I've only been skimming the material as I am still working on my campaign so I haven't run anything yet. I love the conceptual design, I am anxious to see how the Elementals are handled.
It's great work, keep it up.
Is there a level adjustment applied when undergoing the transformation of advanced beings? It seems to me there should be one, the sheer power that they have outways that of a mortal at the same level.
I've only been skimming the material as I am still working on my campaign so I haven't run anything yet. I love the conceptual design, I am anxious to see how the Elementals are handled.
It's great work, keep it up.
There is no precedence for a spell line, or a prestige class to bump up Level Adjustments. As such, while the idea had been at the forefront of discussions before, it was rejected as potentially being a seriously broken mechanic. Advanced Beings already pay a lot for their advancements, and a character undergoing the transformation will probably develop a bit slower than his peers (level-wise) anyway. We also were taking into account that the Advanced Beings are a bit more balanced with other Epic characters; something that in 2e really didn't exist, especially other Epic spellcasters.
All examples of a character undergoing a metamorphisis by class at the very least lose caster levels to compensate for gain in power. The Half-Dragon for instance spend 10 levels with out a caster level increase, though does gain some spells, to compensate for an ecl +3.
Also while many features of Epic characters may be able to match an advanced being, they have to expend spells/use items to attain that and all that can be dispelled etc. while many of the power ups on the AB are features of the form.
I suppose it might be worth measuring out A dragon against a non-dragon caster just to see how much of a difference there is, it's just at glance it appears out of balance. I am one to admit it's usually not as bad as it appears, there is so much to take into account and appearance are notoriously deceiving in d20 systems.
I know that things can appear out of balance easily in d20, there's a lot factors to consider. You may be entirely correct, but I just can't get it to look right without a direct comparison. It took a lot of work to show how balanced power attack and two handed weapons were in Conan OGL as the mechanics of combat are different enough to require a different learning curve in comparison to standard d20.
I hope they are close enough in relation to other epic characters, it's a really nice job you guys have done. I think it's well thought out, and much of it is similar to what I was thinking of doing. You all have done great work and it's good to see my favorite setting continuiously having a new breath life despite WotC lack of support. If anything, I think it's better that the fans of the setting adapt it to 3.5 over WotC as at least we do it because we love the setting and will do it right, instead of doing it for profit.
Kudos!
I forgot that the Mage/Psion gets hosed. I'll post comments and questions this weekend.
I think that arcane/psionic epic spellcasting should have remained restricted to advanced beings only, just as it was in the 2nd edition. I do feel that some of the flavour of being required to transform into non-human entities in order to attain the pinnacles of arcane and psionic power was lost due to the abolition of this requirement.
I'm actually completely opposed to that idea. Because to me, it goes completely against the ideology presented in 3.5e. Restricting levels like that is a somewhat broken mechanic. And more or less demanding that every spellcaster who wishes to advance to higher levels must become these beings of vague myth and lore, where only a few people would even know they exist.... that's a STRETCH for me.
I'm actually completely opposed to that idea. Because to me, it goes completely against the ideology presented in 3.5e.
3.5E is supposed to give you a toolkit, but it is not the determinant of flavour of specific settings.
And more or less demanding that every spellcaster who wishes to advance to higher levels must become these beings of vague myth and lore, where only a few people would even know they exist.... that's a STRETCH for me.
"Every spellcaster who wishes..." is in this case a tiny handful of spellcasters who reach these levels.
3.5E is supposed to give you a toolkit, but it is not the determinant of flavour of specific settings.
Mechanics don't define the flavor of the setting, they are a framework to build around the setting's flavor and give it structure.
"Every spellcaster who wishes..." is in this case a tiny handful of spellcasters who reach these levels.
Depends on your campaign. However, I most definitely don't think along the lines of restricting/controlling what choices are available in such a way to my players. I like the flexibility of having multiple paths -- not "everybody becomes cookie-cutter" sort of paths -- like restricting spellcasters to only being able to advance as Advanced Beings. That really, seriously cripples any Epic campaign in a horrible way, it isn't funny. Maybe you don't play Epic campaigns in Dark Sun, which is fine. But not everybody plays it like you do. Not everybody plays it like *I* do. And honestly, it is easier for an individual DM to make the decision of allowing or disallowing Epic Spellcasting without Advanced Beings in the way the rules are currently established, than to go the other way around.
Mechanics don't define the flavor of the setting, they are a framework to build around the setting's flavor and give it structure.
