Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="MerakSpielman" data-source="post: 2424414" data-attributes="member: 7464">Not if you're taking the position that you get a number of spell effects equal to the number of wizards, eh? So you're saying 20 wizards should be able to cast 20 disintigrate spells, at a hightened DC and SR, with absolutley no penalty whatsoever for doing so? What wizard society wouldn't require every member to have this feat? What wizard society wouldn't recruit far and wide to swell their numbers, so that they could have the best Cooperative Spells available? What's your point here? It's absurd to think feats exist primarily for the use of PCs in an adventuring party. NPCs have access to the same feats, and can use them intelligently. So a cabal of wizards can cast Dominate Person or Scry and nobody has a chance to resist it. That's what Cooperative spell does - you just want them to be able to do it once per wizard.  Yes, your version is overpowered. In fact, not only is it overpowered, it's obscenely overpowered to the maximum limits of my somewhat expansive imagination. The mind boggles with horror at the implications of your interpretation. And you suggest it casually, saying "sure it's powerful, but the DM can keep it from getting out of control." Once a DM has to step in and make sure NPCs don't use a feat intelligently, it is clearly overpowered. Can you imagine what would happen if 20 wizards got together and decided that they could cast 20 spells at the same time, and each one would be impossible for anybody to resist? Can you even visualize what they could accomplish - being as they are, on average, twice as smart as most people you interact with on a daily basis? They'd be more than a force to be reckened with - the only thing that could conceviebly check their power would be a similar group with similar capabilities. Like the Mutually Assured Destruction theory of nuclear proliferation - both groups wouldn't dare let the other group become more powerful then themselves, and recruit like mad so that their cooperative spells would be able to compete with those of the other group. It would be chaos. And "the DM wouldn't let it get out of hand" is insufficient reason to allow something an abusable ability into the game. It's not limited to wizards either. Imagine a temple of clerics casting Quest on people, or Mark of Justice. Can you imagine the social control they could obtain if they could make these spells both numerous and irresistable? There is also considerable precident, in fantasy literature, for a group of casters to be able to pool their abilities into a single effect. In fact, it's almost a fantasy cliché: "Alone, we cannot defeat him... but perhaps if we joined hands, and tried it all together, our combined powers will get through..." I find it hard to believe people would not assume this feat was meant to duplicate this traditional scene. It requires no extra text. I would appreciate it if people would abandon this straw-man tactic. The feat assumes the casters involved have previously discussed which spell to cast. It assumes they've previously discussed when to start casting it. Why is it such a logical leap to assume that the casters have previously discussed where to target it, and what effects (if any are choosable) will occur? The feat is assuming the casters are cooperating. Why do you seem to think that they cooperate up to a point, and then suddenly require a "leader" to choose things? Nowhere does the feat mention multiple spells. That's kind of important, don't you think? Do you think they just accidentally left it out? Likewise, I'm sure.</blockquote>

Verification