and takes 3d6+20 even if it makes the save. A level 29 fighter, or other creature with its first 20 levels in a good-Fort-save class, will have a base Fort save bonus of +16.

Does that save bonus value account for the possibility of acquiring a cloak of resistance +10 or something like that? (Oops, base save bonus.) That would bring it to needing a 12 or higher to save successfully, and Con 20 drops it to 7 or higher.

Jasdoif
2007-05-22, 06:49 PM
Jasdoif: now assume that the Ftr has Con 30, and his Fort save jumps to +26. He's already most likely succeeding the save. Add in a cloak of resistance.........Certainly. It's not likely that everything is going to have that Con 30 and that +16 base Fort save, though.

And out of curiosity, has that fighter been neglecting his Strength and Dexterity all this time?

Emperor Tippy
2007-05-22, 06:51 PM
Okay. I'm going to say this again. Logic is not the only motivator of a actual human being's actions. I gave the example of a person who, while he does make his living killing things, would not want to use shivering touch. Possibly even if his life depended on it. The man that dyslexicfaser mentioned will not get on an airplane. I think if you poll the entire world's popluation, the vast majority would have some taboo or self-check on their actions, a line they would not cross for any reason. I have more respect for a person with such a line. I have absolutely no respect for people whose moral values change to suit their best interest in the current circumstances.

Intelligence and emotion is not an either-or issue. It is well and truly possible to have emotional attachments or qualms and still be capable of logical reasoning.

Are you telling me you would do anything to save your life? Is there anything you wouldn't do? Another point: not using shivering touch is hardly a death sentence, and at the time it comes down to "shivering touch, or I die" it's not like the wizard can decide then.

I'm personally utterly amoral. Not immoral, just amoral.


And for the second part, yes. I would do anything to save my life. Unless my survival conflicted with a goal higher up on my list of goals.

I would kill myself if it was necessary to accomplish one of my other goals. Say to save humanity, or even my family or a few of my real good friends. My continued survival is about the 8th thing down on my list of important things.

Droodle
2007-05-22, 06:54 PM
Ironically, Elminster's intelligence is only 27. Granted, that's before any equipment is added into the picture, so he'd probably have a 33 int most of the time you'd run into him.

Counterpower
2007-05-22, 07:04 PM
Jasdoif: Neither is it certain that everyone will have Int 32, then. The fighter has to be on the same plane as the wizard, or else it's not a fair comparison. Besides, PaladinBoy was helpful enough to give a much more reasonable possibility that only requires Con 20. That technically requires rolls of 8 and 3, not 12 and 7. Also, that spell hits one target. The "any" in there suggests that all of them do. Did you make it an area spell?

And I think that the Forgotten Realms epic NPCs are excellent examples of good ways to have fun with a character without being a logical drone.

Emperor Tippy
2007-05-22, 07:11 PM
DC 55 to kill everything in 4 10 foot cubes of your choice as a quickened action.

Combine with mastery of shapeing from your Archmage levels and you can do some very nasty stuff.

Twilight Jack
2007-05-22, 07:17 PM
And really, those two players should be asking in advance about anything they think is strong.

Of course, the question here is whether you accuse those two players of being munchkins and exploiters every time they come up with something they think is cool.

JaronK

For this reason, I think it is rather necessary for any gaming group to make like Tommy Hobbes and form a social contract. Essentially, everyone needs to be upfront about what they want out of their gaming experience and have a tacit agreement not to step on the fun of the other players. If a room full of narrativists all agree that they are playing for the sake of an epic and exciting story, full of twists and turns and motivational depth and breadth and characters with personal flaws and internal struggles, then the single gamist should not need the DM to perch over him and ensure that he doesn't build CoDzilla or a Wizard/IotSV/Archmage with Shivering Touch, "sudden" metamagic, and Celerity. The DM shouldn't need to do these things because the gamist should understand that the social contract of the game already frowns on a build that is intended to mechanically "win" at D&D. Furthermore, the gamist shouldn't be examining elements of the RAW to find an innocuous means by which to "win" either. He needs to respect that, for everyone else at the table, winning the game is not the point, and restrain himself appropriately without constant authoritarian DM intervention. If he insists upon finding ways to violate this agreement, then the other folks in the room have every right to decry him as a munchkin and an exploiter. Within the context of the game at hand, he is, and a rude one at that. If he finds that the challenge of constructing a powerful and effective character against whom the game world and all of its dangers are to be pitted is his primary motivation, the thing that makes his experience fun and therefore a necessary part of the D&D equation for him, then he needs to find a new gaming group whose motivations match his own, if a compromise cannot be reached.

Rule #1--Don't be an ass.

Conversely, if a hard-core narrativist is alone in the room with a Killer DM (think Gygax at his most sadistic) and a group of players used to having to fight for their lives with the most ruthless builds they can muster, then that narrativist is well advised to look to his build optimization and not insist on playing a multiclassed fighter/rogue/sorcerer with an emphasis on Enchantments. Furthermore, he is obligated not to pout when his finely crafted internal subplot involving his long-lost sister's favorite puppy is glossed over or ignored in favor of the next set of rigorous challenges to life and limb. Finally, he is absolutely forbidden from calling anyone else at the table a munchkin or a power-gamer. If you want to mess with the bull, you best be prepared for the horns. No fair whining if you couldn't build a character capable of surviving the Tomb of Horror. You knew it was a snake when you picked it up.

Which is not necessarily to suggest that these two styles of play are mutually exclusive or impossible to integrate for the enjoyment of everyone. I'm just saying that everyone needs to be clear on the motivations of their gaming fellows so that mutually acceptable ground rules can be layed.

If the OP is playing in a group like the one from my first example (they play epic level games too), then a Fighter will likely be just fine, since no one is going to be juking epic spell seeds to burn the world down. A few balance issues are less of a concern when the goal is nothing more than a good story. One character is allowed to be more or less effective than another without screwing the game up too badly.

On the other hand, if the OP is playing with the fire-breathing bastards from the second group, he's well-advised to step it up a notch and tell the DM that he'd sooner play parcheesi than a melee-monkey in an epic game. Insist upon some spellcasty goodness and go on with your bad self.

By the way, I'm a hard-core melodrama and character-centralized narrativist who prides himself on still being able to build a nasty optimized cheddar-monster if I'm in a room that requires one.

PaladinBoy
2007-05-22, 07:17 PM
And for the second part, yes. I would do anything to save my life. Unless my survival conflicted with a goal higher up on my list of goals.

I would kill myself if it was necessary to accomplish one of my other goals. Say to save humanity, or even my family or a few of my real good friends. My continued survival is about the 8th thing down on my list of important things.

Would you do something you didn't like/ didn't want to do in order to accomplish your goals if you had another option that was more acceptable and had a reasonable chance of success?

That's what I can see a wizard doing. For example, he wouldn't use shivering touch on a dragon, becasue he didn't like cold spells. Instead, he would use a fighter and a cleric to distract the dragon while he launched meteor storms at it, counting on his contingency and damage absorbing epic spell to protect him from the dragon while he retreated to fire more spells. The latter is admittedly more complicated, but that doesn't mean it won't work (unless it's a red dragon), and to a wizard that dislikes touch spells or cold spells and/or prefers fire spells, the tradeoff might be worth it.

Counterpower
2007-05-22, 07:19 PM
DC 55 to kill everything in 4 10 foot cubes of your choice as a quickened action.

Combine with mastery of shapeing from your Archmage levels and you can do some very nasty stuff.

How exactly are you killing them, again? Does it allow a save? How high could that save be? Does it require an attack roll?

That info is kind of important.

Jasdoif
2007-05-22, 07:42 PM
Jasdoif: Neither is it certain that everyone will have Int 32, then. The fighter has to be on the same plane as the wizard, or else it's not a fair comparison. Besides, PaladinBoy was helpful enough to give a much more reasonable possibility that only requires Con 20. That technically requires rolls of 8 and 3, not 12 and 7.Wait, was I supposed to be playing "make an epic spell that no character could possibly survive" here? I thought you wanted an example of a simple, general epic spell that doesn't resort to permanently-summoning-solars. A DC 35 Fort save isn't insurmountable by any means, but against something around level 29 that isn't built to maximize its Fort save it's pretty dang good.


Also, that spell hits one target. The "any" in there suggests that all of them do. Did you make it an area spell?No. It affects any single target. I can see the potential confusion, but if I had meant it hits every target, I would've said "every".

Emperor Tippy
2007-05-22, 07:59 PM
How exactly are you killing them, again? Does it allow a save? How high could that save be? Does it require an attack roll?

That info is kind of important.

same spell Jasdoif mentioned. Just made it Area Affecting. The save DC is now 33 instead of 35 though.

Although you really shouldn't be using epic spells to be damaging your enemies.

Much, much better off making simple self buffs.

---
Take the Conceal seed for example.

Base DC of 17
+4 so the invisibility doesn't go away when you attack
+6 so that nothing can make you visible (even true seeing or epic spells using the reveal seed)
+2 to make it suppressible at will by the caster

So DC of 29. It lasts 200 minutes.

But lets have more fun.

x5 for Permanent

So DC 145

Now increase casting time to 10 minutes -20 DC

So we are down to DC 125.

Increase casting time to 62 days -124 DC


Final spell DC 1.

It costs 9,000 GP and 360 XP to develop. It is done in 1 day.

But wait. Lets add 1 more day to the casting time. Now its final DC is 0 so it is free to develop and costs no XP and takes no time.

So 63 days after I reach level 21 my wizard has permanent greater invisibility, can't be found by any divination spell, and can't be seen by any spell or SLA.

---
Now lets look at the armor seed.

I can mitigate away 220 of the spellcraft DC with just time.

Divide by 5.
So the max DC I can make permanent with just mitigation is 44.

Subtract 14 for the base DC of the armor seed.

So that is 30 points left.

The Armor seed can provide a +1 bonus to Armor or Natural armor per +2 to the DC. SO I can get +15 to armor.

And the Seed gives +4 as the base.

So with 100 days and 10 minutes of work my Armor bonus to AC is now 19. What is the fighters in full plate again?

Give it another 100 days and 10 minutes and my Natural Armor bonus goes to +19 as well.

So my AC with 10 Dex is now 48.

---
Now lets move onto the Reveal seed.

To give you the ability to see through normal and magical darkness, notice secret doors hidden by magic, see the exact locations of creatures or objects under blur or displacement effects, see invisible creatures or objects normally, see through illusions, see onto the Ethereal Plane (but not into extradimensional spaces), and see the true form of polymorphed, changed, or transmuted things.

The range of such sight is 120 feet.

The base DC is 25. So we have 19 points to mess with.

Increasing the range by 100% is +2 to the DC.

So Even if we go with the conservative ruleign and say that that only gives you an extra 120 feet each time you apply it you still have 1,080 feet range.

---

The Transport seed can be used to make a potent weapon.

To move unwilling creatures to any destination on any plane is DC 35.

To make it a quickened spell increase the DC by 28. So DC 63.

You have to make a DC 33 Will Save or you end up wherever I feel like putting you. Much better then the Slay seed.

Every one of these spells is a very simple application of the proper seed. I haven't even got to the broken application's yet.

Shoyliguad
2007-05-22, 08:31 PM
Ok we all get the fact that mages are broken so badly that gods will fall at there will, but heres a question and its real simple: Why do you play DnD? To PWN every single thing in sight or to have a blast hanging out with your freinds, drinking soda and eating popcorn while rolling dice? seriously if anyone does that they kill the games fun and I'll quit. I'm content playing like a small soul knife, soulbow and ardent soul who hates undead.

Arbitrarity
2007-05-22, 08:33 PM
Question: Would making cost apply before mitigating factors (with the exception of XP) balance epic spellcasting?

I.e. Something base DC 220 costs 1980000 gp, 80000 XP, mitigating factors nonwithstanding?

Nah.. too messy, not quite right.

Although there should be something like: The minimum development cost is equal to the spell seed DCx9000 gp + DCx360XP.

Otherwise, what Tippy just illustrated occurs.


^^^^ We do this for the math, and to enlighten you people considering this to be balanced. It's not. Claiming imbalance is fine because most people won't do that is well and fine, but it doesn't fix the problem. Similarly, we don't eat popcorn. The butter smears our character sheets.

Imbalance isn't fine because you insult a percieved manner of play based on mathematics. We don't do that, most of the time (I did, when I was on my powergaming jag. Probably still am)

And really, we don't like to advise people that playing a fighter is fine, because it's not. A fighter, no matter how well played, can't stand up to a moderately well played spellcaster. And if the spellcaster is poorly played, then you can't take on, say, the CR 29 demilich.

Because epic fighters are behind the epic power curve. It's like playing an epic ninja/samuri. Except not quite THAT bad.

Emperor Tippy
2007-05-22, 08:36 PM
Ok we all get the fact that mages are broken so badly that gods will fall at there will, but heres a question and its real simple: Why do you play DnD? To PWN every single thing in sight or to have a blast hanging out with your freinds, drinking soda and eating popcorn while rolling dice? seriously if anyone does that they kill the games fun and I'll quit. I'm content playing like a small soul knife, soulbow and ardent soul who hates undead.

In epic? Yes. You play Epic D&D as it is written when you want to play baseball with planets and generally be a god.

It is incredibly fun to be able to do pretty much whatever you feel like.

And PWNing everything in sight does not stop you from having a blast hanging out with your friends.

Shoyliguad
2007-05-22, 08:41 PM
Am I the only one here who likes a challenge, I don't want to play a god... If I ever roll straight 18's i'll laugh and reroll. I guess i'm alone when I say that its more fun to die then to be a god who can kill absolutly anything... go live your fighter dream, right behind you man. By the way the only epic wizard I ever played speced in divination and I had a blast!

