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:
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, 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.
