Spellfire wielder

[Artoomis]

The intent is that you can absorb magic. Anything else is adhoc.

If that is so, the fact that you can only absorb with readied actrions is near meaningless.

Is your standpoint then that the core rules governing combat are flawed because they allow friends to use them to their advantage, and the spellfire wielder feat is what reveals this advantage?

No - readied actions are for combat. Fake fighting your friends is not really combat, but mock combat.

What I consider appropriate, balanced and fully within the rules, you label with derogatory terms, such as "munchkinland" and "silly cheesiness". Any particular reason you feel so strongly about this?

I feel fairly strongly when folks find loopholes in the rules that pretty clearly were not the intent. I think that is so in this case. Using loopholes in the rules like this is cheesy and munchkin-like.

If a spellfire wielder could always be fully "charged," they become WAY too powerful for just having taken one feat. The main balancing factor is that they cannot always be fully charged, but must ready an action to absorb magic. Thus they must use up an action to get "charged" and use on to "discharge" - which balances out nicely when you give a low level character the power of being a spellfire wielder.

 

[rhammer2]

The meaning to requiring a ready action is that a spell caster cannot recharge himself with his own spells.

As long as there is another spell caster in the group that is willing to help recharge the spellfire user he should always have his Con in levels stored.

If he is planning on having Spellfire Channeler levels, he is obviously planning on using the power alot. At level 5 a SfC can recarge off of a permanent magic item and reuse that item every day.

If that is so, the fact that you can only absorb with readied actrions is near meaningless.

 

[Hypersmurf]

No - readied actions are for combat. Fake fighting your friends is not really combat, but mock combat.

Out of curiosity...

If you had people drilling, say, tactics against reach weapons... one using a blunted glaive, the other using a blunted shortsword...

The shortsword wielder is trying to see how effective it is to ready an action to 5'-step-and-attack when an opponent with reach moves up to attack.

... you wouldn't let them drill, because it's not 'real' combat?

-Hyp.

 

[kreynolds]

If that is so, the fact that you can only absorb with readied actrions is near meaningless.

Not at all. You simply have to be in combat to ready an action, and you can be in combat with a friend, and the rules don't require you to harm or kill each other and they don't say that friends can't get into combat.

I.E., anything else is adhoc.

No - readied actions are for combat. Fake fighting your friends is not really combat, but mock combat.

But combat none the less, and it uses all the rules of combat. If you want to house rule that friends can't get into combat, that's fine, but a house rule is what is required. My standpoint is just that it isn't a big deal, and I don't think it's abusing the system either.

I feel fairly strongly when folks find loopholes in the rules that pretty clearly were not the intent.

From my perspective, you're altering the intent, and the rules, to suit you. I respect that you have your own opinion, but I just want to be clear that I think your opinion of the intent is muddled somewhat by what you think is abuse of the system.

I think that is so in this case. Using loopholes in the rules like this is cheesy and munchkin-like.

But I don't see any loopholes. Does that make me cheesy and munchkin-like?

If a spellfire wielder could always be fully "charged," they become WAY too powerful for just having taken one feat.

Blame the feat, not the rules that allows friends to use the combat system to their advantage. I'm sure anybody will admit that the feat is powerful. Why do you think there are so many discussions about the feat needing an ECL modifier?

The main balancing factor is that they cannot always be fully charged, but must ready an action to absorb magic. Thus they must use up an action to get "charged" and use on to "discharge" - which balances out nicely when you give a low level character the power of being a spellfire wielder.

There is no balancing factor, except for high level play. At high levels, spellfire has far less of an impact on the game. At low level, the feat is just really awesome compared to any other. The fault isn't in the core rules. If anything, it's in the feat. Personally, I'd much rather alter a single feat than house rule the core rules governing combat so that friends can't fight.

 

[Murrdox]

kreynolds is right on the money on this one.

First of all... all "combat" does is divide time into "rounds" for the purpose of determining how often things can occur, what order, and how long they last. When "combat" happens, the characters are not whisked away to some alternate dimension where the laws of physics prevent them from performing common everyday actions.