JaronK
2007-05-22, 08:44 PM
Ok we all get the fact that mages are broken so badly that gods will fall at there will, but heres a question and its real simple: Why do you play DnD? To PWN every single thing in sight or to have a blast hanging out with your freinds, drinking soda and eating popcorn while rolling dice? seriously if anyone does that they kill the games fun and I'll quit. I'm content playing like a small soul knife, soulbow and ardent soul who hates undead.

See, if you're playing epic, you're doing one of two things. You're either playing a melee/skillmonkey/archer/whatever, and being slightly higher level than a level 20 character. Or you're playing a spellcaster, which means you really are having fun just dominating the world and killing anything in existance. That's what epic is. It's generally for pwning gods and building whole planes at a whim (okay, technically you can do that as a 17th level wizard, but we'll ignore that for now). If that's not your style of play, don't play epic. Personally, I don't. Because that's not actually how I like to play.

JaronK

Emperor Tippy
2007-05-22, 08:45 PM
Am I the only one here who likes a challenge, I don't want to play a god... If I ever roll straight 18's i'll laugh and reroll. I guess i'm alone when I say that its more fun to die then to be a god who can kill absolutly anything... go live your fighter dream, right behind you man. By the way the only epic wizard I ever played speced in divination and I had a blast!

I love a challenge. The Challenge has nothing to do with the players power level until epic anyways. And you should not really run combat at all after level 15 or so.

If you want to play Epic correctly you go almost entirely to intrigue based challenges.

Epic Wizards don't fight other Epic casters for 1 very good reason, both people lose. Your spells can literally tear the world apart and to damage the other person you practically have to throw an entire mountain on top of them.

I've played in Epic battles where I was literally throwing planets at my opponent. And He was blowing them up or surviving the impact.

It's kinda like the cold war. You fight proxy battles and wars of intrigue.

Arbitrarity
2007-05-22, 08:49 PM
Divination specialization is twinking. It's one of the best specializations. Bonus spell that you would have taken normally of each level, and only one school (i.e. evocation) lost.

It's more fun to be effective than not. And epic fighters are not effective. Can a fighter take out the tarrasque? A wizard can.

And it is fun to be able to mess with the multiverse. While you may not be able to kill the twice betrayer of shar without pulling the same trick, or some of the gods... you can do a lot. And plane roaming, and changing the course of history... that's what D&D characters do. Challenge? It's the RP. It's the things CR 42 above your level that you need to kill NOW when you haven't slept for 5 days. It's the really overpowering situations, because that is your power level. And the fighter can't keep up with those.

Tippy's really got it right. Combat just doens't work after about level 15. At 21, either you need something grossly overpowering, that if it's off by a mite kills everyone, or you need RP. Lots of RP. In an RPG.

Shoyliguad
2007-05-22, 08:55 PM
its ok to play wizards but to twink them like you guys where doing is ridiculous... I'm playing with an elemental savant and he plays to have fun and doesn't twink so that every shot does 10000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 00000 damage with 100000000000000000000000000000000000000000 save, thats outrageous, hes fine wth shooting a spell that does 90 points of damage and I like that alot more than someone making it difficult for the DM to find something hard.

Counterpower
2007-05-22, 08:59 PM
Of course, the thread has gone out of control since I started writing this post.

First, Jasdoif: To me, it seems reasonable for a fighter to have a good Fort save. Constitution is one of their primary stats, and since they are vulnerable to spells, a cloak of resistance seems a good choice. It's not a horribly unbalanced epic spell. What I was trying to show is that a general epic spell isn't unbalanced as a general rule.


same spell Jasdoif mentioned. Just made it Area Affecting. The save DC is now 33 instead of 35 though.

Although you really shouldn't be using epic spells to be damaging your enemies.

Much, much better off making simple self buffs.

I'll be addressing each one individually. So:


---
Take the Conceal seed for example.

Base DC of 17
+4 so the invisibility doesn't go away when you attack
+6 so that nothing can make you visible (even true seeing or epic spells using the reveal seed) **point I**
+2 to make it suppressible at will by the caster

So DC of 29. It lasts 200 minutes.

But lets have more fun.

x5 for Permanent

So DC 145

Now increase casting time to 10 minutes -20 DC

So we are down to DC 125.

Increase casting time to 62 days -124 DC **point II**


Final spell DC 1.

It costs 9,000 GP and 360 XP to develop. It is done in 1 day.

But wait. Lets add 1 more day to the casting time. Now its final DC is 0 so it is free to develop and costs no XP and takes no time. **point III**

So 63 days after I reach level 21 my wizard has permanent greater invisibility, can't be found by any divination spell, and can't be seen by any spell or SLA.

Alright.
Point I: It does also say that an opposed caster level check determines whether your spell will actually serve this purpose. So you're not completely undetectable. It depends on the power of the other caster.

Point II: You know, this is a world, that's probably doing something for 62 days. Having that time is not a given.

Point III: Alright, I have a new idea. Namely, that the development costs are determined before mitigation. Is it in the RAW? No, unless I missed it. But I do think that is a good way to deal with that problem. Even if that is a bad idea, such a blatant attempt to give youself no cost would probably get you a veto.


---
Now lets look at the armor seed.

I can mitigate away 220 of the spellcraft DC with just time. **point I**
Divide by 5.
So the max DC I can make permanent with just mitigation is 44.

Subtract 14 for the base DC of the armor seed.

So that is 30 points left.

The Armor seed can provide a +1 bonus to Armor or Natural armor per +2 to the DC. SO I can get +15 to armor.

And the Seed gives +4 as the base.

So with 100 days and 10 minutes of work my Armor bonus to AC is now 19. What is the fighters in full plate again? **point II**

Give it another 100 days and 10 minutes and my Natural Armor bonus goes to +19 as well.

So my AC with 10 Dex is now 48.

Point I: Again, I don't believe it's a given that you have forever to do all of this. I can assure you that in my campaign, they're not going to have years devoted to just buffing themselves.

Point II: With epic +6 mithral full plate and a Dex of 16, only 27. Then again, especially if you use my idea about taking the unmitigated DC for development costs, it cost the fighter a lot less to get it.


---
Now lets move onto the Reveal seed.

To give you the ability to see through normal and magical darkness, notice secret doors hidden by magic, see the exact locations of creatures or objects under blur or displacement effects, see invisible creatures or objects normally, see through illusions, see onto the Ethereal Plane (but not into extradimensional spaces), and see the true form of polymorphed, changed, or transmuted things.

The range of such sight is 120 feet.

The base DC is 25. So we have 19 points to mess with.

Increasing the range by 100% is +2 to the DC.

So Even if we go with the conservative ruleign and say that that only gives you an extra 120 feet each time you apply it you still have 1,080 feet range.

Again, messing around with permanency should have some fairly significant costs, and the ideas I provided above should help with that. Same complaint as always about the years you would be spending on this.


---

The Transport seed can be used to make a potent weapon.

To move unwilling creatures to any destination on any plane is DC 35.

To make it a quickened spell increase the DC by 28. So DC 63.

You have to make a DC 33 Will Save or you end up wherever I feel like putting you. Much better then the Slay seed.

Spellcraft DC 63? A wizard at 21st level can't do that, then. Even assuming the max 24 ranks in SC and an Int of 40, that's only a total modifier of +39. (Unless I screwed up in the Int bonus. Which is a distinct possibility.) And Int 40 seems out of reach for a 21st. Even a 25th would only have a 5% chance of successful casting. And the higher level you go, the more pathetic that DC 33 save looks.


Every one of these spells is a very simple application of the proper seed. I haven't even got to the broken application's yet.

Well, the broken ones are simple to deal with, so I see no need to go over those. Thanks, actually. I did say I have a campaign I would like to take epic, and I want to try to salvage epic spellcasting. Your descriptions of these spells really do help with the pre-emptive corrections.

Arbitrarity
2007-05-22, 09:05 PM
Your signature hurts my eyes.

And we don't do damage, we do instant lose. There's a difference.

Finally, adding lots of 0's makes your argument seem funny.

:smalltongue:

Really, I never actually play any of this. I never get the chance, and anyways, there's a certain point after which you WIN. Instant kills every round is nothing compared to what you can get.

Say... a twice betrayer of shar/wizard in epic. Level 40 or so. 12 epic spells/day, basically invulnerable to everything. That's near the WIN point. Pun-Pun is the WIN point. Really, he's the apex of twinking. And you never go that far, note.

And your piddling 90 elemental damage is nothing, compared to the power of this fully armed and operational... wizard. And what level is he with 20d6 spells?

If 20, he is dead. Because at that level, you don't survive with 20d6.

We don't twink (mostly). We theorize. You're making an unjustified assumption about our playstyles based on our will to enlighten you to the borkedness of things. (not patronizing deliberately)

DC 63? Possible. 24 for ranks, +2 for synergy, (+4 next level), +14 for intelligence (before permanent intelligence boosters, i.e. fortify seed), 10 for rod of epic spellcasting, (250K or so..). There's 50. If you took archmage, 53. If you have a brain, add in the fortify ability to get the perma +14 to intelligence, for another +4. Add in the cheesed out method I detailed earlier, for another free +18 to intelligence, another +9. Bam, you make it. All free. And as a side effect, your intelligence is now 64.

Oh yes, and seeing as no player in any epic game ever has any spare time, I now introduce you to my friend: Mr. High Blood Pressure. Mr. High Blood Pressure is the result of going on 8 hours of sleep for years at a time, with never a couple of months off. He's related to our other friend, the artificer. Often, some classes dislike it when the DM never allows them any free time.

Which is why, to avoid such ****, they say their character is venerable, and cast this stuff a long time ago. Then they layer MDJ protections.

Shoyliguad
2007-05-22, 09:05 PM
Heres a thumb rule, if someone delibratly tries to make his char invincible, ask him to change for the sake of everyone else who is a mortal being. Also you should check out some of the fighter feats in the games section, they are pretty nice for higher levels.

Counterpower
2007-05-22, 09:09 PM
Divination specialization is twinking. It's one of the best specializations. Bonus spell that you would have taken normally of each level, and only one school (i.e. evocation) lost.

It's more fun to be effective than not. And epic fighters are not effective. Can a fighter take out the tarrasque? A wizard can.

Not always. One can have plenty of fun even in failure or in a build that really isn't that effective.


And it is fun to be able to mess with the multiverse. While you may not be able to kill the twice betrayer of shar without pulling the same trick, or some of the gods... you can do a lot. And plane roaming, and changing the course of history... that's what D&D characters do. Challenge? It's the RP. It's the things CR 42 above your level that you need to kill NOW when you haven't slept for 5 days. It's the really overpowering situations, because that is your power level. And the fighter can't keep up with those.

Huh. That just seems like excessive powergaming to me, oddly.


Tippy's really got it right. Combat just doens't work after about level 15. At 21, either you need something grossly overpowering, that if it's off by a mite kills everyone, or you need RP. Lots of RP. In an RPG.

We shall see. Although, I do not like those blanket statements. You don't know my group, you don't know who we are or how we play. It seems that with the amount of variability that the players of D&D bring to the game, you would have really no idea what works for us at what levels. So why say "it doesn't work" when that's only true for your house rules, in your game, with your group?

Also, how do you know how the game works at that level if you don't play it that often? Seriously. Theorization's all well and good, but the DM you play with has a major effect on how the game runs. And there's really no way to tell ahead of time what a human being's going to do. (Unless you're prescient. If you are, could you tell me? That's a skill I'd really like to learn.)

Emperor Tippy
2007-05-22, 09:10 PM
Forgetting about the stupidity of wanting to do energy damage at level 20. Lets look at the energy seed.

DC 44 for 20d6 damage per use and you can use it as a spell like ability.

To get it down to a quickened action is +28.
No verbal or Somatic components is +4.

So DC 76.

Now x5 for permanent.

DC 380.

220 is mitigated by time.

So DC 160.

Burn 16,000 XP.

DC 0.

So now you can hit any target within 300 feet with a bolt of energy (you choose the type each time you use it) at will with a thought. They have to make a Reflex save of 20+Int for half damage..

So call it a DC 35 Reflex save.

Emperor Tippy
2007-05-22, 09:20 PM
Of course, the thread has gone out of control since I started writing this post.

I'll be addressing each one individually. So:



Alright.
Point I: It does also say that an opposed caster level check determines whether your spell will actually serve this purpose. So you're not completely undetectable. It depends on the power of the other caster.
The opposed caster level check actually only applies to blockign the divinations. But you have the mindblank you cast every day so that part doesn't matter.


Point II: You know, this is a world, that's probably doing something for 62 days. Having that time is not a given.
Arcane Genesis. 1 day there is 1 round on the material plane. So it actually only takes me at most 20 material plane miniutes to cast that spell.


Point III: Alright, I have a new idea. Namely, that the development costs are determined before mitigation. Is it in the RAW? No, unless I missed it. But I do think that is a good way to deal with that problem. Even if that is a bad idea, such a blatant attempt to give yourself no cost would probably get you a veto.

It doesn't work if you determine price before mitigation because of the simple fact that the DC's are far to high.


Point I: Again, I don't believe it's a given that you have forever to do all of this. I can assure you that in my campaign, they're not going to have years devoted to just buffing themselves.

See above.


Point II: With epic +6 mithral full plate and a Dex of 16, only 27. Then again, especially if you use my idea about taking the unmitigated DC for development costs, it cost the fighter a lot less to get it.

Your idea, frankly, sucks. Your much better off just dumping the whole epic magic system then implementing it.


Spellcraft DC 63? A wizard at 21st level can't do that, then. Even assuming the max 24 ranks in SC and an Int of 40, that's only a total modifier of +39. (Unless I screwed up in the Int bonus. Which is a distinct possibility.) And Int 40 seems out of reach for a 21st. Even a 25th would only have a 5% chance of successful casting. And the higher level you go, the more pathetic that DC 33 save looks.

