Class and Level Geekery XIII - Comic As Written, not Comic As Intended

[TheWombatOfDoom]

Does Xykon have room for another Epic spell? He's got three already - Epic Mage Armour, Superb Dispelling, and Cloister.

Isn't Cloister cast from the headband of Dorukan, though?

[zimmerwald1915]

Isn't Cloister cast from the headband of Dorukan, though?

The headband is a "material focus." It's not a wondrous item activated by a command word.

[Jasdoif]

Does Xykon have room for another Epic spell? He's got three already - Epic Mage Armour, Superb Dispelling, and Cloister.

There's no limit on epic spells known.

[Quartz]

There's no limit on epic spells known.

Really? That vastly increases the power of 3E Epic sorcerers.

[Douglas]

Really? That vastly increases the power of 3E Epic sorcerers.

It's still rather extremely expensive to learn each epic spell. For example, Epic Mage Armor is a fairly simple and basic one, and even that cost Xykon 414000 gp and 16560 xp to learn.

[Loreweaver15]

I'm confused; I thought you needed to take a feat for each Epic Spell you came up with. How does that system work, exactly?

[Grey_Wolf_c]

I'm confused; I thought you needed to take a feat for each Epic Spell you came up with. How does that system work, exactly?

SRD Link

GW

[LightPhoenix]

On the topic of Epic Spells, since Xykon casts Superb Dispelling in #653, and since per the SRD Superb Dispelling has a DC of 59, assuming Xykon rolls a 20 for the Spellcraft check his total modifier must be 39+? (For reference, Epic Mage Armor is 46 and Cloister is a custom spell).

ETA: We could also use Cloister to perhaps further estimate his total bonus if someone wants to approximate how the spell is put together, although I don't think it would count as strictly RAW. It would depend on knowing the size of Azure City.

[rodneyAnonymous]

All epic spells are custom spells. The superb dispelling that Xykon cast is a different spell than the SRD version, with the same name.

"This information is provided as an example for characters when they attempt to create and develop their own unique epic spells."

[Quartz]

On the topic of Epic Spells, since Xykon casts Superb Dispelling in #653, and since per the SRD Superb Dispelling has a DC of 59, assuming Xykon rolls a 20 for the Spellcraft check his total modifier must be 39+? (For reference, Epic Mage Armor is 46 and Cloister is a custom spell).

ETA: We could also use Cloister to perhaps further estimate his total bonus if someone wants to approximate how the spell is put together, although I don't think it would count as strictly RAW. It would depend on knowing the size of Azure City.

I did it upthread: assuming no magic items, if Xykon takes the Epic Skill Focus feat, he can cast Superb Dispelling at 29th level, adjusted by his Int bonus or penalty.

[Kurald Galain]

Added Haley's new dagger.

[Quild]

I did it upthread: assuming no magic items, if Xykon takes the Epic Skill Focus feat, he can cast Superb Dispelling at 29th level, adjusted by his Int bonus or penalty.

But if Rodney is right, maybe Xykon's Superb Dispelling isn't SRD Superb Dispelling.

It seems like Xykon took backlash damage, can't say for sure. Xykon has at least 21d12 HP which is an average 136HP. 10d6 would be more than a third of Xykon's HP.

Maybe Xykon's spell burns some XP instead of some backlash damages and has a lower bonus.

And the asumption that Xykon has no magic items that helps spellcraft modifier is quite a long shot since he crafts 8 hours a day, and went back to his "reserve dungeon" after his regeneration.

[Douglas]

It seems like Xykon took backlash damage, can't say for sure. Xykon has at least 21d12 HP which is an average 136HP. 10d6 would be more than a third of Xykon's HP.

Xykon gains 2 extra wound marks (on his torso and right arm) the instant he casts it, so that's definitely some backlash. 10d6 averages 35 which is about a quarter of 136, actually, less than a third.

I think it is reasonable to assume that epic spell names are unique - that any epic spell with the same name as an SRD one is that exact spell - until proven otherwise.

[rodneyAnonymous]

I think it is reasonable to assume that epic spell names are unique - that any epic spell with the same name as an SRD one is that exact spell - until proven otherwise.

No, I think that assumption is unreasonable. The name of a spell has no mechanical implication. On the other hand, the epic rules explicitly say all epic spells are unique creations, and the ones listed are examples only. It is possible that "Xykon and his DM" exactly duplicated the listed example, but there is no way to know except Rich saying so, and I doubt he will.

[Douglas]

No, I think that assumption is unreasonable. The name of a spell has no mechanical implication. On the other hand, the epic rules explicitly say all epic spells are unique creations, and the ones listed are examples only. It is possible that "Xykon and his DM" exactly duplicated the listed example, but there is no way to know except Rich saying so, and I doubt he will.

