Complete Mage - Is it out yet?

[d20Dwarf]

In a lot of ways, I think the zap reserve feats are the least interesting ones.

I agree with you, and my original designs were almost all flavor/utility effects, like granting skill bonuses when dealing with evil creatures for Evil spells or additional concealment when hiding for Darkness spells. If anything they might have been a bit underpowered considering they required a feat, which is why I'm always thankful for the time WotC spends developing my ideas, rather than throwing primadonna fits when I don't agree with a change...more often than not ideas are improved and solidified by the process.

 

[Aaron L]

I just want to say that I absolutely love the idea of reserve feats.

I cant wait to get Complete Arcane... when I have the money.

 

[BryonD]

Ah, yes. The imaginary past.

Nods.

Whether or not D&D made claims to be based on fantasy literature, it has never modeled that literature well from Day One

Nods more.

If anything, I'd argue that the warlock, reserve feats, and similar mechanics adhere MORE to classic fantasy paradigms than do the fire-and-forget spell memorization/preparation system.

Nods even more.

 

[Twowolves]

Ah, yes. The imaginary past.

It wasn't imaginary! I lived in it, I know!

Whether or not D&D made claims to be based on fantasy literature, it has never modeled that literature well from Day One, with the possible exception of Vance's stories (and even then, Vance's casters aren't exactly like D&D wizards). Look at how much adaptation was needed to make D&D work with the Hyboria or Lankhmar settings (starting with the 1e modules), despite the fact that those settings are presumably part of its inspiration.

There is no "claims to be based", it WAS based. The 1st ed DMG had a list of novels it was based on. No, it wasn't a 100% modeling of any one setting, that kind of stuff gets you sued (thus, no "hobbits", but "halflings" are just fine). D&D originally grew out of tabletop wargames, and those roots were deeper than any one source of fiction for a setting. But just because E.G.G. went way out into left field to get his magic system (most likely because he felt fire'n'forget was better suited to wargaming) doesn't invalidate the literary roots of D&D. Fafhrd & Grey Mouser, Conan, Three Hearts and Three Lions, Lord of the Rings, Dying Earth, all of these were the ingredients that went into making the game what it once was. Yes, the SRD and the d20 system is the best ruleset yet for tailoring the game into any one of these. I never once claimed to have a problem with 3rd ed or d20. However, molding the game to one of these settings means stripping out the rest.

I also made a distinction that these feats were not setting specific, or even an alternate magic system. Were this the case, these feats would be much easier to swallow. But they aren't, they are the direction that the CORE GAME is heading. And it IS like Diablo/Gauntlet. Calling my assertation unoriginal doesn't automatically make it so. If 4th ed came out tomorrow and these reserve feats were in them, would ANY spellcaster NOT take one? I doubt it, and that sets off red flags for me.

Most of them aren't even zaps. Illusionists who can change what their face looks like for brief periods at will until they blow all their illusion spells will be a lot of fun in intrigue games, and spellcasters who can breathe water (or air, if appropriate for the race) as long as they hold onto the right spell is a powerful, powerful option (that, yes, you have to sink a feat into to use).

Illusionists that can change their appearance? Hat of Disguise and/or Robe of Blending (minus the bonus to hide). 1800gp/30,000gp. Spellcasters that can breathe air? Clear Ioun Stone (minus the nourisment part)/Helm of Underwater Action (minus the vision boost)/Necklace of Adaptation (minus the poison protection. 4000gp/57,000gp/9000gp. All of these items do a little more than just the feat, but the feats also give other bonuses AND don't take up a magic item slot on the body.

People have posted lots of mathmatical arguments about how the feats are sub-optimal in some situations, without acknowledging that they are far superior in others. A 6th level sorcerer can cast Scorching Ray for 4d6 flame, one target, ranged touch, no save ONCE, or can at the same level just NOT cast a spell and get a shorter range, 3d6 line area of affect (currently written with NO save, no roll to hit) AT WILL. People say that the character could do similar damage with a crossbow, but you can disarm/sunder a crossbow, and they will run out of bolts eventually. Only does around 10 points of damage? How much better would a Magic Missile do? Not much. I tried the most direct comparison I could think of, with the lightning reserve feat and Call Lightning, and the best response was "Call Lighting has better range". And a full round casting time too! So what? No they aren't identical, but when it comes down to it, why memorize Call Lightning (10'r, save for half) when you can get pretty close to it (3d6 line, no to hit, no save) all day long even after the cows come home?

