Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Psiblade" data-source="post: 1613789" data-attributes="member: 10872">Rushlight, the problem with not considering the total opportunity cost for divine metamagic in your arguements is that you fail to consider the value of other chains of feats. Let's take a comparison look at a couple of different chains.  To do 4 maximizes requires 16 turning attempts with divine metamagic. To get 16 turning requires at least two feats worth of extra turning, a 14 charisma, a cloak of chr +6, metamagic feat (maximize spell), and divine metamagic (maximize spell). This cleric is a one trick pony that hopes opponents are vulnerable to his spells. He is already four feats in and has not dealt with SR, Saves, or Immunities to his spells yet. The character has also done nothing to improve his saves or hit points either. This build would have trouble being effective in high level campaigns because most opponents will have all three defenses especially SR.With the same amount of points, feats, & money, a cleric could have a 14 str, a cloak of resistance +5, create wondrous item feat, improved toughness feat, divine vigor feat, and power attack. This cleric could blast them if the opponent is vulnerable to his spells. Otherwise, just use Righteous Might & divine favor and beat the tar out of them.A better cleric caster build would still have the cloak of resistance +5, put more points into con, but would have spell penetration, greater spell penetration, energy affinity(sonic), and quicken spell. The key is always flexibility and landing ability. If the characters' spells do not penetrate SR or Immunities, you do effectively do nothing for the round. There are better and more important chains than divine metamagic therefore the feat is not overpowered. Divine metamagic is a one trick pony that really limited in usefulness. Not to mention how weak a character would be on the way to acquiring it.-Psiblade</blockquote>

Verification