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

[KarinsDad]

A +2 to 2 different skills gives a character more options and could potentially effect the campaign more than a +4 to one spell.

What you keep forgetting is that it is not +4 to one spell, it is +4 to 2 spells at first level (equally good or better as +2 to 2 skills at first level) and +4 to 10 spells at eighteenth level (and many magnitudes better than +2 to 2 skills at eighteenth level).

As a feat at first level, it is not extremely unbalanced. But since it scales with level (unlike the +2 dual skill feats), as a feat at eighteenth level where opponents rarely make their saves against Fingers of Death and the like, it is overwhelmingly unbalanced.

 

[Scion]

What you keep forgetting is that it is not +4 to one spell, it is +4 to 2 spells at first level (equally good or better as +2 to 2 skills at first level) and +4 to 10 spells at eighteenth level (and many magnitudes better than +2 to 2 skills at eighteenth level).

As a feat at first level, it is not extremely unbalanced. But since it scales with level (unlike the +2 dual skill feats), as a feat at eighteenth level where opponents rarely make their saves against Fingers of Death and the like, it is overwhelmingly unbalanced.

Here we may have the biggest difference in our campaigns. Regulaly saves increase much much faster than dcs. At that level I would expect people to save on a weak save around 90% of the time (this figure includes sr). With this feat plus a few others people are trying to push 60% bubble. Having an extra +4 on a very limited selection of spells which I get to pick and not the player is definately not going to be overpowered. Since it will help rp situations, make them feel like certain spells mean something, and probably give me the chance to make up brand new spells just to put in those slots this feat is very worthwhile for me. There are others like me with my campaign out there, but not every feat is made for every campaign. Nor should the be.

Giving out to the lowest common denomenator is going to kill the game if it keeps persisting as it does from 3.0 - 3.5. Just my opinion of course.

 

[Crothian]

What you keep forgetting is that it is not +4 to one spell, it is +4 to 2 spells at first level (equally good or better as +2 to 2 skills at first level) and +4 to 10 spells at eighteenth level (and many magnitudes better than +2 to 2 skills at eighteenth level).

So, which is better +4 to ten spells or +1 to all spells? A sorcerer can easily pick all spells from a single school and get +1 to all the DCs. And with the number of spells out there it would be easy to collect only spells that require saving throws.

 

[Kichwas]

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.

If we put it in those terms, Sorcerous Pact gives a total +40. They've got lists in the book for the player to choose what spells it gives a bonus to.


Spell Focus will give -at least- +10, but likely more.

I would say it's the wrong way to look at it.

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.

Note that this feat is only available to sorcerers, not wizards. Memorization is a moot point in terms of balancers for this feat. I would personally argue that Spell Focus is more powerful in the hands of a Sorcerer than a Wizard -because the Sorcerer is likely to use it more often.

By contrast, the old version of Spellcasting Prodigy was equally powerful in the hands of a Sorcerer or Wizard - as it applied to all spells from a chosen class.


Note that Sorcerous Pact applying to 10 spells is actually applying to roughly 1/4 of all the spells a Sorcerer will ever have. That can easily thus apply to every spell they take that has a save DC which is 'save or spell works' rather than just 'save to weaken the spell'.

 

[reiella]

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'.

Well simple answer is because RP is the game.

Look at the Vows, etc, in Book of Exalted Deeds for some Roleplaying content that results in significant changes. They also get backed with some mechanic balancing.

Most often, balance wise, the Roleplaying balance is something that the Character would be doing anyway (the Paladin being noble and not trying to mutilate unarmed harmless children). Or a feat that gives a significant bonus to sleight of hand if the rogue steals an item every game session.

They also tend to come off as "Carots" to "Roleplay" certain character types. And really, why do we need to bait our players into roleplaying? Isn't that why they're at the game in the first place?

That said, I don't so much more general roleplaying restrictions (such as Prestige Class, multiclassing, etc, just stuff to do when time is available to help flesh out the character and the situation). But even then, it's a roleplaying ADDITION rather than a requirement.

