WW's Sorcerous Pact feat -the new Spellcasting Prodigy, or not?
- Thread starter Kichwas
- Start date
Crothian said:
Which negative is that?
The fact that the patron picks the spells, the patron can take the feat away, or the patron can get ticked at you?
Yawn.
If the player is playing the PC reasonably well, none of these will negatively impact the PC in most campaigns unless the DM is a dick.
It really does not matter too much which spells the patron picks. If the PC acquires Vampiric Touch +4 DC, Charm Person +4 DC, Fireball +4 DC, Phantasmal Killer +4 DC, Major Image +4 DC, or Polymorph Others +4 DC, the player is going to take serious advantage of the bonus.
Useful spells or less useful spells, the player is still going to kick butt. And most players I know wouldn't just take the feat without knowing which spells or spell types they would be getting. Hence, the negatives are almost non-existent for a reasonably good player and the positives are huge. In fact, the patron himself can easily become yet another positive for the feat (plot hooks, source of information, potential source of magic item purchase, etc.).
So yes, you can just compare the numbers and get a real good idea of just how broken this feat really is.
KarinsDad said:You must be using the advanced math.
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.
Nah, simple math
and lets not ignore items. You can pretty easily get +10 or higher to your saves with items, the reverse cannot be said for dcs. Bonus to dc mainly maxes out with the +6 item to a stat plus some feats. I've had characters who were really fearful about some of their saves so went on entire adventures just on any hint or whisper about knowledge of someone being immune to this or highly resistant to that. Even just a simple +5 cloak of resistance costs 2/3 of the stat item and is more than 50% better.Looking at the table for what bonuses can do what none of them list dcs while 7 list saves. +5 resistance, +5 insight, +5 luck. It may be a lot of money, but it is nothing for the levels we are talking, and that is +15. The +3 from the stat item just doesnt even come close. There are still 4 other bonuses to choose from for more bonuses as well.
Even with a +0 save and +0 stat mod this makes that save +15. 9th level spell, 32 stat, +2 feat = 32. Still pass it with a 17 or higher. Not too shabby considering.
Immunities are pretty easy to gain as well for that matter.
Last edited:
Crothian
First Post
KarinsDad said:
So, the ability to loose the feat altogether is worthless? That keeping the patron happy is going to be easy as eating pie? THe patron could easily pick fire spells and then the party could go against monsters immune to fire. It's all in the hands of the DM and there are enough Rat Bastard DMs out there to do that. I'm not one of them, but I will make the patron at the very least an inconvience. If the DM is going to make these negatives be a yawn then you might as well also allow the fighter to use expertise or Power Attack all the time without a penalty to attack. I'm pretty sure that most people would call those feats broken if the penalty was not enforced as well.
Scion said:Nah, simple math
No doubt about it. You can get more defensive items than offensive items.
But, you have to survive to do that and the vast majority of opponents at all levels will not have a boatload of these types of items in most campaigns (otherwise, the PCs will quickly acquire them). A first level Sorcerer with +4 DC Daze can help out his party immensely compared to the Sorcerer without that +4. The one with the feat has a much better chance of survival.
His DC goes from 13 or so to 17 or so and most non-spell casters will not make that save. Even most spell casters will only make it 30% to 50% of the time.
Scion said:
Let's be realistic. How many of these items actually exist in the core rules and how many actually make it into the hands of PCs (or NPCs for that matter) in most campaigns? Sure, a DM can introduce new items of these types to his game, but there are only a few in the actual DMG (3E rules):
Potion of Heroism, +2 to saves, 900 GP (single use per potion, has to be activated)
Staff of Power +2 to saves, 200,000 GP (nearly impossible to obtain until real high level)
Candle of Invocation +2 to saves, 7800 GP (easy to blow out, knock over, etc.)
Cloak of Resistance +1 to +5 to saves, 1000 GP to 25000 GP (the main contender for defensive items)
Horn of Goodness/Evil +2 to saves, 6000 GP (only against evil if good, good if evil, no powers if neutral, does not stack with Cloak of Resistance)
Pale Green Ioun Stone, +1 to save, 20000 GP (does not stack with Potion of Heroism)
Robe of the Archmagi, +1 to saves, 75000 GP (does not stack with Cloak or Horn)
Robe of Stars, +1 to saves, 58000 GP (does not stack with Staff of Power)
Stone of Good Luck, +1 to saves, 10000 GP (does not stack with Robe of Stars or Staff of Power)
So, if you just HAPPENED to have the right combination of these items (Potion of Heroism drunk, Staff of Power, Candle of Invocation burning, and +5 Cloak of Resistance), you could beef your save up by +11 (not +15).
But is that even close to reality for the vast majority of opponents in the vast majority of games? Are crafting or acquiring +5 luck bonus items when there isn't so much as a single +3 luck bonus item in the DMG reality for most games? Not for any competent DM that I've ever encountered.
Typically the high level Sorcerer will have his +6 (i.e. +3 to DC) CHA item and his opponents MAY once in a blue moon have as high as a +5 Cloak of Resistance. But even a +5 Cloak of Resistance merely takes a characters weak save types up to the same level as his strong save types at high level.
And if the NPC opponents have +5 Cloak of Resistances, that means that soon all of the PCs will have them as well. The DMs I have played with might only introduce one of them to an entire campaign for NPC opponents (and that would probably be for the greatest NPC reoccurring villain).
