Miser with Magic feat question

[Krash]

In the Kalamar setting there seems to be a feat which to me sounds a little overpowered called Miser with Magic.

Here it is in full for query:

Your character draws upon the minimum amount of arcane energy needed to cast a spell.

Prerequisite: Caster level 7th
Benefit: You can make a Spellcraft roll to retain the use of a spell after you cast it. The spellcraft DC is 10 +twice the spell's level. If you succeed, you managed to conserve enough magical energy, from this and other spells you have cast, that the spell (or spell slots for sorcerors) is not considered spent and may be used again. You may only use this ability on a number of spell levels equal to the ability score modifier appropriate to the type of spells you cast (charisma for sorceror or bard spells for example)

Special: If you fail the roll by 5 or more, you spent insufficient energy to cast the spell at all. You lose the spell or the spell slot, and the spell has no effect.



Now, the way I see it you can effectively gain in most probability a level 5-9 spell depending on level, since your spellcraft should usually be quite high enough to make the skill check. For example, a 20 Int wizard with this feat could roll a check and if he succeeds, he keeps a level 5 spell. If this is the limit of his daily savings, then the feat seems quite poor depending on the level it is gained when you compare it to the extra spell slot feat. But if you can keep retrying to save spells like this all day, I can see the feat being very overpowered as you could effectively cast 1st level spells all day with no chance of failing the check.

What do you guys think?

 

[Dinkeldog]

We've already ruled that out in my current gaming group.

 

[Celebrim]

Well, it does have its limitations vs. extra spell slot, but it is a bit more flexible. I'd rate it superior to extra spell slot in most cases.

You can choose when to use it, so compared to extra spell slot you don't have to decide what spell to memorize (though you can't memorize an extra spell). You can also use it on the spell you think you will need, for instance 1 5th level spell, or 5 extra 1st level spells, or 1 2nd level spell and 1 3rd level spell. And you don't have to decide this at the beginning of the day. By the time you qualify for the feat, the spellcraft skill limitation is pretty trivial and you should basically auto-succeed for most spells you would try. Outside of combat you can even take 10 on the check, which will gaurantee success for even the highest level spells.

Since the skill limitation is fairly trivial for a prepared character, it is clear that the feat would be utterly broken if the spell levels limitation was a cap on the maximum spell level and not the total spell levels. But, I think it is pretty clear that it is a cap on the total spell levels that can be saved per day.

 

[Elder-Basilisk]

In the Kalamar setting there seems to be a feat which to me sounds a little overpowered

You could stop right there and people would probably agree with you in general. The Kalamar player's guide seems to have been written without the slightest concern for balance.

called Miser with Magic.

Here it is in full for query:

Your character draws upon the minimum amount of arcane energy needed to cast a spell.

Prerequisite: Caster level 7th
Benefit: You can make a Spellcraft roll to retain the use of a spell after you cast it. The spellcraft DC is 10 +twice the spell's level. If you succeed, you managed to conserve enough magical energy, from this and other spells you have cast, that the spell (or spell slots for sorcerors) is not considered spent and may be used again. You may only use this ability on a number of spell levels equal to the ability score modifier appropriate to the type of spells you cast (charisma for sorceror or bard spells for example)

Special: If you fail the roll by 5 or more, you spent insufficient energy to cast the spell at all. You lose the spell or the spell slot, and the spell has no effect.



Now, the way I see it you can effectively gain in most probability a level 5-9 spell depending on level, since your spellcraft should usually be quite high enough to make the skill check. For example, a 20 Int wizard with this feat could roll a check and if he succeeds, he keeps a level 5 spell. If this is the limit of his daily savings, then the feat seems quite poor depending on the level it is gained when you compare it to the extra spell slot feat. But if you can keep retrying to save spells like this all day, I can see the feat being very overpowered as you could effectively cast 1st level spells all day with no chance of failing the check.

What do you guys think?

The skill check is trivial for any wizard who can take this feat. Assuming standard magic levels and a 16 starting int, most wizards will have a 20 int by level 9. (When they'd get a feat they could use for this feat). They will also usually have +17 to their spellcraft. So this feat enables them to cast 5 more first level spells or one second and one third level spell without rolling. If they want an extra 4th level spell, they'll need to roll at least a 1 and will only have enough bonus for a first level spell after that.

It's probable that wizards will have a 22-24 int by level 12. And a 32 or so int by level 20. So, at every possible point, this feat beats out extra slot. That's not a big deal though. Extra slot is not an impressive feat.

What is significant, however, is that this feat effectively gives a wizard the flexibility of a sorceror with low level spells. The wizard can prepare a different first and second level spell in each slot and, using Miser with Magic, not worry about running out of them. (He'll be able to cast any first level spell at least six times--which is as much as a sorceror can claim). That seems unbalancing to me--particularly when it is combined with the flexibility to retain higher level spells instead if that proves more advantageous.

 

[LokiDR]

The feat sounds nifty. I agree the skill check is pointless. I think wizard are overpowered already, so I would probably not allow it.

 

[Darklone]

Re: Re: Miser with Magic feat question

You could stop right there and people would probably agree with you in general. The Kalamar player's guide seems to have been written without the slightest concern for balance.

Sigh... Compared to splatbooks, the Kalamar PG is more than balanced. Brokeness results in combining too many books. And after all... WotC officially checked this book and all the feats and skills and whatever inside.
But well... can of worms.

About that feat: The usage is once per day a number of spell levels. (Errata on the Kenzerboards).

p. 88 - The feat Miser with Magic can be used on a number of spell levels per day equal to the ability score modifier appropriate to the type of spells you cast.

Overpowered? Maybe. But IMHO a feat costs more than some pearls of power who would do the same.

