Is "Spellcasting Prodigy" feat too powerful?

[Shard O'Glase]

Okay, to be honest it isn't just the power level. I switched away from the realms, because we'd played there for over a deacade. It felt so been there, done that. We'd had a campaign (or more than one) in every region, and most of the cities. We knew it inside and out. The uber-NPCs and metaplots were getting pretty old too. Time for something new.

There is some useful stuff in the FR book, and some crap just like every other book out there. Personally I wouldn't want to play in the realms, I don't like most the major NPCs, I dislike a lot of things in it. I would run something in the realms because I'm a lazy DM who wants to come up with as little as possible on my own, and FR host of apst products makes that a possibility. (I have a preference towards running and or playing a City of Freeport game though)
The thing is much of the stuff I found as useful I found in other books, like Tome and Blood or kindoms of kalamar. (and the host of +2 to two skills thing I can do on my own)

 

[Pax]

I'm pretty sick of FR-bashing myself. I'd say that FR products probably contain options for feats, PrCs, and spells that are mechanically superior to core options, but these are still inferior to the splatbook options, most options contained in third-party products, and certainly most options in OA/Rokugan products.

Here's my list of problematic FR options:

-Spell Power: This one isn't necessarily even overpowered, depending on how easily acquired save bonuses are IYC. If you do consider it overpowered, the key is to limit spell power progression for the shadow adept and the archmage (the red wizard and hierophant both pay a heavy enough price for the ability), or to disallow spell power from different sources from stacking.

Actually -- despite being one who HAS, for one-shots and the like, abused stacking spellpower form the Shadow Adept and Archmage -- I would not have a problem with that. FWIW.

-Spellfire: ONLY problematic at low levels. At 5th level or higher, the ability to inflict 18d6 damage on one creature with a ranged touch attack subject both to spell resistance and a Reflex save is actually not particularly great, at least if you consider the fact that this is only usable once at a time, costs 18 levels worth of spell slots, and requires an 18 Con to employ, and a high Dex to aim properly. Spellfire really only creates issues when that once-per-day blast can obliterate the DM's favored BBEG. Besides, it's subject to DM approval for a reason.

Try a Rogue with the Spellfire Wielder feat. Rogue (5) with Spellfire Wielder can do 4d6 for 1 spell level, if s/he can get a sneak attack. Sneak attack with ranged *touch* ... ?

Now project things forward a bit. a High-constitution Rogue (10) / Spellfire Channeler (10) ... three shots per round as a -standard- action, each with possible full sneak attack, all subject to ranged-attack feats ... well. It can get ugly.

But in all honesty, IMO that's WORST case. Spellfire is something that requires CAREFUL consideration by the GM before allowing it, but it's not -automatically- broken.

-Incanatrix: The problem with this class isn't the class itself; it's the interaction of a stackable Empower Spell feat and the Improved Metamagic ability (something which comes up for epic-level characters, BTW). My solution is to forbid Empower from stacking with itself unless the feat is taken multiple times.

Fair, *if* you make a similar application to all other metamagic feats. After all, Specialisation only works once ...

Though you might want to let folks TAKE other "once-only" feats multiple times, if you do so for metamagicks.

 

[Henry]

Re: Re: Re

If you roll for your stats I can kind of see this, especially if you didn't roll fantastic. but if you point buy, just give yourself a starting 18, and guess what you beter than other casters at spellcasting.

However, that 18 intelligence means a WHOLE lotta "8"s in everything else. Unless it's a one-shot game, I have never seen anyone who wanted to have that much at risk over more than one game or so. Even starting with 32 points (a very high number) means starting with maximum 2 18's, and 4 8's. That's a pretty poorly designed character for the long haul.

So far, I have had several instances in games of players taking S.C.P., and in no case has it shown to be particularly unbalancing. For one thing, It's not as good as an actual stat increase. The +1 to DC, and the possible +1 spell just doesn't make a huge difference in power at low levels, and at high levels the advantage is already countered with ability boosting magics.

If anything, I will concede that it is on the high side of powerful, without being unbalancing. For most of our games, we use dice rolled abilities in the 12 to 14 range on average, but I have also seen it used on characters with high scores, too, with little noticeable change.

