Post/Author/DateTime	Post
tarkin 07-10-07, 01:54 PM	Real Magic Metamagic feat. Pre requistes: ??? Can only be applied to a spell that says SR:Yes. The spell now says SR:No. A Real Magic spell costs +2 spell levels to cast.
Dalthbar 07-10-07, 02:05 PM	I like this. A lot. I might want to see a spell caster level pre-req on this one. It's probably something that a spell caster would only really take until later levels when they're more familiar with spell resistance and it's nuances.
zorgling25 07-10-07, 02:10 PM	This is kind of neat, though some comparison with Spell Penetration should be in order. You might also want to change the name to something like "Penetrating Spell" or something.
Dalthbar 07-10-07, 02:20 PM	No, definitely keep the feat name. While obvious and descriptive names are useful, I can appreciate a clever name even more :)
tarkin 07-10-07, 02:35 PM	I can see a pre-req. How about Spell Penetration as a pre-req?
Dalthbar 07-10-07, 02:40 PM	Spell Penetration certainly flows with the spirit of the feat and is a very reasonable pre-req.
zorgling25 07-10-07, 03:23 PM	No, definitely keep the feat name. While obvious and descriptive names are useful, I can appreciate a clever name even more :) Except it breaks the "xxxxx Spell" tradition of metamagic feats! :eek:
Dalthbar 07-10-07, 03:41 PM	Clever wins over tradition any day ;)
Witch 07-10-07, 03:43 PM	Real Magic Metamagic feat. Pre requistes: ??? Can only be applied to a spell that says SR:Yes. The spell now says SR:No. A Real Magic spell costs +2 spell levels to cast. Doesn't make any sense whatsoever. "I'm changing you into this little toad... but the spell's effect is not magical, so you don't get your spell resistance against it!"
zorgling25 07-10-07, 03:45 PM	Doesn't make any sense whatsoever. "I'm changing you into this little toad... but the spell's effect is not magical, so you don't get your spell resistance against it!" Alternatively, you could make a metamagic feat that lets you cast a spell as though it were a supernatural ability...
Witch 07-10-07, 03:51 PM	Alternatively, you could make a metamagic feat that lets you cast a spell as though it were a supernatural ability... That would be an utterly broken feat, given that it wouldn't require any components.
zorgling25 07-10-07, 03:53 PM	That would be an utterly broken feat, given that it wouldn't require any components. Thats easily changed: require that you still need the components, and tack on a spell-level adjustment appropriately high.
Dalthbar 07-10-07, 03:54 PM	Doesn't make any sense whatsoever. "I'm changing you into this little toad... but the spell's effect is not magical, so you don't get your spell resistance against it!" It doesn't change the spell effect so that it's not magical, the effect is simply changed so that spell resistance isn't applicable. There are plenty of spell effects that target people that do not allow spell resistance to apply - so it's not like it's unprecedented.
Witch 07-10-07, 03:55 PM	It doesn't change the spell effect so that it's not magical, the effect is simply changed so that spell resistance isn't applicable. And why wouldn't it be? Explain how this feat can work, and I may buy into it. There are plenty of spell effects that target people that do not allow spell resistance to apply - so it's not like it's unprecedented. Those generally can be forced to make sense as creating a nonmagical effect. This isn't the case for this feat.
tarkin 07-10-07, 04:44 PM	You are making a role-playing argument, not a game balance argument. The answer to that is simple: Re-adjust your Point of View, in part by using mystical sounding words, to imply that magic is being used to handle the problem. Here, let me throw in some fluff text, to convince you. Fluff text: You have mastered one of the ancient, secret magical arts of <Insert old magical kingdom/style/god/high level teacher here>. As a result, you may craft your spells to penetrate any spell resistance without fail. Doing so is dificult and makes the casting of such spells far more taxing than usual Treat the spell as two levels higher.
Witch 07-10-07, 05:22 PM	You are making a role-playing argument, not a game balance argument. That's because I haven't made up my mind yet on the game balance side - I'm sceptical, but open to be convinced. Re-adjust your Point of View, in part by using mystical sounding words, to imply that magic is being used to handle the problem. Here, let me throw in some fluff text, to convince you. Fluff text: You have mastered one of the ancient, secret magical arts of <Insert old magical kingdom/style/god/high level teacher here>. As a result, you may craft your spells to penetrate any spell resistance without fail. Doing so is dificult and makes the casting of such spells far more taxing than usual Treat the spell as two levels higher. Fluff needs to make sense for me. It doesn't make sense at this point. Ancient, secret magical arts are still magic. I can also "justify" adding Strength to Will saves by stating "by continually training your body strength, your mind has shared in the excercise, through continual focus." That's simply not very well thought out.
zorgling25 07-10-07, 05:24 PM	That's because I haven't made up my mind yet on the game balance side - I'm sceptical, but open to be convinced. Fluff needs to make sense for me. It doesn't make sense at this point. Ancient, secret magical arts are still magic. I can also "justify" adding Strength to Will saves by stating "by continually training your body strength, your mind has shared in the excercise, through continual focus." That's simply not very well thought out. I assume the OP is open to balance suggestions if you have them. And if this is the worst fluff text that you've seen, then you need to read your sourcebooks more carefully. :P
NoldorForce 07-10-07, 05:44 PM	"Penetrating Spell" provides enough fluff text for me. How does the Spell Penetration line work, anyway? Likely in a similar manner to this.
