I suggested giving the player fair warning ahead of time so they understand the feat ups the ante. It is like whan a player in a game that has stuck close to the core rules says "Toughness sucks, how about Including Improved toughness?" I feel it is being fair to say "Everyone wants more HP, so a lot of folks are going to take that feat. Are you sure you want to see HP go up like that in the game?"Felon said:I recommend not having this chat with a player, since it's basically concealing vindictiveness under a thin disguise of fairness. When I hear this "wire mother" logic from a DM, I can't help but visualize the DM as some inebriated wife-beater, rationalizing why the player brought his doom upon himself: "I just wanted to sit down and drink a beer and play some friendly D&D, real nice and peaceful-like. I wouldn't even a thought 'bout touchin' the Practiced Spellcaster feat, but then you had just to go and take it, didn't ya? Now you done asked for it! Oh, why oh why do you make me do these things to you, Brandine?"![]()
billd91 said:Don't sweat the Radiant Servant's power. Sure, it's potent but also very channeled and you have to forego some nice domain choices available from Pelor to get it. It's not that bad having someone in the party who is a little over powered on undead turning and healing.

(Dungeons & Dragons)
Rulebook featuring "high magic" options, including a host of new spells.