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

[maddman75]

Personally, I'd let it in. And I typically am pretty tight on what goes in or out. But the kind of game I run you can guaran-frikken-tee they wouldn't be getting that bonus for nothing. You want artillery spells with this bonus? Fine. I'm sure your new pit fiend master would be glad to grant them, worm.

But it isn't for everyone's game. This is why I don't advocate saying 'source A, B, or C is in, everything else is out'. More efficient to approve things one by one, for each campaign. If it isn't in the core, ask me before you take it.

 

[Dreeble]

Personally, I'd let it in. And I typically am pretty tight on what goes in or out. But the kind of game I run you can guaran-frikken-tee they wouldn't be getting that bonus for nothing. You want artillery spells with this bonus? Fine. I'm sure your new pit fiend master would be glad to grant them, worm.

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

Heya:

Perfect example of "against", methinks.

Take care,
Dreeble

 

[Nightfall]

I would like to point out, much like the Summoner Pr-class from R&R1, this feat is something that Dms and players have to work on. While there is no "Dm's MUST select spells" listed, it is heavily implied in my view.

Just my two cents.

 

[Darklone]

I would like to point out, much like the Summoner Pr-class from R&R1, this feat is something that Dms and players have to work on. While there is no "Dm's MUST select spells" listed, it is heavily implied in my view.

Just my two cents.

Forget it Nightfall, some of the Kalamar Players Guide stuff even was labeled as "DMs: Use with caution" and people still consider it broken.

That pact would easily take over a whole campaign and steer it into a direction that you will not necessarily want.

Honestly, I would perhaps even think about allowing it, but I lack of players who would take it. And I can't blame them.

 

[Nightfall]

Probably right. But I do like pacts and I DO think with the right amount of DMing/player interaction, it can be a fun jumping off point without ruining the flavor an existing campaign.

 

[reiella]

Probably right. But I do like pacts and I DO think with the right amount of DMing/player interaction, it can be a fun jumping off point without ruining the flavor an existing campaign.

Well, to be truthful, it's hard to 'ruin' the flavor of existing campaign with this feat if you have to take it at 1st .

That said, the feat reads alot like it would end up BEING the campaign for some time, at least the first couple levels. The generally aspect also opens it up really badly.

To be fair to the player/character who took it at least, the DM should present the opportunties to achieve their 'pact', but to be fair to the rest of the party, should the entire party be side-tracked (possibly in the middle of an important adventure series/chain) for one party member?

Much like Spellfire, it's a powerful feat that drives the campaign (at least for some time), which makes it at the very least, a typically unusable feat (for me and my general opinion).

 

[Nightfall]

Understood Rei. I guess for me though, I like to use this more for NPCs than PCs. But I wouldn't be unwilling to try it out on PCs IF they are motivated to take it for their sorcerers.

 

[BryonD]

Understood Rei. I guess for me though, I like to use this more for NPCs than PCs. But I wouldn't be unwilling to try it out on PCs IF they are motivated to take it for their sorcerers.

Hmmm.

To me this feat seems bad for PCs but even worse for NPCs.

I mean, how do you seriously enforce a roleplay balance on an NPC?
If that is the concept, wouldn't you play the character that way anyway? Now they just get a +4 DC?

If the npc is an enemy, the party gets hosed with elevated DCs, the "price" the npc pays would be nearly invisible.

If the npc is an ally, then they are a) slightly over powered when the roleplay aspect is absent, b) railroading the party with their concept, or c) off focusing on their goal without the party, thus irrelevent. Two bad options and an NA.

If a player takes it the other players are screwed. Part of the time they get dragged into paying for one guy's feat, and the rest of the time that one guy has a big perk over the rest of them.

 

[Nightfall]

Byron,

Simple. Unlike others I tend to make such NPCs DEPENDENT on their source a lot more. For example, My Daemon Lord I created had a pact with the Lord of the Splintered Night, a powerful Daemon Prince. He had a lot spike spells, darkness spells, and "corrupt spells" but the price was high. He lost a lot of Wisdom for his usage, and also became rather fragile. Still he corrupted like 5-6 generations of "sons" of his line to serve as his bodyguards. This was how I used the sorcerous pact in my campaign.

 

[BryonD]

Who exactly are "others"?

I certainly have plenty of npcs with complicated allegiances, flaws and weaknesses. And I have been doing it for quite a long time. How do you handle it before this book came out?

Loss of wisdom as an effect of insanity or similar strain is fairly cliche. By cliche, I don't mean boring or anything. I just mean moderately common, certainly nothing new. I have used it myself.

But it is not part of the feat. Bascially, you are saying you hamstrung your npc in one place so it was balanced to compensate with an overpowered feat.

And you may be correct for this npc.

But that does nothing to make this feat any less overpowered.

And I am not certain that this really works even in the case you present.
The price the npc is paying is still largely invisible to the players. When they are missing saving throws, they won't much care about this guy's cursed sons.

I can make low CON, low WIS arcance casters that are still a good challenge to my party. It never occured to me to need to use an overpowered feat to prop them up.

Bottom line, you apparently added some prereqs to the feat that don't actually exist in the feat itself. So it may be balanced in your campaign, but it is not in the book. Thus, nothing you said makes the official feat any less overpowered.

On top of that, what you appear to be using as prereqs, some of us "others" just consider to be part of good gamecrafting.