Witch 07-10-07, 06:46 PM	Okay, on to balance concerns we go. Fortify Spell grants a +2 bonus to overcome spell resistance for each level the spell is prepared higher. In order to automatically overcome any theoretical spell resistance, the feat would need an infinite number of applications, rendering the feat in the original post with a spell slot adjustment of + infinite. Ofcourse, as I'm a relatively reasonable man, I'll be assuming a bonus of +10 will suffice for overcoming any spell resistance that character will meet. That gives us a +5 spell slot adjustment according to Fortify Spell. Now, if we add the fact that the spells with the feat from this thread are going to be able to affect golems and other magic immune creatures, I'd say you need to add an additional +2. In a strict game, this feat would not exist. In a loose game, this feat might exist at a spell slot adjustment of +7. In a power game, this feat might exist at a spell slot adjustment of +5. In an anything goes game, this feat might exist at a spell slot adjustment of +2. I'm still not convinced on the flavor of the feat, though.
dknight100 07-10-07, 07:00 PM	As far as balance goes, this is out of wack. as the poster above has shown, there is a precedence for SR defeating metamagic feats, and this gives the equivalent of 5x the bonus (on the lowest estimate) simply for adding 1 more spell level. If you're really set on making this feat, you should add in at least 2 really useless prereqs to balance this out, otherwise its insanely good.
NeueRegel 07-10-07, 07:05 PM	I pee-d my pants laughing the second I read the title of the thread. Then, Tarkin, I pee'd my pants all over again when I saw it was yours. I don't know whether to keep laughing, or to high-five you. Neue
Genetic 07-10-07, 07:06 PM	Penetrating Spell Pre-Requisite: Spell Penetration, Greater Spell Penetration, Fortify Spell This spell automatically overcomes spell resistance when cast. However, it does not negate spell resistance and is thus ineffective against creatures immune to magic, such as golems. A penetrating spell uses up a spell slot 4 levels higher than the spell's actual level. Yay?
Witch 07-10-07, 07:08 PM	Looks far more balanced (and doesn't share the flavor problems). But I'd personally make it an Epic feat and also add Epic Spell Penetration as a prerequisite.
Leress 07-10-07, 09:59 PM	Real Magic Metamagic feat. Pre requistes: ??? Can only be applied to a spell that says SR:Yes. The spell now says SR:No. A Real Magic spell costs +2 spell levels to cast. Why have this feat you will only fail most SR by rolling a 1,2, or 3 if you have Spell penetration and Greater Spell penetration. Penetrating Spell Pre-Requisite: Spell Penetration, Greater Spell Penetration, Fortify Spell This spell automatically overcomes spell resistance when cast. However, it does not negate spell resistance and is thus ineffective against creatures immune to magic, such as golems. A penetrating spell uses up a spell slot 4 levels higher than the spell's actual level. Yay? That is not very good since you would most likely be able to get through most spell Resistance anyway. Looks far more balanced (and doesn't share the flavor problems). But I'd personally make it an Epic feat and also add Epic Spell Penetration as a prerequisite. If you are at the point of having it epic you are already dealing with magic that can go through SR. Also if you have Epic Spell penetration you will only fail on a roll of 1 and that is solved with an ioun stone. There is really no reason to take this feat.
aelryinth 07-11-07, 12:54 AM	Most higher level monsters have SR of CR+12, which means they are assuminig you have Spell Penetration. Epic monsters have SR of CR+16, which assumes you have EPiC Spell Penetration. ===Aelryinth
TheAnthroDM 07-11-07, 12:55 AM	Looks okay, but the name absolutely positively has to go.
TheAnthroDM 07-11-07, 12:56 AM	Most higher level monsters have SR of CR+12, which means they are assuminig you have Spell Penetration. Epic monsters have SR of CR+16, which assumes you have EPiC Spell Penetration. ===Aelryinth Or they're just assuming that spell resistance will be somewhat useful.
Witch 07-11-07, 05:53 AM	Why have this feat you will only fail most SR by rolling a 1,2, or 3 if you have Spell penetration and Greater Spell penetration. Simply untrue. i.e., a 16th level Wizard against a balor. Spell Resistance isn't negligible here, even when he has greater spell penetration. That is not very good since you would most likely be able to get through most spell Resistance anyway. How. If you are at the point of having it epic you are already dealing with magic that can go through SR. Also if you have Epic Spell penetration you will only fail on a roll of 1 and that is solved with an ioun stone.Because epic monsters' SR is extremely high. There is really no reason to take this feat. Yes, there is.
tarkin 07-11-07, 10:10 AM	Some people seem to be considering SR to be much stronger than I think it is. Please note that it is fairly EASY to create a spell, ANY spell that has SR: No. Usually, taking an attack spell and making it SR:No is worth maybe a +1 spell level. If you do not agree with that statement, I suggest you look at the Orb attack spells, Acid Fog, etc. If I were to be convinced that SR:No is too much for a mere +2 spell levels, then instead of raising the spell level cost, I would instead make it school specific. I.E Put in Spell Focus (School) as a pre req in addition to Spell Penetration, then rule that each time you took this feat it only applied to a single school of magic that you had taken Spell Focus in.
