ECL of Spellfire? (again?)
- Thread starter kreynolds
- Start date
It probably shouldn't have one, since its impact depends so strongly on the game world and the DM. In some campaigns, entire armies will pursue the slightest rumor of Spellfire, but in others the PC wielder won't be considered particularly noteworthy.
IMO, the spellfire ability should be treated like an artifact: give it out sparingly, only if it's important to the story, and only if you know how you're going to keep control of the game.
IMO, the spellfire ability should be treated like an artifact: give it out sparingly, only if it's important to the story, and only if you know how you're going to keep control of the game.
Crothian
First Post
I think it can be and should have an ecl. Sure armies may go after the person, but I could do the same with a half dragon or a celstrial creature. ecl is a game mechanic and is not and should not be balanced or worry about role playing effects.
Now, as to what the ecl should be, that's really hard. I'd say +3 as my guess. That might be a little high though.
Now, as to what the ecl should be, that's really hard. I'd say +3 as my guess. That might be a little high though.
kreynolds
First Post
AuraSeer said:
The FRCS pretty much assumes that spellfire wielders will be desired and pursued by evil organizations, such as the Red Wizards of Thay, so taking that into account, I think an ECL wouldn't be bad. I'd kinda like to move Spellfire out of a feat and into a template, or mini-template, if you will. But even if I don't do that, which I might not, I'm interested in what others think the ECL should be. Myself, I'm leaning towards +3 or +4.
AuraSeer said:
Well, I can always keep control of the game, no matter how many wrenches get tossed into the works, so that's not a problem. I'm not so sure about treating it like an artifact though. In my experience, artifacts are temporary, meaning they generally just move the campaign forward and they don't hang out very long. If I can figure out what ECL the feat/ability should be, then it won't be a big problem if someone has it, as they'll be better balanced with the rest of the group. If I just treat it as an artifact, then one person gets something really cool while the others don't.
Victim
First Post
I think it depends on the level of the campaign. Spellfire, in my opinion, has strong diminishing returns. At level 1, being able to dish out you CON in d6 is huge. That could be 14d6 with a decent Con. A gnome with a toad familar could do 22d6. On the other hand, at tenth level, having the same in case of emergency attack of say 18d6 (up from 14) isn't going to be as world shatttering. Especially since the DC remains the same.
Also, Spellfire is worth a lot more if a player is going to always be fully charged. For example, a sorcerer will usually have extra spells left over each day. He can recharge himself (or another character) easily. Also, with spellfire attacks around, he can avoid taking attack spells for a while to save on known spells. On the other hand, if the character has to rely on absorbing enemy spells in combat to gain energy, then he's no where near abusing spellfire to the fullest extent.
Also, Spellfire is worth a lot more if a player is going to always be fully charged. For example, a sorcerer will usually have extra spells left over each day. He can recharge himself (or another character) easily. Also, with spellfire attacks around, he can avoid taking attack spells for a while to save on known spells. On the other hand, if the character has to rely on absorbing enemy spells in combat to gain energy, then he's no where near abusing spellfire to the fullest extent.
kreynolds
First Post
Victim said:
Yeah, the DC is a problem. Personally, I'm going to set the DC as it should be in the first place (10 + half hit die + con mod).
Aside from that, the returns are no more diminishing than a 3rd level spell in a high level game.
Hmm. Actually, I think that just answered my question...
Victim said:
AFAIK, it has been clarified that a spellfire wielder cannot recharge themselves with their own spells.
Just as a side note. I have a Player who wanted spellfire for his 1st character. He did choose to make it a power he couldn't control. Character wise he indicated when he wanted to use it by tensing to see what was going to happen during a fight. Player wise he would say he was readying to absorb a spell.
The reason I bring this up is I didn't want to run the whole everyone is after the spellfire game, so before he even suggested it I had decided the Royal line were the only ones who had this power. And Only the immediate royal family did it didn't breed/branch out just becuase you had royal blood. Only the recognized king and his children had it until the next king then only his children carried it not the king/queen's siblings children.
It was also part of the great prophecy that there firey magic blood was needed to open the gate to hell again. All this was pre character concept but his story matched up so he could be a child of the king, a bastard but still a spellfire wielder.
He was 8th level before he learned what the power was. He knew he had some power that protected him from magic but not what till then. So in exchange for a mostly useless feat he had since first he now has a fairly powerful feat and the knowledge to use it but to do so exposes him to those trying to open th gate again. Something he is trying to avoid at all cost. He also realizes that the two other 1/2 siblings now in the enemies hands are his 1/2 brother and sister and due to in game reasons he allowed them to be taken away he has quite a bit of guilt. All this for the price of a feat.
I think Spellfire is more about building a story than almost any other feat. It needs a certain balance I think that is good and bad.
just soem jumbled up random thoughts.
later
The reason I bring this up is I didn't want to run the whole everyone is after the spellfire game, so before he even suggested it I had decided the Royal line were the only ones who had this power. And Only the immediate royal family did it didn't breed/branch out just becuase you had royal blood. Only the recognized king and his children had it until the next king then only his children carried it not the king/queen's siblings children.
It was also part of the great prophecy that there firey magic blood was needed to open the gate to hell again. All this was pre character concept but his story matched up so he could be a child of the king, a bastard but still a spellfire wielder.
He was 8th level before he learned what the power was. He knew he had some power that protected him from magic but not what till then. So in exchange for a mostly useless feat he had since first he now has a fairly powerful feat and the knowledge to use it but to do so exposes him to those trying to open th gate again. Something he is trying to avoid at all cost. He also realizes that the two other 1/2 siblings now in the enemies hands are his 1/2 brother and sister and due to in game reasons he allowed them to be taken away he has quite a bit of guilt. All this for the price of a feat.
I think Spellfire is more about building a story than almost any other feat. It needs a certain balance I think that is good and bad.
just soem jumbled up random thoughts.
later
Similar Threads
D&D 5E (2024)
Man I hate the organization of the 2024 Monster Manual