The Sorcerer, on the other hand, gets the +4 DC to certain spells at level one (which straight out counters a +4 Cloak of Resistance) with Sorcerers Pact. A 16000 GP item nullified at first level.
Right off the bat, no magic items required. Everyones a winner. No blanks.
And, btw, the reason that Damage Reduction and Spell Resistance exists for monsters is so that they cannot be one shot destroyed and once destroyed, the PCs cannot take those protections away from them and use them for themselves.
Scion said:
Uh, where?
Not at low to mid level to my knowledge.
Sure, there are some spell resistance items and some spell turning items, but those should be extremely rare as well (i.e. most NPC opponents will not have them) and low to mid level opponents will rarely if ever have them.
You are really stretching by discussing magic defensive items. Not only are there not that many of them, not only do not that many NPC opponents have them (in most campaigns) enough to offset +4 DC, but none of that really matters with regard to the issue of whether Sorcerers Pact is broken anyway.
Wizards do not get feats that give +4 to DC. Why should Sorcerers when Sorcerers already can cast more spells per day (and hence, have more spells to cast when one fails)?
Magic items are basically non-sequitor to the issue of the power level of Sorcerers Pact. If they are prevalent enough to become so in a campaign, then the campaign is already Monty Haul and you might as well introduce overly potent feats. What's another +4 DC when your PCs have +15 or more worth of save protection already?
Crothian said:
Pretty much so.
Sure, the DM can play that card if he is a rat bastard.
But, this clause is mostly like the one where if you fail to pay your mortgage, the bank can foreclose on your house.
Most people pay their mortgages, hence, most banks do not foreclose. It is not in their vested interest to do so.
Just like it would not be in a patrons vested interest to weaken his pawn. He WANTS his pawn to succeed so that he can reap the benefits of that.
Pretty much a non-sequitor issue unless the player plays like an idiot or the DM plays the patron like an idiot. It can come into play, but probably won’t in most campaigns.
And like I said, a patron will probably be more helpful than hindrance in the long run if played properly. YMMV on roleplaying elements.
Crothian
First Post
THe feat is powerful and the patron liability is there to balance it. So, it has to be played as a negative more then a positive. While a patron might not want to weaken his pawn, he want the pawn to promote the patrons goals and not the pawns goals. And what of the rest of the party who's only connection to the patron is because their party member is connected to him. This is not a passive thing like paying a morgage. THe feat was written for the scared lands and that sets the tone for the patron character relationship.
Allanon
Explorer
[RANT]And this is the whole explanation needed to allow or disallow this feat. All the hogwash about balancing or not is only to be applied to WotC non-campaign specific splatbooks. Although one could use the Scarred Lands books as splatbooks everything contained there in is meant and flavored for the Scarred Lands.Crothian said:
Already mentioned in this thread is Spellfire from the Forgotten Realms. If all the books of FR had been OGC would people have whined (which they do now even without it being OGC) about Spellfire.
Spellfire in a campaign world without things like the Red Mages, etc. would be hugely unbalancing. Even in FR where these organisations are present people complain that it's overpowered because they or their DM can't balance it's roleplaying aspect. Is this a problem of the feat? No, it's a problem of the user and the one allowing it.
Or as a better example let's consider the WotC spell planer ally. Everyone whines it's overpowered because it's balanced by it's roleplaying aspect. Same goes for Gate and similar spells. Spells one has to consider before giving their player's acces to or otherwise has to balance by making them do quests or similar 'roleplaying' tasks to make them think twice before calling their 3rd planatar or Solar for the day.
Sorcerous Pact is a feat meant to be balanced by it's roleplaying aspect. If you don't like that, don't use it. I for one would happily buy books containing suchs feats as long as they have normal feats too and the roleplaying ones are clearly flavored.
Everyone jumps in this discussion as if they were obligated to allow a player to use sorcerous pact, why? Nowhere is it stated that one has to use it. If people really want to discuss the usefullness of this feat let them first DM or play in a well DM'd scarred lands game where it's allowed.[/RANT]
Last edited:
Crothian said:
Hmmm.
Every single Cleric, Druid, Ranger, and Paladin has a patron in the core rules. How many times have you as a DM taken away the party Druids spells or shape changing ability because he wasn't "playing in character". You can only do this as DM if the player is actually being an idiot with their character, otherwise, you may just find that your players will walk.
That restriction is a joke. The only reason you are trying to make it out as something bigger and badder than what it should be is because you are aware of the sheer power of the feat.
Allanon said:
Usually when you have this much discussion about a feat, it IS the problem of the balance of the feat and not the people using it.
When Sword and Fist first came out, there was a lot of discussion on the imbalance of several feats in it. Why? Because they were broke.
However, as a community, us gamers have become so jaded on what is truly balanced and what is not that many will allow just about anything into their games (or at least into our gaming discussions). The Bigger, Better, Badder Syndrome strikes yet again.
And part of this is the fault of WotC. Not only did they allow some really unbalanced feats into their products and not set down good guidelines for feat limitations, they set the tone for what is allowable and then turn around and nerf many of those with the introduction of 3.5.
Well sure, if you are going to give people candy and then take it away from them, they are going to turn to other sources for even more candy. Doing that creates a bunch of addicts. And, it doesn't help that there are a bunch of third party vendors out there trying to outdo the candy of the other vendors (including WotC).
Similar Threads