That was for the level 30 character to use. And you can make outrageous Int boosting spells very easy.


Well, the broken ones are simple to deal with, so I see no need to go over those. Thanks, actually. I did say I have a campaign I would like to take epic, and I want to try to salvage epic spellcasting. Your descriptions of these spells really do help with the pre-emptive corrections.

Don't try to salvage Epic spell casting. Just dump it.

Arbitrarity
2007-05-22, 09:32 PM
Bah, excessive blanket statements. It's the way I think. Must... restrain... from bringing up... the other kobold.


We shall see. Although, I do not like those blanket statements. You don't know my group, you don't know who we are or how we play. It seems that with the amount of variability that the players of D&D bring to the game, you would have really no idea what works for us at what levels. So why say "it doesn't work" when that's only true for your house rules, in your game, with your group?

Also, how do you know how the game works at that level if you don't play it that often? Seriously. Theorization's all well and good, but the DM you play with has a major effect on how the game runs. And there's really no way to tell ahead of time what a human being's going to do. (Unless you're prescient. If you are, could you tell me? That's a skill I'd really like to learn.)True that. Specificity is easier to defend than generality. Then again, let's not go to far with the sarcasm, etc, hmm?

Why am I even defending this position? Is it because of opposition? Prehaps tenacity (or stuborness :smallbiggrin: ), prehaps idiocy. Or prehaps, because I think that this stuff is broken, as is. And, back on topic, you can't apply your house rules easily to other people's games, thereby the best recommendation is based without. Thereby, epic is broken, and any player who tries will outshine the fighter.

Prescience is merely a matter of considering the universe to have some underlying order, and concieving all parts of that order. The only problem is, that requires as many parts as that order, thereby meaning, to comprehend the universe, you must be the universe, or approximate. See weather predictions.

Now, not trying, deliberately gimping your character, to a degree is comprehensible (i.e. no pun-pun). But unless you know what other people are going to play, you may end way ahead or behind. Deliberately losing, due to inefficency, while concievably fun, without significant couching in appropriate RP terms, doesn't quite fit my concieved definition of pleasure. Prehaps it's a result of being on of them entitled north americans, and thereby feeling like I should win. This must be one of those subconscious urges that ultimately shows me to be extremely shallow!

Or... I like to win. Concievably fun to lose, Ok.

Are you arguing a position merely to oppose Tippy, because his display of broken rules aggrivates you?

Interesting, we had the same idea on epic spell pricing.

EDIT: Good, Tippy understands the brokedness. I suppose after those, it's pretty obvious. Now, I suppose, comes the argument to dump or attempt to recycle epic casting.

Emperor Tippy
2007-05-22, 09:35 PM
Yeah, you have the same idea on it but it really doesn't work.

A much better houserule is that you can't mitigate past a Seeds base DC.

And I'm continuing to argue my side for no other reason than boredom. If anyone wants to switch sides I'm game.

I can argue the other side just as easily. (Granted, I don't believe that the other side is correct)

EDIT: I never said epic casting wasn't broken. I've said it is inherently broken as written. Nothing I have shown is in the slightest bit imaginative or unexpected.

Arbitrarity
2007-05-22, 09:40 PM
I know, it's just that you speaking about how it allows you to do so and so seems to imply you would actually use that.

Wow, this all seems so futile :smallsigh: .

Actually, I considered the mitigation minimum thing as well. Interesting.

It appears what mostly breaks epic casting is when it costs little or nothing to develop a spell.

Emperor Tippy
2007-05-22, 09:44 PM
No. The most broken part is what you can do with permanent durations and summoning cheese.

The stuff I showed is tame by Epic standards.

And I use this stuff all the time in epic if epic spellcasting is allowed.

Epic games with Epic Casting are for playing catch with planets.

LotharBot
2007-05-22, 11:34 PM
See, if you're playing epic, you're doing one of two things. You're either playing a melee/skillmonkey/archer/whatever, and being slightly higher level than a level 20 character. Or you're playing a spellcaster, which means you really are having fun just dominating the world and killing anything in existance. That's what epic is.

Are you saying it's completely impossible to play epic any other way?

That seems to be the crux of the whole argument here. There are two ways to play epic: the "my caster can slay most lesser gods with a single spell because epic is broken" way, and the "my level 22 character is slightly more powerful than my level 20 character because we intentionally play like that" way. I think we should make a better effort to show respect to those who play the second way when they ask a question about their level 29 fighter builds.


We don't twink (mostly). We theorize.

Theorizing is all well and good... just not always appropriate. In particular, when someone asks for help with their level 29 fighter build, it's not really appropriate to sit there theorizing about how an epic wizard could be invulnerable and kill an infinite number of level 29 fighters with a single spell.

When the topic at hand is what it has been for the past couple pages of this thread, sure, it's appropriate to demonstrate how broken Epic Spellcasting is. We just need to do a better job of separating the two situations and making sure we're answering the question that's actually being asked.

JaronK
2007-05-22, 11:59 PM
Are you saying it's completely impossible to play epic any other way?

That seems to be the crux of the whole argument here. There are two ways to play epic: the "my caster can slay most lesser gods with a single spell because epic is broken" way, and the "my level 22 character is slightly more powerful than my level 20 character because we intentionally play like that" way. I think we should make a better effort to show respect to those who play the second way when they ask a question about their level 29 fighter builds.

The problem is simply that level 21+ casters, just using the basic rules of spell creation, can do so much that level 21+ non casters become less than the fifth wheels that they've been for the last 10 levels. They become completely pointless. Their power is so far behind, even when the casters are just doing basic things with epic casting, that they're not playing the same game anymore.

So yes, perhaps we should first ask "is your DM using epic casting?" Because if he's not, go ahead, play a melee type, you might have fun. The assumption, however, is that he is, and if so you are unlikely to have a good time playing a non caster.

JaronK

LotharBot
2007-05-23, 01:13 AM
The problem is simply that level 21+ casters, just using the basic rules of spell creation....

The assumption, however, is that he is [using epic casting]

Why make that assumption? Several of the people in this thread play without it. That seems like one of the major disagreements in this thread -- some people are saying "that's totally broken and we don't use it" while others say "it's totally broken and we do use it." It's normally safe to assume things like "it's OK to play as a rogue" or "it's OK to play as an elf" because the exceptions to that are rare, but this thread has shown exceptions to "we use Epic Casting" are common.

Instead of assuming Epic Casting is being used whenever someone mentions an epic game, it would make more sense to ask. (That's a good habit to have in general. If you're not sure, ask. Prevents a lot of disagreements, arguments, and misunderstandings.)

JaronK
2007-05-23, 02:38 AM
As a general rule, if someone asks a question about character creation, specifically about how to make their character stronger for a campaign (which was the case in the thread that spawned this one), it's assumed they're playing by RAW, or very close to it. If not, the person making the request should inform the board of what relevant house rules are in play.

Members of this board cannot predict what house rules you're using, and as such will operate with the assumption that you're not using any if you don't specify any.

JaronK

Saph
2007-05-23, 03:30 AM
As a general rule, if someone asks a question about character creation, specifically about how to make their character stronger for a campaign (which was the case in the thread that spawned this one), it's assumed they're playing by RAW, or very close to it. If not, the person making the request should inform the board of what relevant house rules are in play.

Members of this board cannot predict what house rules you're using, and as such will operate with the assumption that you're not using any if you don't specify any.

Excuse me? Haven't several people been explicitly saying that they disagree with this and don't make this assumption? I don't, Lothar doesn't, Draz doesn't, and neither do plenty of others. Just because you work this way, it doesn't mean that everyone else does. Don't presume to speak for everyone on the board.

- Saph

Emperor Tippy
2007-05-23, 07:07 AM
You should. Why would you assume that housrule's where in effect. Or what they may be?

If you don't want people assuming it then you as the OP should say that X isn't allowed, or XX is how we are playing, etc.

In most games I chuck Epic Casting out the window and give the mages other stuff. I have also made the fighter an NPC class and dumped all the warrior abilities onto commoners as standard commoner stuff.

How many of you do both of those? I doubt very many do the second. If I asked for help I would not expect you to knwo either of those things.

Arbitrarity
2007-05-23, 07:09 AM
But it's rather implausible to make no assumption about what game type they use when without specifics, it defaults to a given ruleset. And that given ruleset is RAW.

If you assume that they play non-RAW, and you don't know what house rules are in play, how do you know they're playing D&D? How do you know they aren't playing some Epic Iron Heroes, or some other system?

Saying "we make no assumptions, even when no house rules are given" means essentially that participation is rather peculiar, as you have no idea what that game is like. Everyone could be playing Incantatrix's, everyone could be playing Ninjas. In such a situation, without some assumption, some adherence to some ruleset, participation is futile.

Not meaning to be insulting, but if you make no assumptions, you can't do much, as all advice given will be non-specific.

You ASSUME that house rules are in play? Which? What? When? Where? Why? How can you predict their effects?

Saph
2007-05-23, 07:45 AM
You ASSUME that house rules are in play? Which? What? When? Where? Why? How can you predict their effects?

It's really not as difficult as you're making out.

I can assume, for instance, that any kind of Pun-Pun style build isn't going to be viable in virtually any D&D game I play in. Either it'll be shot down by the DM, or it'll require books that aren't allowed, or it'll just destroy the game instantly upon getting in and end the campaign. So it's pretty safe to say that Pun-Pun, although RAW-legal, isn't going to be allowed in a randomly picked D&D game.

But - oh no! Now I'm assuming a houserule! That would make the game non-RAW! Quick, I'd better go back to assuming that Pun-Pun is legal again until I'm told otherwise. Wow, guess I'm lucky you caught that one for me, huh? :P

- Saph

Counterspin
2007-05-23, 08:04 AM
Saph : You don't give people advice about Pun-Pun because it wouldn't be useful, not because it isn't RAW. Same goes with the rest of the truly abusive stuff, like the candle of evocation.

However, when making a comparative declarative statement about power, you have to go by the RAW because anything else would undermine any statement you could make. If you say wizards and fighters are on par with each other, but items which make you immune to magic and kill wizards with a touch with no save are common enough to be a regular threat(Name of that book's author is escaping me at the moment.) you're playing such a dramatically different game from me that we might as well not be having a conversation. Multiply that by the numerous posters in each thread, and you have chaos.

No one plays by RAW, of course, but it's impossible to determine what should be in a "reasonable" D & D discussion otherwise. I mean, we're talking about a particularly powerful spell right now. That's a really, really fine distinction between games, and there are lots of people who fall on either side. The statement "Wizards are more powerful than fighters" is partially based on the existence of this spell. So even as small an aspect as a single spell has an impact on the most common argument on these boards. That's why you need to argue by RAW.

The role of the DM is not useful as part of an argument because DMs make every possible decision, and there's no way to figure out what they're doing on a macro level. Just because you're lucky enough to have a GM who is deeply familiar with the rules and has a zen connection with balance doesn't mean there aren't three other guys who don't care and one who views the combat system as purely a tactical exercise.

Indon
2007-05-23, 08:09 AM
You ASSUME that house rules are in play? Which? What? When? Where? Why? How can you predict their effects?

Monk unarmed weapon proficiency comes to mind.

Really, how hard is it to say, for instance, "Oh, wow, this usage of this is horrifically broken. Maybe any sane DM is likely to restrict or ban epic magic to prevent this?"

As far as I'm concerned, if this forum is able to go on for entire pages about the brokenness of a single, small aspect of the game, then it's probably pretty clearly on the 'why are we wasting time talking about this again?' list.

Poppatomus
2007-05-23, 08:19 AM
Monk unarmed weapon proficiency comes to mind.

Really, how hard is it to say, for instance, "Oh, wow, this usage of this is horrifically broken. Maybe any sane DM is likely to restrict or ban epic magic to prevent this?"

As far as I'm concerned, if this forum is able to go on for entire pages about the brokenness of a single, small aspect of the game, then it's probably pretty clearly on the 'why are we wasting time talking about this again?' list.

Much as I hate to wade into this firestorm, I feel like I have to say something.

First of all, as was mentioned on page one of this thread, the person in the original, "help my fighter" thread was asking for ways improve their fighter character, or avoid taking more epic fighter levels, given the strength available to the epic caster they were confronting. (maybe that's not really what that threay was asking, but it's all I've seen about it in this thread.)

that means this whole meta argument about allowing or not allowing epic spells is moot to the original point of the thread, which was whether it is right or wrong to advise someone to avoid fighter levels when epic magic is in play. Epic magic, to some degree or another, was in play, even eliminating the truly cheesey stuff, like infinte solar assisted DC reduction, still leaves caster classes with a fair advantage.

"Any sane DM" might restrict or ban epic magic, but you can't possibly assume that in a thread who's whole purpose is to get help making a fighter for an epic campgain, when the OP is worried about falling behind the casters. You have to assume at least some form of epic casting is allowed, and you have to assume it is powerful enough to give the player concern, in the absence of specifics. Assuming the Raw is the most reasonable possible option. Additionally, letting the questioner know about the kind of cheese that is possible with a lax DM is also helpful, since it not only helps them appreciate how broken the rules are, but also might allow them to convince the DM not to allow certain things.

Indon
2007-05-23, 09:02 AM
First of all, as was mentioned on page one of this thread, the person in the original, "help my fighter" thread was asking for ways improve their fighter character, or avoid taking more epic fighter levels, given the strength available to the epic caster they were confronting. (maybe that's not really what that threay was asking, but it's all I've seen about it in this thread.)


I'm pretty sure this thread was in response to the "Fighter Feats" thread presently still on the first page as well. The OP of that thread says, "Hey, I'mma be a fighter in an epic game. Help me pick feats?" and the first page or so is not at all about picking feats, but instead how screwed the OP is for not being a caster.

