Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
Rocket your D&D 5E and Level Up: Advanced 5E games into space! Alpha Star Magazine Is Launching... Right Now!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Sir Whiskers" data-source="post: 1162674" data-attributes="member: 6941">Concerning the original question, I agree that the feat in Tome and Blood is too weak - I've yet to see any sorcerer take it. A human sorcerer gains a maximum of eight feats by the time he's reached 18th level. Using two or three of these to gain two or three low-to-medium level spells known is far too expensive, IMHO. For those who feel the proposed feat (Cha bonus to known spells) is too powerful, how many sorcerer characters have you seen take the "more balanced" T&B feat?Now while many posters apparently consider allowing a sorcerer character to gain extra known spells based on their Charisma score unbalanced, I don't (at least not in my campaigns). Off hand, I can think of only two situations where such a feat might be unbalanced:1. The sorcerer character is able to gain an unusually high Charisma score. A 20 is powerful, but not overwhelming. A score of 26-30 is, IMHO, too high for any but the very highest levels. Anything above that has pushed into the realm of superpowers.2. The GM runs a low-magic campaign. In such a situation, all spellcasters tend to be limited significantly, which means the original feat in T&B may be more in line with the campaign.Let's look at the numbers. We'll assume a 10th-level sorcerer with a Charisma of 21. For the cost of one feat, his Cha score would allow him to know the following additional spells:1st - 2 2nd - 13rd - 14th - 15th - 1This gives the same sorcerer the following total known spells:0 - 91st - 72nd - 53rd - 44th - 35th - 2Does this really look unbalancing? And for those who think so, how many have actually playtested this? I have in several campaigns, and found that sorcerers simply gain a small amount of flexibility, hardly unbalancing. Now considering the responses some have made: Given that every campaign is different, and players have had different experiences, this feat will not work for everyone. That's not the same as saying that it doesn't work for anyone, that it's "broken", that it's "twinky", etc. If someone is going to make such a statement, at least back it up with cogent arguments.As for the sarcastic quote that started some of the name-calling, it's always a good rule of thumb to assume the poster meant no harm. That's almost always the case - it can be very difficult to convey nuance in writing. A smiley face or two in the post would have helped, but in the end, responding to a perceived insult just escalates the problem.</blockquote>

Verification