Is "Spellcasting Prodigy" feat too powerful?

[green slime]

14 in every stat is equivalent to a 36 point-buy, and as such, will be a very powerful character, however the points are arranged...

And +2 to everything is Very Good.

 

[Pax]

What I dislike a person who tries to cover every base. A character should have some weaknesses and some strengths. Middle values for all your stats isn't very interesting.

I prefer to play folks who are thrust into the role of being heroes ... but are otherwise normal, ordinary people with one or two special factors working in their favor (an otherwise ordinary fellow who happens to be a powerful, charismatic sorceror; a "typical" village priest whose wisdom exceeds what one owuld expect of her; etc, etc, etc).

So to an extent, "being ordinary and average" is something of a weakness, when thrust into high-heroism situations.

Then there's the issue that not all weaknesses are based solely on one's attribute scores. Perhaps the characetr has a weakness for strong drink. Or tobacco. Or women/etc. Or gambling. So, IMO, you don't have to have a negative modifier on an attribute, to have "a weakness" ... there're plenty of ways to make a character with foibles, and NOT have a SINGLE attribute below ten.

Just like there're a few ways to make a character with many STRENGHTS ... and not have a single attribute ABOVE 12 (it's a bit harder, but it's possible).

 

[LokiDR]

I prefer to play folks who are thrust into the role of being heroes ... but are otherwise normal, ordinary people with one or two special factors working in their favor (an otherwise ordinary fellow who happens to be a powerful, charismatic sorceror; a "typical" village priest whose wisdom exceeds what one owuld expect of her; etc, etc, etc).

Ordinary people aren't extrordinary. If you are powerful sorceror, you have gain enough levels that can not be called ordinary. If you are an otherwise ordinary but very wise priest, you are defined on your strength only, not your whole character. If your stats start at the base for your race, why don't we just roll 2d4 and add them to the base?

So to an extent, "being ordinary and average" is something of a weakness, when thrust into high-heroism situations.

Only if all your opponents have medium-high stats accross the board. Making "average" a weakness just makes most of the people in your world pathetic.

Then there's the issue that not all weaknesses are based solely on one's attribute scores. Perhaps the characetr has a weakness for strong drink. Or tobacco. Or women/etc. Or gambling. So, IMO, you don't have to have a negative modifier on an attribute, to have "a weakness" ... there're plenty of ways to make a character with foibles, and NOT have a SINGLE attribute below ten.

There is no "edges and flaws" rule system in D&D. Characters with addictions, phobias, ect, are more interesting, as you say. But there is no rules incentive for this. There are incentives for low stats: other stats can be higher. Personally, the fact that point buy starts at 8 is a weakness of the rules because there is no good reason to play a character who is REALLY dumb. Even a half-orc starting at 8 is only down to 6. Slow, to be sure, but they could still get through most high schools. A mentally retarded character could be very interesting.

Just like there're a few ways to make a character with many STRENGHTS ... and not have a single attribute ABOVE 12 (it's a bit harder, but it's possible).

Yes, and those strengths come from level, items, and synergy with other characters. Most characters can be useful, if played well. But without some weakness of character or stat, the character isn't very well rounded. That streaches susspension of disbelief and leads to flat characters.

 

[Pax]

Ordinary people aren't extrordinary. If you are powerful sorceror, you have gain enough levels that can not be called ordinary. If you are an otherwise ordinary but very wise priest, you are defined on your strength only, not your whole character. If your stats start at the base for your race, why don't we just roll 2d4 and add them to the base?

Ordinary people, thrust into extraordinary situations,s oemtimes BECOME extraordinary people. No offense but I don't have to play Conan every time I play a strength-oriented fighter. Joe Ex-Soldier will do for me.

And no; I disagree an otherwise-ordinary but very-wise priest is defined only by his strength.

The character is defined by his or her actions when faced with situations OUTSIDE their strength.

Only if all your opponents have medium-high stats accross the board. Making "average" a weakness just makes most of the people in your world pathetic.

