Post/Author/DateTime	Post
Thenameless 10-24-06, 05:04 PM	Hi All, I'm playing a wizard in our current campaign, and just recently bought the book, Complete Mage. Our DM is unsure on whether to allow me use of the new reserve feats in there, because they might be overpowered or broken. What are your thoughts, please? Thanks.
The White Sorcerer 10-24-06, 05:21 PM	You should playtest them. Take one as your next feat, and see what happens. If it's broken, substitute the reserve feat for something else.
Antioch 10-24-06, 05:47 PM	I dont personally see them as "broken". I doubt taking one would destroy game balance, or make the rest of the game unfun for other players, or overshadow another person's PC. Perhaps, it might hedge in a bit on what the sorcerer can do. My advice, as TWS said, is to take one of the feats with the DM's permission under the stipulation that if it does somehow destroy the game that you will "forget" it and instead take another feat. People can feed you all the statistical data or who you lots of charts, or graphs, or whatever, but ultimately its going to depend on how your DM runs, and how you play. Designers try to do the best they can for an ideal "average" game, but not everyone uses a "four encounters per day" model, or even a four person party model.
DarknessEternal 10-24-06, 06:52 PM	There's a thread on the Psionics board that includes all the reasoning why these feats are not overpowered.
Archangel62 10-25-06, 12:57 AM	The only problematic one I could see might be the summoning one but that one has its own issues as well so I can't give too much one way or another.
Nezkrul 10-25-06, 02:07 AM	i don't really see the summoning one as a problem because the monster summoned is always a small elemental. Yes the elemental can help the rogue and warrior flank, but thats what every summoning spell does. This one just makes it so the wizard doesn't have to cast his highest level summoning spell that he prepared to get the same effect; ie he is summoning a very weak monster to do what the other one he could have summoned could do better. Aside from the fact that wizard still CAN summon the bigger monster later, if doesn't cast that big summon spell that day, then it really wasn't a big deal then. Hardly anyone follows the 4 encounters of your CR per day shpeel.
runestar 10-25-06, 05:09 AM	One problem would be if one of your players was playing a shambling mould/had one as a cohort and your wiz had that reserve feat letting you shoot off mini-lightning bolts at will...:D
Thelon Fairblade 10-25-06, 09:44 AM	The best analysis comment I read (on another thread): The vast experience of D&D players is that a battle for a well-built and well-equipped party rarely lasts an entire minute (10 rounds) -- many end within 4 rounds. Cast a real spell - you won't be running out. So... you're a 7th level wizard. you have upwards of 15 spells, which is more than enough for 3 such battles in a day. Why use a 3d6 fire burst when you could have actually cast that 7d6 fireball? Okay, at this level, you might want to open up with 3d6 bursts in the first battle that day, keeping the fireball in reserve -- the exact intent of the feat. Now, let's check back at level 12. That fireball-powered reserve feat is still 3d6. But you could be disintegrating the target with your standard action instead. Or finger of death, or cone of cold, or baleful polymorph... and all of these options end the fight much faster, and don't require that fireball in teh first place. Now, do you want to do a 3d6 fire burst? End result: balanced or maybe powerful at low level, when it does what it is intended to do. by 10th... it's a waste to use your action for that..... Except, to be fair, it's unlimited. You could wander around and do firebursts to your heart's content, every round all day long, making you the terror of commoners and forests everywhere!
Manic Man 10-25-06, 10:17 AM	The one summoning an elemental could be broken with some thought. Earth elementals have earth glide, air elementals can fly, water elementals can dive. The elemental doesn't have to just fight for you. Its ok if it dies as you can always summon another. Put those 3 together and you should get some ideas. The evocation ones with fire, ice, etc, could prove to be a problem in the hands of an immature player (think pyromaniac). Overall the reserve feats are almost all above average in power. I would agree with the previous poster that suggested trying it out with the caveat that it would be changed if it was deemed overpowered.
Armoracia Rusticana 10-25-06, 12:47 PM	12 level. Prepare fireball hightened to 6-th level. Voila, use 6d6 bursts at will... It has its cost, but I believe it would work.
Worloch 10-25-06, 03:27 PM	I believe they are a bit over the top, but most especially for wizards. The fact is, a wizard is balanced around 2 basic precepts. 1) Limited Spells per Day 2) Preparing spells slots ahead of time. Most of the reserve feats allow a half-way clever player to overcome both limitations in a fashion. The feats do scale, though not as well as the spells they are keying off of. Just make sure that you memorize higher level spells with appropriate descriptors. Fairly easy to do really. Because the requirements to activate the primary benefits of the feat are so generic, you can use the feat to fulfill one need, and prepare a spell that fulfills a different need. Wall of Force for defense, and a reserve feat that keys off of [Force] and does damage, for instance. In addition to that, they also overcome the more subtle limitations of spellcasting. They don't need any components, aren't affect by spell resistance and so forth. That's pretty nice for a spellcaster, who's prepared spell might not be optimal for the situation, but the reserve feat funtions nicely. Perhaps a golem attacks the party? To top it off, the feats all have a secondary benefit that functions even when the primary benefit isn't in affect. As such, I have recommended to my group that we do not use reserve feats, but your mileage may vary.
DarknessEternal 10-25-06, 05:02 PM	12 level. Prepare fireball hightened to 6-th level. Voila, use 6d6 bursts at will... It has its cost, but I believe it would work. As a 12th level Wizard, your 6d6 burst will not end any combat....ever. At best, reserve feats are handy. They can achieve cantrip level effects withou t the expenditure of a spell slot (yes, I'm saying doing 21 damage in a 10' square is a cantrip level effect for a 11th level character).
NineInchNall 10-25-06, 05:06 PM	Most of the reserve feats allow a half-way clever player to overcome both limitations in a fashion. That is rather their purpose. Yet they do not do so in a such way that the power level of the Wizard. The real balancing point of traditional spellcasters is that they can create huge effects a limited number of times per day. These feats give them something interesting to do when they're not shattering the world. The feats do scale, though not as well as the spells they are keying off of. Just make sure that you memorize higher level spells with appropriate descriptors. Fairly easy to do really. You mean like the book suggests you do? Pay attention to how weak these effects are compared to the effects that could be gained simply by using that spell slot actually to cast a spell. (*gasp*) Instead of zapping someone for 9d6 fire damage, I could zap someone for 24d6 fire + 8d6 bludgeoning. Or, if I hadn't wasted a feat on Fiery Burst, Imight have spent a feat on actually improving my spellcasting, allowing me to zap him for 40d6 fire. Instead of giving myself a minor ability through Minor Shapeshift (+5' movement, +2 damage, +2 skill bonus, weak claws, 20 temp hp) for 9 rounds I could actually use that ninth level slot to cast shapechange (or, ick, dragonform), getting all of that and more for 200 minutes. That's more than three hours. Because the requirements to activate the primary benefits of the feat are so generic, you can use the feat to fulfill one need, and prepare a spell that fulfills a different need. Wall of Force for defense, and a reserve feat that keys off of [Force] and does damage, for instance. So? In addition to that, they also overcome the more subtle limitations of spellcasting. They don't need any components, aren't affect by spell resistance and so forth. That's pretty nice for a spellcaster, who's prepared spell might not be optimal for the situation, but the reserve feat funtions nicely. Perhaps a golem attacks the party? Perhaps a golem attacks the party. Orb of X or summon monster come to mind. Buffing also does. A paltry few dice of damage certainly won't help unless he hasn't prepared anything else of use, in which case the damage is not going to save his posterior. To top it off, the feats all have a secondary benefit that functions even when the primary benefit isn't in affect. So they don't completely suck. As such, I have recommended to my group that we do not use reserve feats, but your mileage may vary. I really think that you should give the feats a try, and that you should do so with an open mind. Every round a Wizard uses an action to activate a reserve feat is a round in which he's not casting something game dominating. How. Is. That. Bad? Every feat spent on a reserve feat is one not spent on something that actually improves his spellcasting prowess. Again, how is that bad? 9d6 damage per round is nothing compared to what a warrior is dishing out at that level. 9d6 is an average of 31.5 damage per round. While the Wizard is doing this, the Barbarian is whomping things for 174 damage/round, the archer's getting off 135 damage/round, and the Rogue's sneak attacking things for 261 damage/round. Reserve feats give minor abilities in exchange for not using bigger and better abilities. Sure, a Wizard could make use of his 9d6 blast all day, but if he ever cast that 9th level spell, then he would no longer be ble to use the blast (or at least not as well). It's a strategical trade-off, and their extended use is a direct power down for the full caster, who otherwise would be outshining his teammates. Jiminy Cricket! A Sorcerer could just cast shapechange and be better than the rest of his party for more than three hours (six, if he uses a rod of extend spell or picked up Sudden Extend instead of Minor Shapeshift), but instead he uses the minor benefits of the Minor Shapeshift reserve feat. See the deliberate loss of power? I think that gives the rest of the characters ample chance to shine. Don't you? This way the Wizard can still contribute while watching all this damage get thrown about. I could see a Wizard plinking away all day and never actually tossing a real spell about, which would certainly make the melee types feel good.
Thane26425 10-25-06, 06:49 PM	While it is true that the fire feat might do less damage per shot, it is damage that can be dealt for longer. As long as one spell is retained, the wizard can use the feat over an over. Looked at this way, the feat is very powerful. While it might not provide instant kills, it can wear an enemy down or it can thin out the lesser enemies. Why waste that high level spell against a group of lesser monsters when the feat can take them down and keep the spell? Now, if the DM thinks this feat and its ilk are overpowered, let the player take it anyway. However, make more of the key enemies immune or highly resistant to the element in question. You could also have the monsters figure out the mage is really hurting them, arrange ambushes, etc. designed to kill said mage. A couple of archers with INT lowering poison could really ruin the mage's day.
Neon Knight 10-25-06, 07:34 PM	As the DM of said ca,paign I am reading with interest this thread. My thoughts of the Feat (I have not read the book yet), from what I understand is this: * Unlimited uses of lesser effect This is the part that sticks in my craw the most. UNLIMITED USES To know read that it ignores SR, likely has no save, and the rest to me robs a campaign of fun real quick. To do as previousposter said, allow the feat, make more lesser enemies immune fire, etc. Why? Why make more work for myself for something that is already overbalancing the campaign? I would rather see mage craft magic items (something they SHOULD be doing in the first place) to round out his spell casting repetoire. I would also see the feat function along the following lines: Have a 10 level fireball memorized and you want to fire off a 3d6 burst instead? OK, you fire the 3d6 burst, and you know have a 7d6 burst left memorized. It is called RESERVE isn't it? Reserves aren't unlimited. Eventually the reserve runs out. Again, my thoughts. The may be right, they may be wrong, but I am entitled to them ;) CHEERS!
Thane26425 10-25-06, 07:50 PM	Actually I said the key enemies. Those would be the "boss" enemies or the more difficult ones in an adventure. It shouldn't be too much more work. Simply give them resistance and say their mage or cleric had scrolls with the proper spell. Or, since the feats have a range of 30 feet or less, take advantage of that. For that matter, have a couple of tough critters bullrush through the front line and flatten the caster. I do have mixed feeling about these feats. On the one hand they seem really useful, but on the other they are feats that could go to something else. The damage would be nice as it would sort of put the mage on par with a fighter in that they could deal out regular damage over and over again, this levelling with the increased number of attacks and more powerful weapons a fighter gains. But I'm still not sure if I will take this feat with any of my characters.
bruiserdeck 10-25-06, 10:14 PM	personaly i think mages are a bit overpowered esepeically in the later levels. I also think that a part of being a mage is knowing when to apply your alwesome power and when to stand back biding your time or assisting with some kind of non magic like bows, crossbows, or healing or something. I dont think that a mage is required to cast a spell every round in order to feel like he is doing something. giving a mage the ability to apply signifigant damage as easily as the tank swings his sword (easier actually because many of the reserver feats do not require an attack roll) just rubs me the wrong way some how. great for the mage individually... but damaging the party. If the DM does insist on putting it in the game I think there should be a penalty. not so specific as having every one suddenly be resistant to fire. but make the enemy more tacticaly awareor something. when the enemy sees that the mage is running up towithin 20 feet and blasing him in the face. he should be more willing to go out of his way to take out the annoying squishy, discouraging blatant use of the ability. If nothing else i would say leave it out of THIS campeign as you hav gotten this far without it so the characters obviously dont need it to enjoy the game.
Jay_Ibero_911 10-25-06, 10:42 PM	If the unlimited use is the biggest issue, do you consider the Warlock broken too? The Reserve Feat's usefulness is entirely dependent on the campaign style. If the game tends to have just one tough fight per day, reserve feats are useless. If there are many average fights per day, the feat is still sub-optimal because instead of ending any of those fights quicker by just using your higher level spell, you plinked away and prolonged the fight with weaker abilities that result in more resources needed after the fight. It's really only "broken" if you plan on wandering around slaughtering commoners all day, in which case you become the god of such.
HamHam 10-25-06, 10:56 PM	This is the part that sticks in my craw the most. UNLIMITED USES Warlocks have already proved that unlimited uses of a sub-optimal abilities are at best decent, at worst useless.
Neon Knight 10-25-06, 11:36 PM	Warlocks have already proved that unlimited uses of a sub-optimal abilities are at best decent, at worst useless. Don't have Warlocks in my campaign. I am trying to run as close to core campaign as possible. One of the things that really turned me off Living Greyhawk is the fact that everything and anything is legal in the game. As a player of limited time and funds (and of course being the GM), is I don;t have time to read everything, and I don't want to buy everything. I want to have just my care books and that is it. After all, if I don't have fun, then no one will.
HamHam 10-25-06, 11:44 PM	Don't have Warlocks in my campaign. That doesn't mean it's not true. I am trying to run as close to core campaign as possible. One of the things that really turned me off Living Greyhawk is the fact that everything and anything is legal in the game. As a player of limited time and funds (and of course being the GM), is I don;t have time to read everything, and I don't want to buy everything. I want to have just my care books and that is it. So? I really don't understand this preoccupation with the DM having books. As long as someone has the book, it's essentially usable by the whole party. If no one has the book, then including things from the book isn't even an option. And if you can, gasp, trust your players not be complete idiots, the DM doesn't even have to read or understand everything. After all, if I don't have fun, then no one will. My initial impression of this statement is that you are in fact just a jerk DM.
Karak_Nechot 10-26-06, 12:23 AM	To know read that it ignores SR, likely has no save, and the rest to me robs a campaign of fun real quick. Nearly all the offensive ones have saves, or require an attack roll, just like most spells. And, gee, aren't there a ton of spells and effects that already ignore SR? Seriously, when you see how little damage the effect does and what you have to effectively give up (in actuality, not cast) in order to use it, you see that the feats are really not all that great. To do as previousposter said, allow the feat, make more lesser enemies immune fire, etc. Why? Why make more work for myself for something that is already overbalancing the campaign? I would rather see mage craft magic items (something they SHOULD be doing in the first place) to round out his spell casting repetoire. You don't need to have a feat like that. Frankly, the only thing I can see happening to the game is that the party will take on MORE encounters before the wizard is forced to prepare spells again, maybe even the number of encounter they are supposed to for a change. (I'm refering to the rather annoying habit some groups have of trying to rest after only one or two encounters to always have their spellcasters at full power.) With these feats, I can actually see the party casters toughing out another few encounters even when most of the best spells are gone. Sure, they are not as effective as they were earlier in that day, but at least they can contribute something. I would also see the feat function along the following lines: Have a 10 level fireball memorized and you want to fire off a 3d6 burst instead? OK, you fire the 3d6 burst, and you know have a 7d6 burst left memorized. It is called RESERVE isn't it? Reserves aren't unlimited. Eventually the reserve runs out. I would consider that feat to be totally useless then. Why on earth would you want to have a 5 ft. radius burst of a percentage of your fireball by taking a FEAT? That's beyond useless, actually, that actually HURTS your character. And the reserve DOES run out. It becomes lesser with each spell of that descriptor you cast until it finally runs out when you cast the last one. If you have one of your higher level spells as the primary source for the reserve feat, you have a moderately good effect until you actually use the spell, which will probably happen in course of an average adventure, considering that the high level spells are just so much better than the feat effects, and, frankly, necessary to actually do a spellcaster's job. When that spell is cast, it falls to the next highest spell, and becomes a lesser effect. If you have it matched up with one of your lower level spells, you will probably have the effect possibly for the entire day, but the effect will be so weak as to almost be negliable, but probably a little more preferable than randomly shooting a crossbow. Hell, even pulling out a wand of magic missileis better in most cases. However, it does stay at least an option to doing effectively nothing for round after round when a caster has used up most of his good stuff.
xanadu 10-26-06, 12:28 AM	This is the part that sticks in my craw the most. UNLIMITED USES CHEERS! Here my craw: unlimited uses = sucktaculer. It's not unlimited use. You cant cast a real spell that might contribute to combat. Instead you engage in some inefficient activity that will make the group's fighter seem effective. Memo to WOTC: 1) Unlimited use of a marginal effect <<<<<<<<<< limited use of semi-optimal powers. 2) No NPCs/monsters/DMs worry about PC breathe weapons. Really, it is a nice fireworks display but scales horribly and is never all that good to begin with.