What possible reason could someone, especially an author like Rich, have for taking the name of an example spell and sticking it on his own custom spell? That strikes me as something that would be intentionally obtuse, done for the sole reason of confusing the audience, when the default purpose of everything he puts in the comic is to communicate with the audience. The possibility that an epic spell with the same name as an SRD example might not actually be that example requires projecting motives and bad storytelling practice on The Giant that are unwarranted in the extreme, and the RAW basis for it is nitpicking about some overly literal interpretation of wording. I do not find that position justified in the slightest.

[Rakoa]

I'm with Douglas. After all, Wizard's can already research their own spells, right? What if this Fireball thing of V's isn't the SRD Fireball, but something else entirely? Every spell ever cast in the comic could be personally researched!

If the name is the same, I don't see any reason to doubt it, unless the effect is obviously different.

[Grey_Wolf_c]

What possible reason could someone, especially an author like Rich, have for taking the name of an example spell and sticking it on his own custom spell?

Rich is on record saying that absolutely everything in the comic is now custom, precisely to prevent this situation. The default position is that every spell is homeruled until proven otherwise, and if rodney is correct that by RAW there is no such thing as a pre-defined epic spell, then more so the reason to not assume that Xykon developed the exact same epic dispel given as an example.

Grey Wolf

[Douglas]

Rich is on record saying that absolutely everything in the comic is now custom, precisely to prevent this situation. The default position is that every spell is homeruled until proven otherwise, and if rodney is correct that by RAW there is no such thing as a pre-defined epic spell, then more so the reason to not assume that Xykon developed the exact same epic dispel given as an example.

Grey Wolf

I believe that was just him getting tired of and preemptively heading off people saying "you got the rules wrong!" He still uses the game rules, he just doesn't really care if he misremembers or has to house rule a detail. If he refers to a game element specifically by name, the default assumption should be that it's the named game element exactly as published until evidence shows otherwise.

If we get a statement or in comic evidence that Xykon's Superb Dispelling substantially differs from the SRD one, we should accept that without fanfare or protest. Until and unless that happens, we should assume they're the same.

[Hecuba]

On the other hand, the epic rules explicitly say all epic spells are unique creations, and the ones listed are examples only.

I disagree with that interpretation. The ELH not only presents the possibility of using the presented spells off-the-rack, it recommends it as the easiest option.

EPIC SPELL DEVELOPMENT [...]
The easiest way to develop an epic spell is to use one already given in this book. The description of each of these unique spells gives the amount of gold, time, and experience points required to develop the spell. If you pay the spell's development cost, you develop (and thus know that spell). [...]
For information on developing an epic spells completely from scratch, see Developing Unique Epic Spells, below.

Emphasis added to highlight that customization and development from the seed structure is separate from "development" of "each of these unique spells."

Further, there is nothing indicating the given spells as "samples."
In fact, it is suggested that your character might develop those exact spells.

EPIC SPELLS
Several dozen epic spells developed by epic spellcasters are presented here. Your epic character can personally develop these spells if desired for his or her own arsenal of wondrous magic.

To make an analogy to normal spell casting: if we were in a situation where we knew that the custom spell creation rules were much more central and in frequent use, that would not of itself make Fireball not be Fireball.

Finally, Superb Dispelling matches very well what we see: a powerful dispel that specifically carries a damage backlash.

[rodneyAnonymous]

I'm with Douglas. After all, Wizard's can already research their own spells, right? What if this Fireball thing of V's isn't the SRD Fireball, but something else entirely? Every spell ever cast in the comic could be personally researched!

If the name is the same, I don't see any reason to doubt it, unless the effect is obviously different.

There is a fundamental difference between L0-L9 spells and epic spells: in the case of L0-L9 spells "it's the same as the SRD description" is the default assumption and "it's different than the SRD description" is merely possible, whereas in the case of epic spells "it's different than the SRD description" is the default assumption and "it's the same as the SRD description" is merely possible. There is a good reason to assume OOTS fireball is the same as the SRD fireball: although you can research custom spells, there are standard L0-L9 spells. There is a good reason not to assume OOTS "epic <whatever>" is the same as the SRD "epic <whatever>": there are no standard SRD epic spells, every single one must be researched custom.

Using one of the epic spell examples straight from the SRD is roughly equivalent to a house rule. There are no "pre-existing" epic spells; there isn't just a lack of rules saying there are, there are explicit rules saying there aren't. That is not an overly-literal interpretation, it's an important detail of how epic spellcasting works. "In-universe", each epic spell is a new creation developed by the spellcaster, even if "out-of-universe" the player copies a design someone else came up with using the epic spell creation rules (whether that someone else is their friend Joe, or a game designer that works for WotC.)

