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

[KarinsDad]

I've seen a lot of posts like this one but I dont really understand. The only reason this is so powerful is because spell focus is so weak.

Name some other feats that on their own give +4 to anything.


Sorcerous Pact (the to hit of sorcerers) is +4 for a limited number of spells.

Weapon Focus (the to hit of combatant types) is +1 for a limited number of weapons (i.e. one type).

Spell Focus (the to hit of caster types) is +1 (+2 in 3E which was too high for a feat) for a limited number of spells (i.e. one school).

Dodge (the anti-to hit) is +1 for a single opponent per round.

Even Skill Focus which is used for a single skill (not a limited number, just one), not multiple SPELLS, is +3 (+2 in 3E) not +4 (I believe, someone can correct me if I am wrong since I do not play 3.5, I play 3E).


It is hard to understand how people can think that although +1 for a limited group of abilities is the norm, +4 for a limited group of abilities is ok and not munchkinville.

Sure, +2 or even +3 in some cases for a single ability would be ok, but not +4 for a limited number of abilities. Even with the patron limitation (if properly limiting), +2 is the most this feat should be.

It's broke because it is WAY outside the guidelines for the other feats.

 

[Crothian]

Sure, it's powerful, but the balance is in the hands of the DM not the player. So as DM I can easily make the role playing side of this feat balance the rule side of it.

 

[Scion]

Name some other feats that on their own give +4 to anything.

Please read my post again There is a jump from one feat to another, I was responding to the thread and to another poster in the same post.

Sorcerous Pact (the to hit of sorcerers) is +4 for a limited number of spells.

Weapon Focus (the to hit of combatant types) is +1 for a limited number of weapons (i.e. one type).

But the sheer number of times it is used off sets this easily. Even in a campaign with few battles it will be used more often in useful ways than the others.

Spell Focus (the to hit of caster types) is +1 (+2 in 3E which was too high for a feat) for a limited number of spells (i.e. one school).

Your opinion, mine is quite different. No one took it at +2 except to get the +4 (and since I banned the +4 no one took the +2). The limited number of spells it is useful for, plus straightjacketing yourself to one save. Bah, +2 was weak, +1 was a waste of ink.

Edit: I should point out that I banned spell focus +4 not because of any power issues, but because I wanted to make the people spread their feats out more. A mage should be able to cast more than just that one spell category over and over again in a given day.

Dodge (the anti-to hit) is +1 for a single opponent per round.

Even Skill Focus which is used for a single skill (not a limited number, just one), not multiple SPELLS, is +3 (+2 in 3E) not +4 (I believe, someone can correct me if I am wrong since I do not play 3.5, I play 3E).

Dodge is a placeholder feat, it is very underpowered because feats after it are strong. Skill focus was 'upped' to +3 'cause it sucked before. If spell focus had been +1 in 3.0 it probably would've been upped to +2 in 3.5.

It is hard to understand how people can think that although +1 for a limited group of abilities is the norm, +4 for a limited group of abilities is ok and not munchkinville.

Sure, +2 or even +3 in some cases for a single ability would be ok, but not +4 for a limited number of abilities. Even with the patron limitation (if properly limiting), +2 is the most this feat should be.

It's broke because it is WAY outside the guidelines for the other feats.

The new dual skill bonuses give a total of +4, improved initiative gives a +4. While the +4 from this feat may be a lot, it is easy for the dm to just say what the patron gives bonuses in, and not make this overpowered. Definately not way outside the guidelines of feats.

I would hope that all dm's have enough control over their games to make this feat not a problem feat. It takes only a little bit of work, and could improve your campaign greatly. If someone doesnt want to take the time then dont use it, but I for one am glad that there are a lot of feats out there for people to choose from. Even ones that I have to work a little harder for to make my campaign a better place.


Edit: If your mages only memorize one spell per spell level then hit them in the sitautions where this will hurt them to show them it is good to spread out a little. This is not metagaming by the dm though. If they only memorize fireballs from 3rd level on up for all of their slots then they will suck outside of combat, or in combat vs evasion types, or anyone with any fire resistance. This feat strikes me as just great for flavor.

Edit cont: Would anyone allow it if it was +4 to spell penetration instead? what about +2 saves and +2 penetration?

 

[KarinsDad]

Dodge is a placeholder feat, it is very underpowered because feats after it are strong.

You are way off base with this opinion. Sure, the feats after it are strong, but Dodge is one of the most underrated feats in the game.

It is a fairly potent feat.

Example: Your opponent has a 25% chance of hitting you. With Dodge, he now has a 20% chance of hitting you. That means that you take 20/25 or only 80% of the damage you would have taken (on average). Instead of doing 50 points of damage against you in a combat, your opponent only does 40 points. That's a Cure Moderate Wounds spell that the Cleric does NOT have to cast on you.