That's extremely unuseful, and the original point of this thread was basically someone wondering why said people were being unhelpful by doing that, and the rebuttal that they felt they were being helpful because epic magic is just that overpowered.

Then it slowly diverged to what we're at now.

Personally, I've no problem with one poster saying, "FYI, epic magic may leave you feeling left out if any of the other players really capitalize on it," and then actually offering ideas for fighter feats as suggested in the beginning of the thread, but what actually happens generally goes too far in the direction of "Yes, we know that already, go away".

NullAshton
2007-05-23, 09:06 AM
The way I see it, there are two trains of thought here on giving advice for character creation.

1. Give them advice that makes said character as powerful as possible, with RAW.

2. Give then advice that makes said character as powerful as possible with said parameters, assuming that the DM is reasonable.

I see that the second train of thought should be the one that's used for at least character creation tips. There should be some things that should be assumed to automatically fall under a given person's parameters.

An example of one of these parameters is that the DM has a decent intelligence. Recommending spells like Shivering Touch to them with the explicit intention to make that character have a instant win spell against dragons is NOT assuming that their DM has decent intelligence. You're insulting their DM's intelligence, by assuming that said DM will allow stuff like that.

The person asking for help with character creation didn't specifically say that spells like Shivering Touch was banned. That doesn't give you the right to automatically assume that the person's DM will allow shivering touch, however. If you give them reasonable character builds, they will not have to continuously post saying 'No, I don't want an epic spellcaster, I want an epic fighter', or 'My DM has banned this spell'. Group 1's way of thinking when that happens is say, 'Trust me, your character will suck if you don't go epic spellcasting, epic spellcasting is broken' or 'Take this broken spell instead'. It leads to a lot of frustration and arguments like this one.

Don't think that I mean that you shouldn't have arguments on what the best way to balance a certain spell would be. I'm asking to leave said arguments out of people just asking for help on making a character for a campaign. And to assume that broken stuff such as Shivering Touch, epic spellcasting, and for an extreme example Pun-Pun is either toned down or banned. If the person explicitly states that stuff like Shivering Touch and epic spellcasting as written(and expliticly saying that they have a DM that allows all epic spellls regardless of levels of cheesiness), then it's okay to put that stuff in the build. But it isn't okay to put that stuff in builds for people, when they didn't explicitly state that that sort of stuff is allowed.

Counterspin
2007-05-23, 09:11 AM
Your inability to do epic level casting will define pretty much everything your character does, systemically, in an epic game. It is the most important thing about your character, systemically. It bears mentioning, and it bears repeating. If you can't handle people telling you applicable and important truths in a nonoffensive way you shouldn't solicit help on a public forum.

NullAshton
2007-05-23, 09:18 AM
Your inability to do epic level casting will define pretty much everything your character does, systemically, in an epic game. It is the most important thing about your character, systemically. It bears mentioning, and it bears repeating. If you can't handle people telling you applicable and important truths in a nonoffensive way you shouldn't solicit help on a public forum.

It bears mentioning. It does not bear repeating. It ESPECIALLY does not bear repeating when noone that repeats it actually gives any helpful advice. Do you honestly think that an entire page of posts saying nothing more than 'Epic spellcasting is broken, go be a caster' is at all useful to the original poster? It does indeed get offensive when you don't even give any useful help on what he came onto the forums to get help with.

Think about it for a moment. He's asking for help on making a good epic fighter, when all people say for what can be several pages is 'Epic fighters suck, go be a wizard'. How is that not offensive?

Emperor Tippy
2007-05-23, 09:23 AM
It bears mentioning. It does not bear repeating. It ESPECIALLY does not bear repeating when noone that repeats it actually gives any helpful advice. Do you honestly think that an entire page of posts saying nothing more than 'Epic spellcasting is broken, go be a caster' is at all useful to the original poster? It does indeed get offensive when you don't even give any useful help on what he came onto the forums to get help with.

Think about it for a moment. He's asking for help on making a good epic fighter, when all people say for what can be several pages is 'Epic fighters suck, go be a wizard'. How is that not offensive?

See the bolded part. That is a paradox. It can not and does not exist in RAW D&D 3.5. There are just different levels of suckiness in epic level fighters.

1 Fighter might be a 2 on a 10 point scale of ability. The best possible fighter that can be made is a 5. The worst wizard with Epic casting is a 7. The best wizard with epic casting is a 20.

Now the OP in the thread in question had 9 levels of warblade. 20 levels of warblade and 9 of fighter is about 2 points higher on that scale automatically.

Counterspin
2007-05-23, 09:27 AM
NullAshton : It's not offensive because, well, it's not offensive. These people are trying to help the poster. Why you would respond to people trying to help you with scorn, particularly help you solicited, is beyond me.

NullAshton
2007-05-23, 09:29 AM
See the bolded part. That is a paradox. It can not and does not exist in RAW D&D 3.5. There are just different levels of suckiness in epic level fighters.

1 Fighter might be a 2 on a 10 point scale of ability. The best possible fighter that can be made is a 5. The worst wizard with Epic casting is a 7. The best wizard with epic casting is a 20.

Now the OP in the thread in question had 9 levels of warblade. 20 levels of warblade and 9 of fighter is about 2 points higher on that scale automatically.

Yes it CAN EXIST in epic, IF it's more powerful than all the other epic fighters! Look at it on the scale of 'Epic fighter vs another epic fighter' instead of 'Epic fighter vs THE WORLD.' And if that's the scale you want to use, then make a 5 level fighter then.

What the original poster of character creation threads doesn't want is to continously be told to do something else other than what they want to do. Ever notice that in character creation threads, after people suggest for them to play a caster instead, that they most of the time say that no, they'd rather play what they wanted to play in the first place?

Thus, if you are going to say something, make sure that you're helping them with their original idea while giving them a suggestion for epic casters or whatever you think would be better. You know, actually help them with what they want to do?

Counterspin
2007-05-23, 09:34 AM
NullAshton : Or maybe you should make peace with the idea that people on the internet are not ever going to be exactly on topic. That's what I've done, and I can tell which of us is going to be happy with their internet interactions sometime this lifetime.

Emperor Tippy
2007-05-23, 09:39 AM
Yes it CAN EXIST in epic, IF it's more powerful than all the other epic fighters! Look at it on the scale of 'Epic fighter vs another epic fighter' instead of 'Epic fighter vs THE WORLD.' And if that's the scale you want to use, then make a 5 level fighter then.

Most monsters are at least a 7.

But the best fighter is an order of magnitude worse than the worst played Epic castign wizard. And an order of magnitude worse than any epic monster.

The difference between a well played, level 30, Epic Castign wizard and the best damn fighter that you can make at level 30 is many, many orders of magnitude.

Comparing a well played epic wizard to teh best possible fighter is like sending Einstein against a mentally handicapped 2 year old in a physics competition.


What the original poster of character creation threads doesn't want is to continously be told to do something else other than what they want to do. Ever notice that in character creation threads, after people suggest for them to play a caster instead, that they most of the time say that no, they'd rather play what they wanted to play in the first place?

You want to play a fighter? Fine. You don't have to change a single bit of your character history to play with warblade levels instead. But you just increased your effectiveness in the endgame by an order of magnitude. You still lose in Epic but you will crush the fighter.


Thus, if you are going to say something, make sure that you're helping them with their original idea while giving them a suggestion for epic casters or whatever you think would be better. You know, actually help them with what they want to do?

I will not help someone make a character that will be a liability to their party without a damn good reason. And I want to take 30 fighter levels is not a damn good reason.


--
I'm serious. A group made up of 1 level 30 wizard, 1 level 30 cleric, and 1 level 30 druid would actually be less effective if they got a level 30 fighter on their team. The very act that you are their makes the game less fun for the other players. They have to babysit your character, the DM can't challenge them because if he does you will die instantly and he can't give you stuff to do because the casters can do it better, quicker, cheaper, and safer than you ever could.

NullAshton
2007-05-23, 09:39 AM
NullAshton : Or maybe you should make peace with the idea that people on the internet are not ever going to be exactly on topic. That's what I've done, and I can tell which of us is going to be happy with their internet interactions sometime this lifetime.

Doesn't it annoy you when from the start, something goes off topic? And remains that way for several pages, and you never get any help in the first place?

I sure would be annoyed if I didn't get any help for what I wanted to do, while the people who did post posted about something that was of no help to me, and even if it was it's repeated over and over.

Emperor Tippy
2007-05-23, 09:40 AM
The OP has got help. And is taking 20 levels of warblade instead of 20 of fighter.

The advice given on those "off-topic" pages was clearly helpful and appreciated.

Counterspin
2007-05-23, 09:45 AM
As Tippy notes, the OP got plenty of help. And no, it doesn't bother me when people wander off topic. I read through and skip people who aren't saying things I'm interested in. And help is something you're lucky to get, not something you deserve. If you get it good, if you don't, *shrug* it's not like you're paying the forum denizens for their advice. They're not employees, they're just friendly folk who want to help you out. They should be treated like friends, with a goodly dollop of affection.

Poppatomus
2007-05-23, 11:31 AM
Since the original question has become secondary, let me submit another. I was looking at the post regarding permanent invisibility, permanent armor bonuses, etc... produced by less cheesy epic spells.

Why can't you do that to a fighter? How would a permanently invisible, all but untargetable fighter not be a benefit in combat. Even if he was only a lt. to the wizard that buffed him, he would be fairly potent in himself no? Hell, people might even think that it was some kind of new spell, when they got whacked by the artifact weapon held by the improved invisible fighter after the wizard spoke a word.

To put it another way, is it still unbalanced if you assume that wizards want to create buffed fighters to accompany them?

Emperor Tippy
2007-05-23, 11:42 AM
Yes and no.

Sure the fighter is permanently invisible, but the wizard has to turn it off. He can't.

And even if you buff the fighter he is still less effective than a caster. And it depends on a caster being willing to buff him.

And as I said, thats weak epic stuff.

You get the real fun when you break out Ritual magic and Origin of the Species.

The mage can make himself a new race that can pretty much do anythign at will as a free action, has every stat as a natural 500 and everything else you can imagine. All as Ex abilities.

Poppatomus
2007-05-23, 12:10 PM
Yes and no.

Sure the fighter is permanently invisible, but the wizard has to turn it off. He can't.

And even if you buff the fighter he is still less effective than a caster. And it depends on a caster being willing to buff him.

And as I said, thats weak epic stuff.

You get the real fun when you break out Ritual magic and Origin of the Species.

The mage can make himself a new race that can pretty much do anythign at will as a free action, has every stat as a natural 500 and everything else you can imagine. All as Ex abilities.


Right right. This i Understand, When I was eliminating "cheese" I meant things that allow the epic caster not just to buff, But to pun-pun. Even in the example you give the idea of summoning a creature with 500 in every stat you can imagine and everything else as an Ex ability that's assuming you can have a basically infinite reduction in DC. Even if that's RAW valid, it means you can also basically take any spell and make it target someone else as well. (polymorph any target the warrior into that new species, for instance.) If we are talking about altering every stat and just becoming a living god than class basically ceases to matter, as long as one person is able to start the cycle.

My question is related to a situation where your DM has restricted those more broken interpretations of such spell and you have an adventuring party consisting where the epic wizard is just as willing to buff the fighter as he is buff himself. Is there anything inherent in a fighter, or monk, or whomever, that causes them to benefit more from a spell then the caster?

The invisible living death fighter, for instance, would seem a more valuable recipient of that invisibility spell then the wizard, especially if the wizard passed off his loyal companion as some unique spell. People would buff their SR and it wouldn't matter, people would try to counter spell and it wouldn't matter, and by that point some artifact weapon is lodged in their trachea. Someone might be smart enough to target a dispell on the invisible attacker, if they even knew it was an attacker, but even then they'd have to beat the ward spell, dispell that, then beat the invisibility, just to know what they were fighting.

I'm on your side that as levels go up the gap between magic users and non-magic users gets bigger and bigger, but I am not yet convinced that the strength of the fighter or the monk or the rogue can't be augmented by a wizard in a way beneficial to both of them. (devastating critical, for instance, seems like it would be a potent weapon against a non pun-pun'd wizard. Grow the fighter 2 extra arms, have him grab perfect multi-weapon fighting and he's basically guarenteed at least one crit every round)

Or to make my position more falsifiable: Selfless wizards can buff other classes as much as they buff themselves, and in some situations those classes, properly buffed, will still be useful/functional in an epic group.

Draz74
2007-05-23, 12:11 PM
This is kind of off-topic, but if high-level wizards have 30-40 int (which I'm not disputing), why are they so often described as having such bizarre affectations? Best example I can think of is Elminster of Forgotten Realms.

Practically a demi-god, power-wise.

Also squirrelly as hell.

If we were going purely by numbers, shouldn't all wizards be practically Vulcans?

Ahh, see, now, you're buying into the Stoic idea that emotions (if allowed to be expressed at all) and logic are contradictory. A fundamental principle of Vulcan philosophy, stolen from such earth philosophers as Cicero and Marcus Aurelius. And apparently, maybe, shared by Emperor Tippy.

But not necessarily true. Or (more to the point) agreed with by all wizards.

Just because they have the ability to use AMAZING logic doesn't mean they actually reject the ideas of basing one's choices on emotion, or letting some emotion show through while they follow the dictates of logic.

Poppatomus
2007-05-23, 12:17 PM
Ahh, see, now, you're buying into the Stoic idea that emotions (if allowed to be expressed at all) and logic are contradictory. A fundamental principle of Vulcan philosophy, stolen from such earth philosophers as Cicero and Marcus Aurelius. And apparently, maybe, shared by Emperor Tippy.

But not necessarily true. Or (more to the point) agreed with by all wizards.