 

[Pax]

Re: Re: Re: Re

However, that 18 intelligence means a WHOLE lotta "8"s in everything else. Unless it's a one-shot game, I have never seen anyone who wanted to have that much at risk over more than one game or so. Even starting with 32 points (a very high number) means starting with maximum 2 18's, and 4 8's. That's a pretty poorly designed character for the long haul.

Actually, 32 points to buy with is NOT all that high. Yes, if your group is filled with unrepentant munchkins, they will buy highly two-dimensional attribute spreads (and likely not buy much, if ANY, charisma other than for paladins, sorcerors, and some clerics ... a DEAD giveaway, that ...).

Here, look:

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)

... I don't see a single "8" in there. Granted the charater is fairly one-dimensional in terms of attributes, but that's not needfully a BAD thing.

32-point buy:
18 (cost 16, spent so far 16)
14 (cost 6, spent so far 22)
12 (cost 2, spent so far 26)
10 (cost 2, spent so far 28)
10 (cost 2, spent so far 30)
10 (cost 2, spent so far 32)

Still no 8's ... mainly because only the one 18 was bought. For a spellcaster ... 18 in primary, 14 in Dexterity, and 12 in, oh ... Constitution perhaps. Well, a Cleric might want 12 Dex and 14 Charisma, due to Turning issues.

Then again, their "average power level" 25-point buy actually SHORTS you a lot. 4d6-drop-the-lowest means for a higher average than that method gives you.

There are 6^4 (or 1296) permutations of possible results. I don't have the right sort of calculator, nor maths, to calculate how many ways there are to roll EVERY single possible result. But for an example, there is precisely ONE die result that will give you a 3 (1, 1, 1, and 1). There are twenty one ways to roll an 18 (please, just trust me on this ... I don't want to clutter this thread up listing them ALL).

Obviously the bell curve is shifted well to the higher end. I once calculated this out fairly well, and determined (for example) that more than two thirds of all PC's generated using 4d6-and-drop will have at lest one score of 16 or higher.

Contrast that to the "my highest is a 15" for the "standard set" that accompanies the 25-point-buy method. IIRC, I pegged the bell curve peaking between 13.4 and 13.9. The "standard spread" in NO way gives an average of roughly 13.5 to 14, not even close. Nor can a 25-point buy do so; spread evenly, 25 points buys just over a 12 average (with a single point left over) ... barely more than the THREE-dice methods of old used to generate.

Whereas a 32-point buy will produce six 13's, with 2 points left over ... which is more in keeping with what the standard method should produce. Now consider that the point-buy system ALREADY makes higher attributes slightly less attractive, by increasing the per-point purchase rate (it costs 16 points to get an 18, and only 6 points to get a 14).

All in all, I consider the point-buy limits listed in the DMG to be one step below what they are billed as. Therefor, I pesonally use 25 for low-power gaming, 35 for medium-power, and 45 for high-power.

 

[Spatzimaus]

Math notes:

4d6-drop-low averages 12.24. Assuming you didn't roll anything over a 14 or anything under 8, that translates to 25.44 points under the standard point-buy system. A 25-point system is a pretty fair translation.

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.

This is from a purely min-max view, of course. But, a point-buy system allows far more min-maxing than a die-rolling system. Even dropping low dice, it's HARD to roll an 18 (21/1296 = one in 61 rolls); if you made 5 characters there'd be a 50% chance that one of the five would have an 18; it's horribly unlikely that there'd be two of them. Under a point-buy system with more than 32 points, not only does practically every caster have an 18 in his prime stat, he could have an 18 in a secondary stat or 14s in all the other stats he cares about.

 

[Pax]

Math notes:

4d6-drop-low averages 12.24. Assuming you didn't roll anything over a 14 or anything under 8, that translates to 25.44 points under the standard point-buy system. A 25-point system is a pretty fair translation.

That's a pretty big "if", that 8-14 spread. And it still doesn't properly measure the probabilities of getting (say) a 6 and an 18.

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.

Frankly, IMO that's munchkinish levels of min/maxxing.

The 10 in Strength means, he doesn't LOOK like a 90-lb weakling. The 10 in charisma means he doesn't ACT like a bookworm-without-friends. The 10 in wisdom means he isn't more oblivious than "most people".

Attributes are MORE than just modifiers to saves, to-hits, and so on. Attributes also define how a character should be ROLE played, as well as how well it can be ROLL played.