Onto content wise, baring the rp consideration, or even with the RP consideration...

Contemplate a feat that gave a +4 bonus to DCs of spells cast from one of your Domains. It still ends up roughly less powerful than the feat we're talking about (No Orisons to consider, and potentially only spell slot/lvl). Even the RP requirement is implied by the caster being a Cleric. I still wouldn't like (or use/allow) such a feat, -unless- I was using +2/+4 Spell Focus, and didn't allow it to stack with SF/GSF...

 

[MeepoTheMighty]

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?

Probably all the splatbooks in 2nd edition that tried to give out huge mechanical bonuses balanced by reaction penalties towards sheepherders.

 

[KarinsDad]

So, which is better +4 to ten spells or +1 to all spells? A sorcerer can easily pick all spells from a single school and get +1 to all the DCs. And with the number of spells out there it would be easy to collect only spells that require saving throws.

Assuming a CHA of 26 at 20th level, that would be 56 spells at +1 (10 of which are nearly worthless 0 level spells), so 46 spells at +1 or +46. At +4, that would be 10 spells (1 of which is a nearly worthless 0 level spell), so 9 spells at +4 or +36.

However, to gain this big +46, the sorcerer had to forego all other spell schools (which will practically cripple the sorcerer and he will not survive to 20th level, he will not be versatile enough). On top of that, although he has more spells, each of them have a 3 lower DC which means that they will not work as often. Hence, he has to cast more spells to get the same effect.

Overall, +4 to 10 spells is much more potent than +2 to 2 skills and is also much more potent than +1 to 56 spells.

Regulaly saves increase much much faster than dcs. At that level I would expect people to save on a weak save around 90% of the time (this figure includes sr). With this feat plus a few others people are trying to push 60% bubble.

You must be using the advanced math.

The "weak saves" increase from +0 to +6 in 17 levels (i.e. by the time the sorcerer goes from level 1 to 18). That is an increase of 6, about +1 per 3 levels.

The "strong saves" increase from +2 to +11 in 17 levels. That is an increase of 9, about +1 per 2 levels.

The sorcerer, however, gains 8 spell levels from level 1 to 18. Again, almost +1 per 2 levels. And for every defensive item that opponents could gain, the sorcerer also could gain a CHA item AND he most likely increases his CHA at least twice and maybe as often as four times between levels four, eight, twelve, and sixteen.

So ignoring items (where the sorcerer can and probably will have a bonus to CHA just like a different character could have a bonus to CON or DEX or WIS), the sorcerer will typically increase 9 or 10 on his highest level spell DCs whereas the strong saves will increase 8 to 9.

Against weak saves, it is 9 or 10 versus 6 or 7.

Granted, his lower levels spells do not do this good, but we are NOT talking about "weak saves" being a 90% save chance (as you claimed), not even against first level spells (DC 16 versus +9 is a 70% chance to save). Weak saves against 9th level spells will be DC 24 versus +9 or 30% chance. Even with SR, this save range does not go from 30%-70% up to 90%.

Giving the sorcerer +4 to his DC drops these to 50% for a first level spell and 10% for a ninth level spell.

Strong saves are DC 16 versus +14 against first level spells or 95%. They are DC 24 versus +14 or 55% for a ninth level spell.

Giving the sorcerer +4 to his DC drops these to 65% for a first level spell and 35% for a ninth level spell. And since the sorcerer decides whether to throw a first level spell or a ninth level one, chances are that any DC spell against a tough opponent will be a higher level spell with a high DC.

And remember, it takes merely a full round spell for a sorcerer to heighten any spell to ninth level and make the DC huge.

But, the strong saves are not the issue. The weak saves are the issue. Many classes have one or two weak saves which makes defeating them extremely easy (especially if you heighten your spell, you throw Spell Focus in, etc.). A guy in heavy armor, throw a reflex save at him, a will save if you are sure he is not a divine spell caster.. A guy in no armor casting spells, throw a reflex save, a fort save if you are sure he is not a divine spell caster. You chances of success are big enough without the +4 DC. With the +4 DC, your chances are huge.