Leress 07-11-07, 11:40 AM	Simply untrue. i.e., a 16th level Wizard against a balor. Spell Resistance isn't negligible here, even when he has greater spell penetration. Well since a balor is a CR 20 of course it will be hard but you can still get passed it with a roll of 8 or more. How. with spell penetration and greater penertration Because epic monsters' SR is extremely high. Okay now you have to roll 6 or higher. Or you use epic brokenation...I mean spellcasting. By epic levels SR really doesn't matter since you play with BS anyway. Yes, there is. No there is not and with the level adjustment most of the spells you cast will be pointless and you are better off having gotten a better metamagic feat.
Witch 07-11-07, 11:48 AM	Okay now you have to roll 6 or higher. Or you use epic brokenation...I mean spellcasting. By epic levels SR really doesn't matter since you play with BS anyway. Ever played Epic with an experienced DM? Until you do that, I suggest not commenting on it. Some people seem to be considering SR to be much stronger than I think it is. No. I've provided you with a mathematical comparison with an already existing feat, which shows that yours is better on all accounts to an extreme degree. Your feat allows a level 3 Wizard to overcome the spell resistance of a Balor with a cantrip. It deals in absolutes. If someone else were to suggest it, you'd call it broken in an instant. Acid Fog doesn't allow SR, because it's a natural fog of acid that is magically sustained. An orb is a magically conjured real amount of material. That is why they don't have SR: Yes. This spell of yours isn't going to be merely applied to such spells. It will also be applied to Finger of Death, Ray of Enfeeblement, Enervation, Energy Drain, etcetera. You seem to have made up your mind already. So, fine. Here's my proposal for another feat. "Unignorable Magic." Does a similar thing for +2 spell levels: it removes the ability to make a saving throw.
Thiez 07-11-07, 11:53 AM	Some people seem to be considering SR to be much stronger than I think it is. Please note that it is fairly EASY to create a spell, ANY spell that has SR: No. Usually, taking an attack spell and making it SR:No is worth maybe a +1 spell level. If you do not agree with that statement, I suggest you look at the Orb attack spells, Acid Fog, etc. If I were to be convinced that SR:No is too much for a mere +2 spell levels, then instead of raising the spell level cost, I would instead make it school specific. I.E Put in Spell Focus (School) as a pre req in addition to Spell Penetration, then rule that each time you took this feat it only applied to a single school of magic that you had taken Spell Focus in. I thought most people agreed the Orbs are a Bad Thing ? Things that transmute your enemy into something else with SR: No don't make any sense to me.
zorgling25 07-11-07, 12:12 PM	Things that transmute your enemy into something else with SR: No don't make any sense to me. It depends whether you consider SR itself inherently magical (I do). If you do also, then the mechanic behind this feat would be that you devote extra spell energy to temporarily suppress the ability, similar to how dispel magic can suppress a magic item's inherent magical properties.
Esponer 07-11-07, 12:17 PM	Real Magic […] This should never have even been posted without some effort put into it: that is, full sentences, real consideration of game mechanics and at least some thought about prerequisites.
tarkin 07-11-07, 12:40 PM	This should never have even been posted without some effort put into it: that is, full sentences, real consideration of game mechanics and at least some thought about prerequisites. 1. Everything up there is a full sentence. No it does not have fluff text, that is not something I need help with. 2. I gave real consideration of game mechanics. You and some other people just disagree with my idea. But many of those posting here consider it to be a fair and valid idea as written. 3. The main reason I posted was that I wanted help discovering the pre-reqs. Anyone that cares more about FLUFF text than the crunchy stuff has no need to be here. Fluff text is fine to read, but does not need verification. It is silly to even talk about it. In general, what I posted was far from the worst post. I find your complaint however to be lacking in substance. It consists of personal insults about my style, nothing else.
