# Spellfire Wielder feat - usable?



## Tewligan (Apr 4, 2002)

So, there I am, flipping through my new Magic of Faerun book, when I come across the Spellfire Wielder feat.  If I had been drinking something when I flipped back to the spellfire section to check the specifics of the feat, I would have Danny Kayed all over my nice new book.  Sweet mother of crap, is that right?!  That seems pretty powerful for ANY feat, let alone one that you get at first level.  Anyway, has anyone used this in a game, and found it not as powerful as it seems to me?  It just seems to be open to plenty of abuse, with other spellcasting characters dumping their unused spells into their chum to convert into healing or shooty magic as needed.


----------



## Renshai (Apr 4, 2002)

Spellfire is a very powerful Feat/Ability. It HAS to be subject to the DM's approval (as listed in the Feat Description). I have not allowed the feat yet, but that is because I think that an entire campaign could be written around it and the character that has it. 

It really shouldn't be judged in comparison to other feats....   

Ren


----------



## MythandLore (Apr 4, 2002)

My group have used the feat and it was fine, it is really good for what it is though.

2 things you could do to weaken it are:


> Make it cost 2 feats.



or


> A character with Spellfire wielder feat can only "discharge" levels of spellfire in a single round equal to her positive constitution modifier plus her character level.
> So a 3rd (3) level character with 16 (+3) constitution can only fire a 6d6 Spellfire bolt or heal 12 hp with Spellfire in a single round even if she has 16 levels of Spellfire stored up or a 1st level character with 10 constitution can only fire a 1d6 bolt even is she had 10 levels of Spellfire stored.




Ether of these will DE-power 'Spellfire wielder' enough to make it work fine in any game.

And remember that girl from the books was not a 'Spellfire wielder' she was a 'Spellfire channeller' which is a PrC from the book, that is what gives you the really good powers.
So there really isn't a reason for someone to be chasing the party just because someone in it has the power, if you use the feat in your game it means there should be lots of people with that power.


----------



## Darklone (Apr 4, 2002)

*Hmm*

More things to balance spellfire: Don't allow to "refuel" the spellfire wielder with spare spells from the groups sorcerer before the night. Probably let him make saves against the amount of spellfire levels he keeps or he will lose some of them (probably hurting him). As I understood you can only neutralize enemy spells aimed at you with a readied action. Does not help against a fireballs area effect IMHO. So it's not that easy to refuel (except the groups sorcerer... )


----------



## UD (Apr 4, 2002)

The fact that you have to reserve an action to absorb spells helps some... but not much. I dont allow it for PC's in my FR campaign.


----------



## DungeonKeeperUK (Apr 4, 2002)

Personally I probably wouldnt aloow this either, but remember.. "Whats good for the goose is good for the wombat", or something like that..
If your players have it they can expect to come across others useing it....


----------



## Garmorn (Apr 4, 2002)

*It is not over powered*

One of our players used it and was almost worthless because of it.  

She could do more damage with a longbow.  Expecialy when ever we met a spell caster she would spend half the battle doing nothing because she was readied to asborb spells cast at her.  The only nice thing about it was the healing.


----------



## Jezrael (Apr 4, 2002)

If you play your villains intelligently then it's actually not too much of a problem, and it's pretty much useless against the most popular spell for just about any mid level wizard, you don't have to target a person with fireball just drop it at their feet.  In addition if they go for the Spellfire Channeler PrC then they're sacrficing levels that could go towards levels in a class that can be useful in more situations. Spellfire is pretty much a one trick pony, once the bad guys figure out the trick it's a simple matter to just sap the weilder in the back of the head instead of having mages go toe to toe with them all the time (pretty much the only reason the Spellfire chick from the books is still alive, "Ooh I'm an evil mage pursuing this chick that absorbs magic...maybe it won't work this time!, Well that and the fact that she used her boyfriend as a charging station.). Course YMMV, but it was never really a problem when we used it.


----------



## Darklone (Apr 4, 2002)

*Like I said*

Forget the absorbing spells from opponents. Simply use a spellcaster in the group as refueling station and whack away or heal. That makes it quite useful if fighters got a feat too much.