This is from a purely min-max view, of course. But, a point-buy system allows far more min-maxing than a die-rolling system. Even dropping low dice, it's HARD to roll an 18 (21/1296 = one in 61 rolls); if you made 5 characters there'd be a 50% chance that one of the five would have an 18; it's horribly unlikely that there'd be two of them. Under a point-buy system with more than 32 points, not only does practically every caster have an 18 in his prime stat, he could have an 18 in a secondary stat or 14s in all the other stats he cares about.

Typically, I would make a spellcaster with a -sixteen-, not an 18, for their primary spellcasting attribute. An 18 just isn't that neccesary IMO:

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

Note neither has an 18. And both are about what I would buy for any character, spellcaster or not. Two 16's and a 14 is also viable for a Monk, in fact (the 16/14/12 is less so, but Monks are more attribute-dependant than most classes, IMO).

Y'see, I look at the attributes for the WHOLE character, and I usually odn't like playing people "below normal" in several places. I wouldn't WANT to play a Wizard with:

ST 8
DX 13
CO 10
INT 18
WIS 8
CHA 8

That costs 25 points. And IMO, it makes you little more than an idiot-savant. Such might be interesting once or twice, but ... every time? Every wizard? GODS, no.

A 16 Intelligence would be plenty enough for me regardless of method, unless the dice were especially kind. *shrug*

 

[ruleslawyer]

Fair, *if* you make a similar application to all other metamagic feats. After all, Specialisation only works once ...

Though you might want to let folks TAKE other "once-only" feats multiple times, if you do so for metamagicks.

Why can't an exception nonetheless be "fair"? Are we concerned now about the well-being of Empower Spell as an entity?

Requiring metamagic feats to be taken once per usable iteration has been suggested by Andy Collins as a viable house rule on the WotC site. I tend to think that the only really problematic stacking issue deals with Empower Spell. I'm not worried about double and triple Enlargements or Extensions. Thus the suggested exception. Moreover, EVERY SINGLE POST I've read about how the incanatrix is "overpowered" or "broken" (yeeurrgh!) has used stackable Empower as its basis, so I tend to see that as the problem, especially since it's come up in the epic context of Improved Metamagic as well.

 

[LokiDR]

Frankly, IMO that's munchkinish levels of min/maxxing.

The 10 in Strength means, he doesn't LOOK like a 90-lb weakling. The 10 in charisma means he doesn't ACT like a bookworm-without-friends. The 10 in wisdom means he isn't more oblivious than "most people".

Attributes are MORE than just modifiers to saves, to-hits, and so on. Attributes also define how a character should be ROLE played, as well as how well it can be ROLL played.

...

Y'see, I look at the attributes for the WHOLE character, and I usually odn't like playing people "below normal" in several places. I wouldn't WANT to play a Wizard with:

ST 8
DX 13
CO 10
INT 18
WIS 8
CHA 8

That costs 25 points. And IMO, it makes you little more than an idiot-savant. Such might be interesting once or twice, but ... every time? Every wizard? GODS, no.

A 16 Intelligence would be plenty enough for me regardless of method, unless the dice were especially kind. *shrug*

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.

 

[LokiDR]

Why can't an exception nonetheless be "fair"? Are we concerned now about the well-being of Empower Spell as an entity?

Requiring metamagic feats to be taken once per usable iteration has been suggested by Andy Collins as a viable house rule on the WotC site. I tend to think that the only really problematic stacking issue deals with Empower Spell. I'm not worried about double and triple Enlargements or Extensions. Thus the suggested exception. Moreover, EVERY SINGLE POST I've read about how the incanatrix is "overpowered" or "broken" (yeeurrgh!) has used stackable Empower as its basis, so I tend to see that as the problem, especially since it's come up in the epic context of Improved Metamagic as well.

I also like improved meta-magic with persistant spell. The feat itself my be broken, but being invisible all day as a 7th level spell vs an 8th level spell seems to make a big difference to the incantantrix I am currently playing.

 

[ruleslawyer]

How is the difference between a 7th- and 8th-level spell slot for an all-day spell that big?

Incidentally, I don't like Persistent Spell very much either. It's either too good (improved invisibility, shield, divine power) or next to useless.