Just because they have the ability to use AMAZING logic doesn't mean they actually reject the ideas of basing one's choices on emotion, or letting some emotion show through while they follow the dictates of logic.

Agreed.

Also, I would point out that IQ and logic are not equal. IQ most directly correlates with the ability to identify patterns, which can mean in logical argument or it can mean in colors or human behavior. Whichever way it comes out it has little to do with how you make a personal decision.

copying my last post below, just in case it get's swallowed being the last post on the previous page, sorry for the repeat to those suffering it twice:

Right right. This i Understand, When I was eliminating "cheese" I meant things that allow the epic caster not just to buff, But to pun-pun. Even in the example you give the idea of summoning a creature with 500 in every stat you can imagine and everything else as an Ex ability that's assuming you can have a basically infinite reduction in DC. Even if that's RAW valid, it means you can also basically take any spell and make it target someone else as well. (polymorph any target the warrior into that new species, for instance.) If we are talking about altering every stat and just becoming a living god than class basically ceases to matter, as long as one person is able to start the cycle.

My question is related to a situation where your DM has restricted those more broken interpretations of such spell and you have an adventuring party consisting where the epic wizard is just as willing to buff the fighter as he is buff himself. Is there anything inherent in a fighter, or monk, or whomever, that causes them to benefit more from a spell then the caster?

The invisible living death fighter, for instance, would seem a more valuable recipient of that invisibility spell then the wizard, especially if the wizard passed off his loyal companion as some unique spell. People would buff their SR and it wouldn't matter, people would try to counter spell and it wouldn't matter, and by that point some artifact weapon is lodged in their trachea. Someone might be smart enough to target a dispell on the invisible attacker, if they even knew it was an attacker, but even then they'd have to beat the ward spell, dispell that, then beat the invisibility, just to know what they were fighting.

I'm on your side that as levels go up the gap between magic users and non-magic users gets bigger and bigger, but I am not yet convinced that the strength of the fighter or the monk or the rogue can't be augmented by a wizard in a way beneficial to both of them. (devastating critical, for instance, seems like it would be a potent weapon against a non pun-pun'd wizard. Grow the fighter 2 extra arms, have him grab perfect multi-weapon fighting and he's basically guarenteed at least one crit every round)

Or to make my position more falsifiable: Selfless wizards can buff other classes as much as they buff themselves, and in some situations those classes, properly buffed, will still be useful/functional in an epic group.

Draz74
2007-05-23, 12:29 PM
Most monsters are at least a 7.

But the best fighter is an order of magnitude worse than the worst played Epic castign wizard. And an order of magnitude worse than any epic monster.

The difference between a well played, level 30, Epic Castign wizard and the best damn fighter that you can make at level 30 is many, many orders of magnitude.

Comparing a well played epic wizard to teh best possible fighter is like sending Einstein against a mentally handicapped 2 year old in a physics competition.


So, I say, if people's DMs aren't smart enough to nerf Epic Casting on their own, then LET PEOPLE FIGURE THAT OUT FOR THEMSELVES. The hard way. It will convince them so much faster and more peacefully than a discussion on a Forum will.

Let people go play a Level 29 Fighter and get their butts kicked by the monsters and be considered a liability by their Wizard buddies who are busy creating demiplanes. What, are they going to come back to the Forum and accuse us of being bad optimizers? We did what they told us to do! We taught them how to make a [relatively] optimized Epic Fighter (a 5 on your scale, which can hopefully at least keep itself alive much better than a 2 on your scale).

We might even find that people aren't disappointed with their results, because they take our optimizations and also add house-rules that make Fighters decent in Epic. And then we will have saved a lot of argument.



You want to play a fighter? Fine. You don't have to change a single bit of your character history to play with warblade levels instead. But you just increased your effectiveness in the endgame by an order of magnitude. You still lose in Epic but you will crush the fighter.

Side note: Many groups don't have ToB or the money to buy it in their budgets!


I will not help someone make a character that will be a liability to their party without a damn good reason. And I want to take 30 fighter levels is not a damn good reason.

Why not?
Again, learning the hard way is sometimes the fastest way. :smalltongue:

Emperor Tippy
2007-05-23, 12:30 PM
Yes, the fighter benefits.

Everyone benefits.

IC before I've bribed people to sacrifice spells for my rituals with extra years on their life.

It's more that the fighter is now depending on the spells for everything, he is just another conduit for the wizards spells.

And would be as good at his good at level 1 as he is at level 30.

Roderick_BR
2007-05-23, 12:46 PM
There's a very easy way for a DM to keep a game balanced: He can just say no.
No matter if something is RAW, WotC officially approved, or whatever. If it's broken and stupid, doesn't allow it.
Take Pun-Pun for example. Just say that creatures that can permanently change a character's stats at will, doesn't exist in your campaign setting, in any dimension or plane, and the character has no knowledge of any kind of creature like that, save high level wizards/clerics with Wish/Miracle. Problem solved.
Spells are ridiculously overpowered? Just ban them. If you want to go through the trouble, make a list. Cleric's divine power makes meelers useless, and is not what a cleric is supposed to be. Ban. Force Cage allows no way of protecting from it. Crap, you could trap a demi-god if he can't teleport or disintegrate. Ban. Time Stop is powerful, but I think it's still valid. It's bad only if combined with others broken spells.

Or the alternative is to make outrageous abilities for the other characters. Make a feat that allows a fighter/ranger to strike arrows in any target, ignoring even windwalls. Give the monk abilities to attack with all his multiple attacks in any place.
Really, D&D IS unbalanced. If the players need to tone down "because they are nice guys" but otherwise can unbalance the game and spoil the fun, something is very wrong.
Heck, when I made that charger barbarian build that dealt 240 points of damage on one hit, I thought something was wrong and looked for the erratas. Dammit, that error, used with a 3.0 feat (that was altered in the 3.5), would give me the power to kill the Tarrasque in one hit.
So, as I said, in my games, no one ever stole the spotlight for himself alone, ever, even with fighters, druids, and wizards fighting along side.

LotharBot
2007-05-23, 02:27 PM
it's rather implausible to make no assumption about what game type they use when without specifics, it defaults to a given ruleset. And that given ruleset is RAW.

I think it makes a ton more sense, given that it's KNOWN that Epic Casting is often houseruled out, to not "assume" or "default to" RAW, but instead to ask.

I never said to make NO assumptions... just to make sensible assumptions, and ask when you're dealing with a subject where you know things are commonly houseruled. RAW is a sensible assumption most of the time in low-level games, but when we're talking epic, or even high-level pre-epic, it really is best to ask.

Counterpower
2007-05-23, 03:44 PM
My apologies for the lateness of my reply. School does get in the way far too often.


The opposed caster level check actually only applies to blockign the divinations. But you have the mindblank you cast every day so that part doesn't matter.

Okay......... in case you didn't know already, I hate absolute statements. So I'll probably end up changing mind blank in some way.


Arcane Genesis. 1 day there is 1 round on the material plane. So it actually only takes me at most 20 material plane miniutes to cast that spell.

Saying that you can or can't change the time trait on a genesis plane is either way a houserule; the spell itself doesn't say. I prefer to go with the rule, just like psionic genesis, that you can't.


It doesn't work if you determine price before mitigation because of the simple fact that the DC's are far to high.

You........ um, do realize that that is exactly the point? I'm sure I can find some compromise or middle ground, but I am absolutely not going to allow epic spells that cost nothing.


Your idea, frankly, sucks. Your much better off just dumping the whole epic magic system then implementing it.

Except I just don't want to do that, and I doubt any of my players would like that either.


That was for the level 30 character to use. And you can make outrageous Int boosting spells very easy.

First, it would probably have been smarter to say outright that is was designed for a level 30. Second, in my game, only if I allow it. Which I am now forewarned about, thanks to you.


Don't try to salvage Epic spell casting. Just dump it.

Why? I haven't seen any indication yet that Epic Spellcasting is completely unsalvageable. Mainly because I've been developing counters to everything that you've been using to make it broken.

Besides, your continued statements that Epic Spellcasting is broken and your resistance to the ideas I'm developing ensure that it will always be broken. I will continue to have hope that I and my players can have fun with Epic Spellcasting while still giving me the chance to challenge my players. How do you know I won't succeed?

Jasdoif
2007-05-23, 04:08 PM
I haven't seen any indication yet that Epic Spellcasting is completely unsalvageable. Mainly because I've been developing counters to everything that you've been using to make it broken.That's pretty much the entire point, the mechanics are game-breaking unless the DM intervenes. That's what "broken" means: the system is incapable of maintaining its own integrity, requiring the DM to step in whenever it comes up.

Which might not bother you, but then again it might, or it might come to bother you after a while. You might have more fun not using epic spellcasting. If you want to try it and see for yourself, go ahead and try it, no one's stopping you. If you aren't in the mood to experiment with it immediately, take advice from someone who's done it before (sounds like Emperor Tippy's your expert here).

There's plenty of fun epic metamagic feats for your regular spellcasting, you might just be fine with those. There's also incantations (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/variant/magic/incantations.htm), which is like epic spellcasting except players don't decide their effects and they're not strictly limited to spellcasters. Oh, and they're more specific in scope then spells generally are. Personally I like the feel of incantations better, the cost and risk of failure part of it makes it more interesting to me then "ho-hum, three more potentially multiverse-shattering epic spells to cast today". (As a sidenote, neither of these are exclusive with epic spellcasting, you can easily have them alongside it in a game)

Emperor Tippy
2007-05-23, 04:26 PM
My apologies for the lateness of my reply. School does get in the way far too often.



Okay......... in case you didn't know already, I hate absolute statements. So I'll probably end up changing mind blank in some way.
Houserule. Has no relevance here.


Saying that you can or can't change the time trait on a genesis plane is either way a houserule; the spell itself doesn't say. I prefer to go with the rule, just like psionic genesis, that you can't.

Housrule. Arcane Genesis quite clearly effects the time trait. It also allows you to make a plane out of solid gold if you wanted.


You........ um, do realize that that is exactly the point? I'm sure I can find some compromise or middle ground, but I am absolutely not going to allow epic spells that cost nothing.

You do realize that your solution just made a 20d6 quickened fireball cost 603,000 GP and 24,120 XP to develop?

As I said, it doesn't work.


Why? I haven't seen any indication yet that Epic Spellcasting is completely unsalvageable. Mainly because I've been developing counters to everything that you've been using to make it broken.

Besides, your continued statements that Epic Spellcasting is broken and your resistance to the ideas I'm developing ensure that it will always be broken. I will continue to have hope that I and my players can have fun with Epic Spellcasting while still giving me the chance to challenge my players. How do you know I won't succeed?

You want broken?

Check the spoiler.

I Kill You With My Brains
Necromancy [Death]
Spellcraft DC: 30
Components: None
Casting Time: 200 days, 20 Minutes and then 1 quickened action
Range: 2,100 ft.
Target: One living creature
Duration: Instantaneous
Saving Throw: Fortitude partial or half (see text)
Spell Resistance: Yes

To Develop: 270,000 gp; 6 days; 10, 800 XP. Seeds: Slay (DC 25). Factors: Contingent (+25 DC), Quickened Spell (+28 DC), No Verbal Components (+2 DC), No Somatic Components (+2 DC), +50 on CL checks to overcome Sr (+100), +31 to Save DC (+62 DC), Range Increase by 700% (+14 DC); Pre-Mitigation DC: 258; Mitigating Factors: Increase Casting time to 10 Minutes (-20 DC), Increase Casting Time to 200 Days (-200), Decrease Damage Die to d4 (-5 DC).

This spell places a contingency on the caster, from that point on the caster can, at will as a quickened action, attempt to slay any single living creature within a 2,100 foot radius of him. The save DC to resist is 51+ the casters Int bonus. On a successful save the target takes 3d4+20 damage.

And if you don't like the contingency or casting time just change it to burning 20K XP as the mitigating condition. You will make it up and more every time you solo something twice your level

Indon
2007-05-23, 04:30 PM
That's pretty much the entire point, the mechanics are game-breaking unless the DM intervenes. That's what "broken" means: the system is incapable of maintaining its own integrity, requiring the DM to step in whenever it comes up.


You know, generally, potentially game-breaking mechanics aren't actually game breaking until a player uses them to break the game.

You'd think this would be a self-solving problem, since the more a player learns about a system, becoming more capable of breaking it, the more that player should be responsible for their actions such that they don't actually do so. (I am aware of the fact that players often don't actually exert this mechanical self-control, but a player who knows both how to break a tabletop game, and how not to, making the decision and breaking that game is manifesting a personal problem)

This, of course, leaves the problem of an inexperienced player going, "Ooh, this looks nifty!" and it just turning out to be game-breaking, but in that kind of circumstance you can just do what tippy suggested some time back and retcon it fixed.

Perhaps I'm weird for thinking players should manage their actions in order to promote the fun of the group, and abstaining from mechanical options which work against this fun. I guess this would mean in a game centered around epic spellcasting, I would advise against a fighter. In any other epic game, I guess I would advise against epic spellcasting. Of course, that'd just be as an aside, I'd still provide actual advice as requested.

Emperor Tippy
2007-05-23, 04:36 PM
The thing is, Epic Casting can't be unbroken.

Indon
2007-05-23, 04:41 PM
The thing is, Epic Casting can't be unbroken.

I'm pretty sure a responsible caster could use it the way the player realizes it's meant to be intended, for world-shattering ancient rituals and the like.

I certainly know that as a DM, none of my NPC's would break it. I'm lucky in that my gaming group plays multiple games in which everyone has DM'ed before, so all my players would have experience employing similar mechanical restraint, and I could go, "Yeah, you can take epic spellcasting, just don't do anything cheesy with it," and they honestly wouldn't. No solar summoning, no permanent contingent powers, nothing like that.

Are groups like mine truly that rare?

