Complete Mage - Is it out yet?

[Twowolves]

Sorry, then I missed your meaning about air superiority in this context. Just what did you mean, then?

All I was saying was that in one poster's set up, he had a wizard 20' away from a fighter, get off one zap, and then get hacked to pieces. I stated that in ANY set up where the wizard is expected to stand there and slug it out, no matter what edition of the rules we are discussing, will always end with the fighter winning. It plays to the strengths of the fighter and ignores the strengths of the wizard. The wizard should cast other, utilitarian spells (like fly) and then now can lean on his Stormborn feat for damage. It was a hypothetical situation.

What item creation feats get you, other than choice, is a cost break on magic items. Given the "rate of exchange" for xp, you only end up paying 70% of the total item cost to create an item. So, in short, what I am getting at is that obviating gp costs is fair game for the capabilities of a feat.

Ah I get it. But as I see it, already the game has shifted from "Item creation feats let you make items" to "Item creation feats get you a 70% discount at the Magic Items 'R' Us store". And in any case, the point I was trying to make was that these feats not only save money, but item slots. But that's for the non-zappy feats, and I am not 100% familiar with those (nor with the zappy ones, since I only skimmed the book and know what I read here).

There are many spells that are good at low level, but not effective at higher level. If I took sleep at lower level, it would certainly be on the chopping block of spells I trade out/never memorize at higher level.

So, yes, I do beleive it is ok.

Sleep does not, and was never meant to scale with level. Magic Missile does, up to 9th level. So I give an example of the feat making what was once the fall-back offensive spell into an outdated and useless option. Magic Missile, if I remember correctly, has always been considered "overpowered" in 3.x ed, and now the power creep has officially made it obsolete.

 

[Psion]

And in any case, the point I was trying to make was that these feats not only save money, but item slots.

Wands and scrolls (the orginal thrust of your comparison) don't consume item slots.

Sleep does not, and was never meant to scale with level.

Then why is it fair to trade out sleep, but not magic missile? Is your essential objection here that it changes the landscape of spells in the game? Some argue (principally in Mystic Theurge threads) that lower level spells become less relevant as you level anyways.

Magic Missile does, up to 9th level. So I give an example of the feat making what was once the fall-back offensive spell into an outdated and useless option. Magic Missile, if I remember correctly, has always been considered "overpowered" in 3.x ed, and now the power creep has officially made it obsolete.

As I mention above, I'm not so sure I would trade it out. And there are certain campaigns where such a trade out would be undesirable, given the magic missile's range.

 

[Rystil Arden]

You know, we have the technology to test this theory in the Play by Post forums. Find two players to play a fifth-level druid each, one with Call Lightning memorized, and the other using Stormbolt. Find a DM who is willing to whip up a few different scenarios, and willing to DM the druids seperately at the same time through these scenarios. Look who fares better.

I'll help--I'll even give you the last time I was in a group that used Call Lightning as one of the scenarios (it's from Old One's cool Arthurian one-shot Blood Altar of Wodan):

You're standing on a hill in the ruins of an ancient church, and below, 100 feet away, is an amphitheatre where hundreds upon hundreds of Saxon guards have built up a massive shield wall to block your seven heroes from reaching the dark ritual sacrifice of innocent villagers on the Blood Altar. To make the shield wall, the Saxons are in rank, packed more than one to a square, and the priests are standing together on top of the altar and casting the ritual, albeit another 40 feet away. Meanwhile, every round, three or four groups of six enemies each arrive, having heard the horn of battle, and it is all that your group's meleers can do to stave them off (until Artorius, played by me, goes postal and charges for the amphitheatre, anyway).

 

[Crothian]

Fly has been around, yes. Notice that in 3.5 they cut the duration down, limiting the air superiority role of a wizard. Now factor in the fact that the wizard will run out of Fly spells before he runs out of damage output and see if that doesn't skew the overall challenge.

A flying blaster is no different then a flying archer. Flying archers have been around since day one and they cause no problems.

 

[Rystil Arden]

A flying blaster is no different then a flying archer. Flying archers have been around since day one and they cause no problems.