It's a "weakness" in the sense that, a HERO is expected to be ABOVE average. BETTER than ordinary. When said hero isn't ... it's a perceived flaw.

There is no "edges and flaws" rule system in D&D. Characters with addictions, phobias, ect, are more interesting, as you say. But there is no rules incentive for this. There are incentives for low stats: other stats can be higher. Personally, the fact that point buy starts at 8 is a weakness of the rules because there is no good reason to play a character who is REALLY dumb. Even a half-orc starting at 8 is only down to 6. Slow, to be sure, but they could still get through most high schools. A mentally retarded character could be very interesting.

Only in point-buy, which is nonstandard. In standard, you -could- be the one-in-I-dunno-how-many-millions who actually GETS all 18's across the board (I've done 3 18's a 16 and two 14's once ... years ago).

As for playing a characetr who is REALLY dumb ... sure there is: a CHALLENGE, and some FUN. For point-buy systems, I prefer ones like GURPS ... everything starts average; get better, pay some points. Get worse, get paid some points.

Yes, and those strengths come from level, items, and synergy with other characters. Most characters can be useful, if played well. But without some weakness of character or stat, the character isn't very well rounded. That streaches susspension of disbelief and leads to flat characters.

Strengths can be in other terms, largely circumstance, GM, and campaign-backstory dependant. It's BETTER if there's a rule-based incentive or compensation system for nonattribute characetr flaws.

But it's not REQUIRED.

All that is REQUIRED is, mature gamers who're in the game for more than just some dice-rolling, but want some ROLE-playing too.

And mind, anyone that knows me personally know's I am -normally- a "lemme roll some damned dice already" point-monkey of a powergamer.

But there is more to gaming than dice and numbers.

 

[LokiDR]

Sigh.

D&D has rules and clarifications to cover most situations. We are here in the rules forum because of this. D&D is a game of rules, unlike a lot of other RPGs. Try BESM sometime.

With all the rules, a person might think that they try to balance most, if not all, elements of the game. However, if you and I both create characters, elements like this will mean our characters aren't on par with each other.

You make a cleric with "ordinary" stats, but above average wisdom. I make a bookworm who is used to ducking bullies, choosing high and low stats. We sit down to play. The DM assumes that we have both created characters that we find interesting. Both are within the realm of the point buy, and we aren't trying any "broken" combos. If we both play our characters to the hilt, you are mostly ordinary but pretty wise, and I have some obvious advantages and disadvantages. But in rules terms, I have a "better" character. I do what I do better than you do what you do. Assuming a standard-ish party, the other characters should cover both my and your weaknesses. We both follow concept and end up on different levels of effectiveness.

The rules should discourage this. If one character is sub-optimal, compared to more optimal characters, the player will feel bad, and the game loses some fun. Since it is all about fun in the end, the rules should discourage those elements that aren't fun.

Honestly, to solve the above dilemia would only take the DM a minute to tell one of us to revise the character. What I don't like about the current character creation system is that it doesn't even try to consider this. A DM has a lot to handle, and the rules should try to help as much as possible.

That is why I dislike average characters. I see most of the people I game with take some good and some bad stats. Those who try average all round almost always lead to hard feelings, because they are odd man out. The either have less niches for the other characters to fit with, damaging party cohesion, or they are overshadowed.

Average joe should be able to beat most characters at what they are bad at. That way you have a good reason to work with other characters and not to blow them off. Anything that helps the game get together and keep moving is for the best.

 

[Pax]

Sigh.

D&D has rules and clarifications to cover most situations. We are here in the rules forum because of this. D&D is a game of rules, unlike a lot of other RPGs. Try BESM sometime.

Even BESM has rules. Try true freeform-RP.

And for rules, D&D is -not- a heavyweight; I'd callit a middleweight at best. Try RoleMaster, SpaceMaster, GURPS, Champions, or Aftermath! (the last being, sadly, long OOP).