Congratulations, you've figured out that the Spellfire feat can be easily abused. Instead of coming up with a wacky house rule to change the entire rule system to prevent this abuse, why not look at the feat instead, and figure out how to better modify THAT.

Keep it simple.

 

[IanB]

For what it is worth, with regard to intent:

The 'friend recharges your spell levels' thing is in the original source for spellfire game rules (unless it was in a Dragon before that) the 2E FR book that detailed the stats for all the characters from the book.

I think it is safe to say that that particular idea has been canon to the idea of a spellfire user from the beginning.

 

[andargor]

Which still is not 4d8 + 1 per caster level, or 5-39 at minimum caster level of 7. Six spellfire levels would net you 6d4+6, which is nowhere near the effectiveness of heal, whether 3.0 or 3.5.

I agree for Heal. But let's take a 7th level cleric compared to a something5/Spellfire Channeler2. This is purely an academic exercise, not criticism.

The cleric, assuming 18 Wis, has 6/5/4/3/2 spells available that can be spontaneously cast as cures. Unless he has the Healing domain, but bear with me.

Thats:

6 x Cure Minor Wounds = 6 hp
5 x Cure Light Wounds = 5 * (1d8 + 5) = 5d8 + 25 = 30 - 65 hp
4 x Cure Moderate Wounds = 4 * (2d8 + 7) = 8d8 + 28 = 36 - 94 hp
3 x Cure Serious Wounds = 3 * (3d8 + 7) = 9d8 + 21 = 30 - 93 hp
2 x Cure Critical Wounds = 2 * (4d8 + 7) = 8d8 + 14 = 22 - 78 hp

(Which is interesting, as the second level slots seem to be overall more effective for that level of cleric, but I digress)

Assuming the Spellfire Channeler has 18 Con, and stores his max up to Con (without "overstoring"), He can therefore heal:

18d4+18 = 36 - 90 hp

So a full complement of spellfire levels is roughly equivalent to all 2nd or 3rd level cleric slots, or one and a quarter 4th level slots.

So, yes, the cleric is more effective overall, but spellfire sure holds it's weight considering that the cleric has to use up these slots just for cures, and that the Spellfire Channeler has his normal caster slots untouched. If he's a 5th level cleric to boot, or a paladin, the difference becomes meaningless. The advantages and disadvantages more or less cancel out.

Andargor

 

[LokiDR]

As others and myself have stated, you can not recharge yourself under normal circumstances. You can not take action while keeping a readied action.

That being said, what about the rules on counterspelling via reactive counterspelling? That allows for a free counterspell action, but spellfire is absorbed by means similar to a rod of absorbtion. Would reactive counterspelling work at all?

By the way, there is at least one feat stronger than spellfire wielder, and it is in the core rules: Leadership. Both pose significant concerns for a campaign, but both can really add to the story.

 

[andargor]

If he's planning on using inexpensive wands of Light repeatedly on himself to keep him charged up with spellfire all the time, you are dealing with a "Munchkin" Spellfire weilder. Big Time. This is even worse than the ones who have their friends charge them up using their unused spells at the end of the day.

If you think it's munchkiny, wait until he's a 5th level Spellfire Channeler and he spends 3,000 gp for three 1st level Pearls of Power. Caster level 17th, Drain Permanent Item ability nets him 3 x 8 spellfire levels per 24 hours.

EDIT: Drain Charged Item is a 1st level Spellfire Channeler ability

Andargor

 

[kreynolds]

So, yes, the cleric is more effective overall, but spellfire sure holds it's weight considering that the cleric has to use up these slots just for cures...

I think you might have misunderstood my position. I didn't say that spellfire doesn't hold its weight. I said it wasn't as effective as a cleric as a replacement. I.E, no cleric in the party at all. It get's the job done, but just not quite as well.

...and that the Spellfire Channeler has his normal caster slots untouched.

Assuming the character even has any normal spell slots in the first place. Remember, you don't have to be a spellcaster to be a Spellfire Channeler. Just a minor nitpick.