Crothian is exactly right--in fact, the flying archer has better range than a flying blaster with reserve feats. And the Warlock with Eldritch Spear and Fell Flight is better at it too.

 

[Twowolves]

Wands and scrolls (the orginal thrust of your comparison) don't consume item slots.

Two separate points: They say these feats give wizards something to contribute per round, to which I say the old way of doing this was wands and scrolls, which are finite and require money and/or xp. The utility reserve feats give an ability that frees up item slots (ring/helm).

Then why is it fair to trade out sleep, but not magic missile? Is your essential objection here that it changes the landscape of spells in the game? Some argue (principally in Mystic Theurge threads) that lower level spells become less relevant as you level anyways.

I'm saying that Magic Missile, which when 3rd ed was being built, was considered almost too powerful for a 1st level spell (range, autohit, no save, affects incorporeal) is now almost moot by the time the zappy reserve feats are available. It goes to my estimation that these feats are too good.

A flying blaster is no different then a flying archer. Flying archers have been around since day one and they cause no problems.

Flying archers have a finite limit; arrows. They also rely on another player or a magic item to give them flight capability. Archers don't have area of effect. Archers can be disarmed.

The general consensus of the group, BTW, is that the feats are really cool, but given the opportunity cost of using them, and the fact that each given feat requires you have spells of a specific type prepared, nobody wants to have more than one or two, at most.

I will agree, it's early to tell, but here you say no one wants more than one or two? It's gone from "must have" to "must have only one or two"?

 

[Particle_Man]

I know the pain of the long-distance flyer. Our DM decided to throw 6 warlocks at us ! Our solution? Get below decks (we were on a barge) and buff up, and then go up and shoot at them with bows and crossbows, switching out to get healed as needed. Eventually we brought them down (though they didn't fly away when they should have, due to a lucky crit on my part) but there were holes in the barge when we were done.

That said, I don't think Warlocks have destroyed the game as we know it, nor do I think Reserve feats are a threat to it.

In fact, I was thinking ahead and might take Minor Shapeshift for a 15th level feat should my Hexblade live that long. Unlike most of the others, activating it is a swift action, so there is less "Action opportunity cost" and it would give me an option if my Hex doesn't work vs. the big bad (because if BBEG makes the save vs. my Hex, there is not that much point in trying a Baleful Polymorph, as he would probably just make the save - better to "save a slot" and buff up a bit with temporary hp).

In any case, I would, as in my initial example above, see if there is any chance that a DM would use reserve feats, and if so, how that would impact the players. That might help us judge if they are too powerful (nothing like getting your own back at you). I loved playing a Warlock and was scared to face 6 of them while playing a mainly meelee oriented warrior type. But in the end, we did bring them down, and I don't think it was an unfair situation.

 

[Felon]

Moderator's Notes:

This thread has a fair amount of bickering in it that's gotten pretty heated, personal, and snippy. Do folks think it's worth leaving the thread open?

It's a good thread. It's some of the posters that might need to be kicked from it if they can't play nice.

 

[Crothian]

Flying archers have a finite limit; arrows. They also rely on another player or a magic item to give them flight capability. Archers don't have area of effect. Archers can be disarmed.

Ya, archers are not perfect. But like flying wizards have weaknesses too. And that is why like flying archers, flying wizards even with these feats will be perfectly fine. And I imagine if we stated them up, the flying archer would be better then the flying reserve feat wizard.

 

[Psion]

Two separate points: They say these feats give wizards something to contribute per round, to which I say the old way of doing this was wands and scrolls, which are finite and require money and/or xp. The utility reserve feats give an ability that frees up item slots (ring/helm).

Which feats are you talking about here then?

An item creation feat will continue to give you cost savings into high levels, which seem to me to be as likely to be on the same order as a reserve feat, which really only emulate low level spell abilities.

I'm saying that Magic Missile, which when 3rd ed was being built, was considered almost too powerful for a 1st level spell (range, autohit, no save, affects incorporeal) is now almost moot by the time the zappy reserve feats are available. It goes to my estimation that these feats are too good.

Once again, no, I don't really think a reserve feat zap is a full replacement for magic missile, due to range issues already mentioned.