Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Elder-Basilisk" data-source="post: 549523" data-attributes="member: 3146">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.</blockquote>

Verification