Is "Spellcasting Prodigy" feat too powerful?

[xanatos]

I'm quite astonished.. ..well, one thing is debating the balance of Spellcasting prodigy compared to the D&D general balance, another is comparing SP with Weapon Focus.. ..ya, wow, a +1 to hit, and at mid to high levels, you'll possibly hit once more, while the mage is incinerating armies.. ..I mean, it's like comparing apples to oranges, a +1 to hit means nearly always a d8/10 +15/20 at high levels, while more spells and +1 DC means a monster is dead.. ..or, want to talk 'bout the benefits for a Wizzy/Cleric? Oh, yeah, double benefit for a half effective character, since all he can cast @ CLvl 20 is 5th level spells, cm'on..

You have to look at the whole picture!
Probably your Fighters use single-attack bash all the time! My figher-players use Trips and multiple attacks! So a +1 is something usefull! And remember that a Fireball will do a max of 10d6 of damage... 35 HP that can be halved... Wow! And many monsters have resistance to fire! Just to make an example of artillery. The problem is that Artillery magic is unbalanced to Roll-Or-Die magic (the first being being too weak, the second being inbalanced as a concept). A +1 DC means the monster has 5% less chances of saving himself from a Save-Or-Die spell (but all the "good monsters" have SR, so it's less than 5%, because the roll against SR is unaffected! A +1 to the BAB means that (at 11 Level) the monster has a 5% + 5% + 5% chances of losing d8/10 +15/20 FOR EACH ATTACH! Now... If a monster has 80/100 hp... Mmmh... 5 or 6 hits from the fighter and he his dead.

 

[Elder-Basilisk]

I don't think Spellcasting Prodigy is that impressive for a wizard. It is more attractive for a sorceror though.

Of all the characters I've designed this is the breakdown:
-Fighter/Wizard. Wouldn't have taken it. He generally avoids spells with saves.
-Cleric. Wouldn't have taken it. In five levels, he's only cast one spell that allowed a saving throw. (He tends to buff and heal rather than throw sound bursts, etc)
-Wizard. Probably wouldn't have taken it. If I'm creating a blast specialist wizard, I'd much rather have spell focus and Greater Spell Focus: Evocation (or Transmutation) than spellcasting prodigy.
-Wizard. It would've been a better choice than his martial weapon proficiency. But if I had to do it all over, I'd probably trade that for a saving throw feat or something else rather than +1 to all DCs and maybe an extra spell in a couple of levels.
-Wizard. Wouldn't have taken it. Spell Focus: Evocation is fine for offense. Other feat slots were required for metamagic and item creation feats.
-Sorceror/candlecaster/elemental savant: Might have taken it. The bonus to all DCs would have been helpful--especially when the spells were spread throughout so many schools. On the other hand, he would've had to give up some of his arsenal of meta-magic for it and he'd rather have elemental substitution, extend spell, still spell, and silent spell, etc.
-Elf archer cleric: didn't take it. Feats like Rapid Shot and Precise Shot were much more important. (And having Extend Spell and Persistent Spell by 9th level would be far more advantageous).

All told, I can see it as marginally advantageous for wizards and clerics who want to toss lots of spells that have saving throws. That's not my style of wizard, or cleric though. And sorcerors get so much milage out of metamagic that I'd be tempted to ignore it for a sorceror too.

 

[Limper]

Spellcasting Prodigy is a fine feat... its not over the top. Remember the enemy can have it too... the same with Haste, Improved Invisability, Etc...

 

[LGodamus]

WOTC has said from the beginning not all feats are balanced against each other ..they never were meant to be......they just have to fall within an acceptable power range , and in my opinion spellcasting prodigy does fall in that range....on the high end but still in there none the less.

 

[mooby]

I'm creating a 25 point buy Cleric for a game next week, and I thought this feat would be a no-brainer.

The more I look at it, the more I'm starting to think that I might be better off going in a different direction with him. I'm leaning towards the Archer route, but I want my Cleric to be just that: A Cleric first, with maybe some archery feats second.

 

[Xarlen]

Is it broken? No.

This is far, far more useful for a low level PC. When you are a 1st level wizard, you have 2 spells. That's either 'give AC, artillery, or misc'. 2 spells to make an impact. Where as the archer can pump out an arrow with a +3, +4, or +5 to hit, every round. Or the Barbarian who's doing 1d12+Str (Or likely Str1.5). All Day Long.

At higher levels, your save spells make or break you. In higher levels, the saves get Insane. Have you ever tried to hit a dragon with *any* kind of spell? You have to pierce their SR, THEN they have to make the save.

That +1 spell is a first level spell. A +1 to a first level spell will not make you unbeatable. When it gets to a second level spell, you're to the point where you're casting 4th level spells, and now you're getting into Save or Die (Poly Other). And a +1 to the DC of that spell doesn't mean much; they're either likely to make it or not.

I tell you, when I make spellcasting PCs (or NPCs), I have trouble choosing feats. Especially when it comes to spellcasters. Does this one make it to the list? Likely as much as Spell Focus.

Let's break it down a little more.

Weapon Focus is offshot by Dodge. Yet Power attack with WF can mean more. Spell Focus is equal with your +2 save feats (And Arcane Defense, if you ever have anyone take That). Spell Prodigy is likely offshot by the Luck of Heros (a feat that gives a +1 luck bonus to all saves, as opposed to +2; IMHO not as useful as a +2).

 

[Pax]

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?

Sure. Per the Feat's description, however, each time you take the feat, it applies to a NEW, different, spellcasting class.

And yes, even a Sorceror/BArd, with Prodigy (Sorceror), would need to take it a SECOND time to cover their Bard spells.

As for taking it multiple times ... to do that you would HAVE to be human (and, IIRC, the Strongheart halflings in the FRCS), for the bonus feat as a racial benefit. The feat can only be taken at 1st level. Not 3d, 9th, or whenever.

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.

Not really. Frankly, if I'm making an Invoker ... I might find Spell Focus (Invocation) to be a more useful feat than Spellcasting Prodigy. Also if I intend to multiclass in two spellcasting classes (say, a Wizard / Cleric, aiming for True Necromancer).

Prodigy is superior for a single-class -generalist-, and an even-bet at best for a specialist, and a losing proposition for a multi-spellcasting-class character.

 

[Pax]

..or, want to talk 'bout the benefits for a Wizzy/Cleric? Oh, yeah, double benefit for a half effective character, since all he can cast @ CLvl 20 is 5th level spells, cm'on..

Double benefit? REally? Please, do elaborate on that. HOW, exactly, does Spellcasting Prodigy provide a "double" benefit for a Wizard/Cleric multiclass character ... ?

 

[Hypersmurf]

... to do that you would HAVE to be human (and, IIRC, the Strongheart halflings in the FRCS)...

That's just silly. How can you be a human and a Strongheart halfling?

-Hyp.

 

[Pax]

That's just silly. How can you be a human and a Strongheart halfling?

-Hyp.

Presuming yu posted that in good humor, I will respond in kind:

A Half-Elf is (in a sense) both Human, and Elf, for the purposes of magic dependant on race (an arrow of Elf slaying will get ht ehalf-elf as readily as his full-elven parent).

Well, if you can hybrid a human and an ELF, or a human and an ORC ... why not a human and a halfling?

My only question is -- what would you CALL a Half-Halfling?

...

Maybe ... "Quarterling" ... ?