Yes, the mechanics do not define flavor of a setting, but they can influence it heavily. Suppose you aim for a heavily grim and gritty flavor, but mechanically speaking the PCs and important villains have oodles more hitpoints than normal NPCs... well, you may still be able to maintain the flavor you wanted, but it will be like struggling against the tide, since the rules will serve to countervail it at every opportunity. I am therefore a firm believer that the rules should adapt to support the flavor of a setting, not to hinder it. (Note: This is an example to illustrate the point that flavor and rules interact and influence one another, I don't actually think that making psionic enchantments available to non-advanced beings is that horrible)
Depends on your campaign. However, I most definitely don't think along the lines of restricting/controlling what choices are available in such a way to my players. I like the flexibility of having multiple paths -- not "everybody becomes cookie-cutter" sort of paths -- like restricting spellcasters to only being able to advance as Advanced Beings.
Actually, restrictions are just as important to uniqueness and flavour as are options. If you allow everything for everyone you get a generic setting. Dark Sun is nowhere near of being guilty of this, but I would not want it to move in that direction either...
That really, seriously cripples any Epic campaign in a horrible way, it isn't funny. Maybe you don't play Epic campaigns in Dark Sun, which is fine.
In all honesty, I have never played an Epic campaign in Dark Sun, so I am speaking from the flavor point of view rather than practical experience. Indeed, I have not played Dark Sun for a long time - no opportunities for that in my country.
I admit that an Epic Dark Sun could be interesting, but I think sticking to the 2E flavour and having spellcasters agonize over the need for transformations could easily be made into part of the fun. After all, psionic enchantments are supposed to be almost 'transcendental' in power, so transcending the boundaries of humanity is a logical step in acquiring them in the Dark Sun context.
But not everybody plays it like you do. Not everybody plays it like *I* do. And honestly, it is easier for an individual DM to make the decision of allowing or disallowing Epic Spellcasting without Advanced Beings in the way the rules are currently established, than to go the other way around.
That everybody plays in his/her own style is obvious, so the statement is a bit of a low blow, especially since I disagree that it is easier to remove published things than add published things. In the past that may have been the case, but the 3E/3.5E, although it brought many positive changes, unfortunately also seems to have created a sense of player entitlement that makes removal of material you don't like more difficult.
To put this in perspective, though, I should state that this is not really a major issue for me. My flavor nostalgia has made me post my preference, but ultimately it does not make all that much difference, as far as I am concerned.
1. Go with Standard epic rules. Though this leaves something to be desired and doesn't get a good match to fluff, it's easiest. Problem is that then you don't have a good reason for the Metamorphosis.
2. Restrict Epic casting to AB's, this matches perfectly with DK, (noted exception of leveling Wizard's). This does leave the problem of Epic Psionics, though a solution to this is that Epic Psionic is not restricted to AB's. Doing this does put a little added umph to the Psi-classes, but they don't have the uber AB metamorphosis so it'll balance out.
Frankly, I like the second setup, it's the one I think I'll use. It's very close to the OCR, and maintains the flavor without disrupting the d20 setup. It gives a reason for the AB's, while allowing casters to continue beyond 20 if they choose not to become an AB. This also is a way of balancing out the AB's in relation to their parent class, since the XP spent on the Epic spell research would really slow the advancement of the AB's in relation to the base classes (as they could not research Epic Spells).
If that seems too restrictive, the alternative would be to allow AB's a bonus on researching Epic Spells (maybe a reduced cost, except for the Metamorphosis Spells.) This would be another choice I'd consider...
I have always thought that there should be a psionic enchantment power (using athas.org material) that provided a synergy bonus for epic casting and manifesting. that would make epic spells easier for AB, but not limit epic spells solely to AB's
Agreed.
Also if you notice, Clerics and Druids in 2e did continue to level and gain further spells beyond 20, though only those that chose to undergo the Elemental metamorphosis gained access to Psionic Enchantments.
The one way I could see allowing non-AB's access to the Epic is to create a feat for Arcane/Divine Casters such as this...
Cast Psionic Enchantment:
Prerequisite: SpellCraft 24, Knowlege Arcana or Divine 24, Knowledge Psi 15, ability to cast Arcane/Divine 9th level spell, ability to manifest 6th level powers.
Benefit: May develop and cast Psionic Enchantments as per Epic Rules...
Replaces Epic Spellcasting, and Epic spell are renamed Psionic Enchantments, allow Psionic classes to develop their Epic Psi as per norm...
Just an idea for now...