Esponer 07-11-07, 01:14 PM	I gave real consideration of game mechanics. You and other people just disagree with my idea. The main reason I posted was that I wanted help discovering the pre-reqs. In general, what I posted was far from the worst post. I find your complaint however to be lacking in substance. It consists of insults without explanation. You are misunderstanding me if you believe that any part of my previous post contained an insult. However, I find it inadequate for a feat to be posted with no apparent effort put forth on behalf of the writer in the initial post. If you wish help discovering prerequisites, then by all means post — but write some prerequisites in there for others to discuss! It's nothing short of rude not to appear to be putting in any effort on your own part. It bothers me that you assume I disagree with your idea: I've not said anything about your idea yet. Witch has made excellent points on the balance, and Genetic has in my mind already made the best example of what you want and put some noticeable effort into it. I do not feel able to comment on your idea as so far I haven't seen an appreciable one to comment on. (That is not an insult — it is, however, a criticism.) As I feel you will be dissatisfied with my finding your opening post unsatisfactory, I'll give my own opinions on the discussion (but I feel I'll be rehashing old points). It will appear far more professional if the desired feat follows the conventional naming format for metamagic feats: that is, "[Adjective] Spell". Penetrating, Piercing, Sublime, Intense, Overwhelming or Incisive are some options. Some concept is required. Meet "Insidious Spell" — the spell you cast is warded by a film of pure energy which momentarily distracts the target's spell resistance which leaps to unravel the 'trick', allowing the spell to pass through spell resistance. Meet the divine "Empyreal Spell" — in a moment of divine inspiration, you cast a spell that borders upon the pure, irresistible supernatural which, like a supernatural ability, automatically overcomes spell resistance. Meet "Severe Spell" — you infuse your spell with such intense intent that it ephemerally shatters the resistive energy of its target, overcoming their spell resistance. Meet "Reliable Spell" — you dedicate additional concentration and power to making sure that your spell absolutely will not fail, attaching many little fail safes which allow it to slip through even the most powerful of spell resistance Depending on the concept, you may wish to do a little more with the mechanics. Perhaps an empyreal spell has some other traits in common with supernatural abilities? A severe spell might overcome a bit of energy resistance if applicable. A reliable spell might automatically do true average damage instead of dice of damage (if it's damaging). An insidious spell might catch the foe without their Dexterity bonus if a ranged touch attack is involved. It's fine not to include any such secondary effects but they can help turn an "okay" idea into a really interesting one. In terms of balance, you absolutely do not want to make it a supernatural spell (in response to earlier suggestion). We have to have some concern for what people can do with stuff at the upper end of powergaming, and the fact that supernatural spells can't be dispelled is going to be a pain for anyone playing a high power game if the feat works that way. You also need to really consider what other penetrative feats are out there. A +10% chance is about fair (Spell Penetration, Greater Spell Penetration) for an always active feat, so an instant success is at the very least going to require some significant prerequisites or a very major level boost. Think about all the ramifications. Is there anything else in the game that refers to spell resistance? Actually, yes — spell immunity. We don't want to overcome that (or if we do we really need to reconsider the whole concept and how powerful this really is), so we need to make a point of it. I'll leave it there for now. Witch has some interesting points, but I do believe that this is conceptually possible at least. I'm as of yet unsure as to whether or not this can be balanced pre-epic, and I am against absolutes in general. It's probably better to look at what range of levels you expect this to be used, think about what sort of bonus to penetration would be required to basically do what you're thinking, and then get back to us. For instance, say that you see this working around 16th to 20th level and almost always overcoming spell resistance. Look at monsters in that range: say a balor with SR 28. A 16th level caster who takes both feats averages 30, or fails 40% of the time. A +8 bonus would make it guaranteed. It also doesn't let a 3rd level caster overcome a balor's resistance, as +8 isn't enough for them, nor does it let a 16th level caster overcome the SR of an atropal (which is appropriate). Throw in prerequisites like spellcraft that make it accessible at around the level you want it, and you're almost done.
Esponer 07-11-07, 01:21 PM	Your response has since been edited, right? 1. Everything up there is a full sentence. No it does not have fluff text, that is not something I need help with. I was criticising the lack of effort your original post had evidenced: the lack of flavourful content was only one element of that. And no, you did not use full sentences. "Can only be applied to a spell that says SR:Yes" is not a full sentence: there is no subject. "The spell now says SR:No" is extremely sloppy. "A Real Magic spell costs +2 spell levels to cast" is also nonsense within D&D and implies you can pay for it with a 2nd level slot or two 1st level slots. I know what you intended, but you could have put a little more effort into what you were writing, and that is what I criticised. 2. I gave real consideration of game mechanics. You and some other people just disagree with my idea. But many of those posting here consider it to be a fair and valid idea as written. Your initial post does not include any consideration of game mechanics whatsoever. It consists of personal insults about my style, nothing else. I have made no personal insults or insults whatsoever, but I have indeed criticised your way of portraying your feat. I would not say I am criticising your "style" as I do not believe any definition of style includes sloppiness, lack of full sentences and lack of clarity.
Ralp 07-11-07, 01:58 PM	Man, if it bothers you that much, pretend the original post just said this: Hey guys, I'm adding a metamagic feat to my game that allows a spell to ignore spell resistance. Does a +2 spell level adjustment sound about right? I'm also interested in hearing ideas for appropriate prereqs for a feat like this. Thanks. Do you have a problem with this post? Because it's saying even less about fluff but asking exactly the same thing. Anyway, to respond to the feat itself, tarkin. I'd probably peg this at a +3 spell level adjustment in my game, but +2 is not unreasonable either. If it were me, I'd talk to my players about it to see what they thought. They'd probably try to talk me down to +2 since the same feat would be available to NPCs, but none of them currently has any SR.
Leress 07-11-07, 02:10 PM	Ever played Epic with an experienced DM? Until you do that, I suggest not commenting on it. You shouldn't on something you don't know about, like what games Epic games I've played in. I am just using what is in the rule books and applying it. No. I've provided you with a mathematical comparison with an already existing feat, which shows that yours is better on all accounts to an extreme degree. Your feat allows a level 3 Wizard to overcome the spell resistance of a Balor with a cantrip. It deals in absolutes. If someone else were to suggest it, you'd call it broken in an instant. No, I wouldn't since all it does is hit, and the balor still gets a saving throw which it would pass and then the wizard would die. Also Tarkin wanted to know what pre-requirements to add to the feat. Acid Fog doesn't allow SR, because it's a natural fog of acid that is magically sustained. An orb is a magically conjured real amount of material. That is why they don't have SR: Yes. This spell of yours isn't going to be merely applied to such spells. It will also be applied to Finger of Death, Ray of Enfeeblement, Enervation, Energy Drain, etcetera. Finger of Death has a saving throw, Ray of Enfeeblement can at most deal 11 Str damage, Enervation can place deal up to 4 negative levels per use, and Energy Drain up to 8. But wait you can't apply it to Energy Drain because it is a level 9 spell in a pre-epic game. You seem to have made up your mind already. So, fine. Here's my proposal for another feat. "Unignorable Magic." Does a similar thing for +2 spell levels: it removes the ability to make a saving throw. Well since Tarkin was looking for pre-requirements for his feat, than it is not similar is it? Now what pre-requirements would you have for that feat?
