Please rate Cooperative Spell

[Luis Figoo]

You would be hard pressed to find a more useless PC feat i would think

 

[Hypersmurf]

You would be hard pressed to find a more useless PC feat i would think

"... with my Eagle Claw Attack!"

-Hyp.

 

[Kraedin]

The usefullness of this feat really depends on what "same spell" means in the context. Does it mean we both cast the same spell, resulting in a single spell of greater power, or do we both cast the same spell, resulting in two spells of greater power? The first is about on par with circle kick or dirty fighting, the second could theoretically be useful.

 

[Celebrim]

Kraedin makes a very good point. I have been assuming based on my reading of the spell that there is only one spell effect, but although that would seem to be implicit in the idea of cooperative spell casting there doesn't seem to be any explicit text that says that only one spell effect is produced except for perhaps "...use the DC and level check of the better caster."

I personally think I've been understanding the spell correctly, because otherwise the words "...use the DC and level check of the better caster." turn this spell instantly from useless to totally broken (allow my army of apprentices to stand next to this mighty Epic spellcaster...).

 

[Mort]

The usefullness of this feat really depends on what "same spell" means in the context. Does it mean we both cast the same spell, resulting in a single spell of greater power, or do we both cast the same spell, resulting in two spells of greater power? The first is about on par with circle kick or dirty fighting, the second could theoretically be useful.

I too have been assuming that only one spell goes off: but the feat doesn't say that. reading it, it is perfectly reasonable to assume that both spells go off.

So question one: Which enterpretation is correct?

Question two: The feat seems to imply only two people at a time can cast cooperatively. Can more than two at a time do so? if so yes then the first question matters even more.

 

[DiFier]

Kraedin makes a very good point. I have been assuming based on my reading of the spell that there is only one spell effect, but although that would seem to be implicit in the idea of cooperative spell casting there doesn't seem to be any explicit text that says that only one spell effect is produced except for perhaps "...use the DC and level check of the better caster."

I personally think I've been understanding the spell correctly, because otherwise the words "...use the DC and level check of the better caster." turn this spell instantly from useless to totally broken (allow my army of apprentices to stand next to this mighty Epic spellcaster...).

Well both people have to be able to cast the spell. SO a 1st level wiz isn't gonna be helping a 20 level wiz unless they are casting a 0 or 1st level spell.

 

[Ridley's Cohort]

I gave it a '3'.

It's only practical value as far as I can see is in Planar Bindings. For such a purpose, it is reasonably useful.

However, it seems unlikely to have a meaningful advantage in most campaigns. Even if my party has two wizards who powerful enough to cast Planar Binding, any critter under the HD limits will inevitably submit or be wiped out. So it doesn't matter much either way, unless you want to bind a specific creature under a time limit.

 

[Archer]

This new interpretation of this feat is very interesting. It allows a split level caster to penetrate SR and saves if a fellow pure caster also casts the spell.

Lets say an 15th level evocation specialist with greater spell focus and a 15th level dragon disciple (with 7 caster levels) each cast a fireball at the same target with SR 20. The dragon disciple has a base DC of 16 and the specialist has a base DC of 20.

Specialists final DC is 26 (20 + 2 coop + 4 focus) with 10d6 damage and has a 15% chance of failing to penetrate SR.

Disciples final DC is 22 (20 + 2 coop) with 7d6 damage and has a 15% chance of failing to penetrate SR.

Without spell cooperation however the disciple's fireball is pretty useless at a mere DC 16 and a 60% of failing to penetrate SR.

At epic levels this makes a huge difference to the fig20/wiz20 and the wiz40. The wiz 20 would never penetrate SR and probably has a far far lower DC than the wiz40 who has done nothing but ramp up their base DC.

I think I've been misinterpreting this feat the whole time and the above is the correct interpretation. We need to have a revote based on this new interpretation. Some of the divine feats had two interpretations and some people were voting on what were essentially different feats. If we do revotes some divine feats could use revotes but not Divine Might or Divine Resistance. Those were pretty clear from the start. You could denote the revote feats as inferior (inf) and superior (sup)

Eagle Claw Attack needs a revote too.

 

[Pax]

Well both people have to be able to cast the spell. SO a 1st level wiz isn't gonna be helping a 20 level wiz unless they are casting a 0 or 1st level spell.

Wizard (5)/Red Wizard(30)Archmage(5), with LEadership, Epic Leadership, and Legendary Commander (a Thayan high-muckety-muck, and his entourage).

Make him an Enchantment specialist, with focus/greater focus/Epic focus (Enchantment), tattoo focus (enchantment( of course), and ... good lord, probably a total of +25 to +30 spellpower, between Archmage and Red Wizard (30)

As many followers as possible are Adepts, of course.

Charm person ... a few THOUSAND times ... all with the Epic Red Wizard's ludicrously high DC (around 60 or so), and his +70 or better SR penetration.

*POOF* an entire army is charmed, with (basically) no damned hope.

8P

And you don't think that's unbalanced ... ?

 

[Hypersmurf]

Eagle Claw Attack needs a revote too.

But it sounds so cool when you say it out loud!

-Hyp.