With all the rules, a person might think that they try to balance most, if not all, elements of the game. However, if you and I both create characters, elements like this will mean our characters aren't on par with each other.

You make a cleric with "ordinary" stats, but above average wisdom. I make a bookworm who is used to ducking bullies, choosing high and low stats. We sit down to play. The DM assumes that we have both created characters that we find interesting. Both are within the realm of the point buy, and we aren't trying any "broken" combos. If we both play our characters to the hilt, you are mostly ordinary but pretty wise, and I have some obvious advantages and disadvantages. But in rules terms, I have a "better" character. I do what I do better than you do what you do. Assuming a standard-ish party, the other characters should cover both my and your weaknesses. We both follow concept and end up on different levels of effectiveness.

That depends on your aim. You obviously care only for absolute maximum efficiency and "effectiveness" in your chosen specialty (nonspontaneous arcane spells).

By your rules, my non-melee cleric should take base 8's in strength, dexterity, constitution, and intelligence, an 18 in Wisdom, and as much charisma as I can afford.

To me, that's a slightly weak, clumsy, sickly, "dumb-ish" character. Not remarkably so on any front, but it's there nonetheless. And, what does taking all those 8's to get an 18 wisdom get me, that a 16 wisdom wouldn't? +1 save DC. +1 to an already-strong Will Save. Eventully, one bonus spell per day that the cleric wouldn't have gotten.

Big deal.

Yes, that's right, big fat hairy deal ... it's not THAT important. Going form 16 (cost 10) to 18 (cost 16) is the difference between three 10's, or three 8's.

Now, what do I gain by NO nerfing all those scores ... ? Well, let's see; +1 initiative, armor class, reflex save, and ranged to-hit bonus; +1 hit point per level and +1 fortitude save; +1 skill point per level (+4 at 1st level).

Give up all that for ONE bonus spell? For only plus ONE to save DCs? Please! 3E did one thing: it made it so a spellcaster can have as low as a FOURTEEN in their primary attribute, and still be fully effective.

The rules should discourage this. If one character is sub-optimal, compared to more optimal characters, the player will feel bad, and the game loses some fun. Since it is all about fun in the end, the rules should discourage those elements that aren't fun.

Having all of two less in Wisdom, than the wizard has in Intelligence, won't be a hindrance to the fun of ROLE players. Maybe if your entire image of an RPG is as a tactical-encounter simulation, fine.

Said otherwise-ordinary cleric will have a much better time of it, strictly role-played, than your idiot-savant wizard ... for a night at the local watering hole, or a dinner-and-reception at the local noble's manor.

Honestly, to solve the above dilemia would only take the DM a minute to tell one of us to revise the character. What I don't like about the current character creation system is that it doesn't even try to consider this. A DM has a lot to handle, and the rules should try to help as much as possible.

Unless the GM was running a pure tactical-encounter simulation, I'd tell him to get stuffed if he said *I* needed to revise my character. If he IS running such a simulation, then tough on me (though if he was, and sAID so from the get-go ... I'd've min/maxxed for that situation).

That is why I dislike average characters. I see most of the people I game with take some good and some bad stats. Those who try average all round almost always lead to hard feelings, because they are odd man out. The either have less niches for the other characters to fit with, damaging party cohesion, or they are overshadowed.

Being average in strength doesn't threaten the fighter(s). Being average in dexterity doesn't threaten the rogues.

Having scores of "10" in someone else's "specialty stat" doesn't threaten them, because they likely DO have 14's, 16's, or maybe even an 18 in that attribute.

Average joe should be able to beat most characters at what they are bad at. That way you have a good reason to work with other characters and not to blow them off. Anything that helps the game get together and keep moving is for the best.

Again; a cleric with (say):

STR 9
DEX 10
CON 10
INT 10
WIS 16
CHA 15

... isn't going to threaten ANYone except other divine spellcasters. He'd be good at turning, and good at divine spellcasting (base spell DCs of 13+level). He'd be as smart as the average villager, as healthy, as agile / non-clumsy. A touch weaker, perhaps, but he's more a scholarly / healer type than a field worker or such.