Neon Knight 10-26-06, 01:11 AM	My initial impression of this statement is that you are in fact just a jerk DM. And your reply makes you out to be a jerk player who feels if the DM doesn't cave to your whim, he must be a jerk. Pot, meet kettle. Kettle, I give you pot. Last I checked D&D was a cooperative game. That means the players and the DM are supposed to be working together to make a fun game. My campaign is two sessions old, and I have likely been DMing longer than you have been alive, starting to play back in the white box days. To allow players to utilize things from outside the core rules **GASP** makes them more powerful. If as the DM, I build a campaign utilising only the core rules, but the players use nothing from the core rules and everything under the sun, the will soon outstrip the campaign world and the game will fall into ruin. As I said, I like to have fun playing D&D. Probably why I still do it even if my Wife hates it. To have a campaign I initially started on the grounds of being CORE to then have players, KNOWING it was to be as close to core as possible start asking for this from that source book, and that from that source book BEFORE THE CAMPAIGN EVEN STARTED, is to me a little disparaging, because I am taking a lot of time to put this together, and make me feel my efforts are not worth it.
HamHam 10-26-06, 01:31 AM	Last I checked D&D was a cooperative game. That means the players and the DM are supposed to be working together to make a fun game. Yes, they are. But a DM's fun should come from making his game fun for the players. To allow players to utilize things from outside the core rules **GASP** makes them more powerful. When that thing is Reserve Feats... it doesn't. Some things from splatbooks increase power levels, but a lot of it is useless jank. Reserve feats fall about in the middle, that is to say they are at an equivalent overall power level compated to Core, maybe even below it. If as the DM, I build a campaign utilising only the core rules, but the players use nothing from the core rules and everything under the sun, the will soon outstrip the campaign world and the game will fall into ruin. Rofl. CoDzilla. To have a campaign I initially started on the grounds of being CORE to then have players, KNOWING it was to be as close to core as possible start asking for this from that source book, and that from that source book BEFORE THE CAMPAIGN EVEN STARTED, is to me a little disparaging, because I am taking a lot of time to put this together, and make me feel my efforts are not worth it. Why? Taking a Reserve feat instead of say, Crafting, or Metamagic, or whatever else the Wizard might take is not going to make him more powerful than the Wizard who took an additional Metamagic feat or whatever. This isn't Divine Metamagic we're talking about here, it's freakin Reserve feats. Besides which, changing the numerical difficulty of a campaign is by far the easiest alteration you can make. Increase the number of monsters here, increase the level of an NPC there, etc. Once you have a campaign written out, and all the fluff and stuff, properly adjusting the CR as necessary is child's play. Frankly, I would say making 10 appropriate encounters for a party is easier then fleshing out one city with all the needed organizations, NPCs, buildings, etc.
Archangel62 10-26-06, 02:02 AM	i don't really see the summoning one as a problem because the monster summoned is always a small elemental. Yes the elemental can help the rogue and warrior flank, but thats what every summoning spell does. This one just makes it so the wizard doesn't have to cast his highest level summoning spell that he prepared to get the same effect; ie he is summoning a very weak monster to do what the other one he could have summoned could do better. Aside from the fact that wizard still CAN summon the bigger monster later, if doesn't cast that big summon spell that day, then it really wasn't a big deal then. Hardly anyone follows the 4 encounters of your CR per day shpeel. Actually if you read the full feat it states that it scales, it stops at medium, sure, but that's still pretty handy when you have it constantly. I am currently doing an experiment with a summoner and so far that feat has been a great pound/debuff rig. (I also have cloudy conjuration)
Archangel62 10-26-06, 02:06 AM	And your reply makes you out to be a jerk player who feels if the DM doesn't cave to your whim, he must be a jerk. Pot, meet kettle. Kettle, I give you pot. Last I checked D&D was a cooperative game. That means the players and the DM are supposed to be working together to make a fun game. My campaign is two sessions old, and I have likely been DMing longer than you have been alive, starting to play back in the white box days. To allow players to utilize things from outside the core rules **GASP** makes them more powerful. If as the DM, I build a campaign utilising only the core rules, but the players use nothing from the core rules and everything under the sun, the will soon outstrip the campaign world and the game will fall into ruin. As I said, I like to have fun playing D&D. Probably why I still do it even if my Wife hates it. To have a campaign I initially started on the grounds of being CORE to then have players, KNOWING it was to be as close to core as possible start asking for this from that source book, and that from that source book BEFORE THE CAMPAIGN EVEN STARTED, is to me a little disparaging, because I am taking a lot of time to put this together, and make me feel my efforts are not worth it. Ok, first off I really don't care how long you've been going, it doesn't make you a better player or DM than anyone here. When you say that if you can't have fun then no one will sounds selfish to say the least. I'm more of a mind to allow anything in so long as I can look at it first and pass judgement on it to make sure it fits in with the setting as built. Core only can be fun, but far too many DMs just mean Core only for players and everything under the sun for the DM. The fact is this, power levels don't necessarily go up automatically. It might make a character a bit better at one thing instead of something else, core only pretty much makes the fighter suck unless they prestige as fast as they possibly can.
HamHam 10-26-06, 02:10 AM	The summoning thing might actually be breakable if you get creative enough, assuming it does what I think it does (let you summon an elemental each round for free). Got a dungeon to explore? Just summon a bunch of earth elementals and send them to earth glide through and scout it out. If any don't come back, you know where the baddies are. Summon a bunch of air elementals to lift up an airship or something. This depends on the actual effect though. Does it let you summon as many as you want? How long do they last?
Karak_Nechot 10-26-06, 02:13 AM	Actually if you read the full feat it states that it scales, it stops at medium, sure, but that's still pretty handy when you have it constantly. I am currently doing an experiment with a summoner and so far that feat has been a great pound/debuff rig. (I also have cloudy conjuration) Uh, it stops at Large, actually, though that's with an 8th level spell. Having a Large elemental hanging around you at 15th level and higher isn't a bad thing, but not something I would chalk up as a huge benefit.
StruckingFuggle 10-26-06, 02:14 AM	The fact is this, power levels don't necessarily go up automatically. It might make a character a bit better at one thing instead of something else, core only pretty much makes the fighter suck unless they prestige as fast as they possibly can. Prestiege into what, as a Core-Only Fighter? Blackguard doesn't really work, and Dorfender only works if you're a Dwarf and even then only for a particular sort of Fighter, and the Core Duelist ...? HAH!
Karak_Nechot 10-26-06, 02:16 AM	The summoning thing might actually be breakable if you get creative enough, assuming it does what I think it does (let you summon an elemental each round for free). Got a dungeon to explore? Just summon a bunch of earth elementals and send them to earth glide through and scout it out. If any don't come back, you know where the baddies are. Summon a bunch of air elementals to lift up an airship or something. This depends on the actual effect though. Does it let you summon as many as you want? How long do they last? You can only have one elemental. It only lasts a number of rounds equal to the highest conjuration (summoning) spell you have. The summoned elemental has to remain within 30 feet of you by the end of your turn, or disappear. In otherwords, nothing you list there works.
HamHam 10-26-06, 02:17 AM	You can only have one elemental. It only lasts a number of rounds equal to the highest conjuration (summoning) spell you have. The summoned elemental has to remain within 30 feet of you by the end of your turn, or disappear. That sounds fine then.
Archangel62 10-26-06, 02:23 AM	Uh, it stops at Large, actually, though that's with an 8th level spell. Having a Large elemental hanging around you at 15th level and higher isn't a bad thing, but not something I would chalk up as a huge benefit. I don't think it's necessarily broken, I'd argue that it would be the strongest of the reserve feats but then again I like summoning anyways so that might be my bias.
HamHam 10-26-06, 02:27 AM	The only real use I see for it is to counter Mage Slayer, but a Bag of Tricks works just as well in that regards and is cheaper than wasting a feat. Other than that, it requires you to get within 30 ft of the enemy, which is something an arcanist never wants to be. Druids already have animal companions, and Clerics have better things to be doing.
Karak_Nechot 10-26-06, 02:43 AM	I don't think it's necessarily broken, I'd argue that it would be the strongest of the reserve feats but then again I like summoning anyways so that might be my bias. Trust me, I was not claiming it's broken. Frankly, I'm not sure these feats will see much play outside of theme casters. I was only pointing out that the feat allows for a Large elemental, and not a Medium as you posted earlier. If it capped out at Medium, I wouldn't even touch this feat. Large at least has some utility attached to it.
Archangel62 10-26-06, 08:12 AM	Trust me, I was not claiming it's broken. Frankly, I'm not sure these feats will see much play outside of theme casters. I was only pointing out that the feat allows for a Large elemental, and not a Medium as you posted earlier. If it capped out at Medium, I wouldn't even touch this feat. Large at least has some utility attached to it. Oh I know you didn't think it was broken, I was just explaining that I didn't find it necessarily broken, just that I had some reservations about it.
Thane26425 10-26-06, 08:35 AM	Let's look at this another way. PC's aren't the only ones that can take these feats, anyone in the D&D world can take them. That means that they could come up against foe with one of these feats. Imagine going to a dungeon or what have you where the wizard had one of these feats. They could show up along with a group of monsters, use the feat a few times causing moderate damage, but damage that would still represent a drain of resources, and high tail it before the party got close. They could shoot through doorways, hit the first character to enter a room, shoot from a balcony, etc. All this time they would be weakening the party, forcing it to use resources, until it was sufficiently weakened to launch a full attack. On the other hand, they could go all out sooner and still be able to harass a weakened party. Give them a wand or scrolls of Dimension Door and they would be hard to pin down. The lines of argument are very interesting. In some places people complain that mages are great but useless once they spend all their spells, which can happen early in a day actually. Others argue that a mage is too powerful to begin with. Reserve feats fall into the middle ground trying to please both camps: giving a mage lasting firepower at close range but firepower that is relatively weak compared to the spells they could be using. As they say, try to please everyone you end up pleasing no one.
Nezkrul 10-26-06, 09:15 AM	they pleased me :D i love the feats
DarknessEternal 10-26-06, 11:40 AM	Imagine going to a dungeon or what have you where the wizard had one of these feats. They could show up along with a group of monsters, use the feat a few times causing moderate damage, but damage that would still represent a drain of resources, and high tail it before the party got close. They could shoot through doorways, hit the first character to enter a room, shoot from a balcony, etc. All this time they would be weakening the party, forcing it to use resources, until it was sufficiently weakened to launch a full attack. On the other hand, they could go all out sooner and still be able to harass a weakened party. Give them a wand or scrolls of Dimension Door and they would be hard to pin down. OH NO! A Rogue with a bow! How can any party stand against it?!
Neon Knight 10-26-06, 12:58 PM	OK, I am going to try this again, as obviously I am failing in my attempts. I am just starting a new campaign, and I instituted the 'Nothing outside of core' for a reason. Yes there are craptacular feats. Yes there are feats that will rob a campaign of fun immediately. And yes there are feats that fall in the middle. Is reserver Feats one of the middle ground feats? Sure, it probably is, but as the DM of the campaign it is my choice. I have not read the feats, I don't have the book, and have no intention of buying the book. Others have said to reserve my judment until I have rread the book, something I wholeheartedly agree with. But in the end, the decision is mine. It comes down to the following. I want a core campaign. Not a Forgotten Realms/Eberron/Greyhawk/Dragonlance/Whatever else Wizards comes up with. Why is that so bad? I do not think I am being an Ogre. If I say to you: "I am going to run a campaign. It will be Core Rules only, do you want to play?" And you say "Sure, sounds like fun" How am I the Jerk if after two sessions you start whining you wany this feat from this book, this class from that book, etc, and I say "No." Who is the jerk? Me for saying No, or You for wanting something that you know from the initial ground rules I said No to? That is all I am going to say on this subject. I am done.
Onikani 10-26-06, 03:56 PM	then why even bring it up or ask about it? If you want a three book campaign, then that is your business, and no one will fault you for it. Enjoy your campaign. But if this is really what you wanted from teh begining, and this is what all the players agreed to in the beginning, then there is no need for discussion. And no need for this thread. The Op said he was in your campaign and wanted some feedback. I still fail to see the reason that you needed to come in here and ruin the discussion. I agree with that other poster, you do seem like a jerk of a DM, so much so that you had to come meddling in a thread to state your opinion when really it didn't concern you. Your mind was made up, and you didn't need to post here 3-4 times explaining that. That's between you and your players. Deal with it email. Keep it off the board.
Worloch 10-26-06, 04:14 PM	I'm not going to post a line by line response here, and I apologize for not having my books with, so I can not give precise examples. The basic thread of the counter arguements to my post seem to be that it is not a bad thing to remove the limitations placed on Arcane spellcasters, in part. If an arcane spellcaster can take this feat, and thereby avoid casting his high level spell in an encounter, is that unbalanced? I would say yes. The game was originally balanced (to whatever degree of balance it had attained) with spellcasters limited in their effects per day. Yes, the feats don't produce an effect on par with spell they are keyed off, in general, but they also don't require the same kind of expediture. 1 feat, out of 7, to get nigh-unlimited uses of [effect]. This effect is on par with lower level spells. Most people would agree that allowing unlimited access to low level spells would be unbalanced, but somehow these feats are different? I fail to see how, in a signifigant fashion. One big problem I have with them is that they make playing a spellcaster 'simple', for lack of a better term. The decision whether or not to blow a spell on an encounter is reduced to deciding whether to use the reserve feat again, or to blow the spell. Add in the fact that the spellcasters will still have multiple slots, and we're not even talking about holding back all that much. I do understand the "actions are prime resource in combat" arguement, and to an extent, I agree. Why use a 7d6 fiery burst when in the same time you can cast a 13d6 delayed blast fireball? The simple answer is, because I don't need to. The choice of what to cast when is trivialized. I doubt we will fail to convert the diehards on either side, so I am simply trying to provide a reasoned explanation of my point of view, for those who are trying to decide for themselves.
DrObviousSo 10-26-06, 04:52 PM	If an arcane spellcaster can take this feat, and thereby avoid casting his high level spell in an encounter, is that unbalanced? Generally thought, that's now how the reserve feats work. they don't give you the power of a high level spell. They give you the power level of a low level spell. The activated powers of reserve feats won't fill the role of the high level spell needed to power them. They will allow you to change up your lower level spells, keeping you from having to take taking the same 1st level spell 3 times. The balance is 1)This cost a feat that could very easily go toward metamagic or craft wand/potion/etc 2)This only works till you have to start blowing your big spells.
Keenath 10-26-06, 04:53 PM	Strongly suggest all the naysayers go back and read that thread on the Psi board that was linked in the second post. The short version is this: By the time you have a caster with more than a few levels, he has enough spells per day to cast every round of combat and still have spells left over. That's where untility spells come in, and long-term buffs, and so forth. The limitations on a higher end caster are not "spells per day", but "high level spells per day" and "casting time". By "high level" I mean, generally, your highest level slots plus your next-highest level slots. You can't honestly tell me that a 15th level wizard even notices his 1st level slots in combat. He probably doesn't even notice his 5th level slots! Well, the feat works the same way. You get an always on effect that is decent, though not great, and what amounts to a spell effect about 3 levels lower than the requisite reserve spell (it's a little better at low level and a little worse at the high end). The effect is twofold: On one hand, you get infinite use of an effect much below your potential, but not terrible. On the other hand, you tend to hang on to at least one of your high-level slots to keep that ability running. I don't see how it's a problem, honestly. I disagree with both extremes of this argument -- it's not overpowering or even balance-shifting, but it also isn't useless. Obviously everyone jumps at the "fire blast" thing, and it's going to be better early and worse later (when straight damage dealing is becoming passe anyway). But what about the one that lets you fly during your movement, so long as you end on a solid surface? Or the one that gives you indefinite Water Breathing (self only)? These can be very useful, but they don't exactly break the game. Frankly, I'm all for anything that pushes us away from Vancian magic.