Dodge adds to AC, even when things like DEX boost items no longer work for characters in armor.

And, the higher you can get your AC, the better Dodge works. If your opponent has a 10% chance to hit you, it now drops to a 5% chance. On average, if you are in this situation, you only take half of the damage you would from melee/missile attacks (and touch attack spells) in a combat.

But, all of this is non-sequitor to the real issue. Dodge is balanced, Sorcerers Pact is not.

The new dual skill bonuses give a total of +4, improved initiative gives a +4.

You realize that you are comparing +2 to 2 skills to +4 to DC (i.e. being better in 2 skills vs. being much much better in many spells). You use most skills a couple of times per adventure, typically not in combat (except for a few like Tumble), and you use the +4 to DC multiple times every day with multiple different spells. +2 to 2 skills will rarely effect the outcome of a combat. +4 to DC often affects the outcome of combat. If you cast 5 spells with the +4 to DC, one of them which normally would not have worked will suddenly work.

At fourth level, Sorcerers Pact is already more potent (+4 to 2 spells, actually +2 to 3 spells if you consider 0th level spells, but they are typically not as potent as skills) than the dual skill bonus feats (+2 to 2 skills). At eighteenth level, it is +4 to 9 spells as compared to +2 to 2 skills (and there isn't a skill in the game that compares to third or higher level spells).

+2 to Diplomacy (and +2 to Bluff) may slightly affect the outcome of a meeting with an NPC. +4 to DC for Charm Person will nearly guarantee that the diplomacy works in the sorcerers favor.


+4 to initiative??? That changes the odds of a character who decides to take Improved Initiative to win initiative over the same character without it from 47.5% win, 5% tie, 47.5% lose to 66% win, 4% tie, 30% lose.

Sure, this is a substantial increase in percentage. But, in reality, it is not that potent. The reason is that although winning initiative helps in a combat, very few combats are decided within the first round or two where that advantage is significant. For combats that last 4 or more rounds (and most challenging encounters typically last more than 4 rounds), that advantage starts to evaporate. That feat (i.e. advantage) is also diluted with things like surprise.


With these examples, you are illustrating my point. It is ok to have +2 to 2 skills that are only used a few times per day (if at all). It is not ok to have +4 to DC for spells where many of them will often be cast most days. And, the other problem with this feat is that it adds more spells as the caster goes up level. So, it becomes even MORE potent as it goes along. Unlike other feats which basically maintain the same level of relative potency.


The only defensive advantages fighter-types have over spell casters at higher levels (where spell casters rule) is hit points and the fact that fighter-types can sometimes save against spells. This feat takes away that secondary defensive chance of survival and is unbalanced if for no other reason than that.

 

[KarinsDad]

Edit: If your mages only memorize one spell per spell level then hit them in the sitautions where this will hurt them to show them it is good to spread out a little. This is not metagaming by the dm though. If they only memorize fireballs from 3rd level on up for all of their slots then they will suck outside of combat, or in combat vs evasion types, or anyone with any fire resistance. This feat strikes me as just great for flavor.

This feat is for Sorcerers. They do not memorize spells. It should be fairly easy to still spread out their spells as much as normally possible and still get one at each level that matches the criteria for this feat.

Edit cont: Would anyone allow it if it was +4 to spell penetration instead? what about +2 saves and +2 penetration?

Nope and nope.

 

[(Psi)SeveredHead]

Yes, instant plot hooks, great adventures, but not of the players choosing.

Patron "Hey, go into Tomb of Horrors and see what's up."

Player "But I don't want to, we need to investigate the White Plume Mountain "

Patron "I don't care, do what I say or loose my patronage and abilities I grant you"

The player and patron should not always see eye to eye. Or maybe they do, but the other players don't agree with the demands the patron is making.

This isn't really a balance consideration ... the player can go to the White Plume Mountain, have fun there anyway, collect his XP and gold, etc.

 

[navriin]

Ugh.

The idea of the feat is cool, but a +4 bonus is way too high. I wouldn't buy the whole 'but it only applies to a limited number of spells' argument, because of course it's only going to apply to the spells that *matter*. Applied to save or die spells and the like this becomes very potent indeed.

Now if it was only a +1 or +2 bonus I wouldn't have a problem with it. While +1 is more balanced since it stacks with spell focus, etc, it probably wouldn't be appealing enough for players to take unless it was +2.

That said, what is up with the whole line of thinking that mechanical bonuses can't be counterbalanced by RP limitations in 3-3.5 ed? I think this silly thought is leading to less RP in the game as a whole. Heck, why RP when the books imply its not something necessary? (Luckily I am blessed with players who RP, but many are not). I understand the idea that an RP penalty is not much of a penalty to those who don't roleplay, but I also feel that some people who play this kind of game would take uber things whether they have drawbacks or not, RP, mechanical, or otherwise.