And the all mighty difference of 1 DC and 1 bonus spell "eventually" ... isn't that much of a disadvantage compared to the guy with 9, 8, 8, 8, 18, 15 (inorder).

 

[LokiDR]

Even BESM has rules. Try true freeform-RP.

And for rules, D&D is -not- a heavyweight; I'd callit a middleweight at best. Try RoleMaster, SpaceMaster, GURPS, Champions, or Aftermath! (the last being, sadly, long OOP).

Compared to 2E, it's downright tubby.

That depends on your aim. You obviously care only for absolute maximum efficiency and "effectiveness" in your chosen specialty (nonspontaneous arcane spells).

By your rules, my non-melee cleric should take base 8's in strength, dexterity, constitution, and intelligence, an 18 in Wisdom, and as much charisma as I can afford.

To me, that's a slightly weak, clumsy, sickly, "dumb-ish" character. Not remarkably so on any front, but it's there nonetheless. And, what does taking all those 8's to get an 18 wisdom get me, that a 16 wisdom wouldn't? +1 save DC. +1 to an already-strong Will Save. Eventully, one bonus spell per day that the cleric wouldn't have gotten.

Big deal.

Yes, that's right, big fat hairy deal ... it's not THAT important. Going form 16 (cost 10) to 18 (cost 16) is the difference between three 10's, or three 8's.

Now, what do I gain by NO nerfing all those scores ... ? Well, let's see; +1 initiative, armor class, reflex save, and ranged to-hit bonus; +1 hit point per level and +1 fortitude save; +1 skill point per level (+4 at 1st level).

Give up all that for ONE bonus spell? For only plus ONE to save DCs? Please! 3E did one thing: it made it so a spellcaster can have as low as a FOURTEEN in their primary attribute, and still be fully effective.

8 str isn't weak. 8 dex isn't clumsy. 8 int isn't sickly. 8 wis isn't "dumb-ish". They are all just below average. A 5% difference on a roll. You say a few points don't matter, but make 8 an extreem low.

The point you keep skipping here is that I am not proposing rules that force people to absoultly min-max. I propose rules to discourage me from making an 18 inteligence wizard when you make a 13 wisdom cleric. Both valid characters, both could be very interesting. They wouldn't work in the same game.

Perhaps you should stop trying to put words in my mouth, and start addressing the point I am trying to make.

Having all of two less in Wisdom, than the wizard has in Intelligence, won't be a hindrance to the fun of ROLE players. Maybe if your entire image of an RPG is as a tactical-encounter simulation, fine.

Said otherwise-ordinary cleric will have a much better time of it, strictly role-played, than your idiot-savant wizard ... for a night at the local watering hole, or a dinner-and-reception at the local noble's manor.

See above comment.

Unless the GM was running a pure tactical-encounter simulation, I'd tell him to get stuffed if he said *I* needed to revise my character. If he IS running such a simulation, then tough on me (though if he was, and sAID so from the get-go ... I'd've min/maxxed for that situation).

Why is it always the extreems with you? I have seen games other than "tatical encounter" where not min-maxing would have been a very bad idea. I have seen others where one min-maxer ruined the fun for everyone else. Do the rules cover this for character creation? No.

Being average in strength doesn't threaten the fighter(s). Being average in dexterity doesn't threaten the rogues.

Having scores of "10" in someone else's "specialty stat" doesn't threaten them, because they likely DO have 14's, 16's, or maybe even an 18 in that attribute.

Once again, you miss the point. I am talking about 12, 12, 12, 12, 13, 12. All round average. This is what leads to problems, not 16 vs 18.

Again; a cleric with (say):

STR 9
DEX 10
CON 10
INT 10
WIS 16
CHA 15

... isn't going to threaten ANYone except other divine spellcasters. He'd be good at turning, and good at divine spellcasting (base spell DCs of 13+level). He'd be as smart as the average villager, as healthy, as agile / non-clumsy. A touch weaker, perhaps, but he's more a scholarly / healer type than a field worker or such.