Spellcasters already have means of doing "something cool" every round. They are called wands and scrolls. But these are finite. If you start giving at will spell-like abilities, why bother with any bookkeeping at all? Get rid of hit points, get rid of healing spells, get rid of any of the dreaded "resource management" aspects of the game, and it now bears a striking resemblance to an FPS video game. Or Gauntlet.

 

[Knight Otu]

No they aren't identical, but when it comes down to it, why memorize Call Lightning (10'r, save for half) when you can get pretty close to it (3d6 line, no to hit, no save) all day long even after the cows come home?

Because Call Lightning is better in most aspects than Stormbolt. Range is critical to a spellcaster, but it isn't the only point where it wins out.
* Damage potential - under the right circumstances, Call Lightning deals 3d10 points per bolt.
* Area - while harder to use to good effect, Call Lightning has a larger area.
You cannot just reduce the game to damage dealt. That does a great disservice to the breadth of the game.

and it now bears a striking resemblance to an FPS video game. Or Gauntlet.

I don't know what games you've played, but most FPS games I heard of still use ammution and life bars. In fact, "no resource management" doesn't sound like any computer game I know, RPG or otherwise. :\ These feats don't take away resource management - they modify resource management.

 

[BryonD]

It wasn't imaginary! I lived in it, I know!

Dude, there are a lot of people on these boards that lived it.

The DMG list did nothing to change that D&D magic-users went around throwing extremely un-Gandolf spells like magic missle and fireball. And they were all fire and forget.
Arcane caster as blaster mage is as old as D&Ds chainmail roots.

Can you offer an ACTUAL example of how 1e or other editions were like Conan or LotR?
The STORIES and SETTINGS were most certainly based on these things.
The way arcane casters worked in play was VERY much similar to now.

 

[Ciaran]

All of these items do a little more than just the feat, but the feats also give other bonuses AND don't take up a magic item slot on the body.

Because item slots are so much rarer and more precious than feats?

 

[Twowolves]

Dude, there are a lot of people on these boards that lived it.

The DMG list did nothing to change that D&D magic-users went around throwing extremely un-Gandolf spells like magic missle and fireball. And they were all fire and forget.
Arcane caster as blaster mage is as old as D&Ds chainmail roots.

Can you offer an ACTUAL example of how 1e or other editions were like Conan or LotR?
The STORIES and SETTINGS were most certainly based on these things.
The way arcane casters worked in play was VERY much similar to now.

GandAlf didn't throw a lot of spells, no. But like I said, Gygax drew on multiple settings and threw them into a blender. At any rate, that is totally beside the point. d20Dwarf said D&D was not fantasy literature, and I said it was inspired by literature. Tell me again how I'm wrong about that because some aspect of the magic system doesn't reflect every wizard archetype in fantasy literature? Where did I say that arcane casters weren't "blaster mages"? Stop putting words in my mouth and read what I actually said. What I said was the magic system was designed BECAUSE of the games chainmail roots, not because of any one setting. E.G.G. liked Vance, so that's how he described it.

Actual examples of how 1st ed or other editions were like Conan? Pretty much the whole concept of a fighter with a pile of hit points not being affected by his wounds, despite being hacked at by hordes of opponents? How about halflings being hobbits with the serial numbers filled off. Do you really mean to suggest that D&D wasn't inspired by Tolkein, Leiber, Howard, Vance, Anderson, Lovecraft, et al?

What, exactly, are you trying to say here? Are you actually insinuating that D&D was NOT based on fantasy literature?

 

[Twowolves]

Because item slots are so much rarer and more precious than feats?

Umm... yeah, they are. Hence the reason making an item fit in a non-standard space makes it more expensive. Some of the items are priced the way they are is because you can't easily combine two effects because they occupy the same slot. Give a character a power via a feat that frees up an item slot and now you can have both. Obviously, there are more repercussions to these feats than some seem willing to admit.

