Will the Magic System be shown the door?

[MoogleEmpMog]

I'm arguing from the assumption (possibly mistaken) that a wizard with the Reserve feat loses none of his "ultimate fight whammy" and gains considerably compared to a wizard without it. (I have inferred that you can still cast the spell you put in Reserve at full effect, if you wish, but you lose access to the feat special ability.)

Most importantly, this feat upsets the balance of a lot of fixed-damage spells-- flaming sphere, ice storm, and other staples I am sure I am forgetting.

I'm still not arguing that the feat is game-breaking, so you can lay off the counter-argument there.

Wulf, if you're not defining "broken" as "game-breaking," how are you defining it? I'm really trying to understand your position here.

As I see it, you're losing a feat, which is a pretty precious resource in and of itself, to gain an ability that almost certainly never helps you in an encounter you have a substantial chance of losing. You appear to have gained relative to a wizard without the feat, but in reality, you have gained very little.

Reserve feats really aren't even that great for drawn-out, time-pressure situations, because once you've USED your "ultimate fight whammy," the reserve feat becomes weaker (and goes away entirely if you use up all your spells). I see them as primarily a flavor thing.

EDIT: Didn't see your response, Wulf. I'm genuinely curious about your definition of "broken," though.

 

[JohnSnow]

Wulf, if you're not defining "broken" as "game-breaking," how are you defining it? I'm really trying to understand your position here.

As I see it, you're losing a feat, which is a pretty precious resource in and of itself, to gain an ability that almost certainly never helps you in an encounter you have a substantial chance of losing. You appear to have gained relative to a wizard without the feat, but in reality, you have gained very little.

Well, I'm not Wulf, but the textbook question is:

"All other things being equal, is this feat something EVERY character would take?"

To which I think Wulf is saying "Yes." If he's right, that would make them broken as a feat, because every character would want to take them. However, that doesn't necessarily rule them out as a non-game-breaking class feature in some future edition.

To me, it's a more complicated question. Reserve Feats are utterly worthless to 1st-level characters because you have to have at least a 2nd-level spell. Essentially, it's like having an unlimited number of low-level attack spells of a particular energy type (although there is a gust of wind reserve feat, and one for limited flight as well).

Personally, I like the idea of a magic system which encourages a character to keep his "big gun" in reserve, but still lets him pull off minor magical effects.

For instance: giving spellcasters the ability to do 1d6 damage isn't broken. It's a crossbow with more flavor and more ammo. Similarly, a touch attack that does as much damage as a dagger isn't "broken" either.

However, allowing the spellcaster to do 3d6, 5d6, or more damage with a ranged attack that's available ALL the time is only "fair" if any character can do the same damage with an ordinary ranged attack (for the cost of one feat). Or if reserve feats become a class ability for wizards, the ability to increase damage on ordinary attacks should be a class ability for fighters.

Which to me speaks to the notion that fighters need to be able to significantly up their damage output per strike as they go up in level, not that wizards need to be reigned in.

Not particularly on topic, but it strikes me that balancing this would be much easier if you didn't have to worry about iterative attacks...

 

[Wulf Ratbane]

Wulf, if you're not defining "broken" as "game-breaking," how are you defining it? I'm really trying to understand your position here.

Simple demonstration:

Skill Focus Mk I: You gain +2 to skill checks with one skill.

Skill Focus Mk II: You gain +3 to skill checks with one skill.

One of these feats is broken with respect to the other; either of them may be broken with respect to other feats or in interaction with a particular piece of the ruleset; neither of them is particularly game-breaking.

 

[Psion]

Whatever argument is getting rehashed here, it's apparently not with anything I've said...

Okay... I wasn't hoping to argue so much as advise/provide insight.

But whatever, man... you did have earlier statements to the effect you were shocked at the power reserve feats provide, but if you say you don't want to talk about it, I'm not invested in nitpicking your words.

 

[Wulf Ratbane]

Okay... I wasn't hoping to argue so much as advise/provide insight.

But whatever, man... you did have earlier statements to the effect you were shocked at the power reserve feats provide, but if you say you don't want to talk about it, I'm not invested in nitpicking your words.