And the all mighty difference of 1 DC and 1 bonus spell "eventually" ... isn't that much of a disadvantage compared to the guy with 9, 8, 8, 8, 18, 15 (inorder).

All you are doing is quibbling. One last time, I am not talking about 16 vs 18. I am talking about a character who tries to be good at everything. Both the characters you mention fall into the other catagory: strengths and weaknesses. Your "average stat" cleric will still lose a round of arm wrestling matches. But then again, he isn't built for arm wreastling. 12, 12, 12, 12, 13, 12 cleric would win most arm wreastling matches, but still sucks all round.

 

[Pax]

8 str isn't weak. 8 dex isn't clumsy. 8 int isn't sickly. 8 wis isn't "dumb-ish". They are all just below average. A 5% difference on a roll. You say a few points don't matter, but make 8 an extreem low.

The thing you seem to be missing is, you are trading three 8's to get one 18.

The point you keep skipping here is that I am not proposing rules that force people to absoultly min-max.

Yet you have expressed a desire for the rules to produce an incentive to do exactly that.

I propose rules to discourage me from making an 18 inteligence wizard when you make a 13 wisdom cleric. Both valid characters, both could be very interesting. They wouldn't work in the same game.

There's no reason TO discourage you -- not in terms of rules. The way it shoudl work is, teh group shoudl sit down, before teh campaign starts, and at various points during the campaign (every Nth session, or such) ... and decide what type of game do we want to play?

There is the whole and absolute incentive needed. The rules don't have to force one of us to conform to the expectations of the oteh (since hte rules cannot know which of our expectations to consider "right"). WE, as presumedly-mature roleplayers, should decide between us, our fellow players, and our GM, which "flavor" will be applicable to a given campaign.

Perhaps you should stop trying to put words in my mouth, and start addressing the point I am trying to make.

I've put not ONE owrd in your mouth. I've read your posts directly and literally; I'm beginning to conclude Petrosian was right, and you're a troll.

...

And no, not the kind with a CR.

Why is it always the extreems with you? I have seen games other than "tatical encounter" where not min-maxing would have been a very bad idea. I have seen others where one min-maxer ruined the fun for everyone else. Do the rules cover this for character creation? No.

"Very bad idea" ---> "causes a significant, even crippling, disadvantage".

Where, other than combat, is a point or two on a die roll now and again, a "significant, even crippling, disadvantage" ... ?

Once again, you miss the point. I am talking about 12, 12, 12, 12, 13, 12. All round average. This is what leads to problems, not 16 vs 18.

Apparently, you are lacking a clue. 12's aren't average. 12's are "slightly above average". TEN, exactly and only, is "average".

Not to mention; *AHEM* who isputting words in whose mouth now? I've only EVER cited "a 16, maybe a 14, and a bunch of 10's" ... never "12's across the board". Not once.

...

the eau d'Troll is growing stronger.

All you are doing is quibbling. One last time, I am not talking about 16 vs 18. I am talking about a character who tries to be good at everything. Both the characters you mention fall into the other catagory: strengths and weaknesses. Your "average stat" cleric will still lose a round of arm wrestling matches. But then again, he isn't built for arm wreastling. 12, 12, 12, 12, 13, 12 cleric would win most arm wreastling matches, but still sucks all round.

Yet, this entire side-issue began whens omeone (Spatzimaus actually) suggested EXACTLY that -- all 8's to get the best stats you can "where it matters" for powergaming purposes:

Originally written by Spatzimaus:
The problem, though, isn't raw points, it's how you spend them. Look at your example:

25-point buy:
18 (cost 16, spent so far 16)
10 (cost 2, spent so far 18)
10 (cost 2, spent so far 20)
10 (cost 2, spent so far 22)
10 (cost 2, spent so far 24)
9 (cost 1, spent so far 25)

Let's say this is a Wizard. 18 goes into INT, of course. The problem is, you gain nothing by having 10s in WIS, STR, or CHA, so transfer points from those to your DEX and CON. Bottom line, no wasted points; there's no reason to raise STR or CHA above 8 if your class doesn't need it, and a Wizard already has a high enough Will that they don't need WIS.