NineInchNall 10-26-06, 05:01 PM	The basic thread of the counter arguements to my post seem to be that it is not a bad thing to remove the limitations placed on Arcane spellcasters, in part. No, the basic counter to your argument is that it is not a bad thing to get spellcasters to do something that is less powerful than what they would otherwise be doing. If a caster A is doing thing X, and caster B is doing thing Y (which is strictly more powerful than X), then caster A is not having as much of an impact as caster B. That is the heart of the matter. By relegating oneself to less powerful options one is being less powerful. If an arcane spellcaster can take this feat, and thereby avoid casting his high level spell in an encounter, is that unbalanced? I would say yes. The game was originally balanced (to whatever degree of balance it had attained) with spellcasters limited in their effects per day. If he avoided casting his high level spell, what happened in that encounter because of that? Because the Wizard didn't cast weird and end the combat in the first round, his companions had the opportunity to use their own abilities. The other players had the opportunity to have fun with their characters and take an active role in the combat, rather than simply watching the fireworks and sipping tequila sunrises. That is the meaning of balance. All of your protestations as to the balancing methodology are non sequiturs. Real balance is achieved by creating an environment where all characters have the opportunity contribute meaningfully and all players can have fun. That is what the a Wizard player does when he chooses a reserve feat: he is purposely choosing to have a lesser impact so that his friends can have fun with their characters and not feel like their only purpose is to carry off the treasure that the Wizard earned. Yes, the feats don't produce an effect on par with spell they are keyed off, in general, but they also don't require the same kind of expediture. 1 feat, out of 7, to get nigh-unlimited uses of [effect]. This effect is on par with lower level spells. Most people would agree that allowing unlimited access to low level spells would be unbalanced, but somehow these feats are different? I fail to see how, in a signifigant fashion. This is exactly what the Warlock does. Lower level spells at will. The Warlock is not overpowered. Therefore unlimited use of lower powered abilities is not necessarily overpowered. Your reasoning is faulty. I'm getting rather tired of this fallacy. Unlimited does not imply overpowered! One big problem I have with them is that they make playing a spellcaster 'simple', for lack of a better term. The decision whether or not to blow a spell on an encounter is reduced to deciding whether to use the reserve feat again, or to blow the spell. Add in the fact that the spellcasters will still have multiple slots, and we're not even talking about holding back all that much. The balancing currency of D&D is actions. Any action expended by using a reserve feat is an action that is not spent on a greater effect. By using the lesser effect, the character is having an objectively lesser effect on any given encounter. I do understand the "actions are prime resource in combat" arguement, and to an extent, I agree. Why use a 7d6 fiery burst when in the same time you can cast a 13d6 delayed blast fireball? The simple answer is, because I don't need to. The choice of what to cast when is trivialized. I don't think you do. A lesser effect is a lesser effect. Period. By choosing to use a lesser effect, the character is functionally less powerful. Hence these feats are a way to power down a caster by having him contribute less in any given combat than otherwise. If, in a specific encounter, a 7d6 Fiery Burst will have the same ultimate effect as a 13d6 delayed blast fireball, then said encounter is weak, as that's the sort of damage the character was doing six (or more) levels previous. Are you implying that you want noncasters only to have an opportunity to contribute in combats that are beneath the notice of the Wizard? That seems terrible. "Okay, boys, you handle the grunts while I play with my game boy. Gimme a call when there's an enemy worth my time." Eww. I doubt we will fail to convert the diehards on either side, so I am simply trying to provide a reasoned explanation of my point of view, for those who are trying to decide for themselves. Your position relies on faulty reasoning. Once we eliminate the faulty reasoning, I'll let it lie.
NineInchNall 10-26-06, 05:04 PM	Frankly, I'm all for anything that pushes us away from Vancian magic. Cheers to that.
Worloch 10-26-06, 06:02 PM	I'm regret having to resort to line by line responses, NineInchNall, but I feel I must at least make one attempt at addressing your points, and this seems to be your prefered method of discusssion. So here we go: Originally Posted by NineInchNall No, the basic counter to your argument is that it is not a bad thing to get spellcasters to do something that is less powerful than what they would otherwise be doing. If a caster A is doing thing X, and caster B is doing thing Y (which is strictly more powerful than X), then caster A is not having as much of an impact as caster B. That is the heart of the matter. By relegating oneself to less powerful options one is being less powerful. "That seems like a fine arguement on the surface, but it only addresses one point in time, which is not what the game, nor these feats, are about. An example that only illustrates a single round, or even a single combat, is not representative of the impact on a whole game. If he avoided casting his high level spell, what happened in that encounter because of that? Because the Wizard didn't cast weird and end the combat in the first round, his companions had the opportunity to use their own abilities. The other players had the opportunity to have fun with their characters and take an active role in the combat, rather than simply watching the fireworks and sipping tequila sunrises. So your arguement is that without reserve feats, the other characters in a party are relegated to background roles when an arcane spell casters is present? I can't help but think you might be overstating things here. I would argue that if you have this problem commonly in your own games, that you take a look at balancing arcane spellcasters in general, instead of adding to their abilities. That is the meaning of balance. All of your protestations as to the balancing methodology are non sequiturs. Real balance is achieved by creating an environment where all characters have the opportunity contribute meaningfully and all players can have fun. That is what the a Wizard player does when he chooses a reserve feat: he is purposely choosing to have a lesser impact so that his friends can have fun with their characters and not feel like their only purpose is to carry off the treasure that the Wizard earned. 1) I do agree that the purpose of the game is to have fun. I believe it is the DM's job to create that environment. I do not agree that your definition of balance is correct. 2) I fail to see how introducing options for an Arcane Spellcaster, so that he or she may Choose not to overshadow other characters is any kind of balance. This is exactly what the Warlock does. Lower level spells at will. The Warlock is not overpowered. Therefore unlimited use of lower powered abilities is not necessarily overpowered. Your reasoning is faulty. I'm getting rather tired of this fallacy. Unlimited does not imply overpowered! Indeed, unlimited does not directly relate to overpowered. However, a Warlock is limited in variety of effects, and the power level simply is lower than a full spellcaster. Reserve feats add that, not replace it, to a full spellcaster. Adding is the problem, not replacing. The balancing currency of D&D is actions. Any action expended by using a reserve feat is an action that is not spent on a greater effect. By using the lesser effect, the character is having an objectively lesser effect on any given encounter. 1) A given encounter does not form the basis of a consistent arguement. A rogue might have a lesser impact on an encounter with undead, but that does not mean that we seek to balance the rogue on that basis. 2) "Any action expended by using a reserve feat is an action that is not spent on a greater effect." is simply not always true. As I stated in my original post, you can use a reserve feat to fill another need, or when a given spell is of no use. In those circumstances, it is not an action spent in place of one to greater effect, it is simply a different effect. For instance, Wind Wall to the flying reserve feat. From defense to mobility. Not greater or lesser, but different. Options also equate to power, as is the classic example of Wizard Versus Sorcerer. I don't think you do. A lesser effect is a lesser effect. Period. By choosing to use a lesser effect, the character is functionally less powerful. Hence these feats are a way to power down a caster by having him contribute less in any given combat than otherwise. If, in a specific encounter, a 7d6 Fiery Burst will have the same ultimate effect as a 13d6 delayed blast fireball, then said encounter is weak, as that's the sort of damage the character was doing six (or more) levels previous. Are you implying that you want noncasters only to have an opportunity to contribute in combats that are beneath the notice of the Wizard? That seems terrible. "Okay, boys, you handle the grunts while I play with my game boy. Gimme a call when there's an enemy worth my time." Eww. 1) A lesser effect is only a lesser effect when compared to a greater effect in a like area. That is not the only metric involved here. Also, we reserve feats add, not subtract, from a caster. As such, I can't see how you really believe in making an arguement that they power down a caster. It simply doesn't work that way. It is like saying a fighter that takes combat expertise is powering down" himself because he can choose to lower his bonus to attack. 2) I'm implying no such thing. I am saying that it becomes a critical choice for a Spellcaster. When faced with 30 kobolds at 10th level, do you cast your fireball, wiping them out, or do you hold yourself back? With a reserve feat, you are relieved from making that choice, and continue to outshine the rest of the party, as you blast away all the same, and will still have the big guns in reserve to outshine them later in the fights that matter. That choice, of when to cast a spell, and when to hold back, is an integral part of playing a spellcaster currently, and that reserve feats infringe on that. Your position relies on faulty reasoning. Once we eliminate the faulty reasoning, I'll let it lie. You have yet to point out any faulty reasoning of mine, as most of what I have stated I have qualified as my own opinions. As such, I can only take this as an ad hominem attack, and wonder what you hope to gain from it. Finally, Originally Posted by [b]Keenath Frankly, I'm all for anything that pushes us away from Vancian magic. I don't really have too strong feelings on it, but I do think that feats are the wrong way to mend the system. It would either need to be redone entirely, or left whole. A halfway approach only breaks it.
Particle_Man 10-26-06, 06:29 PM	I think Sorcerors and other spontaneous casters should consider investing in reserve feats AND Heighten spell. If they leave their highest spell slot open (say they are level 18), they could have a level 1 fire spell that could "feed" a fire spell reserve feat, because it *could* (with heighten spell) be cast as a level 9 fire spell, so long as a level 9 spell slot is free. Thus they could have low level spells for their "reserve feat riders" and higher level spells known could be used for other things (like divination, maybe). This gives the sorceror more variety in magical stuff, AND makes those ultra low level spells useful at high levels. On the down side, it costs feats, and the sorceror gets no bonus feats. Anyhow, I will take one for my hexblade when he hits 15th. I was going to take Baleful Polymorph for the off chance that my hex works and my 'shadow cat' thingy from phb II is nearby. But if my hex fails, or while I am waiting to meet the BBEG, I could use minor shapeshift to be a little more uber in combat.
Thane26425 10-26-06, 06:41 PM	Getting away from the vanic system is also fine with me. The spellpoint system is a good start and the reserve feats seem to be aiming in the same direction.
Karak_Nechot 10-26-06, 06:41 PM	I think Sorcerors and other spontaneous casters should consider investing in reserve feats AND Heighten spell. If they leave their highest spell slot open (say they are level 18), they could have a level 1 fire spell that could "feed" a fire spell reserve feat, because it *could* (with heighten spell) be cast as a level 9 fire spell, so long as a level 9 spell slot is free. Thus they could have low level spells for their "reserve feat riders" and higher level spells known could be used for other things (like divination, maybe). That doesn't work. He has to know a spell of the appropriate level, and have spell slots of that level or higher available. The reserve feat is based off the level of the spell, not the effective level of the spell slot used. Metamagics have no effect whatsoever. Your sorcerer there would have only the use of the 1st level fire spell, meaning he would have a fiery burst of 1d6 from the reserve feat, even if he did have Heighten spell. Anyhow, I will take one for my hexblade when he hits 15th. I was going to take Baleful Polymorph for the off chance that my hex works and my 'shadow cat' thingy from phb II is nearby. But if my hex fails, or while I am waiting to meet the BBEG, I could use minor shapeshift to be a little more uber in combat. Good use of the feat, I say.
NineInchNall 10-26-06, 07:11 PM	I'm regret having to resort to line by line responses, NineInchNall, but I feel I must at least make one attempt at addressing your points, and this seems to be your prefered method of discusssion. I find that without line by line response, many points that should be addressed are missed in favor of reiteration of one's overall argument ad infinitum. A necessary evil, it seems to me. Answer me this, is a Wizard who uses reserve feats extensively having a greater or lesser effect on any given combat or social encounter than a Wizard who does not? The answer should be easy. 1) I do agree that the purpose of the game is to have fun. I believe it is the DM's job to create that environment. I do not agree that your definition of balance is correct. 2) I fail to see how introducing options for an Arcane Spellcaster, so that he or she may Choose not to overshadow other characters is any kind of balance. 1) Define balance. In game terms balance means that each character can contribute meaningfully over the course of the game session. That's all it has, does, or will ever mean. 2) It's a poor way to balance things; that is true. Nevertheless, by choosing to use abilities that are less than what otherwise would be used, a character is assuming a less powerful role. If the introduced option lessens the effect of that character by giving him lesser abilities, then the option cannot be overpowered. It's almost definitional. The character's overall impact is reduced compared to what it otherwise might have been. Indeed, unlimited does not directly relate [but it can indeed imply] to overpowered. However, a Warlock is limited in variety of effects, and the power level simply is lower than a full spellcaster. Reserve feats add that, not replace it, to a full spellcaster. Adding is the problem, not replacing. A implies B means that in every case where A is true B is also true. Your initial statement is thus incorrect. If unlimited does not require overpoweredness, then it cannot imply overpoweredness. Reserve feats do replace, though. They replace at the level of the round. They replace the Wizard's meteor swarm action with a Fiery Burst action. The true power of the full spellcasters is their ability to dominate in the area of effective actions per round. Any class can have massive effects over an extended period of time. 1) A given encounter does not form the basis of a consistent arguement. A rogue might have a lesser impact on an encounter with undead, but that does not mean that we seek to balance the rogue on that basis. 2) "Any action expended by using a reserve feat is an action that is not spent on a greater effect." is simply not always true. As I stated in my original post, you can use a reserve feat to fill another need, or when a given spell is of no use. In those circumstances, it is not an action spent in place of one to greater effect, it is simply a different effect. For instance, Wind Wall to the flying reserve feat. From defense to mobility. Not greater or lesser, but different. Options also equate to power, as is the classic example of Wizard Versus Sorcerer. Argh! You're taking everything in odd directions! 1) Of course a Rogue would have less effect in an encounter with undead. There are always ways to neutralize a character's effectiveness. An unspecified type of encounter, however, can and does form the basis of balance. Through a series of four encounters, a Rogue generally has an impact due to sneak attack damage and UMD used with wands or staves. Through a series of four encounters, a Druid generally has a large impact due to his ability to maintain melee capacity and offensive/defensive/utility spellcasting ability. A character's impact on an encounter is how powerful the character is. That's it. Done. Whether it be a social encounter or a combat one, the character's impact thereupon is that character's power level. 2) So your Wizard is holding a Heightened version of wind wall? :rofl: Otherwise that wouldn't even provide the benefit of which you speak. In any case, wow, a feat that has some benefit? Never. Must be overpowered. On a less flippant note, the thing is that the character would almost always be better off just casting a flipping spell. Especially at 9th level when Borne Aloft becomes available. 1) A lesser effect is only a lesser effect when compared to a greater effect in a like area. That is not the only metric involved here. Also, we reserve feats add, not subtract, from a caster. As such, I can't see how you really believe in making an arguement that they power down a caster. It simply doesn't work that way. It is like saying a fighter that takes combat expertise is powering down" himself because he can choose to lower his bonus to attack. 2) I'm implying no such thing. I am saying that it becomes a critical choice for a Spellcaster. When faced with 30 kobolds at 10th level, do you cast your fireball, wiping them out, or do you hold yourself back? With a reserve feat, you are relieved from making that choice, and continue to outshine the rest of the party, as you blast away all the same, and will still have the big guns in reserve to outshine them later in the fights that matter. That choice, of when to cast a spell, and when to hold back, is an integral part of playing a spellcaster currently, and that reserve feats infringe on that. 1) Right. We compare things in a like area. As I wrote above, reserve feats add to the total options available, but they do not add to a character's impact at any given point. A metamagic feat (e.g.; Empower Spell) adds effectiveness to any spell (e.g.; enervation) that uses it. A reserve feat replaces one action (casting a spell) with another that is weaker within its area. It replaces casting meteor swarm with activating Fiery Blast. It is a replacement, just not an overall replacement. 2) 30 kobolds is a meaningless encounter to the entire party, not just the Wizard with Fiery Burst. Round 1: Wizard uses 7d6 Fiery Burst, catching (assuming they're all arranged in a 25'x30' box with each kobold occupying one square) 9 kobolds, who immediately die. The Ranger Rapid Shots and shoots 8 kobolds, who all die. The Rogue hits the remaining ones with a charge from his wand of fireball. The encounter is over and no one even gets any experience. It's a meaningless encounter. Who cares who does what in an utterly irrelevant encounter? You have yet to point out any faulty reasoning of mine, as most of what I have stated I have qualified as my own opinions. As such, I can only take this as an ad hominem attack, and wonder what you hope to gain from it. An opinion can be just as unsound as any other proposition. It could be my opinion that two parallel lines can intersect under Euclidean geometry, but it'd be an incorrect opinion. Preference, on the other hand, is independent of logic. Saying that someone's reasoning is faulty is pretty much the antithesis of argumentum ad hominem, as it is an attack upon the argument not the man. I refrained from pointing any fallacies committed because I prefer simply to rebut arguments. I don't really have too strong feelings on it, but I do think that feats are the wrong way to mend the system. It would either need to be redone entirely, or left whole. A halfway approach only breaks it. I'm actually in agreement with this (except for the "breaks it" part). The spellcasting classes need to be reworked to function more like the Tome of Battle classes, which exemplify the apparent shift in design paradigm occurring at WotC. That way it's easy to judge the potential impact of a character, no matter how many encounters have gone by.
Deathmond 10-26-06, 07:31 PM	I think Sorcerors and other spontaneous casters should consider investing in reserve feats AND Heighten spell. If they leave their highest spell slot open (say they are level 18), they could have a level 1 fire spell that could "feed" a fire spell reserve feat, because it *could* (with heighten spell) be cast as a level 9 fire spell, so long as a level 9 spell slot is free. Thus they could have low level spells for their "reserve feat riders" and higher level spells known could be used for other things (like divination, maybe). This gives the sorceror more variety in magical stuff, AND makes those ultra low level spells useful at high levels. On the down side, it costs feats, and the sorceror gets no bonus feats. Anyhow, I will take one for my hexblade when he hits 15th. I was going to take Baleful Polymorph for the off chance that my hex works and my 'shadow cat' thingy from phb II is nearby. But if my hex fails, or while I am waiting to meet the BBEG, I could use minor shapeshift to be a little more uber in combat. Actually, that doesn't work for spontaneous casters. It COULD be cast as a higher level spell. This wouldn't qualify it for a Reserve feat because it doesn't become that higher level spell until cast. It's like how a Summon Monster V spell could be air, chaotic, anything you want it to be when you cast it, and wouldn't qualify you for the reserve because it doesn't gain that descriptor until it's actually cast. That doesn't work. He has to know a spell of the appropriate level, and have spell slots of that level or higher available. The reserve feat is based off the level of the spell, not the effective level of the spell slot used. Metamagics have no effect whatsoever. Your sorcerer there would have only the use of the 1st level fire spell, meaning he would have a fiery burst of 1d6 from the reserve feat, even if he did have Heighten spell. And actually, Heighten Spell would work fine for prepared casters. The feat says that all effects based on spell level are treated as if it's the heightened level. Remember: This is all based off of my reading of the books. I'm not saying there's no chance of me being wrong, but this is how I've read it.
HamHam 10-26-06, 07:44 PM	Correct me if I'm wrong, but for spontanious casters don't you need to be able to cast a certain spell to use it to activate a reserve feat? Or do you need to known a certain spell? If it's the former Heighten spell would work because you would the ability to cast a level X spell with whatever descriptor.
