Academy of the Chromatic Order--Four feats for exceptional Academy Graduates

[Erekose13]

sure done RA you can Archive this.

Thinking though of moving the whole Academy thing into the general feats because we no longer give this only to 1st level wizards.

 

[orsal]

The no came in within 3hrs from the last Yes.

That doesn't matter -- unless I could have persuaded someone else to naysay it, it still has enough to pass.

I've delayed further commentary because I've been thinking a lot about the issue. While there was only one of the four that I found problematic, I was hoping to find a fix that could preserve the uniform character Here's what's occurred to me:

(1) My problem is not so much with a loophole that it creates as with a loophole that it exacerbates. It's already possible, SRD-wise, for a 2nd-level diviner to venture out with 7 evocation spells and 2 divination spells prepared. A specialist in a particular school doesn't really need to *specialize* in that school, just give it a little attention to earn the bonus spell.

Per RAW, a so-called abjurer can call herself a diviner while memorizing almost no divination spells. Per this feat, a so-called abjurer can call herself a diviner while memorizing absolutely no divination spells.

(2) I don't have a problem with a dual-specialist diviner-abjurer with only one prohibited school, on the same terms that a dual-specialist illusionist-enchanter needs two. In other words I don't have a single problem with the essence of this feat.

My beef is really with the terminology.

As things are written, someone who takes Mordrue's Lore can have either "abjurer" or "diviner" written on the character sheet, but for all practical purposes what he is is both. From the moment he takes the feat onward, he has the same relationship to both schools. So why not call him a dual specialist?

In other words, this set of feats would be completely satisfactory to me if we established the custom of referring to someone who takes one of them as a specialist in two schools, rather than as a specialist in one school who can treat its paired school equivalently.

This fix almost seems too trivial for me to make a new proposal. After all, it would change nothing in-character. No PC is obliged to identify himself as a diviner just because his character sheet as "diviner" written on it. They can call themselves whatever they choose, or whatever their players choose.

Does this make sense to the rest of you?

 

[Erekose13]

makes sense to me and i think an adjustment to terminology could be made without needing to go through the proposal process. It is only wording, not crunch being changed.

 

[Rystil Arden]

This fix almost seems too trivial for me to make a new proposal. After all, it would change nothing in-character. No PC is obliged to identify himself as a diviner just because his character sheet as "diviner" written on it. They can call themselves whatever they choose, or whatever their players choose.

Does this make sense to the rest of you?

I can totally agree with this. I' also agree with Erekose that it wouldn't need to be proposed

 

[Bront]

I agree as well (which technicaly makes 3 yes votes by 3 judges since we agree, but just go change it)

 

[Rystil Arden]

Done.

 

[Bront]

I think a judge needs to change the official stuff

 

[Erekose13]

I think it'll make more sense to put that kind of text into the fluff description of the feat.