Witch 07-11-07, 03:07 PM	You shouldn't on something you don't know about, like what games Epic games I've played in. I am just using what is in the rule books and applying it. Rule books don't suffice at epic levels, where DM intervention becomes more important. More particularly, reasonableness trumps legality. Look at most people on the epic board: we don't buy into ruleslawyers. We know you can break the game at any level, and ignore people who advocate it and thereby justify even more unbalancing stuff. No, I wouldn't since all it does is hit, and the balor still gets a saving throw which it would pass and then the wizard would die. Also Tarkin wanted to know what pre-requirements to add to the feat. What you wouldn't is irrelevant, as the claim was that Tarkin would call it broken in an instant if someone else suggested it, not you. Finger of Death has a saving throw, Ray of Enfeeblement can at most deal 11 Str damage, Enervation can place deal up to 4 negative levels per use, and Energy Drain up to 8. But wait you can't apply it to Energy Drain because it is a level 9 spell in a pre-epic game. What? Are you going to be advocating that things shouldn't be balanced in epic level? I don't see the game as narrowly. Something need be balanced in general, not just pre-epic. 4 negative levels per use is drastic. My observations are the following: In general, spells are balanced around two of these three mechanisms: - an attack roll (generally trivial) - spell resistance (not trivial) - a saving throw (not trivial) Just removing one of these will bring incredible amounts of trouble. 1. Everything up there is a full sentence. No it does not have fluff text, that is not something I need help with. Anyone that cares more about FLUFF text than the crunchy stuff has no need to be here. Fluff text is fine to read, but does not need verification. It is silly to even talk about it. Yes, you do need help with it. "Fluff and crunch" are not disparate concepts that can utterly ignore eachother. Flavor and mechanics, terms I actually prefer, because they are less biased, go hand in hand. You should create mechanics and flavor at the same time when designing, otherwise you get hollow feats that don't make sense (if one creates from the perspective of mechanics only), or imbalanced feats (if one creates from the perspective of flavor only). You do not just make random, empty mechanisms without flavor. There is no point in them. There are two reasons why feats shouldn't exist: - they're imbalanced. - they don't make sense. This feat suffers from both. Sure, you can go on saying that "I just want help with the prerequisites, I don't want comments". But that's sort of against the point of a message board. Your feat is badly designed, both in the compartment of flavor justifying mechanics as in that of mechanical balance. If you want people to supply you with prerequisites, try and have the feat make sense and be less imbalanced first. And no, you cannot state that your feat is not imbalanced as is, because at the same price as a feat from Complete Arcane (which adds a +4 bonus at the same spell level increase to overcome spell resistance), yours adds far more (namely infinite), as well as allows it to affect creatures immune to magic. If you call that "disagreeing with your perspective", that's fine by me. I call it objectively proving you wrong on your statement that it's balanced.
robitusinz 07-11-07, 05:58 PM	I think the balance here depends on the pre-reqs. I would not like to see this metamagic feat in the hands of low-level characters. From that viewpoint, it simply makes no sense. Why would a 3rd level Wizard be able to hit a Baalor with a Cantrip (as has been suggested)? A character that was focused in beating spell penetration, though, could and should be able to acquire a feat like this. IMO, pre-reqs should be Spell Penetration and Greater Spell Penetration, any other metamagic feat, and perhaps caster level 12th. Mechanics-wise, you MUST have Spell Penetration and Greater Spell Penetration as pre-reqs. If you don't, you make Spell Penetration and Greater Spell Penetration irrelevant, and I think this feat should simply be the "top tier" version of the Spell Penetration chain. I added "any other metamagic feat" since it seems to be the standard for all of the other "top tier" metamagic feats from Complete Arcane, such as Twin Spell. Finally, the CL 12 requirement is mostly insurance against someone using some class combo that lets him get this feat at like 3rd level. Also speaking mechanically, there's nothing that stops a player from "researching" a higher-level version of his favorite spell that has "SR: No". Like Tarkin mentioned, a lot of spells are SR: No already, and a lot of those are just different versions of lower-level spells. i.e. Instead of using Real Magic Fireball at SL 5, I can go ahead and create "Incinerate", a level 5 spell that does everything Fireball does, except it's SR: No.
Witch 07-11-07, 06:09 PM	Also speaking mechanically, there's nothing that stops a player from "researching" a higher-level version of his favorite spell that has "SR: No". Like Tarkin mentioned, a lot of spells are SR: No already, and a lot of those are just different versions of lower-level spells. i.e. Instead of using Real Magic Fireball at SL 5, I can go ahead and create "Incinerate", a level 5 spell that does everything Fireball does, except it's SR: No. I wouldn't allow someone to develop a higher level version of Finger of Death with "SR: No", for one.
