Looking online i found a feat that i would like to use "Talented Envoker
www.dandwiki.com/wiki/Talented_Invoker_(3.5e_Feat)
-3.5eHomebrew
-Character Options
-Feats
-Character Creation
-Talented Envoker
***even though i copied the link the wiki page doesnt come up so jsut follow the steps to get to the page.
My question is this, the feat doesnt specifically mention it is a warlock specific feat, it just mentions warlocks in the benefit, DFA's use invocations as well and i was just wonderign if this would apply to a human DFA too?
also, silly question, is 3.5E Homebrew any different from regular 3.5 ? only reason i ask is cause i cant find this feat in any book, it jsut keeps mentioning and bringin up 3.5e and the D&D wiki page?
www.dandwiki.com/wiki/Talented_Invoker_(3.5e_Feat)
-3.5eHomebrew
-Character Options
-Feats
-Character Creation
-Talented Envoker
***even though i copied the link the wiki page doesnt come up so jsut follow the steps to get to the page.
My question is this, the feat doesnt specifically mention it is a warlock specific feat, it just mentions warlocks in the benefit, DFA's use invocations as well and i was just wonderign if this would apply to a human DFA too?
also, silly question, is 3.5E Homebrew any different from regular 3.5 ? only reason i ask is cause i cant find this feat in any book, it jsut keeps mentioning and bringin up 3.5e and the D&D wiki page?
Homebrew feats, classes, spells, and other things are just something someone decided to put on the internet. Some of it is good to weak but others are complete fabrications blow standard RAW away. If you look around a bit you may find the a Katana should be a one-handed weapon that deals d12 damage and has a threat range of 17-20 with a x4 critical multiplier. Maybe this is the far end but you can find fanboy Katana descriptions that look just as good as the RAW Katana description (a masterwork Bastardsword) except the numbers are all FAR better.
Using Homebrew stuff is generally considered bad form and a DM should only allow it in his/her game after careful consideration. Bringing those things up in character optimization is really looked down upon because if you're just going to make up the rules as you want them how can we optimize the RAW?
If you care nothing about "power creep" then homebrew is no problem but if you do then you need to understand where the lines are that shouldn't be crossed. I'll also say that WotC itself is sometime guilty of crossing that line.
Hi! I'm the DFA guy! If your DM says it's cool, go for it. I'd choose Entangling Exhalation, myself, but I don't know how many first level feats you're working with.
***even though i copied the link the wiki page doesnt come up so jsut follow the steps to get to the page.
The link doesn't work because of how some of the characters get copied (usually the brackets). You can fix it by ensuring that the link looks exactly the same as it does on your address bar, instead of putting in percentage signs and numbers. Here's a working link to Talented Evoker.
Wow. A suggestion to avoid "power creep" from homebrew sources in a CharOp forum? The times they are a changing. WotC crossed that like when they released the Fighter in the same book as Clerics and Druids (not to mention every other non-full caster).
That isn't power creep, it's just the original imbalance. By definition, power creep has to creep upwards from the original power level as extra material is added, so you can't have it with starting material.
Just because a feat is "First level only" that is no excuse for it to blatently ignore all anything else like that. And again, I recognize that the Forgotten Realms are especially guilty of that that but there is a lot about that setting that can be called "messed up" when you look at it as a whole. I'd need to go looking but I suspect there is a feat somewhere called "Extra Invocation" which will give a character ONE additional Invocation; there are also several feats that give a bonus to spellcraft checks although for a single feat those are usually bigger bonuses or coupled with some other skill bonus. Now looking at Talented Invoker I see a single feat that is probably the equivalent of FIVE standard feats which anyone should be able to see as power creep.
I disagree that Talented Invoker is worth 5 other feats. In fact, I think it's worth very little. It allows another FIRST LEVEL INVOCATION - the only way you could argue that as overpowered would be to suggest one of two things:
- That invocations are more powerful than spells at a similar ECL.
- That invocations are more powerful because they are infinitely re-usable.
First off, there are few incovations that are worth investment, and barely ANY worth more than an equivalent level spell. Take 6th level DFA invocations - your best options are Darkness, Devil's Sight (really only worth it if you already HAVE Darkness), Endure Exposire, Magic Insight, and some skill boosters (Beguiling Influence, Draconic Knowledge).
So here's the thing - an equivalent level caster can do pretty much ALL OF THOSE THINGS. Without a feat. Sure, not whenever he wants to, but the rules on encounters suggest he shouldn't HAVE to. And there aren't any of those invocations that repeated casting is going to help a whole lot - they're mostly utility, with a bit of combat and tactical flavor when it comes to darkness or fog cloud (which most of your party will not want you casting all the time, unless they just need a quick getaway).