NP-- it was impolite of me to really comment at all, so off-topic, so long after the fact, and so obviously under-informed. I have a lot of respect for the brain-trust residing here at ENworld, and if you guys say you've hashed it out, my knee-jerk reaction isn't all that important.

 

[JohnSnow]

Wulf, I generally agree with you, and I think you'd be okay with Reserve Feats if you actually got to read them.

For example, here's one:

ACIDIC SPLATTER[Reserve]
You can channel magic energy into orbs of acid.
Prerequisite: Ability to cast 2nd-level spells.
Benefit: As long as you have an acid spell of 2nd-level or higher available to cast, you can throw an orb of acid as a ranged touch attack. The attack has a range of 5 feet per level of the highest-level acid spell you have available to cast and deals 1d6 points of damage per level of that acid spell.
As a secondary benefit, you gain a +1 competence bonus to your caster level when casting acid spells.

See, it's not a matter of not casting a spell that deals X damage in exchange for an unlimited number that deal X/2 damage.

 

[YourSwordIsMine]

Bah. This sort of thing would be fine...as long as said cards are a helpful add-on you can purchase, and not a requirement for playing a spellcaster.

Spell cards from third party sources already exist in D&D3.5 and I don't see many people up in arms about it.

More things to sell, more money to make. When 3.5 released I started seeing this kind of thing possible as part of the "new" game mechanic. They are losing money to the MMO. They have to compete somehow. I see the game evolving into a hybrid card/minis/dice mechanic all with a collectable component and with as little thought involved as possible...

But then... I'm a pessimist...

 

[Wulf Ratbane]

More things to sell, more money to make. When 3.5 released I started seeing this kind of thing possible as part of the "new" game mechanic. They are losing money to the MMO.

They're not losing money to the MMO. They're trying to capture money from the MMO.

And even then, it's not like it's a zero sum game. It's possible to play MMOs and tabletop both. (Grow the pie, man, grow the pie.)

I see the game evolving into a hybrid card/minis/dice mechanic all with a collectable component and with as little thought involved as possible...

But then... I'm a pessimist...

And an elitist, apparently. It never ceases to amaze me how protective we nerds can be over our little niche hobby. It's gonna be so terrible when any old jock, skater, or video gamer can hobnob at the RPG table with the rest of us. Gaming should be hard, you know. Keep out the riff-raff.

And the chicks.

 

[JohnSnow]

More things to sell, more money to make. When 3.5 released I started seeing this kind of thing possible as part of the "new" game mechanic. They are losing money to the MMO. They have to compete somehow. I see the game evolving into a hybrid card/minis/dice mechanic all with a collectable component and with as little thought involved as possible...

But then... I'm a pessimist...

Actually, in John Coyne's novel Hobgoblin, the main character played an RPG (called, oddly enough, Hobgoblin) that was clearly intended to be D&D. It was based on the myths of ancient Ireland, but there was an interesting side note.

New monsters for encounters came out in "expansion card packs," so you never knew what kind of opponent you were going to face. And the card packs would obviously provide a revenue stream for the company making them.

It's always struck me as odd that the producers of D&D have never decided to try out that model to see if it's a moneymaker.

I personally have no objection to some D&D expansions being released in randomized packs, be they miniatures, monster cards, spell cards, magic item cards, or whatever. Especially if it would make the collectible hobby part profitable for WotC and keep the game around for years to come.

 

[YourSwordIsMine]

And even then, it's not like it's a zero sum game. It's possible to play MMOs and tabletop both. (Grow the pie, man, grow the pie.)



And an elitist, apparently. It never ceases to amaze me how protective we nerds can be over our little niche hobby. It's gonna be so terrible when any old jock, skater, or video gamer can hobnob at the RPG table with the rest of us. Gaming should be hard, you know. Keep out the riff-raff.

And the chicks.

Sorry if I came over sounding elitist, wasnt my intention nor am I one. Was just stating what I saw coming... Dont like it and I hope it doesnt become it; yet a part of me fears its the next trend.