Seerow 10-26-06, 07:48 PM	Heightened Spell + Summon Monster 1 then covers a -lot- of reserve feats. That's neat.
Karak_Nechot 10-26-06, 07:52 PM	Correct me if I'm wrong, but for spontanious casters don't you need to be able to cast a certain spell to use it to activate a reserve feat? Or do you need to known a certain spell? If it's the former Heighten spell would work because you would the ability to cast a level X spell with whatever descriptor. You have KNOW the spell in question. Heightened Spell + Summon Monster 1 then covers a -lot- of reserve feats. That's neat. Actually, it does not cover ANY.
Seerow 10-26-06, 07:56 PM	It would by Ham-Ham's interpretation, which is what I was referring to.
Neon Knight 10-26-06, 09:31 PM	then why even bring it up or ask about it? If you want a three book campaign, then that is your business, and no one will fault you for it. Enjoy your campaign. But if this is really what you wanted from teh begining, and this is what all the players agreed to in the beginning, then there is no need for discussion. And no need for this thread. The Op said he was in your campaign and wanted some feedback. I still fail to see the reason that you needed to come in here and ruin the discussion. I agree with that other poster, you do seem like a jerk of a DM, so much so that you had to come meddling in a thread to state your opinion when really it didn't concern you. Your mind was made up, and you didn't need to post here 3-4 times explaining that. That's between you and your players. Deal with it email. Keep it off the board. Why did I come into this thread, because the original poster ASKED me to weigh in. Not you, not Ham_Ham or anyone else, but the original poster, MY FRIEND. And I thought I was being polite. So far all that has happened is you and others have slammed, flamed, belittle me for enquiring about Feats I know nothing of. If you don't see it that way, your problem, not mine.
Archangel62 10-26-06, 10:32 PM	Why did I come into this thread, because the original poster ASKED me to weigh in. Not you, not Ham_Ham or anyone else, but the original poster, MY FRIEND. And I thought I was being polite. So far all that has happened is you and others have slammed, flamed, belittle me for enquiring about Feats I know nothing of. If you don't see it that way, your problem, not mine. Actually most of the attitude comes from the high and mighty attitude that you portray and commentary like 'If I can't have fun no one can' Not to mention the attitude you have that you are somehow better than others here because you've played longer. But on the major issue, the experiment might be worth making if we can see what happens if we see a set of casters with these different reserve feats and compare power levels in different scenarios. It might do more to help explain how this works and why it works the way that it does.
Neon Knight 10-26-06, 10:44 PM	Actually most of the attitude comes from the high and mighty attitude that you portray and commentary like 'If I can't have fun no one can' Not to mention the attitude you have that you are somehow better than others here because you've played longer. But on the major issue, the experiment might be worth making if we can see what happens if we see a set of casters with these different reserve feats and compare power levels in different scenarios. It might do more to help explain how this works and why it works the way that it does. Achangel, because your post seems respectful, I will in turn be respectful back (quid pro quo). I apologize to all. I meant by my length of time DMing to point out, I have been around and am not new to this. My comment of If I am not having fun is not of the "It's my ball so I'm going home", but of the side of, "I want to have fun playing too." If my players are always complaining of this that or the other, it saps my enjoyment to the point where I am not having fun, and that detrimentaly affects the game, because then I won't want to play, and that is not fair to the others in the group. That is all. So, lets all have a big hug, agree that we got off on the wrong foot (I'm admitting I was worng, can other please do as well), and help ME to understand how a feat with no concievable negatives is good for my game? I've talked at length with the player, and said I woudl rather see a wizard do what they should. i.e. Craft items to aid their spell cadting, something in my opinion they should be doing, and the main reason wizards gets all those bonus feats.
DrObviousSo 10-26-06, 11:00 PM	...help ME to understand how a feat with no concievable negatives is good for my game?... Feats, in general, are supposed to be good for a character, not bad for them. You say you want your wizard crafting items to fill their role. One of the most universal uses of disposable crafted items (scrolls, wands, staves, rods, and potions) is to give wizards access to a larger number of lower level spells that they don't have to dedicate spell slots to because they won't be using them every single day. See my post above for why reserve feats are basically the same thing.
Zagreen 10-26-06, 11:49 PM	Why did I come into this thread, because the original poster ASKED me to weigh in. Not you, not Ham_Ham or anyone else, but the original poster, MY FRIEND. And I thought I was being polite. So far all that has happened is you and others have slammed, flamed, belittle me for enquiring about Feats I know nothing of. If you don't see it that way, your problem, not mine. While most of the comments directed at you were out of line, I do feel compelled to point out that you haven't really done an awful lot of inquiring so much as you've just announced your position. If you want a core game, run a core game. That's reasonable and should require no further discussion. Moreover, adding anything to core is going to introduce power creep unless it utterly sucks, simply because you're introducing additional options to an environment with comparatively few options (and I will hold that reserve feats do not utterly suck). It's not that reserve feats are necessarily more powerful than what core has to offer--a wizard who focuses on crafting magic items may very well outperform a wizard who focuses on reserve feat--it's just that you've got more room to tailor your feats to a particular function. In terms of their own actual power, reserve feats do have a pretty huge impact at low levels but they scale very poorly. Many of them require you to save one of your highest spell slots (your most valuable resource) just to keep up pace with your 1st level spells--a 9th level wizard sitting on a cone of cold spell (which isn't that great a spell to memorize in the first place) can take a reserve feat for a 15' cone that does 5d4 cold damage. Great, so I get unlimited use of an attack on par with burning hands. Most of the time that's just going to be a waste of both a feat pick and a 5th level spell. The problem point as I see it is that a 3rd level wizard sitting on a scorching ray spell is also going to get an unlimited-use attack roughly on par with what their CL 3 burning hands is going to do, which is just spectacular--granted that burning hands is not an especially good spell, but still, at level 3 that's pretty ******* huge. If they had restricted more reserve feats to level 5 and up I would've been happier (although the fire-based offensive reserve feat does in part just seem unbalanced compared to other reserve feats, which is part of that particular problem).
NineInchNall 10-26-06, 11:58 PM	The problem point as I see it is that a 3rd level wizard sitting on a scorching ray spell is also going to get an unlimited-use attack roughly on par with what their CL 3 burning hands is going to do, which is just spectacular--granted that burning hands is not an especially good spell, but still, at level 3 that's pretty ******* huge. If they had restricted more reserve feats to level 5 and up I would've been happier (although the fire-based offensive reserve feat does in part just seem unbalanced compared to other reserve feats, which is part of that particular problem). Fiery Burst is definitely more useful than the rest of the reserve feats and actually is useful at third level. It, like the rest of the reserve feats, loses utility as level progress.
Realms of Chaos 10-27-06, 12:29 AM	Reserve feats are powerful, but not overpowered. This is how it turns out. Alacritous Cognation: What few people here are realizing is that this feat together with reserve feats makes a great combination. Keep a 9th level spell slot open, use any and all of your reserve feats to their fullest, and then lash out with a spell that benefits none of those feats. Primary ability: The ability to use an ability at will isn't that powerful, as is proven by the Warlock. On the other hand, these feats allow you to rob Warlocks of their uniqueness (as some of these feats allow for attacks with damage akin to an eldritch blast while others allow for invocation-like abilities). Secondary ability: I don't know of any other feat that increases your caster level for certain types of spells. Although this isn't as useful for feats dealing with descriptors, feats dealing with schools and subschools of magic are much more useful. Here is a brief outlook on their abilities: Acidic Splatter: Similar to an eldritch blast but nothing special. Much better spells. The second ability isn't worth much. Aquatic Breath: This gives you continuous personal use of a 3rd level spell (the prerequisite for the feat). Although there are no "truly good" water spells that I am aware of, you only have to choose a single 3rd level or higher water spell and have alacritous cogitation. The second ability adds 2 hours to the duration of your actual water breathing spells. Blade of Force: This feat is relatively useful, as it can be activated as a swift action. The thing is, once you have used up all of your quickened spells for the day (because I doubt you will quicken all of your spells), you can start using this ability and casting spells in the same round, wasting no action. This is a boon with spells like magic missile, chain missile, and force missile. Borne Aloft: I don't see anything (at least in the player's handbook) that allows a wizard or sorcerer to use it. For divine casters, this feat is okay (I guess) if you have one of the few air spells of high enough of a level to make this possible to use. The secondary effect isn't worth much. Clap of Thunder: Getting that close to an opponent for that amount of damage seems pretty silly, especially as I see no way to deal property damage with it. You'd be hard pressed to find much use for its secondary effect. Clutch of Earth: too easy to resist, especially at higher levels. Dimensional Jaunt: This feat is actually half-decent (short-range teleportation should not be scoffed at). I could actually imagine taking this feat realistically and using it often. Its second ability may have some limited uses, however. Dimensional Reach: The cost of the feat isn't too extreme but it would be very hard to use on a regular basis. Mage hand is about as good as this feat. Increasing the caster level of summoning spells makes your summons stay around longer, making this (normally sub-par) feat a good one for summoners. Drowning gaze: As a standard action, exhaust or fatigue one opponent within 30 feat; they are immune to this effect for 24 hours. Creature that breath water are already immune. Not worth it at all. The second ability is not really worth it. Face-Changer: pretty good if you have something like screen waiting in the wings. It is pretty hard to catch someone that you can't identify. As there are not a very wide selection of glamers, the secondary effect will often go unnoticed. Fiery Burst: this one is pretty good, it is a mini-fireball dealing damage to anyone within a certain radius. As it is fire damage, this is also the ideal reserve feat for burning down villages and forests. In addition, its secondary effect makes actual fireballs more powerful. Hurricane Breath: if there was a good selection of good air spells to select from and this could push your opponent back further than 5 feet (like, let's say, an actual bull rush) this would be worth something. As is, it is not worth a thing. Force Needle: The number of times when you would want to use this small needle instead of a force missile or something similar is relatively slim. If you have a wall of force prepared, however, this makes for a decent attack when you run out of other offensive spells. The secondary effect is useful for things like magic missile. Magic Disruption: As a certain (early) point, the primary effect may not be so bad. However, a 20th level wizard (with maxed out concentration) will always pass a dc 24 concentration check, 100% of the time. The secondary effect is moderately useful, extending the duration of mage armors by 1 hour and of Shields by 10 minutes. Magic Sensitive: This is actually a pretty useful ability to have around (if you don't have a spelltheif or warlock in the party). The second ability won't be doing all that much, however. Minor Shapeshift: This is, beleive it or not, a noticable boon. Once a wizard has used up all of their quickened spells for the day, they have nothing else to do with their swift actions. With this feat, the wizard can do something (even if it is keeping a "shield" of temporary hit points around them). Mystic Backlash: This is a real waste of time (and of a feat). The secondary ability is actually more powerful than the primary one. Shadow Veil: Not worth the effort or feat slot. Simply not. Sickening Grasp: This thing has real combo potential. The primary ability is easily used by a dread necromancer (for a nasty multi-touch combo) while the secondary ability lets anyone control 4 more HD of undead. Storm Bolt: This is the best damaging reserve feat, possibly better than the Warlock's Eldrich blast. It strikes in a straight line, needing no attack roll, allowing no saving throw, striking multiple enemies, and allowing no SR. This feat may be worth heightening a lightning storm to 9th level to qualify for. Summon Elemental: This ability is very, very good. Want distruction? call a fire elemental. Want a pack mule? call an earth elemental. Want a drink? call a water elemental. Want a breeze? call an air elemental. Want an instant Flanker? call an elemental. Want a trap setter? call an elemental. Want soft cover from your enemies? call an elemental. The great thing about this ability is that it allows you to call elementals to do jobs that an unseen servant cannot (like exert weight, provide soft cover in combat, flank, attack, have a speed other than a land speed, etc) and you gain these benefits without wasting spells. One thing that should be noted is that this allows wizards and sorcerers to summon elementals which are something not on the summon monster I-IX lists. The secondary effect is just icing on the cake, allowing your other summons to hang around longer. Sunlight Eyes: Not really worth it (except to clerics saving sunlight spells for undead). Event the secondary effect isn't really worth it (except in the aforementioned case). Touch of Distraction: I really, really like this feat and I really, really wish it were good but alas, it is not. I guess that it is something for an enchanter to do in combat (unless you want to take your chances charming your opponent) but it is little else. On the bright side, the secondary effect allows you to keep your "friends" for longer. Wind-Guided Arrows: It has potential but I'll have to pass. There simply aren't enough good wind spells. Winter's Blast: respectable for a 3rd level feat but there isn't much else going for it.
Archangel62 10-27-06, 12:38 AM	My comment of If I am not having fun is not of the "It's my ball so I'm going home", but of the side of, "I want to have fun playing too." If my players are always complaining of this that or the other, it saps my enjoyment to the point where I am not having fun, and that detrimentaly affects the game, because then I won't want to play, and that is not fair to the others in the group. That is all. So, lets all have a big hug, agree that we got off on the wrong foot (I'm admitting I was worng, can other please do as well), and help ME to understand how a feat with no concievable negatives is good for my game? I've talked at length with the player, and said I woudl rather see a wizard do what they should. i.e. Craft items to aid their spell cadting, something in my opinion they should be doing, and the main reason wizards gets all those bonus feats. Ok, I can agree with that, tone can be hard to determine when reading and often we say something that we really don't mean to because of context and other situations. The feat does have drawbacks, techincally speaking each of these has a few opportunity costs 1) The feat itself must be taken at the expense of other feats. Since you do core only I can also assume that you don't use flaws so this means in turn that they have to be smart about what feats they choose. 2) Forcing the caster into a crafter role can make the caster rather unhappy. In some games it becomes necessary but I have had more than one character that has gotten frustrated because I was expected to be an item vending machine or a heal bot. 3) Each feat can alter depending on the power level of it, and the level that you can take it at. The summoner one, as mentioned before, has me a smidge concerned but I can't get it until level 9, after some test runs I actually find it works well. The reserve feats shift around heavily, some are very potent for players, others are far more potent for NPCs.
DarknessEternal 10-27-06, 12:43 AM	and help ME to understand how a feat with no concievable negatives is good for my game? I currently have a 250 page document full of just about every feat availabel in some D&D resource from WotC. It has about 1950 feats in it. Approximately 95% of these feats have no negative. None at all. Even if we want to look at just the PHB; zero feats have penalties. Feats are ADVANTAGES. They provide ADVANTAGE.
StruckingFuggle 10-27-06, 01:43 AM	So, lets all have a big hug, agree that we got off on the wrong foot (I'm admitting I was worng, can other please do as well), and help ME to understand how a feat with no concievable negatives is good for my game? Aside from the point that most feats don't have negatives (other than opportunity cost, which reserve feats also have) ... Reserve Feats actually have a huge negative: to take advantage of them, especially the "beefier" versions, you have to prepare specific spells (which prevents you from preparing other spells), spells that are usually far, far more powerful than the effects of the reserve feats - and not only that, but then to use the Reserve Feats, they come at the cost of not being able to cast those more powerful spells you do have prepared, which might be less powerful than the spells you could prepare otherwise. That seems to be a pretty big cost to me ... Take the fire one. Sure, you could get a 9d6 ten foot burst, but to get that, you have to Prepare - and not cast - Meteor Swarm, which also prevents you from preparing Time Stop.
Archangel62 10-27-06, 03:07 AM	In addition, in order to use ALL the reserve feats to their maximum potential you need to have a lot of good prep rigs. The thing is this, the reserve feats are new and right now are trying to find a place somewhere in the wizard feat hierarchy. Each one has edges and weaknesses, and perhaps the best way to test them is to see how they work for an overall encounter...oddly I wonder if this was a way for them to try to rebalance the arcane classes, or maybe a way of doing it by accident.
NineInchNall 10-27-06, 03:46 AM	The only reserve feat I can ever see taking is the polymorph one (Minor Shapeshift) and that is solely for the +1 caster level for shapechange. Anything that helps me achieve day-long shapechange is something that makes me happy.
kouryuu_the_leviathan 10-27-06, 04:48 AM	Well, I don't normally weigh in on these kinds of debates, but I'd thought I'd give my thoughts on these feats. While I'm still unsure personally where i stand on these feats, I do think that they are, in general, fine as they are. I think some may have mentioned it, but what strikes me with these feats is the risk it puts the caster in to use some of them. Also, some of the feats have built in drawbacks that seem, to me at least, to balance them out. For example: Acid Splatter: With its unlimited use and higher damage dice, it may seem better than Melf's at the earlier levels, but it has a range of 5' per level of the fueling spell. That to me, is a horrible distance for a wizard to be using this at that level. Because, unless you can kill the target with that hit, I know I wouldn't want to be the wizard standing 10 feet away from whatever I just acid splattered when its turn comes around, and if you can kill it with the acid splatter, the it was nothing to worry about in the first place, thus not making you any more powerful, imho. Blade of Force: Sure the extra point of damage per spell level and ignoring incorporeal miss chance is nice, but it eats your swift action and only affects one attack per round, honestly not that big of an impact, again imho. Also, you still have to hit with that weapon, and with an arcanist's general BAB, is that very likely? Clap of Thunder: Sure its sonic damage, which is very rarely resisted, but much like acid splatter, and perhaps worse, its a touch attack. So, unless you know you're going to kill what you hit, I really wouldn't want to be the wizard in that position Invisible needle: I'm fairly certain that the big glaring weakness with this feat was missed by most, as I haven't seen anyone mention it before. The projectile made by this feat requires you to make a normal ranged attack, not a ranged touch attack. So I see a wizard missing on a regular basis with this attack. Storm Bolt: i suppose I'm stated my point on this before, but its a 20-ft line, doing minimal damage. While it may have no save (an oversight I think), it again puts the wizard dangerously close to the enemy, and does crappy damage. Winter's Blast: See previous points about short range and low damage. Now, don't get me wrong, I do think some of these feats may be a little overpowered, but I think that's par for the course with any batch of a new feat type. I will say though, that my first thought when I heard of these feats was "finally!" because I love how I can now have a mage that has a minor magical affect that he can use all the time when he needs it, but can pull out the big guns when the pressure is on. The funny thing I noticed though, was that I felt myself more tempted to try and work these feats in for a gish build that a pure caster. Anyway, just my two coppers, and I figure, if you're unsure of these feats, try'em out before completely writing them off.
