Spellfire Wielder feat - usable?

[Humanophile]

On a personal note. I've used many of these feats/classes and the result did not cause one difference in game play. Not one. Power levels and usefulness of abilities is always subjective to the game that is run, and the Dungeon Master's ability to create challenges (roleplaying and mechanic wise).

Lemme just point out a couple of inconsistencies here.

First, it's true that a powerful, capable DM can balance any power imbalance, even a god and a kobold commoner in the same party. That doesn't mean that any sane person would think that that was good game design. So the game owes it to people who aren't expert DM's to try and keep things mostly balanced, especially in the combat arena. You can chose less powerful/effective options, but none that come out later should be realistically more powerful than what you have.

Second, I'm wary hearing people say "I played this and it wasn't overpowered. We tend to think that anything good that happens to our characters is balanced, so I give more weight to people who say that it didn't make someone else who chose the option more powerful than when they took something else. If you'd let someone you knew had munchkinny tendencies have the feat while turning it down yourself, that gives me a better sense of balance than "well, while I played with it, I didn't notice anything wrong".

The feats in the Forgotten Realms Campaign Sourcebook where designed and reviewed by the same exact people that brought you the Core Books as well as the Class Builder books. People just can't seem to let go of their view that anything that originates from a Forgotten Realms has to be unbalanced.


Ren

Ahh. Yes. The same people who approved the pre-errata incantrix, the psion, Harm, much of Sword and Fist, the cleric being a better spellcaster than the wizard, and your choice of LA numbers. The playtesters are just players, most of them with prejudices, and not always able to spot a small loophole you could nonetheless choke a tarrasque with. I'd daresay that many playtesters would also tend towards high fantasy, higher powered, realmsian play. (Can any playtesters back me up here? What prejudices did you have, or what prejudices did you see while testing?) So the fact that it was OK'ed carries some weight with me, but I'll reserve judgement on some particularly tricky bits.

I still say it's better as a template, though.

 

[Aaron L]

Are you using the bladesinger errata from the Tome & Blood Web Enhancement?

Yessir I am, but I got killed twice in two game sessions (and four game days), seeing as how I am only a second level bladesinger, it takes several rounds to cast my protective spells, and during that time I can get severely smushed. And assassins with poison don't help much either. Now I'm 8th level and the rest of the party is 10th.

 

[Warchild]

Do you really sit around making this comparisons? Why do this when you could just be playing and enjoying the game.?

On these specific feats/classes i have also seen in action in the game. As a DM, when a player wants to use a feat or class, i do tend to take a look at them and make a judgement call. Call me crazy.

On a personal note. I've used many of these feats/classes and the result did not cause one difference in game play. Not one. Power levels and usefulness of abilities is always subjective to the game that is run, and the Dungeon Master's ability to create challenges (roleplaying and mechanic wise).

Great. Some people don't seem to have had the same experience with it you did. Thats why we discuss things. I may be the very first to disagree with, say Jasamcarl, but i like to hear what he has to say. Thats what this thread is about. Although we took a little off-topic for a moment there!

The feats in the Forgotten Realms Campaign Sourcebook where designed and reviewed by the same exact people that brought you the Core Books as well as the Class Builder books.

Well, thats not 100% accurate, a lot of the same people were involved, but it certaintly was not the "same exact" people. Different people were in charge and only 2 of the 5 "main guys" that created the core books made this one.

People just can't seem to let go of their view that anything that originates from a Forgotten Realms has to be unbalanced.

Okay, i'll go ahead and take some offense here. I've put my time in the trenches against those that would bash the Realms, right alone side of you, as a matter of fact. So spare me the insinuations that i have something against FR. Thats hogwash. I like the Realms and have nothing against. But i calls'em as i sees'em.
Now...if you weren't talking about me in particular, disregard this last rant!!

 

[Renshai]

Humanophile wrote:

First, it's true that a powerful, capable DM can balance any power imbalance, even a god and a kobold commoner in the same party. That doesn't mean that any sane person would think that that was good game design. So the game owes it to people who aren't expert DM's to try and keep things mostly balanced, especially in the combat arena. You can chose less powerful/effective options, but none that come out later should be realistically more powerful than what you have.

Once again, I believe power/balance will always rest in the hands of the DM and the type of game he or she runs. An abusive player can make a mockery of any game system. Its not the system’s fault or the options that it presents. D&D is designed for variant support of what we call “modern fantasy”. Modern fantasy is a fairly large slate for any set of rules or game to encompass. People will always have their view of what they think works and doesn’t work within that paradigm.

Second, I'm wary hearing people say "I played this and it wasn't overpowered. We tend to think that anything good that happens to our characters is balanced, so I give more weight to people who say that it didn't make someone else who chose the option more powerful than when they took something else. If you'd let someone you knew had munchkinny tendencies have the feat while turning it down yourself, that gives me a better sense of balance than "well, while I played with it, I didn't notice anything wrong".

Well, I would give more weight to your views if I hadn’t playtested every major incarnation of the Third Edition rules since it’s first playtest release. Including Forgotten Realms and some Class Building Books. We took our work very seriously and playtested every aspect of the game that we could. It was never a case of justifying a game option because we were giving them “our characters”. In many cases I allowed the munchkin player in our group (every group has one don’t they?) have free reign of the feats. In fact I still let him look at every feat to get his reaction. Spellfire didn’t impress him at all. He understood the roleplaying stigma that came with it. Although he did comment that the feat would make for some great instances of roleplaying within the game. I don’t see one thing wrong with that.