NullAshton
2007-05-23, 04:52 PM
The thing is, Epic Casting can't be unbroken.

It can. If the players are reasonable, and don't do anything that will break the system. I showed you how to do that by making a simple +9 armor spell.

Emperor Tippy
2007-05-23, 04:55 PM
No. I mean Epic casting is either utterly not worth it (the fireball example above) or outrageously powerful (turn the world into a second sun).

With the epic spells I have shown on here so far I have been conservative with all the rules.

And I can still slay a Great Wrym Prismatic Dragon (CR 66) at will as a quickened action from over a third of a mile away.

I've avoided almost all the real epic cheese so far.

I can make a spell that will turn an earth sized planet into a sun fairly easily with the regular accepted interpretation of a few rules.

Ulzgoroth
2007-05-23, 04:56 PM
You typically get two spells per day when you first become able to use epic magic. There is no possible logic to claiming that that is exclusively intended for world-shattering rituals. Doubly so when you read the sample spells, which include things like Animus Blast (standard action area attack, raises undead), Hellball (standard action bathe enemies in mixed energy damage), and Let Go Of Me (blow up the idiot grappler, free action).

If you give a budget in spells per day, people have every right and reason to spend that budget.

Indon
2007-05-23, 05:01 PM
No. I mean Epic casting is either utterly not worth it (the fireball example above) or outrageously powerful (turn the world into a second sun).

With the epic spells I have shown on here so far I have been conservative with all the rules.

And I can still slay a Great Wrym Prismatic Dragon (CR 66) at will as a quickened action from over a third of a mile away.

I've avoided almost all the real epic cheese so far.

I can make a spell that will turn an earth sized planet into a sun fairly easily with the regular accepted interpretation of a few rules.

Sir, I think everyone involved in the discussion is by now quite aware of your skill at maximizing the possibility of the epic magic rules. The point is that a player could maybe not do that. Maybe casting spells more like the examples Ulzgoroth noted (and they are duly noted, at that, you bring up a good point), perhaps?

Emperor Tippy
2007-05-23, 05:02 PM
Hell, the unmitigated DC to create a sphere of fire with a radius larger than the earths is only 295 with how the rules are written.

And thats permanent. I just made a very small sun

Indon
2007-05-23, 05:06 PM
Hell, the unmitigated DC to create a sphere of fire with a radius larger than the earths is only 295 with how the rules are written.

And thats permanent. I just made a very small sun

And that's a good example of a world-shattering ancient ritual-type spell, the kind you have the BBEG start casting such that he's almost finished by the time the PC's get there, that sort of thing.

Arbitrarity
2007-05-23, 05:09 PM
Now, we understand the power of TMA!

1x4x9?

Black?

Rectangular prism?
:smallwink:

Emperor Tippy
2007-05-23, 05:10 PM
Sir, I think everyone involved in the discussion is by now quite aware of your skill at maximizing the possibility of the epic magic rules. The point is that a player could maybe not do that. Maybe casting spells more like the examples Ulzgoroth noted (and they are duly noted, at that, you bring up a good point), perhaps?

What he noted though isn't worth an epic slot. Thats the point.

Look at Hellball.

It's a 50d6 fireball that costs 810,000 GP to develop and can't be reliably cast until around level 40.

A much better application of the energy seed is the spell like ability option.

Take the same End DC (90)
Base of 19+25 for 34
+56 to add 28d6 of damage

So same DC but now you can deal 38d6 damage every round for the next 20 hours.

Same spell but increase casting time to 10 minutes to increase those to d10's.

So 38d10 per round for an average of 209 damage per standard action.

And my version doesn't even waste XP.

Emperor Tippy
2007-05-23, 05:12 PM
And that's a good example of a world-shattering ancient ritual-type spell, the kind you have the BBEG start casting such that he's almost finished by the time the PC's get there, that sort of thing.

But don't you see?

That was a weak use of the energy seed.

Indon
2007-05-23, 05:14 PM
Another really powerful epic spell.


You're using the 'give yourself a permanent ability' thing again. You already did that with the contingent spell thing. Yes, we know.

Or are you seriously trying to argue that, with all your infinitely great rules manipulation ability, you literally can not make a good epic spell? The rules are on d20srd.org, right?

Edit:

But don't you see?

That was a weak use of the energy seed.

BBEG's, and responsible players, shouldn't feel a need to maximize such a powerful narrative tool. Congratulations, you made a non-broken epic spell. You may never actually cast it yourself because it's not in-character for your God-wizard, but you still did it.

NullAshton
2007-05-23, 05:14 PM
No. I mean Epic casting is either utterly not worth it (the fireball example above) or outrageously powerful (turn the world into a second sun).

With the epic spells I have shown on here so far I have been conservative with all the rules.

And I can still slay a Great Wrym Prismatic Dragon (CR 66) at will as a quickened action from over a third of a mile away.

I've avoided almost all the real epic cheese so far.

I can make a spell that will turn an earth sized planet into a sun fairly easily with the regular accepted interpretation of a few rules.

No, you didn't avoid epic cheese. You used Genesis to make a demiplane where time moves faster(cheese in itself), in order to cast a spell that takes a very long amount of time.

I'd consider taking the DC to cast the spell down to 0 cheese. Even if it is strictly allowed by the rules.

Emperor Tippy
2007-05-23, 05:18 PM
No, you didn't avoid epic cheese. You used Genesis to make a demiplane where time moves faster(cheese in itself), in order to cast a spell that takes a very long amount of time.

I'd consider taking the DC to cast the spell down to 0 cheese. Even if it is strictly allowed by the rules.

That was used in a deliberate attempt to kill what amounts to a greater deity at level 22.

I've avoided that in here. And you can negate the time increase with XP burn, which you make up very easily.

Taking the DC down to 0 isn't cheese. Or down to 1.

I personally housrule you can't go below a seeds base DC but it is just that, a houserule.

By RAW it isn't cheese.

It is merely the intended application of an inherently overpowered ability.

Arbitrarity
2007-05-23, 05:22 PM
By RAW, there is no such thing as cheese... Because there is no definition of cheese....

Emperor Tippy
2007-05-23, 05:28 PM
You're using the 'give yourself a permanent ability' thing again. You already did that with the contingent spell thing. Yes, we know.

Or are you seriously trying to argue that, with all your infinitely great rules manipulation ability, you literally can not make a good epic spell? The rules are on d20srd.org, right?

No. I never used permanency for the SLA fireball one.

That is an option in the seed its self.

And ,no, I can't come up with an epic spell that is balanced but has a cost that I would ever be willing to pay to get it.


Edit:


BBEG's, and responsible players, shouldn't feel a need to maximize such a powerful narrative tool. Congratulations, you made a non-broken epic spell. You may never actually cast it yourself because it's not in-character for your God-wizard, but you still did it.

Those are fairly broken.

Nothing I have posted here is maximized.

These are maximized
Epic Spell Reflection
Abjuration
Spellcraft DC: 27
Components: V, S [Ritual]
Casting Time: 10 Minutes
Range: Touch
Target: Object or creature touched
Duration: Permanent
Saving Throw: None
Spell Resistance: Yes
To Develop: 243,000 gp; 5 days; 9,720 XP. Seed: reflect (DC 27). Factors: reflect up to 10th-level spells (+180 DC), change range to touch (+2 DC), reflect area effect spells (+20 DC), suppressable at will (+2 DC) permanent (×5 DC). Mitigating factors: increase casting time by 10 minutes (-20 DC), 1135 additional casters contributing one 1st-level spell slot (-1135 DC).

The character can create a permanent ward against all spells, including epic spells, that target the subject or affect the area the subject is in. These spells are reflected back on the caster. Epic spells are only reflected if the subject wins a caster level check against the attacker. Non-epic spells are reflected without this check. The subject can raise and lower this protection at will as a free action (so they can benefit from helpful spells).

Perfect Being
Conjuration
Spellcraft DC: 25
Components: V, S
Casting Time: 50 days 10 Minutes
Range: 240 feet
Target: Object or creature touched
Duration: Permanent
Saving Throw: None
Spell Resistance: Yes
To Develop: 225,000 gp; 5 days; 9,000 XP. Seed: reveal (DC 25). Factors: increase range by 100%
(+2 DC), dismissible at will (+2 DC), permanent (×5 DC). Mitigating factors: increase casting time by 10 minutes (-20 DC), increase casting time by 50 days (-100 DC).

Natural Armor: +50 (DC +106)
Insight Bonus to Armor: +10 (DC + 104)

Obedient Presence (EX): Every creature within an 80 foot radius acts as if dominated by the XXXXXX for 40 hours (or until the XXXXXX releases them), this effect can be surpressed or restarted by the XXXXXX at will as a free action. DC + 106

Unfindable (EX): The XXXXXX can not be detected by any form of divination and is completely invisible as if under the effects of a greater invisibility spell. This effect can be surpressed or restarted by the XXXXXX at will as a free action. DC + 58

Telepathy (EX): The XXXXXX can speak to the mind of any creature within 500 feet regardless of language and the creature can respond in kind. DC + 118

Weather Control (EX): The XXXXXX can control the weather within a 10 mile radius, changing it to whatever the XXXXXX desires. This weather lasts for a duration of 160 hours and takes 10 minutes to manifest. DC + 82

XXXXXX’s Touch (EX): The XXXXXX can channel positive energy through its body or into the body of a touched creature at will as a free action. This ability completely cures all diseases, blindness, deafness, hit point damage, ability damage or drain, seed neutralizes all poisons in the subject’s system, offsets feeblemindedness, cures mental disorders caused by spells or injury to the brain, dispels all magical effects penalizing the character’s abilities, including effects caused by spells, even epic spells, this power also removes all negative levels the subject has received within the past year. If an undead is the subject of this ability than it loses all but 1d4 HP on a failed fortitude save. Alternatively the XXXXXX can choose to channel negative energy through its touch, fully healing undead and removing all but 1d4 points of HP in a living subject on a failed fortitude save. This ability also makes the XXXXXX immune to all poisons, diseases, blindness, and deafness. DC + 160

Breath of Life (EX): The XXXXXX can restore life and complete vigor to any deceased creature. The condition of the remains is not a factor. So long as some small portion of the creature’s body still exists, it can be returned to life, but the portion touched must have been part of the creature’s body at the time of death. (The remains of a creature hit by a disintegrate spell count as a small portion of its body.) The creature can have been dead for no longer than two hundred years. The XXXXXX can also use this ability give actual life to normally inanimate objects. The caster can give inanimate plants and animals a soul, personality, and humanlike sentience. To succeed, the XXXXXX must make a Will save (DC 10 + the target’s Hit Dice, or the Hit Dice a plant will have once it comes to life).

The newly living object, intelligent animal, or sentient plant is friendly toward the XXXXXX. An object or plant has characteristics as if it were an animated object, except that its Intelligence, Wisdom, and Charisma scores are all 3d6. Animated objects and plants gain the ability to move their limbs, projections, roots, carved legs and arms, or other appendages, and have senses similar to a human’s. A newly intelligent animal gets 3d6 Intelligence, +1d3 Charisma, and +2 HD. Objects, animals, and plants speak one language that the XXXXXX knows, plus one additional language that he or she knows per point of Intelligence bonus (if any). Using the Breath of Life ability takes an XXXXXX 1 minute. DC +52

True Sight (EX): The XXXXXX can see through normal and magical darkness, notice secret doors hidden by magic, see the exact locations of creatures or objects under blur or displacement effects, see invisible creatures or objects normally, see through illusions, see onto the Ethereal Plane (but not into extradimensional spaces), and see the true form of polymorphed, changed, or transmuted things. The range of such sight is 3,840 feet. DC +62

Shape Change (EX): This ability is exactly like the spell Shapechange except that there is no maximum on the number of hit dice that the assumed form can have, and you can change into any form you can imagine (for example you could give your normal form wings or extra arms) but you do not gain any extraordinary or supernatural abilities that you imagine. You can dismiss the shape change at will as a free action. DC +150

Teleport (EX): The XXXXXX (and additional objects or creatures weighing up to 1,000 pounds) is instantly transported to any destination on any plane that the XXXXXX can see or is familiar with. This ability works by creating a demiplane that is linked to both the XXXXXX”s current location and to the destination. The demiplane itself is infinitesimally small so no time is spent traveling between the entrance and the exit of the plane. The Demiplane does not last and a new one is created every time the XXXXXX uses this ability. DC + 58

Temporal Control (EX): The XXXXXX can shift him or her self into alternate time streams at will as a free action. If the XXXXXX moves him or herself into a slower time stream for 1 to5 rounds (up to the XXXXXX), time ceases to flow for the XXXXXX, and its condition becomes fixed—no force or effect can harm it until the duration expires. If the XXXXXX moves him or her self into a faster time stream, the XXXXXX speeds up so greatly that all other creatures seem frozen, though they are actually still moving at their normal speeds. The XXXXXX is free to act for 1 to 5 rounds (up to the XXXXXX) of apparent time. Fire, cold, poison gas, and similar effects can still harm the XXXXXX. While the XXXXXX is in the fast time stream, other creatures are invulnerable to his or her attacks and spells; however, the XXXXXX can create spell effects and leave them to take effect when he or she reenters normal time. DC + 70

Spell Resistance 50 (EX): DC +200

DR 35/Epic (EX): DC +200

No Maximum Age: Ad Hoc +100 to DC

Timeless Body (EX): Ad Hoc + 100 to DC

Accelerated Aging (EX): A 6 month old XXXXXX is equivalent to a 20 year old human in physical and mental maturity. A 1 year old XXXXXX is equivalent to a 50 year old human in physical and mental maturity. At 3 years old an XXXXXX is fully mature and is equivalent to a 100 year old human in physical and mental maturity. AD HOC +100 to DC