Archangel62 10-27-06, 04:51 AM	The funny thing I noticed though, was that I felt myself more tempted to try and work these feats in for a gish build that a pure caster. Anyway, just my two coppers, and I figure, if you're unsure of these feats, try'em out before completely writing them off. You aren't the only one, my group discussed the feats and came to the conclusion that the power in these feats actually increases if the caster with them multi-classes for example the Gish, or Arcane Trickster, or something in that vein because the abilities will work either way and can sometimes boost them even further.
Worloch 10-27-06, 08:21 AM	I find that without line by line response, many points that should be addressed are missed in favor of reiteration of one's overall argument ad infinitum. A necessary evil, it seems to me. ...snip... That way it's easy to judge the potential impact of a character, no matter how many encounters have gone by. I was posting a point by point rebuttal, but I somehow managed to fat finger my browser closed, and lost it all. I lack the will to rewrite the whole thing. Let's see if I can't get a few pertinent points back out: 1) Reserve feats add, not subtract, from a spellcasters arsenal. This is an increase in power, even if the given effect is less than the spell keyed from for the feat. 2) The feats also give a secondary benefit, that increases their spellcasting ability, so it is not a wash to have the feat and not use the primary ability. That is, the choice between taking a feat to increase current spellcasting power, and to take a feat to vary spellcasting power does not exist. 3) My opinion can not be wrong, just different than yours. My interpertation of something that my opinion is based on can be wrong. Hence why when I say I find these to be overpowered, you can not say I am wrong in that I find them to be overpowered, only that you disagree that they are overpowered. A fine distinction, but it exists nonetheless. 4) You are given to hyperbole in some of your responses, that is hard to gauge in a message board context. You really do seem like a well reasoned person, so I do wish we could talk this out, instead of typing it out. 5) I probably missed a few points, so forgive me, but I am really not up to re-creating my post. Lastly, I re-read the feats last night, and I think understand your position a bit better now. I still don't know that I would allow them in my game, but I am more willing to see how they play out. I still maintain that they are very powerful feats, even if they don't come out as unbalancing or overpowered. 1) Unlimited lesser effect 2) Seconday spellcasting benefit 3) Bypasses traditional spellcasting limitations, such as components, AoO's, SR and so forth. That is a lot for a single feat.
HamHam 10-27-06, 10:48 AM	1) Reserve feats add, not subtract, from a spellcasters arsenal. This is an increase in power, even if the given effect is less than the spell keyed from for the feat. So is any feat they would have taken.
Particle_Man 10-27-06, 02:23 PM	I would compare it to Spring Attack. It costs a feat (natch). It gives you a benefit, but you use up an action to use that benefit, for the most part (that's why you don't get full attack-spring attacks). Most reserve feats cost a standard action (Minor Shapeshift is better, since it costs a swift action). It limits your options if you want to use the primary ability (Spring Attackers can't wear heavy armor, Reserve Feat users can't keep the primary ability after they have cast the spells that juice it up, yet have to prepare just those spells to juice it up instead of other spells) Even if not used, it has a secondary benefit (You can use Whirlwind Attack in heavy armor, and you need Spring Attack to *get* Whirlwind Attack). For Reserve Feats, this would be the secondary ability. So a Reserve Feat costs me a feat, AND takes an action to use, AND requires me to have a prepared yet uncast spell for me to use the primary ability. Now look at Iron Will. It costs a feat. It gives you +2 to will saves (sweet!). There is no other cost in actions, spell slots, etc. Thus Iron Will is better than Reserve Feats, since Iron Will can be gotten with no costs whatsoever, apart from the initial cost of the feat itself. :)
Grand Theft Otto 10-27-06, 02:49 PM	Let's look at this another way. PC's aren't the only ones that can take these feats, anyone in the D&D world can take them. That means that they could come up against foe with one of these feats. Monsters get far less use out of unlimited use abilities than PC's. Were I in a party and some gimp wizard began tossing an electricity line instead of actually casting dangerous spells, I'd thank my lucky stars. You may as well give them 10 commoner levels while you're at it to up the CR/lewts. Same reason why enemy binders and warlocks stink compared to wizards/clerics. Its almost free exp.
Vaelan 10-27-06, 05:46 PM	Alacritous Cognation: What few people here are realizing is that this feat together with reserve feats makes a great combination. Keep a 9th level spell slot open, use any and all of your reserve feats to their fullest, and then lash out with a spell that benefits none of those feats. A cursory examination of the rules shows that this is untrue. Here is the quote from Complete Mage that disallows this... A spellcaster who prepares spells each day (such as a wizard) must have an appropriate spell prepared and not yet cast that day. Alacritous Cogitation bypasses the normal preparation process. You leave a spell slot open and then use it to cast a spell. At no time do you prepare a spell in that slot and thus at no time does it help to fulfill requirements for Reserve feats.
Sapp 10-27-06, 06:11 PM	1) Unlimited lesser effect No combat action is truly "unlimited". They are all, at the very least, limited by time. A wizard can swing a dagger an unlimited number of times. That doesn't make a dagger extremely useful for a wizard. 2) Seconday spellcasting benefit By secondary spellcasting benefit, do you mean that the wizard gets a new spell? He could spent a few GP to buy a new cantrip too. That's also expanding his spellcasting capabilities, and it doesn't cost a feat. 3) Bypasses traditional spellcasting limitations, such as components, AoO's, SR and so forth. Many spells, feats, even skills already allow spellcasters to do that. For example, by the time these reserve feats have any true significance to them, casting defensively would be nigh-automatic. That is a lot for a single feat. A lot of minor things that rarely come in to play in actual combat. They are about on the level of fighter tactical feats. They have supposedly "unlimited" use, but they have limited applicability. I think that you are equating "marginally useful" and "different" with "powerful".
teloric 10-27-06, 06:24 PM	"Greatsword of Truestrike This greatsword +1 constantly gives combat intuition to its wielder whenever he swings it, providing a +20 insight bonus on attack rolls, as if the wielder had casted true strike before each attack. Strong Brokenation; CL 5; Craft Magic Arms and Armor, true strike; Price 4,350 gp; Cost 2,350 gp + 80 XP." as I understand how this item works based on the spell it would only provide the +20 bonus to the first swing the swords makes. (and you could still roll a one)
NineInchNall 10-27-06, 07:45 PM	"Greatsword of Truestrike This greatsword +1 constantly gives combat intuition to its wielder whenever he swings it, providing a +20 insight bonus on attack rolls, as if the wielder had casted true strike before each attack. Strong Brokenation; CL 5; Craft Magic Arms and Armor, true strike; Price 4,350 gp; Cost 2,350 gp + 80 XP." Note the bold portion.
Sapp 10-27-06, 08:11 PM	Where is this Greatsword of True Strike? How was it constructed using the custom magic items rules? The description for the spell true strike is conditional, and doesn't seem like it could work as a continuous effect (consider that its duration is special). It might be a command use item, but that is questionable on its own. In any case, an article was written about the sword of true striking (mostly, it was about estimating values of custom magic items). If I recall correctly, the item was priced at 800,000 gp by WotC employees.
NineInchNall 10-27-06, 11:21 PM	Sapp, said item is a joke. Note the aura: Strong Brokenation. The item description was misquoted: Sword of True Striking Every attack with this weapon is made at +20 to hit. Aura: strong brokenation Prerequisites: CL novice; 5 ranks in Stupid DM, 20 levels in munchkin player; Market Price: unavailable in most campaigns; freely given in Oz.
StruckingFuggle 10-28-06, 12:13 AM	Look, all you nay-sayers, I realize we can provide all the arguments and the numbers we have and it won't convince you. But sometime, try implementing it, let someone use it, and see firsthand what impact they have.
Sapp 10-28-06, 12:22 AM	Aside from the point that most feats don't have negatives (other than opportunity cost, which reserve feats also have) ... Reserve Feats actually have a huge negative: to take advantage of them, especially the "beefier" versions, you have to prepare specific spells (which prevents you from preparing other spells), spells that are usually far, far more powerful than the effects of the reserve feats - and not only that, but then to use the Reserve Feats, they come at the cost of not being able to cast those more powerful spells you do have prepared, which might be less powerful than the spells you could prepare otherwise. That seems to be a pretty big cost to me ... Take the fire one. Sure, you could get a 9d6 ten foot burst, but to get that, you have to Prepare - and not cast - Meteor Swarm, which also prevents you from preparing Time Stop. You're forgetting that you need to be a 17th level wizard or 18th level sorcerer to use that reserve feat to deal 9d6 fire damage... in a 10ft burst. (That's approximately 30.5 fire damage on average.) Not just that, you basically waste a standard action in a high-level combat... to deal 9d6 fire damage... in a 10ft burst. To get the most out of this "free/unlimited" 9d6 fire damage... in a 10ft burst... you'll need to cast it often, meaning you'll need to keep that 9th-level slot open for a long time, and not use it, even when your allies are dying and begging for you to use it. You also waste a feat (feats are precious and valuable to a caster) for this 9d6 fire damage... in a 10ft burst. All for a 9d6 fire damage... in a 10ft burst... that you can supposedly use infinite times per day. Can anyone remind me why evokers are considered one of the worst specialists? And why sorcerers are often considered inferior to wizards? Right. There's our answer.
NineInchNall 10-28-06, 01:45 AM	That encapsulated it quite well. Thank you, Sapp.
Archangel62 10-28-06, 01:50 AM	The main use of the feats are the ones that let you do the dimension hopping around and the summoning stuff, those have me very interested but then again I like the idea of the hopping summoner anyhow so it seems more entertaining to me, that and it can make encounters far more interesting once I set up a major encounter with a wizard.
Empiro 10-28-06, 01:58 AM	You're forgetting that you need to be a 17th level wizard or 18th level sorcerer to use that reserve feat to deal 9d6 fire damage... in a 10ft burst. (That's approximately 30.5 fire damage on average.) Not just that, you basically waste a standard action in a high-level combat... to deal 9d6 fire damage... in a 10ft burst. To get the most out of this "free/unlimited" 9d6 fire damage... in a 10ft burst... you'll need to cast it often, meaning you'll need to keep that 9th-level slot open for a long time, and not use it, even when your allies are dying and begging for you to use it. I think everyone here agrees that if you're in a tough situation and need to use your best spell, and instead decide to use your reserve power, then you're an idiot. However, not every battle is a "boss" fight that requires you to use your best spell every round. I'm sure every wizard has encountered the dilemma, "should I burn another spell to ensure that we win, or should I stand around, because I think the fighter can handle this monster that I've already crippled with my spells?" With reserve feats, the answer is simple: I blast him with the reserve power. I also think it's unfair to point to warlocks and say, "look, they can use their invocations all day long, and they're not overpowered, so these feats aren't." The problem is that for warlocks, their invocations are ALL that they can do. Essentially, this feat took wizards, who already had the unsurpassed ability to go nova in difficult battles, and gave them the staying power of warlocks to last through a series of not so tough battles. You also waste a feat (feats are precious and valuable to a caster) for this 9d6 fire damage... in a 10ft burst. Wizards have plenty of feats, especially if you bring in prestige classes that give you buckets of bonus ones. Unless I knew that my campaign would consist entirely of 1 encounter/day battles of CR +3 or more, I would gladly spend one of my 11 feats to get such flexibility.
Sapp 10-28-06, 02:16 AM	I'm not saying that they are useless. They have their marginal uses for those "special days". However, even for normal fights, when "CR = average level of party" the pressure is often enough that doing 9d6 damage... in a 10ft burst... is not enough. The wizard would have been able to contribute with wands or shapechange (which lasts long enough to plow through many encounters, and is strong enough to do so without much trouble) anyway... unfortunately, that shapechange slot might be taken by a meteor swarm that'll never even be used. Suppose we're talking about a lower level, even then, how do you explain to your party that you can't afford to cast mind blank because you want to keep the spell slot free for a heightened fireball just so you can keep bursting out 8d6... in a 10ft burst? So will you instead settle with a 7th-level slot instead, for 7d6... in a 10ft burst? You seem to be forgetting that you're basically setting aside one of your best, your highest-level spell to have room for this feat. How about that sorcerer I mentioned? He delays access to his highest level spell by one level. Effectively, he's often behind the Wizard by a full spell level, but he definitely gets more spells. Two more spells per spell level. Many of those spells have a better effect than... Nd6 in a 10ft radius burst, such as, I don't know, maybe a fireball? Up to 10d6 in a 20ft radius burst. Honestly, if you're using a standard action in high level combat to deal 9d6 damage in a 10ft burst, then chances are, the party's animal mascot could handle the encounter. You just sit back while chucking rocks at the opponents and save your spells. The ones I see as possibly being useful are the ones Archangel62 pointed out, because they can be used outside of combat when standard actions aren't worth many pints of blood, and you have all the time in the world to use them.
Shatteredtower 10-29-06, 05:19 AM	The wizard would have been able to contribute with wands or shapechange (which lasts long enough to plow through many encounters, and is strong enough to do so without much trouble) anyway... unfortunately, that shapechange slot might be taken by a meteor swarm that'll never even be used.Not quite true. First, that meteor swarm will be used when the time is deemed right to use it. Admittedly, it would be used at greater cost than usual, because you're now burning a 9th level slot and a significant application of one of your feats, but this is not necessarily an unreasonable investment in most cases. If you don't need to use a 9th level slot at all most days, is it a waste to prepare 9th level spells? If you don't need to use a particular feat in most battles, is it necessarily a waste of a feat if you are still adequately prepared to meet the demands combat places upon you? (Just because you can scribe scrolls doesn't necessarily mean you're performing badly if you never actually use one, unusual as that may be.) Second, unless your character also has the Vow of Poverty feat, you are not giving up the option to use shapechange. You still have the option of investing money in a scroll. You might not deem this optimal use of your resources, but the option can't be ruled out. How about that sorcerer I mentioned? He delays access to his highest level spell by one level.Does he? So if he knows meteor swarm and casts it once, he can't cause 9d6 hp of fire damage (I know, I know -- in a 10 ft burst) once per round in spite of still having two slots with which to cast another meteor swarm? Many of those spells have a better effect than... Nd6 in a 10ft radius burst, such as, I don't know, maybe a fireball? Up to 10d6 in a 20ft radius burst.Would I want to use fireball as a flare gun? As an attention grabber? Diversion? Trail marker? Weed killer? A device to pinpoint invisible opponents only you can see, so your allies know roughly where to aim? Scourer of possible green slime infestation? Means of flushing targets from cover? Gas pocket detector? Maybe, but I might be excused for preferring the option that lets me do this all day, rather than until I run out of low level spell slots and magic items. I realize that it's not the ideal option, but that's only dealing with things in specific terms. General terms tend to be more campaign dependent. Mechanically, I too think this feat (or any of the reserve feats) is far from too powerful. Flavour-wise, however, I find this one, at least, too valuable to be deemed crippling, let alone worthless. If your game is not limited to situations designed to earn you experience -- if there are often days in which you want to make an impression on a local baker, bureaucrat, or king you're trying to intimidate by smacking down royal subjects until he captitulates -- it has applications relevant to you, if not the experience you earn or the big encounters. We tend to assume that a meaningful or challenging encounter must be one capable of earning us xp. It may limit the entertainment value we're able to derive from the game. Certainly it may not want to be how you choose to have fun, but is a player inferior for getting enjoyment out of being able hurl about 10 ft bursts of fire all day, even if they're not strong enough to meaningful impact encounters equal to or higher than his level? Does playing in a game in which this effect can meaningfully impact an encounter necessarily inferior -- or too non-standard a game to deserve consideration? This feat does not overcome the opposition anywhere near as quickly as you could with other resources, but if you're thinking in character, you do not think in terms of how many encounters you can reasonably expect each day. Such feats may give your party the option to face more (possibly weaker, though it's worth noting that the MM's mind flayer sorcerer and a dozen ogre magi count as a CR 18 encounter) encounters each day, which is handy when time is of the essence and your knowledge of enemy resources is inadequate. ("You're sure the invite said that all of Mount Celestia's were going to be there today? It just doesn't pay to be a villain sometimes...") Honestly, if you're using a standard action in high level combat to deal 9d6 damage in a 10ft burst, then chances are, the party's animal mascot could handle the encounter. You just sit back while chucking rocks at the opponents and save your spells.You're already doing that, just with bigger rocks. It's true that this is extremely unlikely to win you a fight with anything on your level, at least by itself. Sometimes, however, it's not worth the resources you'd need to spend to defeat the encounter solo. This is hardly an excuse for telling the party tank, "I'm just going to sit here while you deal with this." It's usually not much fun for anyone either. Having said all that, I still don't see this feat as overpowered. It adds more flavour than oomph to a character, but I happen to think what it adds can be sufficient for many players, not all of them ignorant of the options available to them (and what they do and don't bring to the table).
