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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="delericho" data-source="post: 3117605" data-attributes="member: 22424">Seriously, I recommend retiring the character and starting again. That restriction is just evil.Okay, starting to get a bit worried about this DM now...Energy Substitution would probably have been a better choice. In general, Metamagic feats are more useful for high-level casters than low. However, since you mention it below, why didn't you take Eschew Materials?Okay, remember I said I was worried about that DM?Well, firstly, mixing editions is a really bad idea. What was 'balanced' in 2nd Edition just isn't under 3.x, and vice versa. Heck, even mixing 3.0 and 3.5 can have unexpected consequences. So, that 2nd Ed Flame Strike is a red warning sign, for me.As for the thing about the 5-foot step, both you and your DM need to read (or reread) the Combat chapter of the PHB, which explains allowed actions at length. The short version is as follows:Each round, a character can either take a full-round action OR a standard action and a move-equivalent action OR two move-equivalent actions. Additionally, the character can take an arbitrary number of free actions, with some restrictions.Casting a spell is usually a standard action (but, see the casting time of the particular spell).Moving is a move-equivalent action (surprise!).Taking a 5-foot step is a free action, except that you can only take 1 in a round AND you can't take a 5-foot step in a round you have also moved (as distinct from taking a move-equivalent action... the terminology here is a bit confused).So, you were probably right, depending on the spell cast.Now, about metamagic-ed spells: A prepared spell cast with a metamagic feat has the same casting time as a normal spell of the same name, unless of course the spell is Quickened. A spontaneous spell with a metamagic feat has a longer caster time than normal (so, most such spells take full-round actions to cast). So, Sorcerers and Bards suffer the longer casting time, as do Clerics and 3.5 Druids casting their spontaneous Cure/Inflict and Summon spells. Wizards, Paladins, Rangers, and Clerics and Druids casting any other spells do not suffer the longer casting time. (One consequence of this is that Sorcerers and Bards can't use the Quicken Spell feat.)What material component problem? Either take the Eschew Materials feat or, failing that, buy a Spell Component Pouch. It's in the PHB, costs 5 gp, and essentially solves that problem in most cases (and the ones that wouldn't be covered aren't helped by EM). yes, in 3.0 Shield is a very nice spell. The mage armour components are included in the SPC, though.Um, I thought the 3.0 Identify only gave the basic function of the item? Don't you need Analyze Dweomer (or somesuch) to get the full story?That was one of the changes between 3.0 and 3.5 - the 3.5 Identify gives all powers of a single item, instead of a single power of each of many items.Oh, and I suspect your Extended Detect Magic wouldn't help, either.I'm guessing, but I don't think that's what he meant.DMs have no business setting out to 'stuff their players'. That aside, all you'd be losing is 25 gp per casting, which might be worth the expense. Bear in mind, you'll only ever know a few dozen spells, ever, so they really have to count. And this is even more true in 3.0 than 3.5, where you can't swap out spells.They're available per the standard assumption in the DMG, unless the DM wants to change that. Therefore, each settlement has a 'GP limit' determining what can be found in the settlement. In general, anything you want to buy with a value less than or equal to that gp limit should be available reasonably easily. Therefore, it should be quite easy to find wands of most 1st level spells in most small towns.To be honest, I most certainly would not play a sorcerer under this DM, and I might well simply not play under this DM at all. If your posts have been an accurate sample of the campaigns, I suspect I would have no fun in such a game. I'm just saying...That's your argument against Warlocks? That they can see through their own magical darkness? Odd. <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