Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Li Shenron" data-source="post: 1870636" data-attributes="member: 1465">It was quite a long time since it was discussed about this  <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f61b.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":p" title="Stick out tongue    :p"  data-smilie="7"data-shortname=":p" /> 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.</blockquote>