I really wish they would start using RP counterbalances again, especially in things like prestige classes and theme feats. Just label the class/feat as balanced by RP only. This would be good for the roleplayers, and the non-roleplayers will choose to 'follow the rules' or not on their own.

Basically I'm tired of things being nerfed by the 'vocal minority'.

 

[Crothian]

This isn't really a balance consideration ... the player can go to the White Plume Mountain, have fun there anyway, collect his XP and gold, etc.

Not if the Patron says no. "Failure to uphold the service or oath sworn to the patron results in a loss of the benefits of this feat. Sorcerers who break their pacts also risk the ire of their former patron."

THis really depends on the DM to make sure the oath and or service to the patron is something substancial and it is easily enforcible.

 

[Scion]

You are way off base with this opinion. Sure, the feats after it are strong, but Dodge is one of the most underrated feats in the game.

Sorry, but I feel that you are way off base with your assumption about it being anymore more than marginal at best.

It wont work if you are surprised, does a greatly reduced amount of effect if you happen to have more than one enemy and guess wrong as to which might attack you, and, if nothing else, the sheer amount of bookkeeping sucks. I could go through all of the counter examples to what you have said, but I believe I've seen you in posts that have done so before, if people who can explain better wont convince you then the feat must be fine in your campaign.

Now, if it just granted a straight +1 dodge bonus all of the time whenever you had your dex bonus then sure. At that point I would love the feat, but as is it is nearly worthless.

Perhaps your campaign is with 25 point buy or lower and armor is hard to come by, that could be true, and it is fine. As you get to higher levels in any campaign though it loses any edge it had.

Dodge is one of those feats that is 'overbalanced', make it +1 ac dodge bonus whenever not denied dex and I'd love it to no end. Currently, just having to remember and specify drops it by a lot, and the sheer lack of usefulness kills the rest of it for me.

You realize that you are comparing +2 to 2 skills to +4 to DC (i.e. being better in 2 skills vs. being much much better in many spells). You use most skills a couple of times per adventure, typically not in combat (except for a few like Tumble), and you use the +4 to DC multiple times every day with multiple different spells. +2 to Diplomacy (and +2 to Bribery) may slightly affect the outcome of a meeting with an NPC. +4 to DC for Charm Person will nearly guarantee that the diplomacy works in the sorcerers favor. +4 to initiative???

Yes, I do realize what I am comparing to, thanks for asking.

I understand your points, but they have been gone over on so many other threads as to be pointless to discuss again ;/

A +2 to 2 different skills gives a character more options and could potentially effect the campaign more than a +4 to one spell. Whoever wins initiative has probably won the battle, or at the very least has a huge advantage over the other side. If you dont even get to cast your spell because you lost initiative which feat would you have rather had?

Guy is immune to charm or resistant? problably not to diplomacy. Casting a spell on someone without permission is generally considered a hostile act. You want to make armor/weapon/item faster and better, +2 to various skills will help much more.

I am guessing you are more worried about combat though. +2 tumble gets the character closer to not needing to roll to tumble past any enemy, this is a big combat boost.

Sorcerers get very few spell choices per level anyway and in order to gain maximum use out of this feat they just signed away around 10 spells off of that. This is a serious hit. Especially if some are spells that are rarely, if ever, useful to the particular caster.

Again, use this feat or not whatever, but if anyone is going to use it the dm will have to do his bit as well. What is wrong with a feat that will enhance the campaign and very likely do little harm to it? If it is hurting your campaign then you obviously werent thinking clearly when you picked the spells, or your player is doing a great job.

You seem like a guy who has reasoned things out, we both have our reasons for liking or disliking certain things in the game. All in all, this feat seems hard to break unless the dm lets it be broken. That is the only real problem.

 

[Scion]

Ugh.

The idea of the feat is cool, but a +4 bonus is way too high. I wouldn't buy the whole 'but it only applies to a limited number of spells' argument, because of course it's only going to apply to the spells that *matter*. Applied to save or die spells and the like this becomes very potent indeed.

I agree with most of what you said navriin at least to some degree.

Although, for the first part, I doubt most dms would allow save or dies to be part of the list of spells.

Very hard to say though, I came up with a few spell lists for various partrons the other day. They were all thematically correct but werent overpowering. ::shrugs:: if you dont like the +4 save then I'd suggest changing it so that you do like it. Personally I feel +4 penetration is very cool It opens up a lot of different spells, and getting through sr doesnt mean the spell always works.



It seems there are quite a few who feel the +4 is too high, but +1 is obviously too low, possibly even +2 as well since you dont really get to choose the spells it is good for. +3 is back up to your too high again. How would you fix it??