Is it possible that Rich just used one of the examples straight from the SRD? Sure. It's probable, even. The epic spellcasting rules even say that is an easy way to develop one. But changes to stats in this thread shouldn't be made on a "probably" basis.

[Kornaki]

You guys are wildly misinterpreting the 'this information is provided as an example'. Read the whole page

Each epic spell description follows the same format used for 0- to 9th-level spells. There are two additional entries for epic spells: Spellcraft DC and To Develop.

Spellcraft DC
This is the DC of the Spellcraft check required to cast the epic spell. When casting an epic spell, the character gains a +5 bonus on his or her Spellcraft check if the base seed of the epic spell is from the character’s arcane school specialty or primary psionic discipline. The character takes a -15 penalty if the epic spell seed is from his or her prohibited arcane school.

To Develop
The first part of this entry shows the resources in gold, time, and experience points a character must expend to develop the spell shown. If the character expends the resources, he or she develops the spell if he or she has access to all the seeds. Spells containing the life or heal seed are typically only available to those with 24 or more ranks in Knowledge (religion) or Knowledge (nature). The rest of the development entry details the seeds and factors used to create the epic spell. This information is provided as an example for characters when they attempt to create and develop their own unique epic spells.

The only information that is being provided for purely examplatory purposes is the development entry details. They aren't necessary in order for someone to know use the spell. For example, Superb Dispelling

http://www.d20srd.org/srd/epic/spell...Dispelling.htm

To Develop: 531,000 gp; 11 days; 21,240 XP. Seed: dispel (DC 19). Factors: additional +30 to dispel check (+30 DC), 1-action casting time (+20 DC). Mitigating factor: 10d6 backlash (-10 DC).

For the purpose of using the spell, I never need to know that +30 to dispel check gives it a +30 DC, or that 1-action casting time gives it a +20 DC. Merely giving me the final DC and the casting time and maximum bonus (as are given elsewhere in the spell description) are sufficient for the purposes of using in game. The only part of the spell description that is 'an example only' is the part where it spells out the To Develop costs explicitly.

[Quild]

Xykon gains 2 extra wound marks (on his torso and right arm) the instant he casts it, so that's definitely some backlash. 10d6 averages 35 which is about a quarter of 136, actually, less than a third.

wow, who taught me maths? I seriously fumbled here. Dunno what I was thinking about. Maybe working for once.
Xykon has average of 142 HP (12+20*6,5) at least and indeed, 35 is a quarter of that. Guess I was thinking at d10 when I wrote it .

But I wouldn't develop a combat spell with that much backlash damage (without any possible reduction I believe). Especially if this spell is useful only against something already powerful. Not everyone is me though.

The one on the right arm, I guess we would see it in panel 6 (of #653) if it was here before. The one on the torso is hidden otherwise.


Out of subject: I wonder if Xykon would have used Superb Dispelling earlier if V could have cast Time Stop and several buffs. I don't know if one of these buffs would have been a protection against dispelling. Maybe these runes werent much of a difference after all.

[Douglas]

Out of subject: I wonder if Xykon would have used Superb Dispelling earlier if V could have cast Time Stop and several buffs. I don't know if one of these buffs would have been a protection against dispelling. Maybe these runes werent much of a difference after all.

If we're talking a smart V using finely tuned tactics with the Splice power, I wrote a detailed account of how Xykon would have been utterly screwed in that scenario quite a while ago. One of the buffs mentioned in that analysis, Empowered Spell Turning, is a highly general purpose protection that would have severely reduced the usefulness of Superb Dispelling, or even have made it backfire.

[Hecuba]

Is it possible that Rich just used one of the examples straight from the SRD? Sure. It's probable, even. The epic spellcasting rules even say that is an easy way to develop one. But changes to stats in this thread shouldn't be made on a "probably" basis.

"A is A" rises above the level of "probably" to me. We know that there are truly custom epic spells in use (cf. Cloister), but the spell in question was not named Epic Dispel or Xykon's Moderately Superior Dispelling. It was given the exact name of a something that does exist, and we see no indication that it does not match the effects of what it says it is.

To me, this would seem to be an example of taking the comic at its word when it provides us explicit information. That has been a long standing operating standard for this thread.

[D.One]

There is a fundamental difference between L0-L9 spells and epic spells: in the case of L0-L9 spells "it's the same as the SRD description" is the default assumption and "it's different than the SRD description" is merely possible, whereas in the case of epic spells "it's different than the SRD description" is the default assumption and "it's the same as the SRD description" is merely possible.

