Is "Spellcasting Prodigy" feat too powerful?

[Ridley's Cohort]

Don't look at who takes it, just look at what it does. +1 spell and +1 to DCs is fine. Hell, you have to take it at first level, and chances are you're not even going to see the bonus spell until late.

Asserting a +1 isn't much of a bonus is a bit of a weaselly way of looking at it. If this is such a small thing would it be okay if I took this feat twice and stacked the benefits? Or three times? Or four?

This is a vastly superior feat to Spell Focus for all but a small minority of spellcasters -- and that is before taking extra spells into consideration.

The benefit of extra spells is actually quite comparable to the Extra Slot Feat -- it may be better or worse depending on the particulars of the character.

Any one feat which is approximately as good or better than two other feats is probably overpowered. That may be okay in a FR power level campaign, but I would advise caution on the part of the DM.

 

[Roland Delacroix]

The feat is good, but so are alot of other feats. I don't think Spellcasting Prodigy is any more powerfull than Improved Initative. All rogues will likely have Imp Init, but i can't see even a 10th of mages having Spell Prodigy. And Sorcerers, HA!, a Sorcerer going for a PrC is probably already making it by the skin of his teeth. They can't afford to take this feat at 1st.

I'm a bit of a min/maxing powergamer myself and Spell Prodigy rarely makes it into my builds. It's a real nice extra but it is not focused enough to help out much.

 

[Celtavian]

Re

For roleplay purposes, it is a fitting feat. I would not generally allow it unless it is used for roleplaying purposes.

If you have some player who wants to play a caster who is supposed to be a better than others, than allow it.

From a powergaming perspective, Spellcasting prodigy is a must have feat. It is much, much better than any other equivalent feat you can take for a caster.

It does have its place, but just not as a general feat taken by every Tom, Dick and Harry who feels his caster should be the best.

When I DM, I usually look at the persons background before I allow them to take the feat.

 

[the Jester]

I think it may be slightly too good. The +1 DC to all schools is enough to balance it roughly with spell focus, the extra spells push it a bit over the top IMO.

Wow, I think +1 to all schools is much better than +2 to one school.

In my opinion, it's overpowered- but I don't play FR.

 

[Storm Raven]

Wow, I think +1 to all schools is much better than +2 to one school.

In my opinion, it's overpowered- but I don't play FR.

Considering how much power you can get just focusing on one school, I tend to disagree. Wizards who specialize in one area (not necessarily specialist wizards, but wizards who focus a lot of their spellbook in one or two schools) are extremely effective.

 

[Storm Raven]

Actually, you will see the effect pretty quick.

If you've got an 18 in your spell casting attribute, you would see the effect at 1st level since it would give a bonus first level spell. If it is a 16, it will take you until 7th level (4th level spells) and then you will see it again at 8th level because you've bumpbed your main attribute twice.

I think it is a very difficult feat to pass up. It makes a big difference in how many of the higher level spells you will have and it stacks with everything.

I love arguments about how unbalancing something is that essentially start with the statement "assume an 18 in the stat". Which is silly, since most characters don't have an 18 to work with. Maybe it is the fact that a character with an 18 has a great base stat that pumps up his power, not the feat or ability in question.

 

[wolff96]

Both when I play and when I DM, I really like the feat.

As a player, I especially like it to make certain ideas viable. For instance, I played a half-orc Loremaster. In a 28-pt. game, with a -2 penalty to your primary stat, that's somewhat akin to suicide.

Fortunately, I was able to make the character work, because he was naturally a good spellcaster.

Most spells will be saved against. It's pretty much that simple. A +1 to the DC isn't going to make much of a difference unless you're playing a Red Wizard/Archmage who has Greater Spell Focus and a triple-empowered version of Fox's Cunning running at all times.

 

[IceBear]

Re: Re

For roleplay purposes, it is a fitting feat. I would not generally allow it unless it is used for roleplaying purposes.

If you have some player who wants to play a caster who is supposed to be a better than others, than allow it.

From a powergaming perspective, Spellcasting prodigy is a must have feat. It is much, much better than any other equivalent feat you can take for a caster.

It does have its place, but just not as a general feat taken by every Tom, Dick and Harry who feels his caster should be the best.

When I DM, I usually look at the persons background before I allow them to take the feat.

I would do the same with any 1st level only feat. If the character's background doesn't fit having such feats, then he doesn't get that feat. And, after the first time he creates an "expectionally talented spellcaster" his next character should be something else

IceBear

 

[Darklone]

Same with me. This feat is exceptional and rare per definition, I can't stand to have every spellcaster want it.

 

[The Souljourner]

You know why Spell Focus is better than Spellcasting Prodigy? Greater Spell Focus and Epic Spell Focus. Not to mention that +1 to the DCs of your abjuration, healing and divination spells isn't exactly a big help.

Spell Focus: Evocation and Enchantment affect probably 75% of the spells your opponents will need to make saving throws against. Of course, if you want to focus your character in another area, that's doable too.

Can you take all that *and* spellcasting prodigy? Sure. But in the end, it'll be spell focus and greater spell focus that make the biggest difference, not spellcasting prodigy.

-The Souljourner