Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
Rocket your D&D 5E and Level Up: Advanced 5E games into space! Alpha Star Magazine Is Launching... Right Now!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="BriarMonkey" data-source="post: 5965158" data-attributes="member: 95387">Just off the top of my head, I'd say that a feat like this would have to use a higher spell slot - at a minimum 1, and mayhaps 2.  The reason is that you are now granting a spell an effect, regardless of the saving throw being successful or not.  This means that the spell caster will always have an detrimental effect on the target, despite how good (or bad) their saves are.As for the sliding scale and various effects for the vast array of spells out there, you could codify it somewhat by having a miss effect key off of either the type of spell (necromancy, enchantment, etc.); the predominant energy used by the spell (fire, unholy, necromantic, etc.); the predominant effect of the spell (damage, charm, debuff, etc.); or a combination of these.  For example, you might say that any spells that use negative energy and are subject to the feat cause the target to become "shaken" even if they succeed on a save; similarly, any spells that use cold or air energy cause a target to become "slowed" on a save; or, any necromantic spells cause a target to become "nauseated" on a save.Of course, even trying to break down broad categories like this, I think there is a lot of work that needs to be done to ensure that all the categories have somewhat balanced detriments from the feat.  Keeping a general guideline of penalties being -1 or at most, -2, for the round, would definitely help to keep things from getting too far into the weeds.As for the idea itself, I think it definitely has merit and could open some interesting options.  But you may also want to think about the stacking of meta-magic feats and whether they would affect this feat as well.</blockquote>

Verification