Arbiter of Wyrms
First Post
Does anybody actually take this feat?
I don't see any benefit in it that's worth a feat.
I don't see any benefit in it that's worth a feat.
Spell Mastery?
- Thread starter Arbiter of Wyrms
- Start date
Arbiter of Wyrms
First Post
One big problem I have with the feat is that instead of it growing more powerful as your wizard does, it grows less powerful: because you never get to change-out the spells to which it applies, they quickly cease to be your highest level spells.
Another problem (or question, as it were) is whether or not the spells one can master increases with one's INT bonus. Intelligence is undoubtably the one ability most wizards concentrate on, but once the feat is chosen, the spells to which it applies are immutable.
It seems like the best time to take this feat is at 20th level, when you've got 9th level spells, all of your ability-score increases, and much better feats to buy.
Another problem (or question, as it were) is whether or not the spells one can master increases with one's INT bonus. Intelligence is undoubtably the one ability most wizards concentrate on, but once the feat is chosen, the spells to which it applies are immutable.
It seems like the best time to take this feat is at 20th level, when you've got 9th level spells, all of your ability-score increases, and much better feats to buy.
I just had an idea for a house-rule: any spell you have Spell Mastery for, you cast at +1 caster level. This might make it worth taking, even if your spellbook never gets stolen.
Also, I'd personally allow a character to get new spells when his Int modifier goes up (although, I wouldn't let him swap out the old ones). But then, I'm also in favor of retroactive skill points, so my advice is fair from mainstream.
Also, I'd personally allow a character to get new spells when his Int modifier goes up (although, I wouldn't let him swap out the old ones). But then, I'm also in favor of retroactive skill points, so my advice is fair from mainstream.
Arbiter of Wyrms
First Post
Doomhawk said:
I like these ideas.
Retroactive skill points is something we've used all along, if only to make bookkeeping and double checking from becoming a total nightmare.
Another option I've been considering in regards to Spell Mastery is to make it a class feature for Wizards.
beaver1024
First Post
I had a player take Spell Mastery because About half way through the adventure he suicided the character and played a cleric instead. It was just too hard.
The problem is that Spell Mastery is too weak. By the time you need to use it the wizard is so crippled that you might as well suicide and play another class. The best solution I could come up with was to change Spell Mastery so that the first time you take it, you get 3 + Int # of spells and all cantrips. Everytime the wizard advances a level, the 2 free spells she normally gets is added to the Spell Mastery list. Even with that bonus the player refused to play a wizard again.
The problem is that Spell Mastery is too weak. By the time you need to use it the wizard is so crippled that you might as well suicide and play another class. The best solution I could come up with was to change Spell Mastery so that the first time you take it, you get 3 + Int # of spells and all cantrips. Everytime the wizard advances a level, the 2 free spells she normally gets is added to the Spell Mastery list. Even with that bonus the player refused to play a wizard again.
Liquidsabre
Explorer
I only take spell mastery so I can take signature spell. 
Li Shenron
Legend
It was quite a long time since it was discussed about this
Me thinks that in early days the Wizards bonus feats were meant to be all spent in Spell Mastery, exactly because it was agreed that SM wasn't worth enough to spend a regular feat on it. And then maybe it was thought that not all wizards necessarily have SM, and the bonus feats were extended to metamagic and item creation, but in this way again it became unworthy to take SM.
The problem is not with the feat itself but rather with the whole spellbook rules, which put the DM in a bad position: if the DM regularly threatens the wizard's spellbook, the player may have a feeling that the DM is playing against him, which isn't nice; if the DM never does so, there's no point in taking SM except "flavor".
In theory it could make sense to take this feat. If you usually play that adventures often take 2-3 days away from home but they are not very full of challenges (so that you use part of your spells but not all), and the player agrees the spellbook is too bulky to carry around, then it may be useful to have SM.
Me thinks that in early days the Wizards bonus feats were meant to be all spent in Spell Mastery, exactly because it was agreed that SM wasn't worth enough to spend a regular feat on it. And then maybe it was thought that not all wizards necessarily have SM, and the bonus feats were extended to metamagic and item creation, but in this way again it became unworthy to take SM.
The problem is not with the feat itself but rather with the whole spellbook rules, which put the DM in a bad position: if the DM regularly threatens the wizard's spellbook, the player may have a feeling that the DM is playing against him, which isn't nice; if the DM never does so, there's no point in taking SM except "flavor".
In theory it could make sense to take this feat. If you usually play that adventures often take 2-3 days away from home but they are not very full of challenges (so that you use part of your spells but not all), and the player agrees the spellbook is too bulky to carry around, then it may be useful to have SM.
Li Shenron
Legend
beaver1024 said:
OT: That sounds so... silly!
If he wasn't having fun with the character, why didn't the DM just allow him to make another one? Why did he have to kill it?
