Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
Rocket your D&D 5E and Level Up: Advanced 5E games into space! Alpha Star Magazine Is Launching... Right Now!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="JohnSnow" data-source="post: 3479144" data-attributes="member: 32164">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...</blockquote>

Verification