Help word a feat?

[youspoonybard]

Yes, I just posted this on the wizard.com boards, but I figured I need all the help I can get : )

I want to make a new feat, well, actually, "replace" an old feat.

Combat Casting. I hate it. I told my DM, and he suggested that I offer a different version of it.

After thinking about it, I ran the idea of allowing a caster to repace an attack during a full attack with a touch spell.

These are the limitations on it -

Once per round only.
Only can cast and attempt to touch with a touch spell. No other types of spells.
Need a free hand (no shield, but bucklers are ok).
Requires a concentration check DC 15 + 2 x spell level, or the spell fizzles. No AoO either way (or perhaps if the caster doesn't beat a DC 15 + spell level Concentration check, he does provoke. That might be interesting). Moreover, you take a penalty on this Concentration check equal to the penalty you'd get on the attack you're replacing (ie if you substitute the first attack, you get a -0 penalty; the second attack, a -5 penalty, and so on). Any penalties from flurry, TWF and other effects that allow multiple attacks would be added to the Concentration penalty.

Prereqs BAB +6, ability to cast X level spells.

1) How does the general idea of the feat look? Balance?
2) Can someone help me word this correctly? I'm not looking for loopholes, I'm looking to make a balanced, correctly worded feat, and I don't want to screw anything up.

Thanks ahead of time for your input!

 

[CRGreathouse]

Spell Opportunity [Epic]
Prerequisites: Combat Casting, Combat Reflexes, Quicken Spell, Spellcraft 25 ranks.
Benefit: Whenever the character is allowed an attack of opportunity, he or she may cast (and attack with) a touch spell as the character's attack of opportunity. This incurs attacks of opportunity just as if the character had cast the spell normally.
Normal: Without this feat, a character can only make a melee attack as an attack of opportunity.

 

[Vlos]

What is sounds like is youspoonybard wants to allow a caster type that has more than one attack cast a spell in place of an single attack during the full attack?

If that is right, I think CRGreathouse has the right idea in starting with Spell Opportunity, which allows a character to cast a touch spell any time they are allowed a AoO.

But that feat can allow multiple spell castings in a single round, where as the other feat only allows a single spell casting. This alone is a very powerful feature of the spell (which is why its minimally EPIC).

I forget, but the PrC Spell Sword I think has a similar power, so shouldn't be too far off from that. Something that can be gotten at non-EPIC levels. But I would say it is a powerful feature.

Magic Attack
Prerequisites: Combat Casting, Quicken Spell, Free/Empty hand
Benefit: When every the user makes a attack they can substitute casting a single touch spell with a free hand in place of the attack. Only a one attack per round can be substituted in this fashion. A character can only cast a spell of level equal to the attack BAB / 2.
Normal: A character without this feat cannot cast a spell and attack in the same round.


So a character who has a BAB of +11/+6/+1, can substitute their primary attack at +11 to cast a spell upto level 5, or they can substitute their second attack at +6 to cast a spell uptp level 3. They could also substitute their third attack at +1 to cast a cantrip.

This limits the power of the feat so fighter types are not throwing away their worst attack to cast a 9th level spell.

 

[youspoonybard]

I was trying to use the concentration check penalty to keep people from just dumping their last attack to cast the spell; with a -10 penalty, a DC 15+ 2x spell level Concentration check is difficult to say the least for a high level spell. For example, I think Harm/Heal are probably the 2 most powerful spells to use with this feat. If a 11th level cleric is just standing next to the enemy already, and uses a full attack and this feat, he has to hit a DC 27 Concentration check. So, depending on the attack he uses, he has to give up his highest BAB attack and roll a 9 (assuming maxed ranks and a +4 con), his second attack and roll a 14, or his third attack and roll a natural 19, or the spell fizzles. That seems to be a decent cap on using their last attacks to cast the spell to me. By maxing out Concentration he can raise it so that at 20th level he only needs a 10 to replace that third attack, but that's for a 6th level spell, and he's probably putting more ranks in Concentration and has taken a feat.

And Spell Attack of Opportunity is the reason I was given permission to change the Combat Casting feat; the DM doesn't know if the campaign is going to hit Epic levels or not, and he doesn't want me to totally waste a feat if it doesn't. So I was thinking on how to make a different feat that wasn't overpowered, but interesting.

What about combining this with Quicken Spell? Should I outright deny it (this counts as your quickened spell for the round), or allow it? It's slightly different (quicken's Spell spell Move vs this feat's Full Attack -1 Touch spell Quickened Spell). I don't know if that's broken or not.

 

[Vlos]

Well the feat I suggested was/is not an EPIC feat. I just referenced the Spell Opprotunity because it is EPIC, but allows casting many spells in a single round.

You could do some formula of Concentration check, but at mid to high levels it becomes a mute point as they are too easy to make, which is why I wanted to limit, thus again stopping a toon with a high BAB using his last/worst attack to cast a powerful spell. I think that would be too powerful. Take this feat added to a Eldrich Knight and you have a high BAB with ability to cast high level spells. Dump a BAB +1 attack for a Touch 3rd level spell is too powerful.

First its allowing a touch attack as compared to a normal attack, Touch ACs are much lower than a normal AC. So they are getting a benefit from that. Second they are getting the benefit of a spell. That alone is better than many attacks.

I would further add that the TOUCH attack uses the BAB that the spell is substituted for.

Thats my input.

 

[youspoonybard]

Sorry if I didn't imply that; it most definetly would.