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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="JamesonCourage" data-source="post: 5704358" data-attributes="member: 6668292">No, it's providing entirely different options to the character. When the Sorcerer took it in my party, it was the first magical crafting feat taken, and he provided three melee characters with magical weapons and armor. He went on to make (with some help) an intelligent item (a sunblade) later on to aid one of the party member's sons (a paladin).Yes, he might have one more option than Craft Wondrous gave him (since he didn't really need a magical spear), but it's not categorically better, especially if someone else has the Craft Wondrous feat already, which is a real possibility in some parties. I think that you're trashing the feat a bit unfairly, even though I didn't like the feat enough to keep myself.That's true. I didn't include the crafting system for a reason (Pathfinder revised it, but I eliminated it). Again, my issue wasn't whether or not you liked the feat, but the fact that you said that it's just as directly useful to the Wizard as a metamagic feat was to a Fighter, which is just ludicrous, to me, because of the uses I saw when DMing for a party that had it.My players proactively used their crafting abilities, not reactively used to. So, it wasn't based on me throwing them a bone; indeed, they were the ones using the magical items as bartering tools, as upgrades for party members and allies, as contacts for specific NPCs and breaking into markets, and so on.If that means that it's reliant on the DM "throwing him a bone", then Leadership has the same issues. As powerful as the feat is, it's only useful if having an extra hand is useful, or his skills are useful, or you can take your followers with you. Same goes for lockpicking or disarming traps, casting spells, or having things to fight, though. It just leads back to the social contract and what the party expects to be useful.But, again, it seems like you think the feat can directly benefit the Wizard in a few different ways, which is what I was debating. It's not about whether or not I think the design is good (even if I think you're undervaluing the feat), it's about whether or not it can directly benefit a Wizard that takes it. I feel like you think it can, but it wouldn't be useful in the campaigns you run or play in. My mileage varied significantly, and it was very useful to the Sorcerer that took it, and he definitely does not regret taking it, as he was able to proactively put the feat to great use in ways that directly benefited him.If you don't like it, I'm cool with that. I have my issues with it as well. As always, play what you like <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" /></blockquote>

Verification