What's more, a caster will have access to INSANE amounts of other spells - and can learn new spells for just a little gold and a bit of XP, without having to blow a feat. That goes for Clerics, Druids, Sorcerers, Bards, Favored Souls, Dread Necromancers, Wizards ... any full caster.
So yes, every DM and group must decide their own definition of "balanced" - any game table must have some well-understood (if not necessarily clearly defined) expectations. On the other hand, I'd argue against any hard and fast definition of a new feat as "power creep" if it merely grants a bit more to a class that is, as all non full casting classes are, behind in the power game.
In any case, I can't imagine how an extra LEAST invocation could do anything to game balance except give the DFA a bit more of what casters have in spades: versatility, flexibility, and playability.
So here's the thing - an equivalent level caster can do pretty much ALL OF THOSE THINGS. Without a feat. Sure, not whenever he wants to, but the rules on encounters suggest he shouldn't HAVE to. And there aren't any of those invocations that repeated casting is going to help a whole lot - they're mostly utility, with a bit of combat and tactical flavor when it comes to darkness or fog cloud (which most of your party will not want you casting all the time, unless they just need a quick getaway).
What's more, a caster will have access to INSANE amounts of other spells - and can learn new spells for just a little gold and a bit of XP, without having to blow a feat. That goes for Clerics, Druids, Sorcerers, Bards, Favored Souls, Dread Necromancers, Wizards ... any full caster.
So yes, every DM and group must decide their own definition of "balanced" - any game table must have some well-understood (if not necessarily clearly defined) expectations. On the other hand, I'd argue against any hard and fast definition of a new feat as "power creep" if it merely grants a bit more to a class that is, as all non full casting classes are, behind in the power game.
In any case, I can't imagine how an extra LEAST invocation could do anything to game balance except give the DFA a bit more of what casters have in spades: versatility, flexibility, and playability.
Phew. Apologies. No intention to be trolly, just interested because the OP mentioned DFAs. I do have an opinion about the basic tenet that "more sources = unbalanced," which I dealt with long, long ago in a thread called the "Anything Goes Gospels." My basic argument was that more sources allow for greater versatility, more creativity in character builds, and prevent players from feeling trapped into playing the few basic options that overpower other choices in the game.
The thing I would say is that power creep is a concept, but its consequences aren't automatically good or bad.
Having more sources does generally result in more power creep, but the power of a class gradually creeping upwards with the addition of new material can be beneficial if that class was originally subpar.
But because it tends to be applied to all classes in most practical cases, it often emphasizes existing inequalities, even though it can result in better overall balance when focused on the less fortunate classes.
It allows another FIRST LEVEL INVOCATION - the only way you could argue that as overpowered would be to suggest one of two things:
Are you looking at a different version of that Talented Invoker feat? The version I'm reading grants a total of five additional invocations; two of least level, and one each of up to lesser, greater, and dark.
I'm not making a judgement on its value as a feat, just clarifying that we're all discussing the same material.
Wow. Yes, take that feat.
And yes, it IS power creep. Sorry, Steve-O! I will say it's power creep I approve of, though - what fun a DFA would be with that little gem! So much more utility! And Warlocks, who have quite a bit of invocations to begin with, could really be three-dimensional ALMOST casters (as in almost as good).
I know I've had an arguement discussing the power of a 9th-level necromancy spell in relation to a certain necromantic class. I was looking at the spell in the same source the class was located in while someone else was looking at a very similar spell with the same name from a completely different book.
It's important to know what you're talking about especially with homebrew stuff. I figured out how to google it and five bonus invocations and a +2 bonus to spellcraft certainly make it far better than any two other feats I can think of.
Leadership, Natural Spell.
But I assume you mean for an invocation-user. What's your opinion on a somewhat weaker class power-creeping towards a better tier?
Honestly, Leadership and Natural Spell are NOT all that powerful by themselves. What they enable on the other hand can be pretty broken. Natural Spell without the druid's spellcasting wouldn't seem nearly as overwhelming and as long as non-spellcasting cohorts are selected Leadership is just adding somethings to a party that could otherwise be brought along through story reasons.
No feat exists in complete isolation. Talented Invoker is only potent because the typical invocation-user's selection is relatively small. Compare that to the spellcasting front, where you don't see a lot of builds with Extra Spell.
Natural Spell and Leadership
Natural Spell is powerful because it allows the character in question to combine their two most potent class abilities (wild shape and spellcasting).
Leadership is especially powerful as a feat because it allows you to have a secondary character, with all their own feats (and all their other abilities, including another set of actions). And while you could achieve similar benefits through story means, you could do that and have Leadership.
Leadership is especially powerful as a feat because it allows you to have a secondary character, with all their own feats (and all their other abilities, including another set of actions). And while you could achieve similar benefits through story means, you could do that and have Leadership.