Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="rushlight" data-source="post: 1614540" data-attributes="member: 3801">Why choose 4 maximizes?&nbsp; Even one or two above the limit is too much, and that is attainable with just a decend CHA, a +6 item, and a feat.&nbsp; And the decent CHA with a +6 item has uses beyond the feat - so the claim that it's a one trick pony are erroneous.&nbsp; &nbsp;Even houseruling that the spells can't exceed the normal metamagic cap doesn't address the issue.&nbsp; The issue is: turning undead is not the same as improving your spellcasting.&nbsp; Those powers are vastly seperated in strength.&nbsp; When you design a feat that uses a low-strength, abundant resource (turning) to replace a high-strength, rare resource (higher level spell used in metamagic) then you've designed a broken feat.&nbsp;It's really quite simple - and no one has addressed this issue yet.&nbsp; It's like the ranger example I gave a few posts up, and the fighter example before that.&nbsp; I've said it before, and I'll say it again: A significant bonus requires a significant sacrifice to maintain balance. A significant bonus gained with very little loss is not balanced.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="rushlight, post: 1614540, member: 3801"] Why choose 4 maximizes? Even one or two above the limit is too much, and that is attainable with just a decend CHA, a +6 item, and a feat. And the decent CHA with a +6 item has uses beyond the feat - so the claim that it's a one trick pony are erroneous. Even houseruling that the spells can't exceed the normal metamagic cap doesn't address the issue. The issue is: [b]turning undead is not the same as improving your spellcasting.[/b] Those powers are vastly seperated in strength. When you design a feat that uses a low-strength, abundant resource (turning) to replace a high-strength, rare resource (higher level spell used in metamagic) then you've designed a broken feat. It's really quite simple - and [i]no one[/i] has addressed this issue yet. It's like the ranger example I gave a few posts up, and the fighter example before that. I've said it before, and I'll say it again: A significant bonus requires a significant sacrifice to maintain balance. A significant bonus gained with very little loss is not balanced. [/QUOTE]

Verification