 

[Elder-Basilisk]

Re: Re: Re: Miser with Magic feat question

Sigh... Compared to splatbooks, the Kalamar PG is more than balanced. Brokeness results in combining too many books. And after all... WotC officially checked this book and all the feats and skills and whatever inside.
But well... can of worms.

Channel negative energy? Wisdom modifier in negative levels to a single target within 60 feet without a save for the cost of a turning attempt? (Wohoo, it can't kill them. As if that mattered when, in two turns, you can give them -6 to -10 to everything, no save. A halfling commoner with a dagger could kill them after that). When Kalamar PG stops giving 1st level clerics with decent stats Enervation 5/day (w/out the attack roll) and 1st level cleric with good stats Energy Drain (w/out the attack roll) 5-12/day, I'll think about whether the guide is balanced in general.

I'd say that's plenty broken without adding splatbook spells or classes to it (although tossing an Owl's wisdom and an Eagle's splendor on top of that makes it much much worse).

Of course that's one feat for one particular deity. Comparing it to the others is what really tells me the writers had no concept of balance: Convert turning attempts to area dispel magics in a cone. Or get a small bonus to fear saves in the next round for a turning attempt (standard action).

And if the channel positive/negative energy feats weren't enough, how about Irresistable Spell. Irresistable Phantasmal Killer: 8th level mind affecting illusion no-save death spell. Got Mind Blank? If not you're dead. Thanks for playing.

It's as if they tried to make up for the broken feats by inserting a bunch of useless ones. The good feats are few and far between. . . and even they are generally more powerful than their builder book counterparts (compare shield mastery (Kalamar PG) to Shield Expert (Sword and Fist) for instance).

Overpowered? Maybe. But IMHO a feat costs more than some pearls of power who would do the same.

It's several very expensive pearls of power that could do the same thing as Miser With Magic. I could make a feat that duplicated a ring of Wizardry's powers. That wouldn't make it balanced.

 

[Darklone]

The channeling energy feats are not meant for 1st level clerics and not at all meant for every cleric. IMC the books that contain the knowledge are treated like artefacts for the different churches.

Compared to many broken PrClass abilities, these very rare abilities seem to be rather insignificant to me.

Irresistible spell:
I had more than one discussion about it. IMHO it's not a problem of the feat, but of D&Ds save or die game mechanics. Honestly, at high levels, a wizard will usually be clever enough to target his enemy with a spell that takes advantage of a weak save progression.... and this means very often: No chance to save against spellpower, spell focus, greater spell focus and some stacked prestige class advantages... So who cares for a spell that can't be resisted? Hey, it's D&D, players die and get resurrected and that ability costs at least 3 feats.

Take your average lvl8 spell slot. Would you really prepare such a spell instead of other nifty things? And your Phantasmal killer example is wrong, the no save only extends to the first save... you'll still get the Fort save against the death effect. I would be more afraid of Irresistible Hold Persons.

 

[Elder-Basilisk]

The channeling energy feats are not meant for 1st level clerics and not at all meant for every cleric. IMC the books that contain the knowledge are treated like artefacts for the different churches.

So you're aware of the problem and have fixed it in your campaign by making the feats effectively unavailable. That doesn't sound like an argument for their inherent balance to me--quite the opposite in fact.

Compared to many broken PrClass abilities, these very rare abilities seem to be rather insignificant to me.

Let me see. Prestige classes start being available from level 4 to 7; some are unavailable until level 10 or higher. The feats in the Kalamar book all become available (IIRC) and useful between levels 1 and 9.

Prestige classes are often world specific and often have role-playing requirements that allow the DM to control them. The feats in question are admittedly world specific but are broken by themselves without any need to combine multiple ones.

Irresistible spell:
I had more than one discussion about it. IMHO it's not a problem of the feat, but of D&Ds save or die game mechanics. Honestly, at high levels, a wizard will usually be clever enough to target his enemy with a spell that takes advantage of a weak save progression.... and this means very often: No chance to save against spellpower, spell focus, greater spell focus and some stacked prestige class advantages... So who cares for a spell that can't be resisted? Hey, it's D&D, players die and get resurrected and that ability costs at least 3 feats.

If you say so. It sounds like you or your DM have decided to let anything go as far as prestige classes work so maybe it's not a big deal in your game. I prefer to keep a close eye on feats and prestige classes (and adapt them to my game world too).

And while Wicht's story hour and some of the ideas of Kalamar make the setting sound quite attractive, the complete lack of thought (WRT balance) the Kalamar writers have demonstrated makes me suspicious of anything with the Kalamar label these days.

 

[Darklone]

So you're aware of the problem and have fixed it in your campaign by making the feats effectively unavailable. That doesn't sound like an argument for their inherent balance to me--quite the opposite in fact.

Come on basilisk... I just read the description and (see below) roleplaying requirements of the Channeling in the book and applied it

Prestige classes are often world specific and often have role-playing requirements that allow the DM to control them. The feats in question are admittedly world specific but are broken by themselves without any need to combine multiple ones.

But balanced by roleplaying requirements?

If you say so. It sounds like you or your DM have decided to let anything go as far as prestige classes work so maybe it's not a big deal in your game. I prefer to keep a close eye on feats and prestige classes (and adapt them to my game world too).

Yeah me too. And to keep an eye on this channeling is a lot easier than to keep an eye on who wants to get/make which magic item or who wants to enter three or four prestige classes and meets the requirements...

Honestly, I usually don't allow prestige classes. I have my thumb on item crafting and I usually don't allow players to go shopping in any city for magic items. So where's the problem with other unbalanced stuff? I simply apply the same thing (DM reign) as you do.

Unbalanced as some Kalamar things may be, most of them don't allow smackdowns and the authors usually write explicitely how to use some things to avoid something gettting out of hand.