Leress 07-11-07, 07:11 PM	@Witch As I said before the feat is bad because the benefits are not worth a feat slot since you are most likely going to get past SR any way. So we are arguing the same side (it is imbalanced) but from two different angles (you think is it an epic feat, while I say it is not worth the bytes to store it)
bitnine 07-11-07, 07:18 PM	I can also "justify" adding Strength to Will saves by stating "by continually training your body strength, your mind has shared in the excercise, through continual focus." Obviously the correct way to flesh out such a feat flavorwise would be: "You are able to punch bad thoughts into submission. So at least that's one thing you can thank your father for."I wouldn't allow someone to develop a higher level version of Finger of Death with "SR: No", for one.Huh. Don't feel like researching slightly different versions spells to have the effects you want but change about the parts you don't like is something that would fly in a strict game?So we are arguing the same side (it is imbalanced) but from two different angles (you think is it an epic feat, while I say it is not worth the bytes to store it)Can't it be both? Let's say, (perhaps hypothetically if you like) the feat normally sucks walnuts, but if your player wants it and isn't brain-dead, they they are using its unlimited nature for some edge case sick trick. That might fit both bills.
Witch 07-11-07, 07:29 PM	@Witch As I said before the feat is bad because the benefits are not worth a feat slot since you are most likely going to get past SR any way. And you're simply wrong at that. Assuming a sixteenth level caster, versus a Balor. Now, he has Spell Resistance 28. That means the caster needs to roll a 12 or higher. 55% chance of failure. Let's assume he has Spell Penetration. He now needs to roll a 10 or higher. 45% chance of failure. Greater Spell Penetration. 8 or higher. Still a 35% chance of failure. This feat: 0% chance of failure, for any caster, whatever caster level he has. Even against infinite spell resistance, such as the one that golems have. I don't find a removal of a 35% chance of failure "trivial" or "underpowered". In fact, it's equivalent to raising the save DC by 7 to some degree. So we are arguing the same side (it is imbalanced) but from two different angles (you think is it an epic feat, while I say it is not worth the bytes to store it) No, I think the later proposed version is an epic feat. I think Tarkin's version is mostly unacceptable - and if it were acceptable, it'd be at +7 slot adjustment. Obviously the correct way to flesh out such a feat flavorwise would be: "You are able to punch bad thoughts into submission. So at least that's one thing you can thank your father for." Punching bad thoughts, ofcourse, is not something you do with strength. As I'm sure you know. Huh. Don't feel like researching slightly different versions spells to have the effects you want but change about the parts you don't like is something that would fly in a strict game? No, I don't think that'd fly in a strict game. And my games are far from strict, and it wouldn't fly in mine if it didn't make sense either. In fact, I often find myself in agreement to Tarkin's "power gamer" category.
Leress 07-11-07, 08:19 PM	Can't it be both? Let's say, (perhaps hypothetically if you like) the feat normally sucks walnuts, but if your player wants it and isn't brain-dead, they they are using its unlimited nature for some edge case sick trick. That might fit both bills. Yes it can be both (and most likely is) And you're simply wrong at that. Assuming a sixteenth level caster, versus a Balor. Now, he has Spell Resistance 28. That means the caster needs to roll a 12 or higher. 55% chance of failure. Let's assume he has Spell Penetration. He now needs to roll a 10 or higher. 45% chance of failure. Greater Spell Penetration. 8 or higher. Still a 35% chance of failure. This feat: 0% chance of failure, for any caster, whatever caster level he has. Even against infinite spell resistance, such as the one that golems have. Yes, it will help, but you will have fewer spell like that to cast. Also mmunity to Magic (Ex) Golems have immunity to most magical and supernatural effects, except when otherwise noted. That is not spell resistance so it won't effect golems I don't find a removal of a 35% chance of failure "trivial" or "underpowered". In fact, it's equivalent to raising the save DC by 7 to some degree. It is not the same as raising the Save DC, since that is for saving throws. SR would be more like AC. No, I think the later proposed version is an epic feat. I think Tarkin's version is mostly unacceptable - and if it were acceptable, it'd be at +7 slot adjustment. and that would make it completely worthless. Because at an epic level most of the lower level spells are not worth casting.
Witch 07-11-07, 08:25 PM	That is not spell resistance so it won't effect golems Immunity to Magic (Ex) A clay golem is immune to any spell or spell-like ability that allows spell resistance. Immunity to Magic (Ex) A flesh golem is immune to any spell or spell-like ability that allows spell resistance. And so on. and that would make it completely worthless. Because at an epic level most of the lower level spells are not worth casting. Really? Why would enervation stop being worth it?
Leress 07-11-07, 09:42 PM	And so on. Okay, my mistake Really? Why would enervation stop being worth it? When you get energy drain...or Gate or any other spell that is vastly better.
Qube 07-12-07, 09:41 AM	The spell now says SR:No. Only if meleeers get a feat that their attack always hits, nomather what the AC.
zorgling25 07-12-07, 10:08 AM	Only if meleeers get a feat that their attack always hits, nomather what the AC. See, thats not a viable analogy, because while there are plenty of things that don't have SR, I challenge you to find an enemy with no AC (heck there isn't one even with AC 0).
