Complete Mage - Is it out yet?

[Victim]

Yeah, but you can also see AoO in the rules for withdrawing and some of the restricted actions in melee in pure 2e.

In almost every work fantasy lit, magic is somehow taxing, draining, or otherwise limited in it's use. Even Dr Strange gets tired.

Yeah, magic is often tiring in books. However, so is swinging a sword. DnD's tracking of fatigue in pretty much any edition is rather undetailed. On the other hand, HERO style END tracking is a pain in the ass, so I can't see that I wish it were in DnD.

It's my opinion that we should stop talking about Reserve feats and instead talk about the rest of the book. Is it just me, or is the evocation specialist feat for breaching energy resistance rather poor? Since you actually change part of the damage into untyped stuff, in cases where damage is going to blow through the resistance anywary your total damage will be much the same. 35 damage vs Resistance 20 = 15 damage. 35 fire damage -> 25 fire + 10 untyped vs Resistance 20 = 5 fire damage +10 untyped damage. Granted, it's going to make a big difference in how multiple damage packets go through resistance - scorching ray would hardly lose any damage oddly enough.

 

[Crothian]

Now you know why I quit posting to this thread

All evidence to contrary

 

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

To be fair, while it's not automatically true, it's certainly a recognizable source for influences. For example, the much rued Attacks of Opportunity showed up in Combat & Tactics for 2e first.

True. But that's a grain of sand on the beach of 2E options (especially later in the game's life). A bare handful made them into 3E in any direct form. (College of Wizardry sort of introduced metamagic, but not in any way resembling the 3E incarnation and, to be fair, even 1E had spells that accomplished a lot of the same things.)

There's so little carryover from options in one edition to the standards in the next that it's futile to point at an option and say "THAT, THAT RIGHT THERE is going to be in the next edition!" Unless, of course, you're working on 4E yourself, in which case, you'd be the last person to say anything of the sort.

 

[Elemental]

AFAIAC, any assertion about something being overpowered based on 1000 NPCs who just happened to pick this feat and gang up on a dragon is not too realistic of a test of what's balanced in a game.

Although it's a hilarious image.

If I were the dragon in that situation, I'd just polymorph into a human farmhand, and then let the bull into the field.

 

[Felon]

How about a Divination?
"Where should we wait to ambush the dragon?"
"Westman's Field disguised as sheep.
As brightest dawn from night doth creep.
To send the crimson foe to sleep"

This is representative of one of the major flaws in your arguement. It does not even cross your mind that a great wyrm would have defenses in place against such tactics. A blue wyrm has 17th level spells and a vast hoard of magic items. Mind blank is easy for him to come by. Much easier than it is for 5th-level wizards to obtain multiple castings of hero's feast and massmorph.

However, the fact remains that any effect that deals effectively-unavoidable damage is problematic.

Your definition of unavoidable is another huge flaw. Spell resistance and armor bonuses to AC aren't the sole factors that prevent "unavoidability", and a touch-based untyped damage attack is hardly "unstoppable". How about the dragon just boosts its touch AC, or casts greater invisibility, or mirror image, or throws up an antimagic field, or stays out of range, or boosts his hit points, or a host of other options at the its disposal? There are numerous established methods for ignoring spell resistance (conjuration school spells), for delivering untyped damage (consecrate spell/corrupt spell feats), and for giving attacks a high chance of hitting (truestrike). You're really just way behind the curve here.

 

[BryonD]

4) ByronD asked me how it was based on literature.

5) I explained how.

6) He said "no no, how is the magic system based on literature.

7) I explained how it was.

This is what is known as a "lie".

In post 186 I said:

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.

That was my first statement on the topic and I immediately specified arcane casters. (Which, funny thing, is EXACTLY the context you were referrign to within this discussion of new feats for spell casters.)

You then promptly refused to talk about ANY difference between 3E and prior system magic systems and completely abandoned the entire "paradigm shift" comment you previously made. Instead, you continuously misrepresented any rebuttal of your paradigm shift claim as a claim that there was no literature basis.

And now you are down to nothing let but silly and easily discredited lies. Which sums it up pretty well.

 

[BryonD]

The game IS changing, and these feats take it a lot further down that path. If people doesn't want to see it or admit it, fine, they are welcome to their opinions. Just don't try to tell me I'm not entitled to my own.

NOONE is trying to tell you you're opinion.
But, asking for a basis for it is reasonable. If you refuse to offer one, that will be taken into consideration regarding your opinion.

The game most certainly is changing. I consider 3X to be vastly superior to prior versions.
However, the idea that there is some paradim shift going on in that arcane casters are moving away from old literature ideas does not stand up to much scrutiny.

 

[Kaodi]

In Response To...

In my previous mad rambling, I mentioned using a druid using summon nature's ally in conjunction with reserve feats that use air, earth, fire and water. It was dismissed, perhaps rightly so, but since summon nature's ally counts as an air, earth, fire or water spell when used to summon the corresponding elementals, I was merely wondering if there was any mention in the text for reserve feats that expressly discounts spells that have a variable type. So, some people may come to the conclusion that you could in effect use a single spell to power a whole bucket load of reserve feats. This may be an incorrect interpretation of the rules, but is there any actual clarification, or is it going to be an issue for the FAQ or Errata?

 

[Mouseferatu]

In my previous mad rambling, I mentioned using a druid using summon nature's ally in conjunction with reserve feats that use air, earth, fire and water. It was dismissed, perhaps rightly so, but since summon nature's ally counts as an air, earth, fire or water spell when used to summon the corresponding elementals, I was merely wondering if there was any mention in the text for reserve feats that expressly discounts spells that have a variable type. So, some people may come to the conclusion that you could in effect use a single spell to power a whole bucket load of reserve feats. This may be an incorrect interpretation of the rules, but is there any actual clarification, or is it going to be an issue for the FAQ or Errata?

Those spells do not gain the energy type until they are cast. The Reserve Feats are based on spells you have prepared (when dealing with preparation-based casters, like druids). Since they are not prepared as energy type spells, and do not gain those types until they are cast, they would not suffice to power Reserve Feats.

 

[Mouseferatu]

*blink*

Actually, I was just looking at the spells, and I realized that SNA lacks the "type changing" rules that the SM spells have.

That seems odd to me. Why would summon monster become a fire spell when used to summon a fire elemental, but summon nature's ally wouldn't?

In any case, my prior answer stands; just substitute summon monster for SNA.