Reach Spell. +Two Spell Lvls??

[CRGreathouse]

If it was put in a Pally/Cleric book I would think they should best use it but it sems its best used for Soc/Wiz and not worth it for Cleric let alown Pallys.

I would sugest +1 spell slot and Divine spells only.

I strongly disagree with "divine only" - reasons above.

As for +2 vs. +1, consider harm; it's bad enough as a 6th level touch spell, but it's much, much worse as an 8th level spell with 30 foot range; a 7th level spell with range is unbelievable!

Even with a save, 8th level harm with range is more than most DMs want to contemplate. Do you seriously think 7th is workable?

 

[Hypersmurf]

I would sugest Divine spells only.

I agree with CRG that this is a poor idea, and it should be left alone.

But if you really want to skew it towards Clerics and Paladins, rather than restricting it to Divine Spells Only...

... have you considered adding a Divine Caster prerequisite to the feat? That way, Sorcerers and Wizards would be required to multiclass to use the feat - but it would still be an option if they really wanted it.

After all, an Arcane Archer can imbue a divine spell into an arrow. A Wizard can deliver a divine spell via his familiar. It's almost never done, because people don't often multiclass in such a fashion as to allow it... but the option exists.

-Hyp.

 

[Crothian]

Why would you want is scewed one way or the other? Metamagic feats are good for everyone to use. If you're going to scew it, scew it towards Wizards. They are supposed to be the end all magic type in the game.

 

[CRGreathouse]

Why would you want is scewed one way or the other? Metamagic feats are good for everyone to use. If you're going to scew it, scew it towards Wizards. They are supposed to be the end all magic type in the game.

Yes, we all know how much better wizard necromancers are than cleric necromancers.

 

[Crothian]

All the good wizard necromancy spells I had to make up, cause if Wizards printed them, the book would be restricted to 18 ages and up.

 

[melkoriii]

I strongly disagree with "divine only" - reasons above.

As for +2 vs. +1, consider harm; it's bad enough as a 6th level touch spell, but it's much, much worse as an 8th level spell with 30 foot range; a 7th level spell with range is unbelievable!

Even with a save, 8th level harm with range is more than most DMs want to contemplate. Do you seriously think 7th is workable?

Beacuse as I menchened above.

Harm is cool.

At 7th lvl I can cast Holy Word that affect all in 30' and is better.
at 8th I can cast Holy Aura which is really nice. AND most thing I would be fighting at lvl 15 (needed to cast a reach Harm) I would have to over come SR of 25+


Reach +2 still not woth it.



Back to Topic.

Anyone actualy USE this feat? Clerics perfered.

If no one usees it then Im convinced that its not woth it as if what you are saying "Harm with Reach!!" is all the sems to appeal to ppl and if ppl still arent useing it than its not worth the +2.

 

[Crothian]

I don't, but the Druid does. We've had no problems. Usually, it's for healing in the middle of combat so the druid doesn';t have to move to heal. He thinks it's a great feat.

 

[CRGreathouse]

Harm is cool.

And...?

At 7th lvl I can cast Holy Word that affect all in 30' and is better.
at 8th I can cast Holy Aura which is really nice. AND most thing I would be fighting at lvl 15 (needed to cast a reach Harm) I would have to over come SR of 25+


Reach +2 still not woth it.

For fighting powerful creatures, holy word is all but useless - deaf for 1d4 rounds. Have you actually ever used harm? It's possibly the most house-ruled portion of D&D (certainly in the top 2 with Skill Focus +3). I've used it to great effect, taking away over 200 hit points with a single use. If a DM let me, I'd take Reach Spell in an instant for harm, even though we have a house rule save!

Anyone actualy USE this feat? Clerics perfered.

If no one usees it then Im convinced that its not woth it as if what you are saying "Harm with Reach!!" is all the sems to appeal to ppl and if ppl still arent useing it than its not worth the +2.

Some DMs won't even allow it at +2...

 

[Crothian]

Some DMs won't even allow it at +2...

Wow, I didn't realize that. We've yet to rule anything out. As I've said, I think it works fine for what is and what it does. I don't think that using it with one spell (Harm) should decide on if it is too strong or too weak.

 

[Xarlen]

As to the bit about Necromancers, look in three books: Tomb and Blood, Magic of Fearun, and Necromancy: Beyond the Grave, by Mongoose Publishings.

You'll find a Buttload of spells for your necromancer:

Spiritworm- Con damage, every round.
Spiritwall- Negative Energy wall, does damage, Fear effect.
Bone Wall- Wall of bones that can attack, absorbs some damage.
Undead Conduit- Cast spells through a corpse (like a spell window)
Animate Dead Animal- Need I say more?
Summon Undead- Not Necromantic, but still.
Whispers of Death's Voice- Speak through undead.
Sensory Link- Link with an undead's senses (an animated rat with this makes a perfect scout).

More, and More, and More.

Not to mention Necromancy: Beyond the Grave has necromancer feats, not to mention cool effects (end up looking like a living corpse, grow talons for hands, slowly turn undead). Just, Good Stuff.