Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Celebrim" data-source="post: 6497958" data-attributes="member: 4937">You are looking at it wrong.  You aren't giving up spell power, you are dominating the action economy by reducing the number of actions you have to spend.   Casting all those spells individually would certainly be more powerful, but requires spending dozens of actions.   If you can collect all those individual actions into a single action, even if that has a diminishing margin of returns, the resulting single action will be so powerful that it will act as a win button.  It would be like giving the player dozens of quickened spells in a single round.I'm envisioning a nova with no saving throw doing average of 300-400 damage on every target in a room.  It wouldn't be hard to figure out a way to do 1000 damage in a round with this I'm sure to single targets, completely solo.  Stacking this with an area of effect as the OP suggests pretty much gives you unlimited flexibility.  Efficiency in terms of outcome per spell slot spent, sure, this strategy sucks.  But efficiency in terms of outcome per action spent, it will be hard to beat that.   It will pretty much let a single character win every character level appropriate encounter by themselves.  Damage dealing is usually less effective than save or suck, but if you can stack it, it's much more reliable.  Lot's of things may be immune to your mind effecting spells, spell resistance, and have saving throws that make your save or suck unreliable.  But almost nothing can resist a sufficiently large amount of physical damage.At low levels, ruling that you can dump multiple spells into a single strike doesn't sound so bad.  But the total of spell slots times spell levels increases exponentially for arcane casters leading to degenerate strategies and degenerate gameplay.   There is no way in heck the designer intended the feat to be read or used in that way.  The language of the feat is entirely singular, "one of your spells", "the level of the spell sacrificed", and the example given likewise is of a single spell being utilized.   Common or not, it's a pretty ridiculous interpretation.</blockquote>

Verification