Ahh. Yes. The same people who approved the pre-errata incantrix, the psion, Harm, much of Sword and Fist, the cleric being a better spellcaster than the wizard, and your choice of LA numbers. The playtesters are just players, most of them with prejudices, and not always able to spot a small loophole you could nonetheless choke a tarrasque with. I'd daresay that many playtesters would also tend towards high fantasy, higher powered, realmsian play. (Can any playtesters back me up here? What prejudices did you have, or what prejudices did you see while testing?) So the fact that it was OK'ed carries some weight with me, but I'll reserve judgement on some particularly tricky bits.

As I stated above, encompassing something as varied as modern fantasy is difficult. Mistakes will happen. Of course, I don’t see anything wrong with any of the things you listed above. Except Harm. That was a mistake… but one that is easily fixed.

Indeed. Playtesters are just players. But players that take pride in trying to help create good game material. Above is where your post loses credibility. Your labeling of playtesters and people who enjoy the Realms has power gamers is a tired old argument that really irks me. I’ve run the Realms for over ten years, and never run a “High Power Game”. In that regard, we had no prejudices during play. We sat down with a blank slate and tested things on many levels by creating characters, converting characters, creating situations and sometimes just trying to see if we could break do something that would break down the game. The first draft of the Forgotten Playtest rules was terrible. It was so insanely powerful that you would be holding on to the FRCS for dear life if you saw them. In the case of those rules we gave feedback that helped changed the rules to their current status.

 

[Humanophile]

Ren, I was unaware that you playtested. Consider this an apology for the way my statement must've sounded in that case. I'm just used to hearing "we played with (given rule), and it didn't unbalance the game a bit" a lot, when watching their game shows how badly it does. Back in 2e, you didn't ask the wizard if free casting unbalanced the game, you asked the fighter, if there still was one. That's why I'm wary about what many people say. This only applies per individual characters, though.

I will defend myself that I never said, nor meant to imply, that FR playtesters were munchkinny powergamers. I still hold to my basic belief, though. Most FR fans I've known have liked a high power level, cosmopolitan atmosphere, and disliked things outside of the modern fantasy gaming cliche. I'm not saying you are, but the next time you hear someone say "but... that's not D&D!" regarding something in a WOTC book, you'll know who I'm talking about. (Planescape seemed to draw a lot of that, as did psionics. All IME, of course.) I wouldn't expect things like "greater weapon focus, +2 to hit with a weapon, twice as good as the PHB", but at the same time, there's a lot of waffle room between ECL +1 and +2, first and second level spells, and when a prestige classes abilities are OK for their level. That wiggle room is where prejudices will come into play, and I think that there are both a plurality of modern fantasy fans, and that they're willing to see things that they like in a more favorable light than things they don't. I'm not accusing anyoen of being biased, I'm accusing them of being human.

 

[rounser]

the cleric being a better spellcaster than the wizard

Just offhand, what is the reasoning behind this? Apart from no armour check penalty for spellcasting, what else is there?

 

[MythandLore]

Just offhand, what is the reasoning behind this? Apart from no armour check penalty for spellcasting, what else is there?

I don't know what his reason are, but they do also have more spells per day, they can 'sack' spells to heal or harm, their domains give them extra abilities, they CAN 'heal', they can bring people back from the dead, no need for a spellbook.
Those alone make them better (I'm sure I forgot something) but on top of that they have better hit points, can turn undead, better saves, better BAB, proficient in more weapons, armor, etc.
That just makes them way better.
And what does the Wizard have?
A Familier and a few bonus feats.

 

[Shard O'Glase]

Mythandlore covered this fine but to add to and duplicate some of those comments. Clerics are seen by some to be better spellcasters. I'm not sure where I fall in this, but I think at least they are equal in just spellcasting add everything else and they are better overall. As for spellcasting, some say they have worse spells, sighting spells like teleport, damaging attack spells, fly, haste etc. Others say spell selection about equal, wizards get those sure, but clerics get healing, better div, and once they hit 9th level their direct damage spells equal the wizard, and in some cases surpass the wizard. Storm of vengence, and fire storm being two good examples. Add in that wizards have to learn their spells, and have to carry around spellbooks, while clerics just instantly know all their spells and have a better prep policy with no sleep needed, and no spell books and thye start looking good. Add in more spells per day even without domains, and with domains lots more spells per day, and then the ability to swap spells for heal/inflict spells freeing them up to prepare other spells etc.

 

[I'm A Banana]

Of course, IMHO, clerics NEED those bits of added edge.

I mean, they have more spells/day and little powers and such, but a spell list can define a class as easily as other abilities can. The cleric spell list is mostly only useful to help other people save the day. Without a little bit o' butt-kickin', they'd be healing machines, and would loose playability. My group of newbies would still rather have a druid than a cleric, because then they're not so...healing-based. No so supportive. Able to do heroic stuff, and not just help other people to do it.

Anyhoo...

As for the spellfire wielder feat....if the feat is overpowered (as I've said, I've had it in my campaign, and it doesn't seem to be, even without the roleplaying aspect thrown into it), and the PrC is underpowered (haven't seen it in action yet, but...okay), what about granting the feat as a 1st level Spellfire Wielder PrC ability, and requiring some other potent feat (like, I dunno, Skill Focus (concentration) or something) for the prereq in it's place? Would that "balance" everything? Power-up the PrC, make the feat less available, and still not make the PrC too easily accessible?

Just an idea.

 

[rounser]

Without a little bit o' butt-kickin', they'd be healing machines, and would loose playability.

I'm hoping that in 4E the designers will see fit to up the healing potential of druids and bards, and spread the burden of healing. This would do three things: It would mean not every party would be semi-obliged to have a cleric, it would increase the usefulness of druids and bards as classes, and it would allow clerics to be toned down a tad so that people wouldn't have to be bribed into playing them with powergaming treats. Healing magic also fits druids and bards to a tee, IMO.

I doubt this would encroach on the cleric's role, either. They have enough identity through other divine spells as it is.