Manic Man 10-29-06, 05:26 AM	Would I want to use fireball as a flare gun? As an attention grabber? Diversion? Trail marker? Weed killer? A device to pinpoint invisible opponents only you can see, so your allies know roughly where to aim? Scourer of possible green slime infestation? Means of flushing targets from cover? Gas pocket detector? Glad to see there are still people who can see the uses of unlimited abilities beyond just combat.
Sapp 10-29-06, 06:54 AM	Would I want to use fireball as a flare gun? As an attention grabber? Diversion? Trail marker? Weed killer? A device to pinpoint invisible opponents only you can see, so your allies know roughly where to aim? Scourer of possible green slime infestation? Means of flushing targets from cover? Gas pocket detector? The reserve feats that Archangel62 mentioned, I can see being useful. Can you expand on these ideas you have? How are they any different from any creative uses of "unlimited" abilities? Attention grabber? Does a caster really need that much more attention? How about a prestidigitation followed by good roleplaying? Diversion in battle, or outside of battle? Why not throw a rock? Trail marker for what level? If you're so creative, you don't need this to make trails. Weed killer? No. Anything can kill weeds. Pinpointing invisible opponents can be done by pointing and shouting as a free action. Either way, they still get total concealment. Having said all that, I still don't see this feat as overpowered. It adds more flavour than oomph to a character, but I happen to think what it adds can be sufficient for many players, not all of them ignorant of the options available to them (and what they do and don't bring to the table). Ah, I see that you were only disagreeing for the sake of argument, because your sentiment is mine. I was backlashing at those who seem to think that the feats were "overpowered". To repeat myself, I think they are equating "useful" with "overpowered". Even then, I think the most useful ones are the summoning and hopping ones, mentioned earlier. Why whack weeds when you can summon weed whackers?
NineInchNall 10-29-06, 01:05 PM	Can granting the ability to kill weeds more efficiently really be considered overpowered, though?
Onikani 10-29-06, 02:11 PM	it was an example of how you could use fireball to the same effect, but really, you don't need to. Not every single enounter, or use ofa fiery explosion calls for 10d6 fireball. Sometimes 3d6 in a 10ft square is jsut as well. There is such a thing as overkill, and this feat In those examples) allows you to avoid it.
Sapp 10-29-06, 02:16 PM	Can granting the ability to kill weeds more efficiently really be considered overpowered, though? Nah... Spiked Chains work better as weed whackers anyway. EDIT: Or perhaps, the druid's pet, depending on what it is, can eat the weeds.
Sapp 10-29-06, 02:23 PM	it was an example of how you could use fireball to the same effect, but really, you don't need to. Not every single enounter, or use ofa fiery explosion calls for 10d6 fireball. Sometimes 3d6 in a 10ft square is jsut as well. There is such a thing as overkill, and this feat In those examples) allows you to avoid it. Shatteredtower mentioned that you reserve the option of scribing scrolls of shapechange to make up for the horror of displacing that uber-spell with a not-so-uber, unused meteor swarm. This implies that he is willing to make economic sacrifices in order to make a feat work. You could make the same kind of economic sacrifice to get a wand of empowered lesser orb of (<energy> || force). Heck, buy one from the Artificer, or make one yourself. Then you have something to do in battles where your druid's animal companion doesn't need your help... and it won't qualify as overkill. That way, you don't have to waste a feat, waste standard actions, wasted gold (scribing scrolls for actually useful spells; note that these are scrolls to replace your highest level spell slot), waste a spell slot (probably your highest level one), and so on. You can save the spell slot for an important spell. You can save the feat for crafting feat or a [sudden] metamagic feat.
Just another user 10-29-06, 02:57 PM	They are not overpowered only for the many years of power creep that there has been in 3.0/3.5, sooner or later there will be a supplement with a save or kill 1st level spell but it will be ok, because, really, it is not the first of those, and there was this +1 enhancement for armours in a previous supplement that give immunity to death effect, anyway (included those from negative hitpoints)so it is perfectly balanced. :D
Sapp 10-29-06, 03:06 PM	You must be referring to power word: pain?
Just another user 10-29-06, 03:58 PM	You must be referring to power word: pain? Actually I was just being sarcastic (or at least trying to.) Do you mean that there is a save or die 1st level spell!? :eek:
DragonChild_ 10-29-06, 04:40 PM	Do you mean that there is a save or die 1st level spell!? Does Color Spray or Sleep count? When you hit a group of goblins with it, they either make their save, or die, pretty much.
Just another user 10-29-06, 04:55 PM	Does Color Spray or Sleep count? When you hit a group of goblins with it, they either make their save, or die, pretty much. No, I mean one that was not limited by hit die. I.e one that could work even against a 20+level character.
Sapp 10-29-06, 05:25 PM	No, I mean one that was not limited by hit die. I.e one that could work even against a 20+level character. Woah, a CR 20 challenge? Not many 1st-level spells can kill a CR 20 monster/NPC (before they kill you). Then again, the reserve feats don't work very well against CR 20's either. If you're busy using firebursts against a CR 20, you really need to wonder whether you're being stupid or your DM is willing to fudge to enforce an issue... ("You see? Reserve feats are overpowered if I throw 10 encounters at you while preventing you from getting rest or getting creative/economic/lost-lasting uses out of your other spells!").
Heahengel 10-29-06, 05:35 PM	No, I mean one that was not limited by hit die. I.e one that could work even against a 20+level character. The funny thing is there used to be such a spell (2nd ed Chromatic Orb), although I take your point about power creep within 3rd edition. I am kind of puzzled by this thread in general. I read those feats, and thought to myself 'I don't think I would ever want to take any of those, except if I really wanted to boost my caster level for some character centric spell, and have a party trick at the same time.' I'm not saying they are useless. But they aren't especially useful in combat. Unlimited use abilities often have interesting effects out of combat, and if you don't like that in your campaign world, then don't allow them, but in general I don't think these are unbalanced.
Just another user 10-29-06, 06:18 PM	Woah, a CR 20 challenge? Not many 1st-level spells can kill a CR 20 monster/NPC (before they kill you). Then again, the reserve feats don't work very well against CR 20's either. If you're busy using firebursts against a CR 20, you really need to wonder whether you're being stupid or your DM is willing to fudge to enforce an issue... ("You see? Reserve feats are overpowered if I throw 10 encounters at you while preventing you from getting rest or getting creative/economic/lost-lasting uses out of your other spells!"). that is not what I wanted to mean. My first post was just an attempt of humor ("soon or later you'll have a wish spell at first level" :) ) then you said that thing about power word:pain and I trhought that were already at that point. :) Like I said I don't think those feats are overpowered, but only because we are used to that level of power from the previous sourcebook, if WotC had put them in the first sourcebook after the PHB a lot more people would have started scream "Borken!" at them, I think. Personally I think that recent books from WotC are pulling D&D too much into a dragonball/final fantasy/anime-sque direction for my tastes.
Sapp 10-29-06, 06:25 PM	Power Word: Pain is a 1st-level instant-death spell. It deals 1d6 + 1d6 / round to one target; up to 4d4 rounds, no save. It doesn't work on higher CR challenges, but for lower CR challenges, it's technically a "DIE" spell. No, not "save-or-die"... just "DIE".
Just another user 10-29-06, 06:50 PM	Power Word: Pain is a 1st-level instant-death spell. It deals 1d6 + 1d6 / round to one target; up to 4d4 rounds, no save. It doesn't work on higher CR challenges, but for lower CR challenges, it's technically a "DIE" spell. No, not "save-or-die"... just "DIE". So, from 5 to 17 d6 of damge? Nasty, Are you sure don't work on higher CRs? what if I cast it 3-4 times on the same target and then run/fly teleport away to safety waiting for it to take effect (rinse and repeat if necessary)? Think to a dozen of 1st level wizards with wands of it, even a 20 level character would have problems.
Sapp 10-29-06, 06:51 PM	Power word spells all have HP caps.
Just another user 10-29-06, 06:56 PM	Power word spells all have HP caps. Oh, right.
Shatteredtower 10-29-06, 09:51 PM	Can you expand on these ideas you have? How are they any different from any creative uses of "unlimited" abilities?I'm not sure why you think they have to be. It's enough that they're the means the player enjoys dealing with the options. Attention grabber? Does a caster really need that much more attention? How about a prestidigitation followed by good roleplaying? Diversion in battle, or outside of battle? Why not throw a rock?I'd have thought that one was obvious: because he likes throwing fire around at will. Being able to do that while causing a little bit of mayhem at the cost of no spells isn't that bad a reason either. Trail marker for what level? If you're so creative, you don't need this to make trails.If you're so creative, you don't need to play the game either. What else have you got for creating a trail 20 miles long that could be followed by drunken orcs over the next three days, none of them with access the Track skil? Weed killer? No. Anything can kill weeds.Care to show me how one of your characters can clear a few acres with a warhammer in an afternoon? Didn't think so. Got anything that doesn't involve the expenditure of resources you might want to keep handy for a bigger challenge? You're not going to suggest blight to me, are you now? Pinpointing invisible opponents can be done by pointing and shouting as a free action. Either way, they still get total concealment.Yes, they do. Care to show me how much shouting hurts your target? A lot less than a few d6 hp of fire damage, I'd wager. You scoff because it's not enough. I accept it because it doesn't have to be, so long as it provides a player with an enjoyable way to swat your enemies around. Ah, I see that you were only disagreeing for the sake of argument, because your sentiment is mine.Your assumption reflects poorly upon your judgment. On the question of whether or not the feat is overpowered, yes, I agree with you, but that's not the whole of the issue here. You've been way too dismissive on the small details. But hey, it doesn't have to work for you, so no long as no one tries to force you to take the feat. Even then, I think the most useful ones are the summoning and hopping ones, mentioned earlier. Why whack weeds when you can summon weed whackers?That's an easy one: because your concept is that of a fire-wielder, not a summoner. When it comes to deciding which one is better, the only answer that matters is the one you'd enjoy playing the most. We already know your answer to that, and I have no problem with it. I just happen to think you're being awfully trigger happy when it comes to dismissing the alternative concept. I accept it as a reasonable reaction to anyone who fears this feat is overpowered, because I don't think it is. However, it can be a headache until you're on top of it: I once had a player try to burn down entire cities with the ability to throw the firepower equivalent of a lit match around at will. As long as people observe the general rule that instantaneous fire damage doesn't cause things to catch on fire, there really shouldn't be a problem here. Shatteredtower mentioned that you reserve the option of scribing scrolls of shapechange to make up for the horror of displacing that uber-spell with a not-so-uber, unused meteor swarm.False. The meteor swarm is used when you choose to use it. Sure, after that, you're probably pumping out 3d6 hp fire bursts on the basis of the fireball you've memorized, but so what? This implies that he is willing to make economic sacrifices in order to make a feat work.Not at all. You don't need that shapechange scroll. Oh, it's nifty and all, as is being able to being able to cast it as a prepared spell, but so's greater dispel magic. So's disjunction. So are counterspell options. Do these disadvantages of non-instaneous spells or magic items cripple them? Of course not. They're just the price you pay for the investment (assuming your table hasn't banned or replaced the spell for one reason or another, of course). You can save the spell slot for an important spell. You can save the feat for crafting feat or a [sudden] metamagic feat.Yes, it's obvious that you can do something else. Its an overstatement to to claim that you're somehow doing it "better" by taking such options. Better is not defined by how fast you can overcome challenges. It is defined by how much satisfaction your entire group, players and DM, gets out of dealing with them. Personally, conventional use of shapechange as an offensive spell bores me to tears. YMMV. Lobbing fire all around isn't exactly my idea of fun either, but it's also considerably less hassle.
Sapp 10-29-06, 11:29 PM	Care to show me how one of your characters can clear a few acres with a warhammer in an afternoon? Didn't think so. Got anything that doesn't involve the expenditure of resources you might want to keep handy for a bigger challenge? You're not going to suggest blight to me, are you now? Subject to DM fiat and entirely level dependent. For example, I might rule that, for this particular type of fantasy weed we're referring to, 1d6 to 3d6 fire damage would not be enough on a living weed. I have tried burning life greens in fire in real life. I have waited 3 to 4 rounds. The weed did not incinerate, but it was burnt very well, almost to a crisp. For fantasy weeds, you could just end up with burnt weeds. To completely incinerate them, you might need more. I might rule, for humor, that a Spiked Chain is extremely efficient at whacking weeds. A Fighter with multiple attacks per round with cleave might even be better at cleaving weeds than a mage would be at clearing them with a 10ft radius burst. (The fighter's cleared path of weeds would be 15 ft wide.) (Making the assumption that the Fighter is using a Spiked Chain is just as valid as you making the assumption that the wizard is a blaster mage, not a summoner.) The point is that these situations are not covered explicitly in the rules, so they aren't exactly the most valid pieces of evidence we have to judge whether a feat is overpowered or not. Yes, they do. Care to show me how much shouting hurts your target? A lot less than a few d6 hp of fire damage, I'd wager. Shouting is a free action. You can do something else in the meantime, such as casting a real spell or using a wand. You've been way too dismissive on the small details. But hey, it doesn't have to work for you, so no long as no one tries to force you to take the feat. I dismiss the smaller details you've mentioned because they are more subject to campaign style and DM fiat. When discussing whether an option is "overpowered" it's simpler to make mathematical and objective assertions, or, in the case where there are none, at least have overwhelming subjective evidence. The arguments you've set seem to all circulate around roleplaying and campaign style, for example, "It's not my style to summon, I'm a blaster mage," as evidenced below: That's an easy one: because your concept is that of a fire-wielder, not a summoner. When it comes to deciding which one is better, the only answer that matters is the one you'd enjoy playing the most. We already know your answer to that, and I have no problem with it. I just happen to think you're being awfully trigger happy when it comes to dismissing the alternative concept. I know how important roleplaying and campaign richness are to you, because I've seen how heated you can be in debates about Metagaming. I'm not trying to be dismissive of the idea of "roleplaying", but my stance is simple. If you're going to use "roleplaying" as a crutch for balance, you shouldn't be making strong arguments such as "this feat is overpowered!" In practice? Yes, roleplaying factors in, but it's a variable factor... too variable. Suppose someone argued that meteor swarm was an overpowered 9th-level spell. I counter by pointing out shapechange and gate (which I feel are much more useful). "I'm not a shapeshifter!" and "I'm not a summoner!" are not valid arguments in favor of meteor swarm because if you value a particular style of playing over power, then, arguably, "power" wasn't a high priority for you in the first place. You're making a lot of in-game assumptions and using a lot of context that you haven't even fully detailed to me. You've implied that no one on the team was a druid (what kind of druid would tolerate you burning 20 ft wide path through a forest just to lead a few drunken orcs?). You've implied that the wizard taking the feat doesn't like summoning. You've implied that whacking weeds will be an issue in the campaign. Again, I'm NOT dismissing the fact that the feats can be useful. My main point was that they are not overpowered. Given the chance, many things can be "overpowered". If I could make as many assumptions as you have, then I can make almost any feat/spell seem important or "overpowered". Teleport is overpowered in a campaign that involves a lot of traveling. Diplomacy is overpowered in a campaign where the DM is extremely lenient and supportive of skill usage. Trap sense is overpowered in a campaign that involves a lot of traps. Your assumption reflects poorly upon your judgment. On the question of whether or not the feat is overpowered, yes, I agree with you, but that's not the whole of the issue here. I insist that that is the entire issue. I would not have bothered arguing if this was about whether the Reserve Feats can be useful. Any option can be useful given the right circumstances. When discussing quantifiable 'power' (instead of qualitative 'usefulness'), it's best to use as little anecdotal and campaign/DM specific evidence as possible. You might find it necessary to pick apart my posts individually and out of context, but my stance was clear from my very first post in this thread: "I think some people are equating 'useful' with 'overpowered'." Granted, not many people care about context anyway, so I understand why you'd feel compelled to disagree with the tidbits of my argument rather than the composite whole.
NineInchNall 10-30-06, 12:26 AM	"I think some people are equating 'useful' with 'overpowered'." :clap: :tiphat:
Manic Man 10-30-06, 02:57 AM	1 rule to consider Spiked Chain - Damage Type: Piercing Then are reserve feats weak? Marginally useful? Is Shatter (arcane 2nd level spell) weak? Marginally useful? http://boards1.wizards.com/showpost.php?p=597505&postcount=17
Sapp 10-30-06, 03:15 AM	1 rule to consider Spiked Chain - Damage Type: Piercing I'm not sure why this should matter. I am, in fact, dumbfounded as to why you would mention this. Are you saying it would be harder to whack weeds with a spiked chain because it deals piercing damage rather than slashing damage? Are you serious? Honestly, if it's that important to you, fine... it's slightly faster at whacking weeds than spiked chain. (Though, if speed was important to you, you might as well have used one of the innumerable other weed whacking tactics available.)