That's what I objected to all along. Of course, you cAN get an 18, have one weakened attribute, and be average everywhere else, with a 25-point buy. IMO, you'd most often be BETTER off, in the long run, taking only a 16, and spending those 6 points to improve a secondary attribute (Charisma for clerics, for example).

In response to the above bit, I posted two other point-buy spreads, stating they were what I woudl more likely choose for myself:

Originally posted by me:
25 points:
16, cost 10, total 10/25
14, cost 6, total 16/25
12, cost 4, total 20/25
10, cost 2, total 22/25
10, cost 2, total 24/25
9, cost 1, total 25/25

32 points:
16, cost 10, total 10/32
16, cost 10, total 20/32
14, cost 6, total 26/32
10, cost 2, total 28/32
10, cost 2, total 30/32
10, cost 2, total 32/32[/quote

THOSE, Loki, are what you objected to:

Originally posted by LokiDR:
If some one comes into the first game with 16, 16, 14, 10, 10, 10, they should get laughed at, just as much as comming into the latter game with 18, 13, 10, 8, 8, 8. There is more than one "right" way to play D&D.

...

I despise liars, Loki, and either your memory is faulty enough to warrant emergency medical attention, or you are trolling (which inherently involves osme level of telling lies).

Even, you see, in a munchy-as-the-Nine-Hells game, the first balanced set is as competitive as the second, extremist set. I'll take my 16/16/14/10/10/10 spread against any 18/13/10/8/8/8 (besides, for munchkiny goodness, you'd possibly be better served with 18/14/9/8/8/8). SOME classes benefit form more-distributed attributes (Monks, for example), or from a strong secondary attribute (Clerics, Paladins).

Ofc, I suppose now is as good a time as any to point out that 18/14/9/8/8/8 only costs 23 points, leaving 9 unspent by comparison. *shrug* Yeah, taking lots of 8's really helps. Right. Sure ... *keep telling yourself that* ...

Now, please, crawl back under your bridge ... you're frightening the children.

 

[haiiro]

I don't find Spellcasting Prodigy to be unbalanced, as a player or as a DM. The PCs are supposed to be a cut above the rest, and this feat certainly gives casters that opportunity.

I think it's a very good feat, and most casters in games I've run/played in have had it, but I don't view it any differently than Weapon Specialization (which every fighter in every game I've run/played in has had).

 

[LokiDR]

PAX: Do you attempt to read the thread before you post?

The post you are refering to stated

If you don't want to play a min-maxxed spellcaster, don't. That has very little to do with a monte-haul game with SCP. In a munchkinish game, SCP lacks the power of metamagic combinations, and takes away from the pre-req feats for those broken prestige classes.

In a more role-playing intensive game, SCP can be used to give the character a little extra umph or balance a penalty, such as half-orc wizard. It can have back-story implications, such as family lines, or that you have a larger destiny.

If some one comes into the first game with 16, 16, 14, 10, 10, 10, they should get laughed at, just as much as comming into the latter game with 18, 13, 10, 8, 8, 8. There is more than one "right" way to play D&D.

However, this tangent started when I said:

What I dislike a person who tries to cover every base. A character should have some weaknesses and some strengths. Middle values for all your stats isn't very interesting.

I just clarified that in my last post. I want rules to help those who haven't run 12 different campaings to understand the differences between them, like sitting down and discussing what kind of campaign they want with their players. You simply assume the DM is doing a good job, and complain about minor points. You don't bother with context, and respond to every little point. No matter what I say, you want a reason to argue. Well, it is a free messageboard PAX: do whatever amuses you.

I, for one, think this tangent has wasted enough time.