WW's Sorcerous Pact feat -the new Spellcasting Prodigy, or not?

[Thanee]

Now that Spellcasting Prodigy has been cut (no longer gives a bonus to spell DCs)...

Where are those updates to 3.5 detailed?

Bye
Thanee

 

[Mathew_Freeman]

Well, some of them are here:

http://www.wizards.com/dnd/article1.asp?x=dnd/er/errata,3

But I'm not sure about the FRCS errata. Couldn't see it on the list.

 

[Elder-Basilisk]

Not a snowball's chance in hell that feat would ever make it into any game I ran.

It's far worse than spellcasting prodigy ever was. (And, in defense of WotC, the Spellfire feat comes with a warning label about the power level). Spellcasting prodigy was +1 DC all around which is much less significant than +4 DC to a class of spells. Comparing this to Spell Focus is revealing. Spell Focus is often a suboptimal feat for sorcerors because sorcerors often want to cherrypick the best spells from all the schools as their spells known. The sorceror who takes a spell focus spell is generally a sorceror who is counting on jacking up his DCs in that school very very high level so that foes sometimes fail even on their strong saves. This feat would let the sorceror cherrypick the best spells from various schools and still crank his save DCs. The ability to get +4 DC to Fireball, Phantasmal Killer, Hold Monster, and Disintegrate for one feat is what makes this overpowered. The old school sorceror--even with 3.0's arguably overpowered greater spell focus--would have needed two feats to get +4 to the DCs of any one of those spells and would have found his spell choices highly restricted if he wanted to have a spell at each level to benefit from the feats. Since this feat is unquestionably superior to the 3.0 Greater Spell Focus/Spell Focus combo and is discussed in the context of 3.5 where even that combo only gives +2, it's far and away too powerful to be used in a balanced game. It belongs with feats from the KoK player's guide like irresistable spell and the one that lets PC wizards get their spells back after casting them. . . in the round file.

 

[Nightfall]

Boy you people would never love me then cause I'd let it in. Mostly because I WOULD enforce the damn feat rules. I would tell a Player "Here we are going to lay down ground rules. If you want sorcerous power, you are going to pay a price for it. But it might be worth it."

I like this feat AND I like the Scion feats that accompany it.

 

[the Jester]

Wow, this feat's outrageous. No way, no how would I allow it imc... even when I've been toying with 'bloodline' feats (similar, I think, to the scion feats in conception- a sorcerer's bloodline gives him certain benefits in a thematically linked group of spells), I've never even considered a +4 to the save DCs! That's horrendous.

In the trash, out the door, and in the flames. That's where I'd put this feat.

Crothian: yeah, a dm can balance this one if he's willing to interrupt all the other plot stuff going on once per level to make the sorc live up to his end. I don't think it's worth the headache to fix the overpowering benefits the sorc gets this way; seems to me like either you make the character do something he really doesn't want to (which suxxors for the pc) or the 'cost' of this feat is insignificant. I prefer to throw horrible difficult choices at my pcs without rewarding them for merely having to make them.

 

[Scion]

But since the dm has complete control over what spells this bonus would be for most of the time this should be ok. It would take some extra work, and perhaps even necissary to make up a few new spells, but it could work. Most dm's wouldnt say, 'sure! pick whichever spells you want for it. oh, while your at it you can buy this item that adds +10 spell power for each level of sorcerer you are but your con decreases by one while wearing it, bargin at 35Gp, buy 2!'

Its all about control if you do it properly it could be interesting and cool, if not then dont allow it in the first place.

 

[Golem2176]

Take into consideration, that even though this feat is open-content, it was designed for the Scarred Lands campaign setting. Spellcating Prodigy is not open content and is published in the Forgotten Relams campaign setting book.

 

[Kichwas]

But I'm not sure about the FRCS errata. Couldn't see it on the list.

Here's the update to Spellcasting Prodigy:
http://boards1.wizards.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=44746&pagenumber=14#post1523790



Nowhere in the feat does it say that the DM selects the spells you apply it to. Sorcerer's get to pick their spells, and they get to pick how they are used and what feats they apply to them as per the rules outlined in those feats.

If I had Spell Focus [Enchantment] a DM could not fairly say 'You cannot apply that to the DC for your Sleep spells." The limits for what I can apply this feat to are set by a theme, and a list of sample themes is supplied by the scion feats in the same book and in Dragon magazine. At best a DM could say "I don't see how that spell fits your theme." But if I use a published theme this argument is obviously unfairly biased. If I make up my own theme, then a fair DM has to deal with explaining why he feels my theme makes no sense (at the same time I have to explain why it does).

So I don't find DM control over what spells you can apply it to to be a valid balancer. For me it comes back to either the numbers themselves balance (it only applies to a few feats), or the pact can be listed out objectively and pre agreed upon to thus make it balance. If those two potential scenerios fail - it would not be balanced.


If you use the pact to balance this feat, you should outline in concrete terms exactly how this will affect the character -before- play begins. Do it in some manner that can ensure the limits come to bear as outlined and are no more -OR LESS- severe than such. In other words -as I said above- make it objective.

Otherwise you'll be left with a subjective standard that will likely be unfair either for or against the character.

If you consider the numerics of the feat to be a balancer in and of themselves then the pact is not an issue, but so far no one has taken a stand to argue this angle - possibly because no one sees any merit in it, no one sees the feat as balanced without the pact?

 

[(Psi)SeveredHead]

Here we go again ... is there some piece of info we're missing?

I heard the MinHB had a feat that copies the 3.0 Rhino Hide Armor special quality (which was nerfed in 3.5 ... why unnnerf it?) but it turned out it shatters your lance with no save if you use the feat.

In any event

Never balance game mechanics with roleplaying!!!

Because roleplaying can be completely absent from many game sessions, while mechanical control on a power is always there.

Roleplaying also varies from campaign to campaign. In a campaign where orcs are common, "must always challenge orcs to combat to the death" is a significant drawback, whereas in a campaign where orcs are relatively uncommon, you're basically getting a power for little or no cost. Conversely, if you ever meet an orc paladin, you're still required to challenge them to the death, even if you're a paladin yourself, which doesn't make sense.

The two points above can be summarized as: unlike mechanics, which have a definable and measurable cost and effect, roleplaying drawbacks can be neither precisely defined nor exactly measured, and as such it is impossible to fairly balance them.

The only thing that should be used to balance mechanics are mechanics.

I think it's unfair to say "it's 3rd party" ... it's easier to ban such stuff, but that doesn't mean WotC has done some silly things too.

 

[Scion]

I would of course suggest setting them up like domains.

And the dm always has first, second, and final say. Always. I could go into more detail to refute whatever claims are made, but it isnt necissary currently