And even if you ignore the item slot aspect, how much is a feat worth? A feat that duplicates the effects of a 30,000 gp item isn't worth it? I was under the impression, correct me if I'm wrong, that wizards could take these reserve feats instead of metamagic and item creation feats as their bonus feats. Is this not so?

Do you, then, contend that if these feats are made available, that a majority of arcane casters would not take one? Would not feel they had to take one, to stay competitive?

 

[Twowolves]

Because Call Lightning is better in most aspects than Stormbolt. Range is critical to a spellcaster, but it isn't the only point where it wins out.
* Damage potential - under the right circumstances, Call Lightning deals 3d10 points per bolt.
* Area - while harder to use to good effect, Call Lightning has a larger area.
You cannot just reduce the game to damage dealt. That does a great disservice to the breadth of the game.

But, it's not better. One a rare occaision (almost completely at the whim of the DM) the spell does an average of an extra 6 points of damage. The feat can also do more damage the more potent spell held in reserve, so both are potentially more damaging under different circumstances. And Call Lightning doesn't effectively have a larger area. I was mistaken about it's area:

Call Lightning
<snip>
Immediately upon completion of the spell, and once per round thereafter, you may call down a 5-foot-wide, 30-foot-long, vertical bolt of lightning that deals 3d6 points of electricity damage. The bolt of lightning flashes down in a vertical stroke at whatever target point you choose within the spell’s range (measured from your position at the time). Any creature in the target square or in the path of the bolt is affected.

So, it is essentially a 6 square vertical line, vs a 4 square horizontal line. It's a lot easier to catch multiple foes in a horizontal line than a vertial one, so the difference in area isn't really a factor.

Once again, the comparison is a 3rd level spell, 1 round casting time, does 3d6 electrical damage in a 30' vertical line per round for caster level rounds, at medium range, and has a Reflex save for half damage, at the cost of one 3rd level spell slot, vs a feat that does 3d6 electrical damage (in this case) in a 20' line, no save, no roll to hit, at will, as a standard action. AND it has a constant, secondary effect (+1 CL for electrical spells, is it?) So far, the only way Call Lightning is better is at range, everything else is worse. Is it really any different if we compare Scortching Ray and some of these feats? 4d6 fire, ranged touch, no save, vs xd6 at will?

I certainly don't ever wish to reduce the game to damage dealt and nothing more. Don't misread me. I have issues with these feats precisely because they make damage more abundantly accessable for the very classes that already had the lion's share of the magical damage output capacity.

So the lvl 5 mage keeps his lightning bolt memorized, and zaps the lvl 5 fighter standing 20' away. he does, what, 10 dmg as his best result, or, if the fighter saves, 5 dmg. <snip>

Alternatively, if the fighter has a Longbow or Crossbow, he uses his move action to stay past the 20' range, and feather the mage, one round after another.

So, if the zappy feat only does 10 dmg in this case, how much will the same caster's magic missile do? 6-15, average of 10.5. Same exact damage, but now the caster has to give up something to get the effect: a spell slot. Also as I understand it, the Stormbolt feat has no save.

You mention bows and crossbows, but they can be sundered, they can be disarmed, they require ammunition (which is still finite, until they design a feat that says otherwise). Your arguement seems to be that fighters have better damage output potential, but that's nothing new. Putting a fighter and a wizard 20' apart and letting them slug it out always plays to the fighter, even in previous editions. The wizard's real special ability is the ability to break the rules everyone else has to play with, not damage output. Wizards can fly, turn people to stone, disappear, conjure monsters, etc etc etc. In a different setup, the wizard can have other spells prepared and in place to make this mental exercise completely swing the other way. Comparing zappy feat damage output to mundane combat is apples and oranges, hence the reason I compared them to other spells.

I find it almost amusing how many people have attributed all sorts of untrue motives and sentiments to my objections to these feats. I'm no WotC hater, I'm not a 3rd ed basher, I'm not a "4th ed is coming, the sky is falling!" doomsayer. I'm none of these things, despite some people's efforts to paint me as such.