Spell Thematics, I should have to pay a feat for this???

[Dark Magus]

Why should a Wizard have to spend a feat to make their spell's effects be described the way they want to? If your the one doing the research, wouldn't it look the way you designed it?

Now, I don't think that EVERY spell should be themed, I mean, I wouldn't want to see a fireball coming at me in the shape of a prancing Ewok picking daisies. But if I wanted to say that when I cast Mage Armor, bones burst forth from my skin in a sort of "Spawn-like" way, should I have to spent a feat for this kind of personalization?

P.S- Prancing Ewoks picking daisies would be just fine for the Fear Spell, just not Fireball.

 

[Anabstercorian]

The feat is what makes the spell different enough that it becomes significantly harder to identify (and thus, counterspell) it.

 

[Mordane76]

There was an article in Dragon (it was a DM Workshop, IIRC) in like the last 10 issues that discussed this very thing. It discussed theming spells and gave some advice on how to do it, but that you had to remember that theming in this manner made no changes to the actual mechanics of the spell, nor did it make any changes to mechanics for countering or identifying the spell.

Thematics gives you a small bonus against people ID'ing your spells, so I think it's probably worth the feat. I'd just talk to your DM about allowing you to theme your spells, but without making any changes to the way those spells function mechanically or on how they are countered or identified.

If you'd like, I can look up the Dragon with that article for you later, but I'm presently at work, and I don't have my magazines here...

 

[Dark Magus]

Yeah, that'd be great, I'd appreciate it alot.

 

[Cyberzombie]

Spell Thematics makes Toughness look like a powerful feat. Especially if you play a "typical" kick-ass sort of game.

DM: "The evil priest casts a spell you have never seen before! Green rays of light come down from the heavens to bathe him and his humanoid minions. Do you make a Spellcraft roll to figure out what spell he cast?"

PC Wizard: "No. I drop a fireball on the lot of them."

DM: "What? Don't you want to know what spell he just cast?!?!?"

PC Wizard: "No. I repeat, I drop a fireball on them. If that doesn't work, I've got a nice ice storm lined up for next round."

The potential benefit of the feat is so minor and comes up so rarely that I cannot see it being worth a feat slot. Toughness at least makes 1st level survivable. Spell Thematics is never going to save your life.

 

[Spatzimaus]

Spell Thematics is so weak, we gave it to Sorcerers for free IMC. It can be a fun Feat to have, but in most cases it's just not worth spending a Feat.

 

[Cyberzombie]

Spell Thematics is so weak, we gave it to Sorcerers for free IMC. It can be a fun Feat to have, but in most cases it's just not worth spending a Feat.

Well, I was going to resist the temptation to pimp my own thread, but in the NKL.sorcerer, we give the sorcerer both Spell Thematic and Eschew Materials at 1st level instead of a familiar. The two of them together add up to about the strength of a regular feat, or about the strength of a familiar.

 

[Dark Magus]

*bump*

 

[Mordane76]

The issue is #302, the article is called "Mysterious Magic," and it begins on p. 104 of the issue. It's a Wizard's Workshop piece.

 

[Macbeth]

In my current campaign counterspelling is much more common then a standard campaign, with most spellcasters having Improved Counterspell, so Spell Thematics is ALMOST worthwhile. The campaign is very much tied to swashbuckling and dueling, and counterspells fit right in, making for a simple mage duel. In the right campaign the feat can be usefull, but in a standard campaign the feat either needs different benifits or a bigger penalty to ID it.