Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
Rocket your D&D 5E and Level Up: Advanced 5E games into space! Alpha Star Magazine Is Launching... Right Now!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Elder-Basilisk" data-source="post: 371426" data-attributes="member: 3146">Really, I have no idea how this one would work out in practice having little experience playing high level sorcerors. I have played one and I know that more spells known would be a big power boost. (Of course, I think sorcerors are underpowered until high levels anyway). . . .I missed the bit about Inherent Cha. You could still hit cha 28 if you start with an 18 cha use all your stat increases and 5 wishes at once (or a +5 tome). If you're an Aasmar, you could hit 30. But 26 is probably a much more typical inherent cha score by 20th level.Shield would still be a good second level spell for wizards. I doubt many bards would think twice about taking it at second level. For Shield at second level, Fireball at 4th, Stoneskin at 5th and teleport at 6th, I think a bard would happily spend a feat. I don't know about Psionic Warriors because I've never used psionics. Still, all it would take is one abusive spell combination to break the feat. Given the number of spells out there (and how quickly they're increasing), I think that giving players carte blanch to alter their spell lists is not a good idea.Good catch on the math--I missed the 2 for 1 thing. I still think it's a pretty significant problem though. It may be comparable to greater spell focus, but it also stacks with greater spell focus. This is actually more serious than it sounds because the effect of small changes to the DC becomes more dramatic as the DC increases.For instance, a 20th level wizard with a 32 effective int and greater spell focus: evocation. The ordinary DC to save against his fireball spell is 28. A typical PC going up against such a caster might be a 16th level fighter. Assuming a 12 dex, lightning reflexes, and a +5 cloak of resistance, the fighter would have a reflex save of +13. In order to beat the DC of this relatively low level spell, the fighter needs to roll a 15 or better. If the wizard were to use spell finesse on the fireball, the DC would go up to 33. Now the fighter only saves on a natural 20. The odds of the fighter saving against the fireball just decreased by almost 90% (88.75% to be exact).For a number of spells with damage caps, there's also little reason not to use this to boost the save DCs. As a DM, I wouldn't want to see fireball suddenly aquiring the DC of an 8th level spell while still taking up a 3rd level slot.Spell resistance is a valid concern, but I still don't think the tradeoff is enough to make the idea balanced.It's still a good feat. I just don't like the idea of negating a PCs feats. Put it this way, if you as a fighter had the cleave, sunder, and improved disarm and you kill a mook and attempt to cleave the big bad guy, how would you feel if the DM say "No, you can't do that. He has the anti-cleave feat." Then you attempt to sunder the bad guy's weapon. DM: "OK, he takes his attack of opportunity." Player: "But I have the sunder feat, I don't provoke AoOs for sundering." DM: "But he has Anti-Sunder. Sorry." Player "OK, I'll disarm him." DM: "He'll take an AoO for that. He has Anti-Disarm too." That scenario is probably a little farfetched but it should make the point. Feats are there to expand characters' options in combat. If they start to be entirely negated by anti-feats then combat will tend to come down to "I swing, I hit/miss" which is precisely the situation feats are meant to avoid.The S&F Sharpshooting feat doesn't need to say it's not effective against total cover. If a character has total cover, you can't hit them at all. OTOH, it doesn't effect concealment at all.Re: Bucklers, I don't think the 1/10 cover category is necessary. Bucklers provide an armor bonus. The only things that provide cover are the shield spell, tower shields, and well, cover. I would have no problem saying that standing behind a knee high wall or a light mist doesn't help at all against the "Hawk Eyed" sniper.That's a good point about most people wanting bludgeoning anyway. . . .I'm not saying that it's a bad idea to have a allow this feat to make a glaive the ideal double weapon. (Although, why not allow both ends to be enchanted?). Given the number of feats it takes to make double weapon fighting work anyway, I don't think that's a problem. I was just pointing out the likely effect.So let me see: Human Ftr1. Ambidex, TWF, Polearm Fighting2. Improved Polearm Fighting3. Wp Focus: Glaive4. Wp Spec: Glaive6. Combat Reflexes, Imp Combat Reflexes8. Imp TWF9. Imp Crit: Glaive10. Quickdraw12. Power Crit: Glaive, Supreme TWF (of whatever the MotW feat is)I don't think that that kind of a fighter is going to be unbalanced at all. He's made a lot of sacrifices (Power Attack, Cleave, Iron Will, Blindfight, Expert Tactician, prestige classes, and multiclassing) in order to become effective with that weapon style. . . .</blockquote>

Verification