Does not need to Drink: Ad Hoc + 25 to DC

Does not need to Eat: Ad Hoc + 25 to DC

Does not need to Breath: Ad Hoc + 50 to DC

Only needs 4 hours of restful meditation to get the benefits of 8 hours of sleep : Ad Hoc +25 to DC

Scorn Earth (EX): As the Echolocator ability of the same name. Ad Hoc +25 to DC

Genetic Memories (EX): XXXXXX’s are born with the accumulated knowledge of all of their forbearers due to their genetic memories. This provides a +30 racial bonus to all of the following skills: Appraise, Bluff, Concentration, Decipher Script, Diplomacy, Disable Device, Disguise, Forgery, Gather Information, Handle Animal, Heal, Hide, Intimidate, Knowledge (all skills), Move Silently, Open Lock, Search, Sense Motive, Sleight of Hand, Spellcraft, Survival, Tumble, Use Magic Device, Use Rope, Autohypnosis, Psicraft, Use Psionic Device, Craft (any 15), Perform (Act, Comedy, Dance, Keyboard instruments, Oratory, Percussion instruments, String Instruments, Wind Instruments, Sing), Profession (any 15) Ad Hoc +250 to DC

Superior Body (EX): XXXXXX’s are born with super human bodies and some instinctual knowledge of how to master those bodies abilities. This provides a +30 bonus to the following skills: Balance, Climb, Escape Artist, Jump, Listen, Ride, Spot, and Swim. Ad Hoc +250 to DC

Dark vision (EX): Ad Hoc +10 to DC

Low-Light Vision: Ad Hoc +10 to DC

Blind sight (EX): Ad Hoc + 20 to DC

Paralytic Touch (EX): At will as a free action the XXXXXX can paralyze a touched creature for 24 hours Ad Hoc + 30 to DC

Regeneration 5 (EX): Ad Hoc + 20 to DC

Tremor sense (EX): 1,000 Feet Ad Hoc + 30 to DC

Utter Loyalty (EX): All XXXXXX are born with a telepathic link to every other XXXXXX and to their original creator. This link works across all planes and can not be blocked. No XXXXXX can disobey the original creator. Ad Hoc +200 to DC

Strength: 50
Dexterity: 50
Constitution: 50
Intelligence: 50
Charisma: 50
Wisdom: 50

Ad Hoc + 1000 to DC for attributes

Ad Hoc + 204 to the DC for good measure

Total DC: 4,000 x5

Final DC (pre mitigation): 20,000

Mitigating Factors: 20,000 additional casters contributing 1st level spell slots (-20,000 DC)

And I could pump those higher if I felt inclined.

NullAshton
2007-05-23, 05:44 PM
Yet the DM can still reject said spells because of being too powerful. No matter what you make or how you make it, the DM can always reject an epic spell, even without houserules. It is after all, in the rules.

Indon
2007-05-23, 05:48 PM
And ,no, I can't come up with an epic spell that is balanced but has a cost that I would ever be willing to pay to get it.


Why not? XP cost can be regained, and if you're an epic wizard (especially your wizard, who is essentially infinitely wealthy even before he hits epic levels), money is no object. You shouldn't need to resort to breaking the game to make interesting epic magic.



More epic magic breakage.


Yes, yes, I know. Your proverbial D&Dpeen is ginormous. Still not caring.

Oh, I'd also like to add, I don't know who else might not have known this, but DM approval is explicitly required for all epic spell designs per RAW, so I'm guessing Wizards saw the potential and decided to head it off at the proverbial pass by giving the DM significant control over the process. Per the RAW. Kinda like Leadership, which generally isn't mentioned much on this forum because it requires explicit DM approval.

Edit: ninja'ed! *shakes fist*

Ulzgoroth
2007-05-23, 06:05 PM
BBEG's, and responsible players, shouldn't feel a need to maximize such a powerful narrative tool. Congratulations, you made a non-broken epic spell. You may never actually cast it yourself because it's not in-character for your God-wizard, but you still did it.
That, right there, is why there's a conflict. You are characterizing a game mechanic as a narrative tool. Maybe you can use it as one, but it is given as a mechanic, not a narrative tool. If you look at game rules as things you use to tell a story...that's a pretty irreconcilable difference with people who look at them as being rules.

Indon
2007-05-23, 06:06 PM
That, right there, is why there's a conflict. You are characterizing a game mechanic as a narrative tool. Maybe you can use it as one, but it is given as a mechanic, not a narrative tool. If you look at game rules as things you use to tell a story...that's a pretty irreconcilable difference with people who look at them as being rules.

Well, the rules say DM's can shut down any epic spell before it even thinks about being cast, so in this specific case, I think it's appropriate.

Emperor Tippy
2007-05-23, 06:16 PM
Why not? XP cost can be regained, and if you're an epic wizard (especially your wizard, who is essentially infinitely wealthy even before he hits epic levels), money is no object. You shouldn't need to resort to breaking the game to make interesting epic magic.

Yeah, they are good. You can make non broken ones. But you can get much more out of the gold and XP.

Take the Ring of Universal Energy Immunity. It costs 2,160,000 GP. That is the equivalent of 4 or so "balanced" epic spells and it makes you immune to the whole energy seed.

So that is 4 epic spells I just lost the gold to make. Let's go with level 30 WBL, 4,300,000 GP.

Set aside another 1,140,000 GP for other items you want and your down to 1,000,000 GP to spend on epic spells.

That is 1-2 good epic spells. And you only have 3 slots per day.

Say there are 5 Epic spells that I want. All are fairly balanced but 2 are permanent or at least long term buffs and the other 3 are in combat stuff. I can mitigate the buffs down with time or rituals and now I can afford them and say 2 combat spells.

But those buffs are now looked at as broken, because of their price.


Yes, yes, I know. Your proverbial D&Dpeen is ginormous. Still not caring.

Oh, I'd also like to add, I don't know who else might not have known this, but DM approval is explicitly required for all epic spell designs per RAW, so I'm guessing Wizards saw the potential and decided to head it off at the proverbial pass by giving the DM significant control over the process. Per the RAW. Kinda like Leadership, which generally isn't mentioned much on this forum because it requires explicit DM approval.

Edit: ninja'ed! *shakes fist*

Read the DMG, page 6. Rule 0.

For RAW debates it is ignored because no one knows how different GM's will rule.

And I have allowed every spell I have shown so far in at least 1 of my games. I have also denied them all at least once. They fit in some games but not in others.

Emperor Tippy
2007-05-23, 06:17 PM
Well, the rules say DM's can shut down any epic spell before it even thinks about being cast, so in this specific case, I think it's appropriate.

The rules say the DM can shut down anythign he ever feels like without a reason whenever he wants.

It doesn't matter at all for purposes of this thread or any debate in gaming on this forum.

Poppatomus
2007-05-23, 06:21 PM
Well, the rules say DM's can shut down any epic spell before it even thinks about being cast, so in this specific case, I think it's appropriate.

Indon, I think your position is correct, but you haven't addressed the major concern, which is if there is no system, then what's the point of having rules at all. If the DM's word is law on this issue, why have a system? why not just have a page that says, "the DM may allow epic spells, here's a list of samples. go crazy." (actually that probably would be a better system)


If it's just a narrative device than there should no more be rules for it than there are rules for plot twists or flavor dialoge. If it is meant to be a system, and that system isn't broken, there should be a way to act within the rules while still allowing players to use those rules creativly, even if that means eliminating cheese like summoning thousands of extra casters to help you.

The current standing challenge is interesting to me, I wish I had more expereince with Epic level play so I could try and answer it: create a balanced, worth it, epic level spell that does not involve cheese.

Indon
2007-05-23, 06:41 PM
Indon, I think your position is correct, but you haven't addressed the major concern, which is if there is no system, then what's the point of having rules at all. If the DM's word is law on this issue, why have a system? why not just have a page that says, "the DM may allow epic spells, here's a list of samples. go crazy." (actually that probably would be a better system)


No, no. You misunderstand. The epic spell rules literally require explicit DM permission. Few things in the D&D system actually specify that you must get the okay from the DM; epic spells are one of them. Another example is the feat Leadership. That's actually all I can think of offhand; earlier today, I thought the Leadership feat was unique in that regard.

Generally, Leadership isn't talked about on the forum because it is unique among all feats in that 1.)It's quite breakable, and because of that 2.)It requires explicit DM approval and so is unlikely to be used except as part of the plot or somesuch.

Epic magic specifies similar; it does, in fact, give you a list of examples (http://www.d20srd.org/indexes/epicSpells.htm), and says that a DM may allow or disallow any given epic spell.

So, there's a discrepancy regarding talking about epic magic like it's not in the same category of as the Leadership feat... which isn't generally mentioned on the forum despite being quite potent.

Poppatomus
2007-05-23, 06:43 PM
No, no. You misunderstand. The epic spell rules literally require explicit DM permission. Few things in the D&D system actually specify that you must get the okay from the DM; epic spells are one of them. Another example is the feat Leadership. That's actually all I can think of offhand; earlier today, I thought the Leadership feat was unique in that regard.

Generally, Leadership isn't talked about on the forum because it is unique among all feats in that 1.)It's quite breakable, and because of that 2.)It requires explicit DM approval and so is unlikely to be used except as part of the plot or somesuch.

Epic magic specifies similar; it does, in fact, give you a list of examples (http://www.d20srd.org/indexes/epicSpells.htm), and says that a DM may allow or disallow any given epic spell.

So, there's a discrepancy regarding talking about epic magic like it's not in the same category of as the Leadership feat... which isn't generally mentioned on the forum despite being quite potent.


All good points. The leadership analogy is particularly apt I think as a built in DM approval mechanic because brokenness is forseen.

hmmm... gonna try and make a fair spell I think.

Jasdoif
2007-05-23, 06:51 PM
No, no. You misunderstand. The epic spell rules literally require explicit DM permission. Few things in the D&D system actually specify that you must get the okay from the DM; epic spells are one of them. Another example is the feat Leadership. That's actually all I can think of offhand; earlier today, I thought the Leadership feat was unique in that regard."This is too broken for us to fix with rules, let the DMs sort out the mess" is what the translation of that explicit requirement is.

Emperor Tippy
2007-05-23, 06:52 PM
All good points. The leadership analogy is particularly apt I think as a built in DM approval mechanic because brokenness is forseen.

hmmm... gonna try and make a fair spell I think.

Strangely enough your best bet is a summon spell.

Poppatomus
2007-05-23, 07:01 PM
"This is too broken for us to fix with rules, let the DMs sort out the mess" is what the translation of that explicit requirement is.

But his point is still strong if you relate it to Leadership. Just like leadership there is a great deal of potential for this to be broken. Leadership doesn't have the earth shattering potential of epic spells, obviously, but it can quickly unbalance a game with a clever player using the ability to its fullest extent, even if not explicitly cheesy.

It does seem intutivly reasonable to say that the DM decide the limits of magic in their universe, much as they can say that you can't have a cohort who is also the prince of the kingdom or that you can't suddenly have a group of suicide bombers willing to kill anyone you want at the cost of their own lives because you decided to forgo +3 hp.

The question seems to be: does the system have value as a shaper of spells and guide for play even if the DM can say, "i'm sorry that one is too powerful?" Following leadership, it seems like it does.

Jasdoif
2007-05-23, 07:06 PM
But his point is still strong if you relate it to Leadership. Just like leadership there is a great deal of potential for this to be broken. Leadership doesn't have the earth shattering potential of epic spells, obviously, but it can quickly unbalance a game with a clever player using the ability to its fullest extent, even if not explicitly cheesy.Yes. The mechanics of the game can't cope with the impact of either ability as they're written, requiring DM intervention to keep them in line. That's what makes them broken. The only difference here is that they're labeled as such.

Poppatomus
2007-05-23, 07:13 PM
Yes. The mechanics of the game can't cope with the impact of either ability as they're written, requiring DM intervention to keep them in line. That's what makes them broken. The only difference here is that they're labeled as such.

This is a good point. I was trying to distinguish it with shivering touch, but you're right, it's just a label that says: broken, handle at own risk.

The more interesting question then becomes, is it salvagable. Is there some change you could make to the system, or some reasonable rule that could be applied where you still get value out of having the rules without allowing them to be broken. In the sense that you get value out of the leadership rules/feat as written even if the DM has to be on guard. As in, what if all Epic spells had to actually br researched on the material plane (no time warps) and summoned creatures were unable to contribute spell slots (no cheesing it down with donated slots). Would the spells you could create still be worth researching?

Emperor Tippy
2007-05-23, 07:22 PM
Well my entry for an epic spell that I would use and that isn't broken (In my opinion)

Well here's my choice.

Faithful Protector
Conjuration (Summoning)
Spellcraft DC: 65
Components: V, S
Casting Time: 1 minute
Range: 75 ft.
Effect: One summoned creature
Duration: 40 rounds (D)
Saving Throw: Will negates (see text)
Spell Resistance: Yes (see text)

To Develop: 585,000 gp; 12 days; 23,400 XP.
Seeds:[/b summoning (DC 14).
[b]Factors: all summoning of Magical Beasts (+10 DC), increase maximum CR of summoned creature to 30(+56 DC), Contingency (+25 DC), +20 to DC of subject’s save (+40 DC), +20 to CL check to overcome SR (+40 DC).
Pre-Mitigation DC: 187
Mitigating factor: increase casting time to 10 minutes (-20 DC), Burn 12,200 XP.

When this spell is cast the caster gains the ability to summon 1 magical beast of up to CR 30 at will as a standard action. The beast appears at a location of the casters choice that is within 75 feet of the caster. It will obey the casters orders and will last for 40 rounds.

XP Cost: 12,200 XP.

I see the caster using this in advance and then being prepared encase he is attacked. The spellcraft DC is the max a level 25 caster can make (28+15+2+10) if he takes 10 and avoids massive cheese.

