New Feat: Magic in the Blood

[FormerlyHemlock]

That's just it. Rarely is a non-battlemaster interested in taking the feat. And they've likely taken it after they've already capped their main stat and picked up a couple other, more desirable feats, as a luxury because the fighter enjoys so many ASIs.

When only one subclass wants a feat, that's a sign it's weak. Not Charger or Savage Attacker weak, but below average.

IMO, even if it gave 3 points and allowed you to pick any metamagic, it would still be weak. One quickened spell per day is not a particularly great tradeoff compared to +2 to an ability score. I don't think I would take it on my sorcerer until very high level, if at all.

It's actually more interesting on a non-sorcerer. A wizard with Careful or Subtle suddenly has new options and combos for avoiding friendly fire and/or illusion use, and 2/day is probably good enough if he uses them carefully.

I agree that it's about as good as Martial Adept, and I also agree that Martial Adept is pretty weak. It's a "fun" feat, not a powerful one. Nothing would break if Martial Adept gave twice as many dice; and nothing would break if Magic In the Blood gave twice as many metamagic options.

 

[Caliban]

If it's too weak as is, I think it would be better to give it a +1 to Cha rather than more metamagic options. There are very few +1 Cha feats available.

My concern is that by doing that, it would become a "must have" feat for charisma based casters.

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

Methinks you've just persuaded us all that +1 Cha is exactly what the feat ought NOT to offer.

 

[Caliban]

Methinks you've just persuaded us all that +1 Cha is exactly what the feat ought NOT to offer.

Which group are you representing, exactly? Was there a vote?

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

Which group are you representing, exactly? Was there a vote?

No. That was just a prediction, based on what went through my own head as I read your post. "Hmmm, that's an interesting idea... wait, Caliban's right, that would actually be horrible! It turns human into the new must-have +2 Charisma race." You persuaded me initially but then refuted yourself and persuaded me on THAT too.

 

[Caliban]

No. That was just a prediction, based on what went through my own head as I read your post. "Hmmm, that's an interesting idea... wait, Caliban's right, that would actually be horrible! It turns human into the new must-have +2 Charisma race." You persuaded me initially but then refuted yourself and persuaded me on THAT too.

I get you. You just happened to hit one of my pet peeves, which is when someone claims to represent a whole group of people to add weight to their statement.

But yeah, while I think there should be more +1 Charisma feats, this probably shouldn't be one of them.

 

[Satyrn]

I get you. You just happened to hit one of my pet peeves, which is when someone claims to represent a whole group of people to add weight to their statement.

But yeah, while I think there should be more +1 Charisma feats, this probably shouldn't be one of them.

Yeah, this really feels like it shouldn't boost Charisma. And I also would be against it providing any stat boost while Martial Adept remains in its current form.

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

Thought experiment: what if Magic In the Blood provided +1 to Constitution, and Martial Adept provided +1 to Int?

 

[Satyrn]

I could get behind that.

 

[Caliban]

From an optimizer point of view, that would make Magic in the Blood more useful than Martial Adept, because +1 Con is useful to any character with an odd con.

So basically any spellcaster with an odd Con would find Magic in the Blood a good choice, while only martial characters who also use Int (and have an odd Int) would get full use out of Martial Adept.