Qube 07-12-07, 11:36 AM	See, thats not a viable analogy, because while there are plenty of things that don't have SR, I challenge you to find an enemy with no AC (heck there isn't one even with AC 0). OK, how about this; since the wizard can apply this to spells without other saves; only allow the meleer to use the sure hit feat with only 1 type of weapon.
zorgling25 07-12-07, 12:04 PM	OK, how about this; since the wizard can apply this to spells without other saves; only allow the meleer to use the sure hit feat with only 1 type of weapon. Then the fighter would have to take a penalty to something else. All metamagic feats don't give you a bonus for free, thus that feat shouldn't either. Say, you have to do it as a full attack action and you give up all your other attacks and (maybe) take a penalty to AC until your next round. These are all suggestions, make changes as you which.
Thiez 07-12-07, 01:21 PM	Okay, my mistake When you get energy drain...or Gate or any other spell that is vastly better. Energy Drain sucks compared to Enervation. Metamagics can make Enervation really scary. Less so with a 9th level spell like Energy Drain. I think it's fair to say Gate is one of the best spells in the game, and vastly better than most 9th level spells.
KirkBb 07-12-07, 01:55 PM	And you're simply wrong at that. Assuming a sixteenth level caster, versus a Balor. Now, he has Spell Resistance 28. That means the caster needs to roll a 12 or higher. 55% chance of failure. Let's assume he has Spell Penetration. He now needs to roll a 10 or higher. 45% chance of failure. Greater Spell Penetration. 8 or higher. Still a 35% chance of failure. This feat: 0% chance of failure, for any caster, whatever caster level he has. Even against infinite spell resistance, such as the one that golems have. I don't find a removal of a 35% chance of failure "trivial" or "underpowered". In fact, it's equivalent to raising the save DC by 7 to some degree. . OK, stop right there, your comparing feats that are always active (Spell Penetration and Greater Spell Penetration) to a METAMAGIC FEAT. Your point would be incredibly valid IF this was an always active feat that came at no cost to you. I think your forgetting this. Also, your example is a little flawed, a CR20 creature isn't close to what a lone level 16 wizard would be fighting. Lets bump that wizard level up to 20, decreasing his chance to fail by 20% So now the chance is at 15% OK, now lets look at the cost of that +2 to spell level. Minimally, MINIMALLY one could say that the extra +2 to the spell level is equivalent to a spell of the same level (In this case, lets assume 7th level spells). Now with 2 spells being cast you half the failure chance. It is now at 7.5% I think 7.5% is reasonable, don't you? Oh, and before I forget, there is already a feat available in Complete Mage that lets you take ten on all caster level checks. Thats a 50% bonus right there, and I don't see any feats that give a +10 bonus to the save DC, also destroying your arguement that save DCs and and SR are comparable in terms of power. Good day, Sir!
Witch 07-12-07, 01:59 PM	OK, stop right there, your comparing feats that are always active (Spell Penetration and Greater Spell Penetration) to a METAMAGIC FEAT. Your point would be incredibly valid IF this was an always active feat that came at no cost to you. I think your forgetting this. No, I'm not comparing them at all. My comparison to another feat you'll find earlier on this thread. My showing what Spell Penetration & Greater Spell Penetration did is solely to show that Spell Resistance isn't trivial. Also, your example is a little flawed, a CR20 creature isn't close to what a lone level 16 wizard would be fighting. Lets bump that wizard level up to 20, decreasing his chance to fail by 20% Whoever said "lone"? He's not alone. He's in a party. I threw a level 16 Wizard in there because a balor is something that could be met by a 16th level Wizard and still be killed without a Deus Ex Machina maneuvre. Oh, and before I forget, there is already a feat available in Complete Mage that lets you take ten on all caster level checks. Complete Arcane, actually. It also prevents you from using it on the higher spell resistances. Thats a 50% bonus right there, and I don't see any feats that give a +10 bonus to the save DC Taking 10 isn't the same as adding 10. Read my comparison to Fortify Spell before you throw in your own say. That's the essence of my argument.
Thiez 07-12-07, 02:12 PM	Taking 10 isn't the same as adding 10. Indeed. In fact, since the average roll would be 10.5, you're 'rolling' below average by taking 10 :D
dknight100 07-12-07, 05:10 PM	Yea, calling out the Complete Arcane's take 10 feat for overcoming SR doesn't affect this - it doesnt add 10, it makes your roll 10, rather than something between 1 and 20 inclusive. This is only good vs monsters who's SR you could overcome about 50% of the time. Even 1 single point of SR over that mark, and taking that 10 is an automatic fail. What does affect this, is the comparison to fortify spell, which for 1 less spell level, provides a much smaller benefit. I can't really be bothered figuring out what you guys are really arguing about, because that right there shows this feat either should never be made, or should have VERY high (and not very useful) prerequisites for taking.
zelf_gale 07-12-07, 06:16 PM	Name: Real Magic Spell Prerequisites: Epic Spell Penetration,Fortify Spell Benefit: A real magic spell uses up a spell slot one level higher than the spell’s actual level. For the DM: If you wish to remove any of the prerequisite feats (including prerequisites for the feats listed) just increase the spell slot increase by two (2) for each prerequisite feat removed.