Karak_Nechot 10-30-06, 04:08 AM	1 rule to consider Spiked Chain - Damage Type: Piercing Yes, why does this matter? Then are reserve feats weak? Marginally useful? Is Shatter (arcane 2nd level spell) weak? Marginally useful? I would say most of the reserve feats are weak, and a few marginally useful. Shatter is definately a good spell, though. Shatter can only be used a limited number of times per day, though.
Manic Man 10-30-06, 07:20 AM	I'm not sure why this should matter. I am, in fact, dumbfounded as to why you would mention this. [QUOTE] [QUOTE=Sapp]I have tried burning life greens in fire in real life. I have waited 3 to 4 rounds. The weed did not incinerate, but it was burnt very well, almost to a crisp. For fantasy weeds, you could just end up with burnt weeds. To completely incinerate them, you might need more. Basing arguments against examples raised on real life. Clearing weeds with a fork (piercing weapon) in real life Link them together and the dumbfoundness disappears I would say most of the reserve feats are weak, and a few marginally useful. Shatter is definately a good spell, though. Shatter can only be used a limited number of times per day, though. Why is Shatter good? By the book it only damages crystaline monsters in combat. It only blows up glass, crystal etc in 5 ft rad in combat. It only breaks a single object up to 10 pounds/level in combat. By the book, it is a very weak spell in combat.
Sapp 10-30-06, 01:50 PM	Basing arguments against examples raised on real life. Clearing weeds with a fork (piercing weapon) in real life Link them together and the dumbfoundness disappears First of all, I was being facetious. Second, I was only basing arguments against real life examples because that's what others wanted to do. If we're going to continue avoiding discussion of in-game, in-combat mechanics, then what are we really going to base our arguments on? Whacking weeds isn't exactly covered explicitly in the rules. Third, yes, I have used weed forks to get rid of weeds. They work better than knives. Unlike a knife, a weed fork uproots the entire weed.
Worloch 11-01-06, 01:42 PM	I wish I could say I was suprised to see this thread still growing, but sadly, I can not. This is why I said orginially that we are unlikely to change the diehards on either sides minds. I would say that the reserve feats are overpowered depending on the campaign you play in, and the style you prefer. Those who think the feats are fine most likely play in campaigns where they are fine. Those who think they are overpowered, probably play in campaigns where they become overpowered. I believe, from a strictly rules point of view, that reserve feats cross a line that was established for balancing casters around lots of power a few times a day. That is my big gripe with them.
Sapp 11-01-06, 03:57 PM	I wish I could say I was suprised to see this thread still growing, but sadly, I can not. Who are you blaming for that? This is why I said orginially that we are unlikely to change the diehards on either sides minds. Name the diehards that actually think these feats are "overpowered". I would say that the reserve feats are overpowered depending on the campaign you play in, and the style you prefer. Those who think the feats are fine most likely play in campaigns where they are fine. Those who think they are overpowered, probably play in campaigns where they become overpowered. Woah. Wait a minute. Did you just reiterate my point and try to make it sound like a point for your argument? In a campaign where I constantly throw encounters with EL 4 levels under the average party's average ECL, without allowing the PCs to rest, and have a habit of fudging "boss" encounters where EL is actually equal to average party ECL... then sure, some of the reserve feats will seem overpowered. If weed whacking under time constraints will be a huge issue in my campaign... yes, whatever, a lot of those feats will seem "overpowered". I consider them aesthetic. Someone earlier on, I believe it was Shatteredtower, claimed that "[he] once had a player try to burn down entire cities with the ability to throw the firepower equivalent of a lit match around at will." I can do him one better. "I once had a fighter try to massacre entire countries of goblins. He even tore down stone castles with his adamantine spiked chain, which cut through the stone walls like a hotknife through butter." (Yes, it is complete bullcrap, but bear with me here...) Maybe fighters are overpowered too. So are potions of lesser restoration. With a vampiric spiked chain, mithril fullplate of invulnerability and heavy fortification, boots of striding and springing, and potions of lesser restoration, a fighter can take over a kingdom of 1st-level, Monster Manual goblins. Nothing they can do to stop him! Isn't that... overpowered? Sounds stupid right? Well, I, as the DM, had to make many improbable assumptions and set contrived parameters to make it seem that way (such as the goblins all being 1st-level). Similarly, I could make Fiery Burst [Reserve] seem important. I could set a ton of lame scenarios in which weed whacking is important. Or perhaps, I can set up a situation where the PCs are lost in a forest, they can't send, they can't cast divinations. They can only rely on others to find them by spotting their flares (conveniently provided by Fiery Burst). I'll have to hand-wave away anyone else's ability to do the exact same damned thing. No explanations of why nothing will work except for flares provided specifically by Fiery Burst, but that doesn't have to matter, since I'm trying to make Fiery Burst seem important out of battle. I'll also make sure that the Fiery Bursts don't attract monsters/enemies, because that'll spoil those clever uses of Fiery Burst that might make it seem "overpowered". The Cleric and Druid's divine casting will inexplicably fail, so they can't purify water. That'll mean that the PCs need to boil water to purify it. Guess what? Fiery Burst comes to the rescue again! It's looking pretty damned important right now. Storm Bolt [Reserve]? I can make that seem important out of battle too. I just need to bring a bit of science into the game. Storm Bolt is suddenly an infinite power generator! I can now make electrical engines and batteries powered by Storm Bolt. Oh my gods! Broken! But the same thing can be achieved through permanently animated constructs or Decanters of Endless Water spinning a turbine. Damn, I'll ban those then, and only allow Storm Bolt to work as a source of electrical power. That'll show them the power of Storm Bolt! As I said before, I can make many, many feats, spells, items, and class abilities seem "overpowered" depending on the campaign. I believe, from a strictly rules point of view, that reserve feats cross a line that was established for balancing casters around lots of power a few times a day. That is my big gripe with them. Yes, I know. They seem to make it even more difficult for the DM to control his casters. Before reserve feats came around, controlling casters was a simple matter of sending hordes upon hordes of minor encounters (EL << party ECL) to drain the casters' resources... and then waiting for a few hours for those buffs to wear off before your "main encounters" come into play... and denying any possibility of rest no matter how illogical or contrived the explanations may be. Now, that won't even work! I feel your pain.
NineInchNall 11-01-06, 08:11 PM	I believe, from a strictly rules point of view, that reserve feats cross a line that was established for balancing casters around lots of power a few times a day. That is my big gripe with them. The thing is that this has never actually been the case. Casters have had long duration spells that provide them with considerable power over the course of the day. Animate dead, charm monster, polymorph any object, shapechange, dominate monster, mindrape, etc., all allow for long term power with little investment in terms of actions renewable, daily resources.
Veomyr 11-02-06, 08:55 AM	Point of note, CoDzilla got more/less powered by Reserve feats as well. The spell source type doesn't matter. Just the descriptor. A druid with a memorized flame blade could be whipping out Fiery Bursts all day long. HEhehe... a wild-shaped druid launching fiery bursts and storm bolts.
Nachtwind 11-02-06, 09:22 AM	Well I don't think the feats are overpowered, consider that when reading my post ;). I have a little problem with the feats considering one class... The warlock. The warlock never was nearly as strong as a full caster with the max 4 encounters per day base, but with this feats he is nearly useless compared to let's say a wizard... The wizard could take 1 of those feats and technicially do as much dam with at will effects each round as the warlock could. Plus he would have his spells and I don't think the warlock invocations can by any means be compared to wizard spell power. I hope I made my point clear... So my only problem with these feats is, that wizards didn't make the warlock strong enough to have even a place in a more then 4 encounter per day game unless you multiclass him with some SA classes or such. But to avoid at least some problems.Once again, I don't think the feats are by any means overpowered
Archangel62 11-02-06, 10:46 AM	Well, that goes into how the warlock is played as well and the style of the game but that's another time. Reserve feats seem fine from my perspective, the strange thing is that most of the reserve feats seem to be better for multiclass characters rather than straight casters.
NineInchNall 11-02-06, 11:02 AM	HEhehe... a wild-shaped druid launching fiery bursts and storm bolts. I'm actually almost tempted to do this. It's just so, well, cool. Then I look at all the other feat options, and the reserve feats get pushed back further and further until they're no longer possibilities.
Archangel62 11-02-06, 11:09 AM	Well...comparative power, let's try this. The fear about reserve feats should be clarified. If we were to compare the power of casters with and without reserve feats, and I mean we compare them level by level and compare the total utility of the feats each one has, we might be able to come to a better conclusion.
Onikani 11-02-06, 04:50 PM	in a nutshell - it all depends on the game. In a huge umbrella it tkaes a much bigger post. I've read this entire thread, here's all the information i have managed to distill from it, as well as data taken from my group that has been testing them as well as general information extrapolated from my personal expreiences as a player and a dm. It's a long read, but i thin it will be informative and worthwile. I may even tune it and put it in Regdar's. I am going to write this under the pretense that it is a *wizard* character, and they are using a Core+Completes campaign. I am not familiar with Ebberon at all, but i am pretty certain that my arguments will hold up there just as well. Sorcerors are slightly different in that they don't have to prepare the spell, and although they get the spells a level later than wizards do, they get more of them. so if you want to convert - when i say a 11th level wizard has one 6th level spell per day (two at 12th level) you are smart enough to know the sorceror gets 3 at 12th level, and none before. Please don't nitpick the semantics. Reserve feats are awesome in low level games campaigns. I am specifically talking about the kind of campaign expected to end around level 7 or 8 (or before 10 anyway). The Higher the campaign goes (or begins) the less useful they are. Example - A 5th level wizard can cast as many 3d6 bursts as he wants until he casts the big 5d6 fireball. Unless the wiz is sure this is the last encounter fo the day, OR he can get all of the opponents in one shot, he is most likely better off using the feat and holding the spell. Having taken the feat at 3rd or 6th level won't really hurt him some much because at this point the good metamagic feats are still beyond him. There is no need to plan ahead to take pre-req metamagic feats, since the campaign will never make it to a high enough level where it is worth it. Compared to a 5th level party - 3d6 per turn is insane! No change to miss, no spell failure, no save?!! The only drawback is you spent a feat? how many feats does it take for a fighter to begin to approximate 3d6 per turn? He might be there around 5th level, but that is in a focused build that took a little more than one feat. These are the games when Reserves are good. Really good. Dm's who start campaigns at low levels cry at the Reserve concept, since this makes the caster insanely more powerful than the Core version. It may not break a campaign, but it may cause the DM and fellow players more headache than they are prepared to deal with. At mid level games (7-12) Reserves are still semi useful, but start to lose utility as the spells get better and better, and stronger and stronger. If the campaign starts here and is expecting to end either here or high/epic levels there are simply better feats to take. This is the range is which wizards really start to shine, not because of feats (in genreal), but because of spells. Having said that, feats begin to make the caster better at what he does. Instead of a Reserve, that feat slot (again we'll assume 3rd level) could have been spent on an item creation (create Wondrous) feat, since this is when you have the spell lsit to really start making the good stuff. Sixth level? Take craft wand? Make a wand of Fireballs! Yeah it costs money and XP - but the effect is way greater than a 3d6 or 4d6 burst Prefer metamagics? How about a pre-req metamgic feat that will open a door to better metamagic feats later. At 11th level you have access to 6th level spells - which means that the Metamagics that have +2-+4 start becoming playable - (Even more so if you took "Easy Metamagic" - and that is a great alternative to a reserve feat). Comparing the Reserve feat to the party at this level (say 10th or 11th?), I may have a wall of fire prepared, which means i could get 4d6 damage all day long with my bursts. Codzilla laughs at that. Fighters who have prestiged into anything decent are doing way more than that. And why the hell are you using a 4d6 (14point average) fire poof when you could be casting 6th level spells! (ok, ok i know that you most likely only have one 6th level spell - but think about all those 4th and 5th level ones, your wands, your scrolls, anything but that feat!) the higher the level, the more the effects of these feats get lost. As wizards grow in spell level they get more and better spells per day. At high caster levels even 2nd level spells that have a damage progression (scorching ray i'm looking at you) way outshine the bonus of the feat. They may still remain slightly useful if you run into a lot of low level encounters a day, but in this case all you are doing is sitting back and letting your party's tanks shine when you could be dispensing the problem with one spell. At high levels (12+) the feats are just trash. Seriously. just trash. At this point the options are just way better. Everyone knows it, everyone accepts it. I won't dwell on it. So while Reserve feats are inheritanly better at lower levels, in most campaigns they do quickly become less useful, until they actually become useless. Being forced to prepare, and then hold your best spell (or one of) is a huge drawback. This is even bigger of a drawback in a campaign where the pc's fight only 1-2 big fights per day. Since they are now wasting a feat, and not Nova'ing when they should be. Which actually lowers their potential. Reserves are a little better for spontaneous casters since they don't actually have to hold the spell to make it as useful, but they generally get more spells per day anyway. :rolleyes: The solution? If you run a low level campaign then you have to either disallow the feat or alter your combats to allow for it. Somedays there can be 3-5 small encounters, FORCE the mage think about it, should he nova, or hold back? Somedays START with an encounter 1-2 Cr's *above* the party. Make him Nova and sweat all day wondering if it was the right move. What i am really trying to say is - make your combats unpredictable, so your players don't simply metagame the decision to "Low levels, Lots of low CR's per day? Reserve feats here i come!" In a campaign i am currently participating in (i'm a wiz5/warmage1 going to ultimate magus next level) - we fight 0-1 encounters per day. It is always above our CR, and i always nova and we always win. *sigh*. Sadly, my DM has trained me to not take a Reserve feat since it will be mostly useless outisde of the one combat. I'm a metagamer this time around. Sorry, my DM made me do it, it's his fault. Also, if you are running a long term campaign and starting at low levels and ending at high ones, then i feel you should allow Reserves - under the stipulation that players can *not* retrain them. This way if they want the boost in the early game to help them survive, then they ultimately have to pay for it later since it becomes a wasted feat. From a real life perspective, spending a feat to ensure you live past the low levels isn't exactly a wasted feat, how many times have you heard someone say "yeah that sucked, but i got through it, and i wouldn't be here if i didn't." This is the equivalent of a character learning how to harness the innate power of magic (Reserve feats) and in doing so fell behind his studies in Metamagic and Creation. If you allow players to retrain, then you are effectively saying that you don't mind if they take a feat that is powerful for their level, and then trade it out when it is no longer useful, for something that is powerful at the new level. Part of the balance of the Reserves is what you give up for that early boost. And part of what you give up is your long term plans. Allowing retraining on Reserves completely nullifies that concept. So the bottom line is they are more powerful at lower levels, but they are only overpowered if the dm allows them to be. I'm not telling you to go out of your way to make it harder for the players who take them. I'm asking you to mix up your encounters so the players learn to predict the unpredictable. Everyone will have more fun in the end. thanks for the read!
Karak_Nechot 11-02-06, 07:02 PM	Onikani, you're 100% totally wrong. It's a SAVE FOR HALF. When you factor this in, you will see that your argument for the feats being overpowered at low levels fails utterly. Most of the reserve feats that do direct damage have saves, and the others require touch attacks, or melee touch attacks, or even ranged attacks (as with Invisible Needle). There is always a chance of failure, or of less than normal damage. A 1st or 2nd level character who does an average of 3.5 damage, 2 damage on a successful Reflex save will NOT dominate the game at low levels. A 3d6 small area 'fireball' that deals 10.5 damage, 5 damage on a successful save is really pathetic at 5th and 6th levels. As it goes up, the damage goes from bad to negligible. Even at low levels, (1/2HD)d6 fire damage, save for half, is really, REALLY unimpressive. The only thing that I see this feat being good for is being slightly better than a mage using a crossbow on rounds when he can't use his spells, and the fact that it's supernatural and no AoO means he can use it a little more regularly than a crossbow. Are the powers of the reserve feats worth taking? I can only say maybe, if you prefer to having something a little more effective than a crossbow for not casting your most powerful spells. Personally, give me some metamagics instead.
Onikani 11-02-06, 11:04 PM	Ok i missed a detail. There is a chance of failure, which makes them even worse. I said they are only good in low level campaigns, where there are a high number of encounters per day. That was my bottom line that i stated over and over several times. Even with a save for half, and an average of 5 damage a turn (after save) that is still enough to kill the average Cr1-CR2 critter. Or atleast deliver the finishing blow, to anything from Cr4-6. You compare this to a crossbow? Last time i checked making a touch, or ranged touch attack is still easier than an attack roll. And even if you do your mini burst, and even if they do save, you are still gaurenteed damage. I have never seen a mage be gaurenteed damage from a crossbow. I appreciate you finding the error i made, but in fact hat error only strengthens the argument i was trying to make. I appreciate it. And yes, while i prefer metamagics instead, you must have stopped reading before i said, they are only good in low level camapigns that end at low levels. Ya know, the levels before mages can use metamagics besides Sudden Silent and sudden still...
NineInchNall 11-02-06, 11:07 PM	That's pretty much a good analysis, onikani. However, I don't think you can call them overpowered, even in a low level game. In a low level game they appear to be useful.
Sapp 11-02-06, 11:09 PM	I appreciate you finding the error i made, but in fact hat error only strengthens the argument i was trying to make. I appreciate it. It doesn't strengthen your argument at all, unless you are specifically referring to his mention of crossbows, which is unrelated to the point that Fiery Burst allows for a reflex save for half. They are "useful" for a low level game though, I suppose. Doing 5 or 10 fire damage is slightly better than using a crossbow. It can also be used to light campfires, if no one has survival skills or toolkits. Still, as soon as I reach 5th level, even Craft Wands would be a good replacement. And yes, while i prefer metamagics instead, you must have stopped reading before i said, they are only good in low level camapigns that end at low levels. Ya know, the levels before mages can use metamagics besides Sudden Silent and sudden still... A minor point, but you don't need Sudden Silent or Sudden Still to get any of the better Sudden metamagics. Any metamagic at all (not just Sudden metamagics) would satisfy the prerequisites.
