Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="MonkeyBoy" data-source="post: 454205" data-attributes="member: 1229">Some thoughts;1; houserule Iajutsu (sp?) to only be useable the first attack (while unsheathing) in an encounter, and liberally pelt any player who _ever_ asks to re-sheath their weapon to get the bonus twice! Then your first feat is fine.2; for me, and I would think several other DMs, your second feat would need to be at the same cost in extra levels a Silent Spell, hence why not just use silent spell? (essentially you are disallowing the Spellcraft roll to recognise the spell, which means you should rename the feat &quot;uncounterable spell&quot;, and that will guide you to how powerful the feat is...) Additionally, while &quot;happy&quot; for a caster to eliminate the verbal component, I would never let them substitute any words of their choice - it violates the very crux of my view of D&amp;D magic. Besides, the effects is best gained by using Silent Spell, and then simply choosing to mutter whatever words you desire, totally unrelated to the spell being cast...3; considering when you pick the numerical value for a fireball (for example) there is nothing to prevent you picking the maximum, this feat has to cost as many extra levels as Maximize Spell - else it becomes a cheaper version of that. In fact, since it is better (allows more control, affects other variables) it needs to cost more!I would correct this by making Maximize a pre-requisite for this feat and having it cost the same (i.e. effectively costs more because you spent 2 feats to get the effect)---As an aside; how can the resurrect roll be controlled, but the dispell roll not? This seems very illogical, and not defined in the feat text at all.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="MonkeyBoy, post: 454205, member: 1229"] Some thoughts; 1; houserule Iajutsu (sp?) to only be useable the first attack (while unsheathing) in an encounter, and liberally pelt any player who _ever_ asks to re-sheath their weapon to get the bonus twice! Then your first feat is fine. 2; for me, and I would think several other DMs, your second feat would need to be at the same cost in extra levels a Silent Spell, hence why not just use silent spell? (essentially you are disallowing the Spellcraft roll to recognise the spell, which means you should rename the feat "uncounterable spell", and that will guide you to how powerful the feat is...) Additionally, while "happy" for a caster to eliminate the verbal component, I would never let them substitute any words of their choice - it violates the very crux of my view of D&D magic. Besides, the effects is best gained by using Silent Spell, and then simply choosing to mutter whatever words you desire, totally unrelated to the spell being cast... 3; considering when you pick the numerical value for a fireball (for example) there is nothing to prevent you picking the maximum, this feat has to cost as many extra levels as Maximize Spell - else it becomes a cheaper version of that. In fact, since it is better (allows more control, affects other variables) it needs to cost more! I would correct this by making Maximize a pre-requisite for this feat and having it cost the same (i.e. effectively costs more because you spent 2 feats to get the effect) --- As an aside; how can the resurrect roll be controlled, but the dispell roll not? This seems very illogical, and not defined in the feat text at all. [/QUOTE]

Verification