bitnine 07-12-07, 06:28 PM	Punching bad thoughts, ofcourse, is not something you do with strength. As I'm sure you know.Well, it's not something I can do, certainly. My parents loved me.Yea, calling out the Complete Arcane's take 10 feat for overcoming SR doesn't affect this - it doesnt add 10, it makes your roll 10, rather than something between 1 and 20 inclusive.Wait... are you asserting that there exists an actualized functional difference between a character who automatically succeeds on SR checks and the character that takes that feat? If so, I'm curious if that's the sort of thing you'd be willing to take odds on and bet money.
dknight100 07-12-07, 07:16 PM	Well, it's not something I can do, certainly. My parents loved me.Wait... are you asserting that there exists an actualized functional difference between a character who automatically succeeds on SR checks and the character that takes that feat? If so, I'm curious if that's the sort of thing you'd be willing to take odds on and bet money. of course there is an actual difference. One of those two is an automatic success against anything, one is an automatic success against something that you stand a 50% chance of beating. Furthermore, your entire referencing of the take 10 on SR feat is irrellevant. one of those is a standard, non-metamagic feat which may be applied without penalty, the pay off being what i described above, the other is a metamagic feat. As far as metamagic feats go, it needs some severe balancing, due to the huge difference between itself and a metamagic feat designed for a very similar purpose (overcoming SR). Basically, i'm saying that that particular point of yours is both flawed and irrelevant.
Qube 07-13-07, 02:27 AM	still not agreeing: arcane thesis (if needed) + maze + no SR taking away SR is like taking away the save, or taking away AC. I have no problem with a bonus. I have problems with complete removal (my matter of principle). lvl 200 super immune to magic villan appears lvl 5 wiz magic missles him :looloo: (or worse lvl 17 wizard mazes him)
Thiez 07-13-07, 08:26 AM	still not agreeing: arcane thesis (if needed) + maze + no SR taking away SR is like taking away the save, or taking away AC. I have no problem with a bonus. I have problems with complete removal (my matter of principle). lvl 200 super immune to magic villan appears lvl 5 wiz magic missles him :looloo: (or worse lvl 17 wizard mazes him) If a few lvl 17 wizards would take turns mazing him, they could even damage that guy with Transdimensional AOE spells :P
Yaeri 07-13-07, 11:07 AM	I like the idea. I think many a wizard would find such a metamagic feat interesting. I'm sure something can be made out of this. I dislike absolutes. (Also in official rules) Being able to pierce spell resistance way above your level is something I dislike, but encounters with creatures of such power should probably require special treatment anyway. So maybe it doesn't matter, but still I personally would prefer a very big bonus to caster level checks. Piercing spell immunity is something that worries me too. I would rule that out. The prerequisites already suggested sound fine to me, although I don't think epic spell penetration should be one of them. As for spell slot adjustment I'm leaning towards +3 (if magic immune creatures are excluded)
Avatar of Kokusho 07-13-07, 11:26 AM	I would personally find a feat like this to be VERY interesting, however... I have to agree with Witch on this one. It should be an epic feat, with the prerequisite of Epic Spell Penetration. Why? For reasons already stated by others. Spell resistance (as much as it personally annoys me) is one way to balance out spellcasters. Give a high level caster the ability to basically ignore SR and truly stupid things can occur. The level adjustment as posted originally is FAR too low; +2 level adjustment is almost nothing. There are plenty of spells that allow for SR but do not have a saving throw that this could be added to for devastating results, even pre-epic. Power Word Blind, anyone? As for the comment regarding low level spells being useless at high levels, I REALLY beg to differ. There's a LOT of fun stuff you can do with a magic missile, enervation, ray of enfeeblement, ray of clumsiness (great for dragons), and so on.
mangalpandey 07-13-07, 07:48 PM	My suggestions for Real Magic: - I really think it needs Spell Focus (Conjuration) as a prereq. It fits the flavor of the metamagic, as conjuration has many spells that bypass SR because they are "real", created by magic. This balances the feat a bit because Conjurors would have to decide if they really needed more SR-beating power, and non-Conjurors would have to decide if they really wanted SF(Conjuration). - Balance-wise, I think if this feat were published, it would include Spell Penetration as an additional prereq. Alternatively, increase the spell level to +3. No-SR isn't all that great (argument aside), but +2 is a bit too cheap for this feat to be put in a bunch of MM rods, effectively ignoring any feat prerequisites.
Mula 07-13-07, 08:16 PM	Penetrating Spell Pre-Requisite: Spell Penetration, Greater Spell Penetration, Fortify Spell This spell automatically overcomes spell resistance when cast. However, it does not negate spell resistance and is thus ineffective against creatures immune to magic, such as golems. A penetrating spell uses up a spell slot 4 levels higher than the spell's actual level. Yay? Wizard: I cast penetrating Evard's Black Tentacles! BBEG: :eek:
dknight100 07-14-07, 09:40 AM	Wizard: I cast penetrating Evard's Black Tentacles! BBEG: :eek: i love in OOTS, Evard's Black Tentacles of Forced Intrusion
pmurray@bigpond.com 07-15-07, 02:04 AM	Wildly overpowered compared to the "Fortify Spell" feat. (use up a higher level slot, add +2 to spell penetration per level up) This is one of those feats to which the answer to "would a caster ever not take this" is no. Mind you - by that standard "natural spell" is also overpowered.