Ezzeran 11-03-06, 12:08 AM	I think they're perfectly balanced in a low level campaign. A fighter can easily be doing better than the average damage 3d6 would produce at level 5. In fact, through the early levels of most campaigns, fighters carry the party. I think of a reserve feat as simply an alternative form of regular attack, and in nearly all cases wizards will be doing less damage with their reserve feats than comperable classes will with their abilities. Rogues will be flanking and sneaking, fighters will be pounding, rangers will be shooting or two-weaponing it, monks will be flurrying, druids will be owning them all. These feats really aren't that big a deal for damage dealing. If you're lucky enough to catch monsters in the area of effects, they can certainly do a bit more damage than regular attacks, but a clever GM can prevent that. Best of all, these feats can indeed be used by any casting class, not just wizards, should they decide to spend their ever precious feat on it. Ezz
Onikani 11-03-06, 12:25 AM	A minor point, but you don't need Sudden Silent or Sudden Still to get any of the better Sudden metamagics. Any metamagic at all (not just Sudden metamagics) would satisfy the prerequisites. Good metamagic often have the requirement of "Any metamagic feat". Off the top of my head, the only 4 i can think of with no prereq are Silent and Still, and the sudden versions of each. So if you want a goo metamgic feat at level 5 or 6 (even Energy subsitution) - you need the prereq. Which you take at level 1 or three, if you plan on a Metamagic route. Which is why i said you don't even bother taking metamgics if you know that the campaign will end and the char will be retired at level 7. You don't have long term plans, the choice of feats you take are the ones that give you the most bang for your low level buck. In this scenerio, the reserves are good, since it allows the mage to be useful in an environment where mages aren't as useful. Everyone aggrees that at the first 3 levels Fighters are the bomb. they carry the party, they do most of the damage, and suck in all the hits. Wizards are the weakest thing ever at level one. Over the course of the first ten levels the balance shifts, after level ten wizards are far and away more powerful than fighters. This is why you see "Do fighters suck?" threads. In old D&D this was never a question - the books straight up said the classes that start as the weakest become the most powerful, and vice versa. This is a feat that as i have said time and time again, makes wizards better at low levels. In makes them viable in a low level campaign. Yes in a longer campaign the player must decide whether he has the short term goals of Reserve feats, or if he has the long term goals and wants to start down a metamagic or creation path, or some combination. I never called these feats overpowered. All i said was they only *seem* overpowered to DM's that aren't properly doing their job. If the Dm throws hordes of goblins at the party, and i mean ONLY horedes of goblins over and over, than this is the 3rd level feat for you. Even at 2d6 (save for half) you will still be able to kill 2-3 goblins per round (in a 10 foot square, i know, i know). But if the DM mixes up encounter size and frequency and you never know when you need to nova out, or hold your spells for later, than this feat is probably not for you since you never know how or when to use it or cast out. Oh yeah, and i said the feat gets worse and worse as teh wizard advances in levels. Have i made my point enough yet? :)
NineInchNall 11-03-06, 12:34 AM	Not to sound rude, but it helps to read the feat descriptions before posting. Metamagic feats without prereqs: (Core only) Empower Spell Enlarge Spell Extend Spell Heighten Spell Maximize Spell Quicken Spell Silent Spell Still Spell Widen Spell
Onikani 11-03-06, 12:40 AM	Off the top of my head, the only 4 i can think of with no prereq Bolded for emphasis. Not to sound rude, but it helps to read the feat descriptions before posting. :D Hmmm, so are there any core which don't have a prereq? I don't have my books near me, hence the Top of my head bit. :)
AllisterH 04-04-07, 11:53 AM	To me, the reserve feats are one-half of the solution to balancing the classes. I want high level magic to be curtailed but if I do so, I need to throw the wizard a bone at low levels and these Reserve feats do an excellent job of it.
Roland the Crownbreaker 04-04-07, 08:11 PM	Personally I don't like the reserve feats. Any feat which pretty much swipes the primary gimmick of another class is, in my opinion, a bad feat. Never running out of spells (or spell like abilities) is one of the defining features of classes such as the warlock and dragonfire adept. In exchange for this benefit, thier abilities are fewer, and the damage output is weaker. Granting a feat that allows the spells-per-day casters to emulate this, or just cast as normal if it there is more advantage to it, seems to reduce the value of these classes too much. In terms of how a wizard with a reserve feat relates to a wizard without a reserve feat, I don't think it will create any balance problems. They aren't overpowered in that sense of the word. I just don't like themn because of how they relate to the invocation using classes.
Nezkrul 04-04-07, 10:30 PM	wow talk about thread necromancy. no reserve feats are not overpowered.
sigma999 04-15-07, 10:03 PM	Probably found it from the link in the Complete Mage review over at The Gaming Den, just like I did. http://bb.bbboy.net/thegamingden-viewthread?forum=1&thread=749 All I have to say about Reserve feats being overpowered is AAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!! SURELY YOU JEST!
navar100 04-15-07, 11:24 PM	As the DM of said ca,paign I am reading with interest this thread. My thoughts of the Feat (I have not read the book yet), from what I understand is this: * Unlimited uses of lesser effect This is the part that sticks in my craw the most. UNLIMITED USES CHEERS! So you think warlocks are over-powered then?
Archtyrant Terevoth 04-16-07, 08:45 AM	This is the part that sticks in my craw the most. UNLIMITED USES Lets just hope you don't find the core fighter... He can use all his feats and the attack action an unlimited number of times per day!
eRaz0r 04-20-07, 05:43 PM	(Cast Raise Thread) There are several Bastion concepts in D&D that have somehow survived since 1st Ed. Two of them are : 1/ Fighters are tougher than wizards, until wizards get to higher levels (whereupon they rule the universe). 2/ Wizards must conserve their strength, because their power is not usable at will. The perception of the Reserve Feats is that they break through these old bastion concepts. Oldguard D&D players may balk at their flavour or perceived power because of this. It's very similar to the reaction the Warlock class got when it first arrived on the scene. "There's a class that gets spell-like powers that are USABLE AT WILL". Oh No! BORKEN! Actual play-testing, however, has shown that the Warlock tends to be under-powered in many standard game-styles. Some styles (such as those where the party rests very infrequently, and has little opportunity to resupply or restock expended items) will allow classes with non-expendable at-will powers to shine. These also favour the Fighter (and other melee classes) who can swing their weapons without limit (and don't run out of ammo). The real "problem" is not so much with reserve feats, but with the escalation of magical power as levels increase. Generally speaking, a fighter-type can levy his power at one enemy at a time, along the AC/HP line of attack. At 1st level, a wizard has a small number of direct damage spells that do not rival the Fighters' damage output. Usually, a wizard is better off with battlefield control spells, such as Sleep or Color spray (or glitterdust and web when he gets 2nd level spells). Melee is still king of hitting things and making them cry. However, as the classes grow in levels, the wizards ability to dominate progresses. Soon he gets spells that affect a wide area. Damage is measured in d6 per Caster Level. And Direct Damage is usually the least of his powers. He can grapple foes in a wide area and at range (Black Tentacles) or he can seal off tactical approaches (Wall spells, and area denial spells) or slow foes, or buff his companions, or take out a single opponent with a save or die spell. Melee is progressing linearly (+1 BAB) but each spell level is significantly better than the one before. (some argue, exponentially better) The Casters' one weakness ? He needs to consider very carefully, which spells to use in any given situation and which to hold in reserve for future threats. (At least, that's the theory, based on the old Bastions of D&D. ) In reality, most game-styles allow the Spellcaster to choose when to rest. In fact, there are many spells which provide a safe haven for the entire party in which to recover their spells. The humble 2nd level spell Rope Trick, once you hit 9th level, allows your entire party to comfortably rest and recover all their spells. Whenever they want. It's very difficult to enforce a "more than 4 encounters per day" style in which "unlimited use" types will shine under such conditions. Now how do reserve feats come in? When a wizard is out of spells for the day, normally, he will have nothing but a sling or a x-bow or a dagger to fall back on. It's pitiful damage, and the player will feel utterly powerless and pointless until the party rests. He might pull out a wand or a staff if there's a capable threat, but generally, those are non-renewable resources best conserved. A reserve feat gives the caster something interesting to do other than use his spells. This something else, however, is nowhere near as powerful as those spells. By not using his real power, he can bring to bear a (relatively) minor effect (usually not even on par with other classes). Consider the caster options. Without a reserve feat : Every round he has to decide between ALL or Nothing. He can either use one of his spells, or he can do nothing. (Plinking with a x-bow or stabbing with a dagger is considered "nothing" because after a certain level, that's the effect it will have on the encounter). Now, with a reserve feat, he has another option. One could argue (and some have ) that wizards have enough options as it is. More options = more power. In one sense, that might be true. Instead of ALL or NOTHING, the caster can choose between ALL and SOMETHING (but nothing too good). This is definitely better than the fighter who has few choices - he can hit it or he can try to physically affect it with a special attack (grapple, bull rush etc). That's about it for him. But ought we compare the wizard to the fighter (yet again?) . Rather we should compare the Wizard with a reserve feat vs one with a different feat. A wizard with a different feat might have, say Craft Wondrous Item or a Metamagic feat. In this case, he has probably either outfit his party with magic items that enhance everyone's effectiveness (some of which might have at-will abilities - BORKEN!), or he might be able to quicken spells, or do more damage with them (Empower) or something else that makes his main fire-power (his spells) better. A wizard with the reserve feat has the ability to choose whether to use his main fire power (un-enhanced) or use a minor ability that isn't as good as most spells (yes, even some 1st level spells have better effects). If he does use his main fire-power, his future uses of the minor power diminish that day. That's another cost and a big factor in the decision whether to cast or not.. The reserve feats not only give wizards some extra endurance, they also encourage a wizard to conserve power for later in the day. They come with built-in costs that encourage those who take them to conserve their power (something that isn't encouraged by the normal game-style) thus allowing other classes a chance in the lime-light. They make casters appear more powerful ("He can light fires with a wave of his hand!") but in actual play, encouraging casters to go longer between rest periods means for less actual power in any given encounter, and having to give up a more powerful feat (such as a Craft/Metamagic feat) to get that ability is another cost that cannot be ignored. I'd agree that, at the lower levels, they can feel very powerful. When your fighter has to close into melee range and does 2d6+3 with a greatsword, and you can do 2d6 fire damage in a 10' burst (Ref save 1/2) to anything in 30' AT WILL.. that sounds pretty powerful, because it breaks apart those old bastions I mentioned above. But if, instead, you'd taken Quicken Spell : when you would be doing 9d6 fire damage in a 10' burst at 30' range with Fiery Burst and holding on to your Meteor Swarm .. you could instead cast a 5th level spell as a swift action and still cast Meteor Swarm, and then go rest in your rope trick and do it again. ;)
Thane26425 04-20-07, 08:35 PM	Don't forget the mobility feats. There's one for flying and the other for limited teleportation. The flight one can put you mage out of reach or melee and the other allows a short teleport followed by a move action (since activation is a standard action). Like the other reserve feats, they are underpowered, but could get a mage out of trouble. I've used the teleportation one with an Abjurant Champion and could easily get passed the enemy's front line to attack casters in the rear.
ZocckCastlestorm 04-20-07, 08:59 PM	I had been asking about the Reserve Feats a while ago. The verdict from our fellow Posters was "No, because of the limitations in them." After play-testing this myself in a set-piece Fight of a Human Wizard (8th) with Fiery Burst(the more popular choice for the Direct Damage ones). and the same Wizard, but without that Feat, and was replaced with Empower Spell(Used on Scorching Ray's 2 Rays = Lots of Damage!!!). The Foe was the same in each encounter: An Orc with the Elite Array, Barbarian: 5/ Eye of Gruumsh: 2. The one with the Reserve Feat was dead in 6 Rounds. The Orc had a bow and shot at the Levitating Wizard, then used Jump in a Full-Round Charge. Taking the 3D6/Round against 7D12 HP's and Con Bonus was not that bad(although 2 times the Fiery Burst Dice came up kinda high: 16 & 17 as I recall). The one with Empowered Scorching Ray's (2) and Stoneskin as 4th Level Spell Slots wiped out the Orc Barb/Eye in just 4 Rounds and took 14 HP's of Damage from the bow. The Battles went rather like this: Set up; Flat open Arena=No hiding/Cover, and no terrain mods, nor any Surprise. Range was set at 100'. Rolled Initiatives. Both times the orc went first(better Dex and lucky). The Mage Cast Levitate to aviod the brute's Power Attack w/ Axe trick, and so the Orc used his bow. The only real difference is that the Empowered Scorching Rays did so much more Damage so much more quickly, that the Orc had no real time to put enough arrows into the Mage to make much of a difference. The Fiery Bursts did so little Damage (except twice) that it seemed a cruel joke! The Range Limit meant the Orc's last action was the aforementioned Jump Charge. 15' off the ground - the Orc's height/Area (5 ft) of reach w/ Great Axe = 10 Feet of jump to make. This meant a DC of 40 - 6(STR) - 10 Ranks in Jump, - 6 for Run Speed of 40, and -3 Skill Focus(Jump) = an effective DC of 15. I know it does not actually reduce the DC, but rather the Bonuses meant that only a 15+ on the D20 was needed to get the DC 40 Check. He got it. Power Attack (4) with a Great Axe +1, and a STR of 22(Base, Race and Rage) = +9 to hit/ 1D12 + 18 Damage, after being shot twice).
spasheridan 04-20-07, 10:41 PM	Why was the 8th level wizard using such a weak attack against a decent opponent? Where were the greater invis, true strike, enervation (x2) tactics? Charm Monster? How about charm person (x5)? Web? Grease? Fly? ( i mean - levitaite? huh?) I think your test fails the "Wizards are not idiots, why would he do that?" test. Reserve feats are not meant for 1v1 arena combat, they are meant for the swarm of annoying yet not deadly foes - in those ecnounters the reserve feats give the caster an option to deal some limited damage while keeping his nukes in RESERVE for the patrol of possibly deadly threats in the next encounter.
sigma999 04-21-07, 01:03 AM	Reserve feats are not meant for 1v1 arena combat, they are meant for the swarm of annoying yet not deadly foes - in those ecnounters the reserve feats give the caster an option to deal some limited damage while keeping his nukes in RESERVE for the patrol of possibly deadly threats in the next encounter. That's what I've gathered just from looking at them, too. And as a result of coming to that same conclusion, I avoid arguing in this thread. <_<
Vaelan 04-21-07, 04:56 PM	The one with the Reserve Feat was dead in 6 Rounds. The Orc had a bow and shot at the Levitating Wizard, then used Jump in a Full-Round Charge. Taking the 3D6/Round against 7D12 HP's and Con Bonus was not that bad(although 2 times the Fiery Burst Dice came up kinda high: 16 & 17 as I recall). The one with Empowered Scorching Ray's (2) and Stoneskin as 4th Level Spell Slots wiped out the Orc Barb/Eye in just 4 Rounds and took 14 HP's of Damage from the bow. What happened to the first Wizard's fourth-level spell slots? You weren't using one of them for Fiery Burst, so choosing to save them is, quite frankly, idiotic.
ZocckCastlestorm 04-21-07, 05:18 PM	Why was the 8th level wizard using such a weak attack against a decent opponent? Where were the greater invis, true strike, enervation (x2) tactics? Charm Monster? How about charm person (x5)? Web? Grease? Fly? ( i mean - levitaite? huh?) I think your test fails the "Wizards are not idiots, why would he do that?" test. Reserve feats are not meant for 1v1 arena combat, they are meant for the swarm of annoying yet not deadly foes - in those ecnounters the reserve feats give the caster an option to deal some limited damage while keeping his nukes in RESERVE for the patrol of possibly deadly threats in the next encounter. Remember, that this was a Test of the Researve Feats-In this case it was Fiery Burst. That Researve Feat has a Range of 5'/Spell Level of Ancoring Spell-in this case: Fireball, a 3rd level spell. That meant the Mage needed to be within (5' X 3rd Level Spell = 15') 15 Feet of the ground.
Wizardmon 04-21-07, 06:44 PM	I say no. Perhaps strong, but not overpowered or broken. For example. Say I am a level 13 Wizard. I know the spell Delayed Blast Fireball (7th lvl spell), and I have the Fierey Burst feat. I can use the Fiery Burst reserve feat to do 7d6 damage so long as I still have Delayed Blast Fireball 'in reserve.' But, I can deal 13d6 damage with my DBF. The feat gives you a chance to be a bit more spontaneous with your casting, but not without limits. This feat deals about half as much damage as your strongest spell, and once you use your strongest spell, the feat only gets weaker and weaker, untill you cannot use it at all (when you are all out of fire spells.) So, it is strong, but not overpowered. If your DM has an issue with the feats as they are, then I recommend he makes higher prerequisites, not eliminate them.
sigma999 04-22-07, 04:32 AM	Oh, and well written, eRazor. Bastions must fall; Fighter must be stronger physically than any Mage at all times and unlimited =/= borken.