In fact, such difference is not stated. Just like the SRD 0-9th level spells are merely examples and a DM could just say "this one doesn't exist, that one too, and there are those other ones I created just for this campaign", the epic SRD spells can be interpreted as, well, SRD spells, official ones.

Yes, Rich does use lots of custom rules, because it's a comic strip, not a real game. Even if it was a game, he might use some custom rules.

Let's try to look at this debate with other eyes, however. We need to set parameters to go on with our Geekery analysis. If we assume that "If it could be homebrewed, it is.", we would have to accept that even the classes, the races, the skills, etc could be homebrewed ones, and almost everything we "nailed down" should come with a "possibly" in front of it.
As in "Vaarsuvius, possibly Elf" (because fiction has dozens of versions for elves. Who is to say that he is using exactly the SRD one?).

So, I believe that assuming an Epic SRD Spell to be the SRD version until proven otherwise is a fairly reasonable compromise.

[Quild]

Life tip:
"If your only chance of living through something is if your enemy isn't a sorcerer, or doesn't have a spare dagger or can't jump an eleven-foot crevasse, then you assume your enemy isn't a sorcerer, or doesn't have a spare dagger, or can't jump an eleven-foot crevasse."
Issola - Steven Brust

So ok, let's assume that!

Anyway even if Xykon's Superb Dispelling is the SRD one, we then have to assume he doesn't have magic items that helps him to craft spells in order to have any information about Xykon's level.


On another hand, on what was focused the scrying sensor in #698? Could it indicate that Cloister had faded off? Seems quite early so I guess not. However the sending sent to Haley right before they found the gate should indicate this, right?

[rodneyAnonymous]

We know that there are truly custom epic spells in use (cf. Cloister), but the spell in question was not named Epic Dispel or Xykon's Moderately Superior Dispelling.

We are currently talking about the DC of the SRD superb dispelling, but the DC of the SRD spell epic mage armor was also mentioned in the first relevant post. That is a much more generic spell name. If we were talking about epic mage armor instead, does that change the argument? Why?

[Hecuba]

We are currently talking about the DC of the SRD superb dispelling, but the DC of the SRD spell epic mage armor was also mentioned in the first relevant post. That is a much more generic spell name. If we were talking about epic mage armor instead, does that change the argument? Why?

No, I don't think it does.
My general position is that if the four criteria below are met, we should take the comic at its word.

1. The comic references a mechanic by name "A"
2. There exists a published 1st-party D&D 3.5 element called "A"
3. Comic "A" and 3.5 "A" are not incompatible in effect
4. The comic gives no indication that "A" is not "A"*

I also don't hold that the given epic spells are any less authoritative as published 1st party material simply because you are encouraged to use them as examples for further development -- especially when you are explicitly encouraged several times to make use of them exactly as printed.

A counter-question for you:
Consider the following hypothetical situation:

• The 0-9th original spell research rules were far more central, to the extent that DMs were encouraged to have players design one every other level
• You were directed to use the power level of specific existing spells as guidelines for a given spell level and type (ex. 3rd level blasting spells should use fireball as an example)

Would you then stop presuming that the spell V keeps casting and calling Fireball is in fact SRD Fireball?


*For items that does not meet this criteria, cf. Miko the Samurai or comic 370's "forcecage!" sound effect.

[rodneyAnonymous]

A counter-question for you...

I think that is a false analogy, because players are more than "encouraged" to design epic spells, it is mandatory. Even if the player copies the design, the character researches a new spell, it is original for all intents and purposes. There are other ways a character can learn L0-L9 spells besides researching them. There are no other ways to learn epic spells.

[Douglas]

I think that is a false analogy, because players are more than "encouraged" to design epic spells, it is mandatory. Even if the player copies the design, the character researches a new spell, it is original for all intents and purposes. There are other ways a character can learn L0-L9 spells besides researching them. There are no other ways to learn epic spells.

The character doing research is mandatory. The player going through any sort of design process is not, and if I ever had a player design his own epic spell and give it the name of an SRD example without actually being that example, I would insist he change its name (at the very least adding the character's name in front) to avoid confusion, and I expect the vast majority of DMs would do the same. The reasons for insisting on that are quite a bit stronger for Rich as a widely read author than for any typical DM who only needs his own group to understand the difference.

Nitpicking about "mandatory research" aside, one of the core principles of this thread is that we take the comic at its word until proven otherwise. Saying "but maybe when the comic says Superb Dispelling it doesn't mean the version printed" goes against that. Until we have actual evidence, not just speculation, that the comic and SRD spells are different, they should be assumed to be the same because that's what taking the comic at its word implies.