Spell resistance, on the other hand, makes the save chances better, but think about what we are discussing. SR is a mechanism that few PCs or non-monster NPCs will have. Sure, high level monsters may or may not have it, but high level monsters that do have it are not SUPPOSED to be easily taken out or seriously damaged with a single spell. And high level NPCs with no spell resistance and weak saves will be like tissue paper.


And yes, there are typically a few more defensive items than offensive items available in games. That does not justify allowing into the game a situation where same level opponents have a 5% or 10% or even a 20% chance to save versus death. That's lunacy.

 

[Crothian]

However, to gain this big +46, the sorcerer had to forego all other spell schools (which will practically cripple the sorcerer and he will not survive to 20th level, he will not be versatile enough).

A sorcerer can easily pick spells form only one school and be okay. It's not a solo game, and there are wands and other magical items that can be used to cover the important missing spells. There are thousands of spells out there from all the schools, so the list to pick from will easily include ones that are versitile and useful and be able to cover the sorcerer's limitations.

Characters do not have to be versatile to surive anyway, it's a group game. Plus the sorcerer stay in the back, so while the fighter might die because of what the sorcerer is lacking, the sorcerer has time to run

 

[jasamcarl]

A sorcerer can easily pick spells form only one school and be okay. It's not a solo game, and there are wands and other magical items that can be used to cover the important missing spells. There are thousands of spells out there from all the schools, so the list to pick from will easily include ones that are versitile and useful and be able to cover the sorcerer's limitations.

Characters do not have to be versatile to surive anyway, it's a group game. Plus the sorcerer stay in the back, so while the fighter might die because of what the sorcerer is lacking, the sorcerer has time to run

I might be misreading your intent, but if spell diversity isn't an issue, what balances the +1 to saves versus +4?

 

[KarinsDad]

A sorcerer can easily pick spells form only one school and be okay. It's not a solo game, and there are wands and other magical items that can be used to cover the important missing spells. There are thousands of spells out there from all the schools, so the list to pick from will easily include ones that are versitile and useful and be able to cover the sorcerer's limitations.

If you say so. I don't believe it for a second though. Sure, if you start the sorcerer out at 10th level and give him a handful of wands from other schools, he has a fair chance of survival.

But, not at first level. If he takes Evocation spells only (for example), he has no Mage Armor. No Shield. No Mount. No Expeditious Retreat.

No way to protect, no way to run and probably no way to survive. AC 10 to 14 just isn't going to cut it with 4 to 7 hit points if you pick all spells from one of the schools that actually has DCs in it.

Ditto for the other DC spell schools. The only school that gives any versatility at all is Transmutation and the first and second level spells in it are not that likely to keep you alive since there are no protection spells in that school and the offensive ones are close range (although there are some mobility spells).

The fact is that Sorcerers get so few different spells that they really have to take a few offensive, a few defensive, a few mobility, etc. to survive and no one school provides all of that.

On top of that, your example with the Spell Focus feat, although valid to do, still results in a Sorcerer, even in his area of expertise, who is weaker than one with the Sorcerer Pact feat. That feat is just too potent at +4. +1 DC for all spells from one school is nowhere near as potent at +4 DC for one spell per spell level. That just gives the Sorcerer the equivalent of a 4 level heightened spell at every level that he can cast at the lower level and without a full round spell action. If he throws Heighten Spell and/or Spell Focus on top of those spells, it makes them just that much more potent.

Do the math.

Sure, you might be able to find some broken spell that doesn't really belong in a certain school, but some third party company shoe horned it in so that they could have, for example, a defensive spell in the transmutation school for Specialist Wizard Transmuters. But, just because one third party spell is broken and would boost the power of a low level one school sorcerer some does not mean that Sorcerers Pact is any less broken.