Some good monster choices are the Three-Headed Sirrush (CR 28 and what the SR and Save boosts where tailored to get), and the Prismasaurus.

If you switch the type allowed to outsider you lower the DC by 10 and gain a few more choices, abbreation is good as well. Same with Fey.


This is a good point. I was trying to distinguish it with shivering touch, but you're right, it's just a label that says: broken, handle at own risk.

The more interesting question then becomes, is it salvagable. Is there some change you could make to the system, or some reasonable rule that could be applied where you still get value out of having the rules without allowing them to be broken. In the sense that you get value out of the leadership rules/feat as written even if the DM has to be on guard. As in, what if all Epic spells had to actually br researched on the material plane (no time warps) and summoned creatures were unable to contribute spell slots (no cheesing it down with donated slots). Would the spells you could create still be worth researching?

Well I just use level 1 casters. They are easy to find and each one lowers the DC by 1.

Or make a spell that adds 37 years to the current age category of every creature within an area of 4 10-foot cubes. Mitigate it with 5 9th level slots sacrificed and increase casting time to 10 minutes. The DC comes out to 0 (increase as desired at +2 per year added on).

Now just bribe casters who can cast 9th level spells.

"Sacrifice a 9th level slot to mitigate my spell and I will give you another 50 years to live."

5 9th level slots mitigates 85 points away, which is very nice.

Emperor Tippy
2007-05-23, 10:54 PM
Here are some more epic spells I developed that seem somewhat balanced.

http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=45199

Indon
2007-05-23, 11:06 PM
"This is too broken for us to fix with rules, let the DMs sort out the mess" is what the translation of that explicit requirement is.

Or, it says, "Narrative tool, optimizers keep out," since it provides DM's with significant, but conveniently rules-governed potential. It's good for a player, too, if they handle with care.

Not all the mechanics in the game need to be built around the potential for player optimization. In fact, they aren't, not in the least. Some of it is, because D&D tries to be a little of everything as far as tabletop games go, but the game as a whole is not built to not be 'broken' by that definition.

Counterspin
2007-05-25, 01:53 PM
The point of playing in a level based game, as opposed to a less rigid system, is that levels are supposed to force rough parity between characters of the same level(I said rough, not exact, rough). To the extent that epic casting, even in it's tamer moments, does serious damage to this equilibrium, it is broken.

Indon is entirely correct, epic casting is a narrative tool, but why do we need rules for narrative tools? The vast majority of the meat of the epic system is a system for balance. The DCs and their reductions are the only real systemic part, and as has been pointed out they are intensely powerful.

The fact that it has a requirement for GM intervention only points out how broken it was, and that Wizards knew it was broken when it shipped. This fails both sides of the community as far as I'm concerned. It overly controls and antagonizes narrativists who could happily bop along in epic magic without a system, and it utterly fails the wargamers because it's a broken system.

Indon
2007-05-25, 02:06 PM
The point of playing in a level based game, as opposed to a less rigid system, is that levels are supposed to force rough parity between characters of the same level(I said rough, not exact, rough). To the extent that epic casting, even in it's tamer moments, does serious damage to this equilibrium, it is broken.

D&D allows for widely varying equilibrium per level to easily allow for many different styles of play, from gritty and lethal to combat-as-an-afterthought.



Indon is entirely correct, epic casting is a narrative tool, but why do we need rules for narrative tools? The vast majority of the meat of the epic system is a system for balance. The DCs and their reductions are the only real systemic part, and as has been pointed out they are intensely powerful.

Because having things like that statted out is convenient for DMs. Though, a DM who wants an ancient, superpowerful ritual without referring to the epic magic rules can do so if they're willing to work out the details independently.



The fact that it has a requirement for GM intervention only points out how broken it was, and that Wizards knew it was broken when it shipped. This fails both sides of the community as far as I'm concerned. It overly controls and antagonizes narrativists who could happily bop along in epic magic without a system, and it utterly fails the wargamers because it's a broken system.

-It's not broken; it's breakable. This isn't some MMO where a player should be expected to exploit any possible advantage for their characters, but rather a game in which a player has a responsibility towards the enjoyment of the group; a responsibility over their own actions, as it were.
-Narrativistic DM's don't need to look at the rules if they don't want.
-Gamist DM's don't need to exploit the rules if they don't want... but they can, and more power to them. Literally. And they don't even have to invoke rule 0 to essentially do whatever they want, either.
-Narrativistic players can access wondrous magical capabilities outside the standard Vancian system, for a price (Though, arguably, custom magic spells is similar at pre-epic stages).
-Gamist players, well, okay, they would complain that the system is broken because they'd feel that all availible advantages should be exploitable.

So really, the only group really shorted out by epic magic would be the players who both demand optimization as their right, and in doing so have no regards for party dynamics. Such players are probably ill-suited for playing D&D at any level.

Fourth Tempter
2007-05-25, 02:25 PM
Indon, Epic Spellcasting is not a "narrative tool". It is an ability characters can acquire and are expected to use, much as they use their ninth-level spells or Multispell feat. If it were a narrative tool, it would not have such a detailed system and prestige classes specifically designed for it! Compare it to Artifacts--those are, genuinely, a narrative tool.

"It's not broken, it's breakable" is disingenuous--I can not imagine a viable standard of robustness so very low that Epic Spellcasting still meets it. A rules sytem should have some integrity, and Epic Spellcasting does not.

I am curious--if Epic Spellcasting is not "broken", what would it take for you to consider an ability as being broken? "Plus infinity to hit and damage at will"?

Emperor Tippy
2007-05-25, 02:27 PM
Because having things like that statted out is convenient for DMs. Though, a DM who wants an ancient, superpowerful ritual without referring to the epic magic rules can do so if they're willing to work out the details independently.

Epic magic boils down to say whatever you want to happen, and it does.

The DM can do whatever and have no problems.


-It's not broken; it's breakable. This isn't some MMO where a player should be expected to exploit any possible advantage for their characters, but rather a game in which a player has a responsibility towards the enjoyment of the group; a responsibility over their own actions, as it were.

No, I made the mos balanced, but still worthwhile in epic, spells that I could in that other thread and they are still broken.

The first one allows me to grab a CR 28 beast that's fluff has it eating adult dragons for breakfast. That beast could solo a ECL 25 party with a fairly good chance of success (if epic magic isn't in play).

With the teleport spell you can kill anything up to CR 30 that doesn't have the ability to planeshift.

With the beast cage/ Enslave combination you can get a whole army of CR 30 baddies with little trouble.

And those are about as weak as I could make them and still have them be effective in Epic.


-Narrativistic DM's don't need to look at the rules if they don't want.
-Gamist DM's don't need to exploit the rules if they don't want... but they can, and more power to them. Literally. And they don't even have to invoke rule 0 to essentially do whatever they want, either.
-Narrativistic players can access wondrous magical capabilities outside the standard Vancian system, for a price (Though, arguably, custom magic spells is similar at pre-epic stages).
-Gamist players, well, okay, they would complain that the system is broken because they'd feel that all availible advantages should be exploitable.

So really, the only group really shorted out by epic magic would be the players who both demand optimization as their right, and in doing so have no regards for party dynamics. Such players are probably ill-suited for playing D&D at any level.

Are you rebuilding every Epic monster? If not them you shaft the party if you don't allow epic spells. Those monsters are made with the expectation of Epic Magic.

Are you continuing to increase spell DC's to keep up with the Save increases? Over level 40 the only time 9th level or lower spells that allow a save work is a natural 1.

Breaking through SR is likewise an iffy proposition. Why do you think those spells I showed had such a boost to the SR and Save checks? Because if I am wasting an epic spell I damn well want it to work.

Indon
2007-05-25, 02:35 PM
I am curious--if Epic Spellcasting is not "broken", what would it take for you to consider an ability as being broken? "Plus infinity to hit and damage at will"?

That's the point. 'Broken' isn't applicable in a tabletop roleplaying game oriented around story, like D&D is. Rules are rules, and if you use them badly it's your fault. If they don't compliment your playstyle, hey, that's fine, there's probably a better ruleset for you out there, or you can make your own.

As for what would qualify for the definition, nothing strictly. I guess maybe if a mechanic were actually not usable in any circumstance, that'd be as close as you could get. That'd be a useless mechanic, which, if not for the fact that epic spellcasting can be used by players and DM's to effect, epic spellcasting could have been. So epic spellcasting isn't useless.

Now, maybe if we were talking about a computer RPG, or a competitive card game, but other than that, it's a useless description that reveals personal bias against things that don't compliment one's playstyle. All calling a rule 'broken' does is say "I expect D&D to play like a computer RPG."

Edit: To summarize: Wizards doesn't make D&D games. Dm's and players do. Wizards just prints books. You made it, you break it.

Fourth Tempter
2007-05-25, 02:44 PM
D&D is just as much oriented around the rules and combat as it is around story--perhaps even moreso; it did evolve from wargaming, after all. D&D has rules, and people expect those rules to be adhered to, to some degree; if a rule has to be almost entirely scrapped to be useable, is that not "broken" enough? Call this an issue of semantics, if you like--when people say "broken", they mean really poorly designed mechanics that, if applied, would allow Bad Things to happen.

Your philosophy is short-sighted, I think, because D&D is not a freeform game--it is played with rules, and the rules influence the events. If I take a prestige class which grants me the ability to do a thousand damage to anyone I think of as a swift action, this will influence in-game events as my character quite reasonably snuffs out the life of the campaign villain in an eyeblink. By your school of thought, the details of mechanics are essentially irrelevant... and yet, those mechanics influence play unless overridden--and if you are overriding mechanics all the time, why are you using rules (and a very rules-heavy system!) in the first place?
If Epic Spellcasting is just fine and dandy because it's possible to use it without upsetting the game, well, then surely designers should not bother considering how mechanics interact at all! In fact, why not just roll a d20 and have your DM pick a DC based on your character? "That should be easy, so don't roll a 2 or less and you succeed." That would be a ruleset about as robust as Epic Spellcasting.
And then you can simply dispense with the die with an arbitrary number of sides, and tell the players what happens in response to their actions.
I have played and run games that way. I have enjoyed it.
But those games were nothing like Dungeons & Dragons, because the thing that defines Dungeons & Dragons is its ruleset and its vicissitudes. That was "roleplaying", no game. Dungeons and Dragons is as much Game as it is Roleplaying--and a game needs good rules.

You may not believe anything is "broken", but you are very much in the minority, and arguing that "nothing is broken" contributes nothing to a meaningful discussion of what is broken. Simply read broken to mean "very, very poorly designed", if that will make you feel better about the term; that is essentially what it is used to mean, with a few other connotations.

Indon
2007-05-25, 03:03 PM
D&D is just as much oriented around the rules and combat as it is around story--perhaps even moreso; it did evolve from wargaming, after all. D&D has rules, and people expect those rules to be adhered to, to some degree; if a rule has to be almost entirely scrapped to be useable, is that not "broken" enough? Call this an issue of semantics, if you like--when people say "broken", they mean really poorly designed mechanics that, if applied, would allow Bad Things to happen.

Yes, D&D is very much about statting out story things. This provides for a wargame with a rich story, or a story with an interesting mechanic. Should mechanics inappropriate for a story be usable? Would you like to try claiming that one set of mechanics can compliment any kind of story? D&D itself is not freeform, but it is practically boundless.



Your philosophy is short-sighted, I think, because D&D is not a freeform game--it is played with rules, and the rules influence the events. If I take a prestige class which grants me the ability to do a thousand damage to anyone I think of as a swift action, this will influence in-game events as my character quite reasonably snuffs out the life of the campaign villain in an eyeblink. By your school of thought, the details of mechanics are essentially irrelevant... and yet, those mechanics influence play unless overridden... and if you are overriding mechanics all the time, why are you using rules--and a very rules-heavy system!--in the first place?

You have to take the prestige class before that happens, though, and its' existence would be interesting for games in which such a thing might be appropriate; say the PC's are playing God-kings ruling over their empires?



You may not believe anything is "broken", but you are very much in the minority, and arguing that "nothing is broken" contributes nothing to a meaningful discussion of what is broken. Simply read broken to mean "very, very poorly designed", if that will make you feel better about the term; that is essentially what it is used to mean, with a few other connotations.

Discussions of what is broken aren't neccessarily meaningful as-is, and the connotations are intended to be derogatory (Edit: and inflammatory; calling a rule 'poorly-designed' does not function as forum flame bait like calling it 'broken' does, now does it?). It's the gaming-term equivalent of an ad hominem (only rules can't complain about being insulted, of course), and is itself 'broken' by that very definition... or simply 'useless' by mine.

There is a good point I read a couple moments ago, on another thread, though (By Telonius, I do believe). Telonius noted he believed that rules should be written with exploitation and poor use in mind, because a player who is responsible with the rules is going to be responsible regardless of what the rules are. Keeping this in mind, rule breakability is a good thing to reduce, provided other aspects of the game don't suffer. So that's something.

Mind, I'm not saying epic magic could not do its' job better (or capable of being more versatile), if it were tweaked with that in mind. I'm just saying that it is, however ineffeciently, capable of doing a job. So I guess I concede the point that the epic magic system could, and probably should be improved. It'd just be a question of how to do so.

Emperor Tippy
2007-05-25, 03:07 PM
Epic magic is NOT capable of doing its job.

The job of epic magic is to create and cast spells that are powerful enough to deal with Epic challenges, yet weak enough that the rest of the party can participate, but good enough that the player will be willing to spend hundreds of thousands of gold and tens of thousands of XP getting them.

Counterspin
2007-05-25, 03:29 PM
Just because a tool can do "a" job doesn't mean that it's not broken. A tool has to do "its" job to not be broken. If I break the sledgehammer I'm using to crush rocks I can still use the head as a doorstop, but my sledgehammer is still broken.