No spell resistance vs. Orb spells? Why?

[Rystil Arden]

Dragon 325.

You're assuming a DM allows feats from Dragon magazine.

-Hyp.

It's weird--I could swear I saw it in a game book also (it may have been taken from Dragon into a game book--they do that sometimes) because I didn't read that Dragon and yet somehow I knew the name and the ability of the feat exactly.

 

[Rystil Arden]

Okay, I checked--there's an identical feat to Easy Metamagic called Practical Metamagic, and it is in Races of the Dragon. I must have forgotten the name and accidentally made up the name of another feat that does the same thing If the GM allows them both, that could spell Quicken at a +1 price for the Thesised spell, but I won't assume that is the case.

 

[Hypersmurf]

Okay, I checked--there's an identical feat to Easy Metamagic called Practical Metamagic, and it is in Races of the Dragon.

Of course, you need to be Dragonblooded for Practical Metamagic.

-Hyp.

 

[IcyCool]

Doesn't the Arcane Thesis (Complete Mage?) feat do the same thing?

 

[Notmousse]

Using Dragon feats in your example (without documenting the source or requirements) weakens the position that orbs are broken. Dragon feats can be found to make near anything problematic.

 

[Rystil Arden]

Using Dragon feats in your example (without documenting the source or requirements) weakens the position that orbs are broken. Dragon feats can be found to make near anything problematic.

Not really. I thought I was using the RotD one that does the same thing. I don't think I even read that Dragon. Regardless, the feat is unnecessary--Arcane Thesis does all the heavy lifting. Damage is not appreciably lowered by removing Easy Metamagic.

 

[Notmousse]

Not really. I thought I was using the RotD one that does the same thing. I don't think I even read that Dragon. Regardless, the feat is unnecessary--Arcane Thesis does all the heavy lifting. Damage is not appreciably lowered by removing Easy Metamagic.

You're also forgetting that you're not giving two feats to your example character, but three.

 

[Rystil Arden]

You're also forgetting that you're not giving two feats to your example character, but three.

No, I'm not. Read the example again: Connie and Evan are identical save for Arcane Thesis and Easy/Practical Metamagic vs Spell Penetration and Greater. However, both of them have all the metamagic that a reasonable Evoker and Conjurer would have, thus balancing.

 

[Nail]

Why bother with feats at all?

 

[Rystil Arden]

Why bother with feats at all?

I didn't want to, actually. I wanted to just assume feats were a wash, but James McMurray insisted, even after I posted this:

The feats are not a good idea for comparison because then I can give the Conjurer two different feats (she has no need for them after all) that make her massively more powerful than the Evoker, and then we'd have to decide whether it was just because of feat choice (I've been down that road before). In reality, taking Spell Penetration and Greater Spell Penetration in a game with Orbs is idiotic because you can save two feats (a massive savings, since Spell Penetration and its Greater cousin tend to be taken using high-level feat slots since they don't help much at low levels) for a BETTER benefit by just casting the Orbs instead. With Orb average damage, if the rest of the party is doing anything, the dragon is dead by round 2 of attacks (and this includes the 15th-level Conjurer vs the vastly stronger Dragon, the Orbs are just that powerful). The damage is already around 25% of the dragon's total per round for the Conjurer only.

Which was replied with:

So it's not a good idea to give a character that requires the ability to penetrate spell resistance abilities which allow them to penetrate spell resistance before discussing their ability to penetrate spell resistance?

To which I replied:

No, I'm saying that taking them leads the discussion to a place of comparing feat optimisation where it probably shouldn't go (because if I use those two feats for the Conjurer to make the Conjurer even stronger, you could then claim that it's only because of those two feats).

To which he said:

You're saying "let's compare situations" and then setting up a situation where a character that needs to penetrate SR to be effective hasn't done anything at all to enhance his ability to penetrate SR. If you want a fair comparison, you'll have to try something else, cuz that just son't work.

To which I said:

Except that I can give the Conjurer two feats in place of those that increase the Orb damage even more, as I've mentioned every previous time you made that point.

To which he said:

Then by all means do so.

So as you can see, I definitely was not super-eager to bring in these feats