----------



## ruleslawyer (Apr 4, 2002)

It's good, but it's also meant to be a plot device as much as a character ability. It's expected that a spellfire wielder will be the target of attempts by various groups to either capture the secret of her spellfire, or erase the wielder from existence entirely. 

In general, spellfire is a quirky, chaotic concept that is an odd fit with the game-balance priorities of 3e and therefore gets called "broken" or "munchkin" by some of our compatriots on these boards. However, spellfire really is about how you DM it. If your game revolves around carefully-balanced challenges that would be shattered by the once-in-a-blue-moon 18d6 attack that is possible from a spellfire wielder, then don't let the feat into your game. If you're OK with building this kind of random element into your game, and making it an actual part of the RP and combat challenge of your campaign, then include it!

Oh, and yes: the biggest design flaw w.r.t. spellfire is that the best use of the ability isn't to absorb hostile magic, but to be "charged up" by friendly party spellcasters during a rest period. I haven't figured out a solution to this one; suggestions are welcome!


----------



## Marius Delphus (Apr 4, 2002)

ruleslawyer said:
			
		

> *Oh, and yes: the biggest design flaw w.r.t. spellfire is that the best use of the ability isn't to absorb hostile magic, but to be "charged up" by friendly party spellcasters during a rest period. I haven't figured out a solution to this one; suggestions are welcome! *




Suggestion: Spells used to recharge must be spells that do damage, and the the spellfire wielder must make a Fort save in order to recharge instead of taking damage. Thus, no recharging off _spider climb_ or _cure light wounds_. Too heavy?


----------



## Aaron L (Apr 4, 2002)

[my first ever double post.  I feel so ashamed]


----------



## Aaron L (Apr 4, 2002)

We've had a character in our Realms game that was a spellfire wielder since MoF came out.  He's no better than any of the other characters.  Our group is a human Halruuan wizard spellfire wielder (my brother), a gold elf bladesinger (me), a wood elf ranger, and a moon elf rogue.  Everyone is just almost completely balanced, with me being the weakest.  

Incidently, since we started we've had the Zhentarim, the Red Wizards of Thay, and the Cult of the Dragon come after us to get the spellfire wielder, and it's been more than fun.

Its a very Realmsian group of characters.


----------



## hong (Apr 4, 2002)

Aaron L said:
			
		

> *
> Its a very Realmsian group of characters. *




That could be construed as a subtle insult, you realise.


----------



## Aaron L (Apr 4, 2002)

hong said:
			
		

> *
> 
> That could be construed as a subtle insult, you realise.  *




Well, when I insult myself I generally don't take too much offense


----------



## Cloudgatherer (Apr 4, 2002)

The spellfire abilities are very cool, but not stupendously powerful at higher levels.  Somewhere between 6-8th level, a wizard or sorcerer will be able to throw out more/better damage dealers than a spellfire weilder, and a cleric is simply a better healer.  It's a good feat to have if short a wizard or cleric, but overall spellfire seems to be a one shot wonder in an adventure, due to problems recharging and limitations on stored spellfire levels.


----------



## MythandLore (Apr 4, 2002)

Marius Delphus said:
			
		

> *Suggestion: Spells used to recharge must be spells that do damage, and the the spellfire wielder must make a Fort save in order to recharge instead of taking damage. Thus, no recharging off spider climb or cure light wounds. Too heavy? *



The problem with this is it really really weakens a weak ability.
Spellfire has been extensively discuss before on the board, generally people who have-Not-used the feat in games think it is majorly overpowered.
The feat has 2 major flaws that weaken it severly already, the fact you must absorb spells to use it (combat absorbtion is next to useless) and the fact that the attack power at higher levels is terrible (you have to hit & they get a refelx save and the DC is lame, the save DC never gets better)
The only point that it is really able to be 'broken' is at lower levels, 15d6 etc at frist level is huge.
But at higher levels spell casters can cast spells much better (no to hit just a save with a better DC) then spellfire several times a day (A PC with 18 con doing a blast of 18d6 spellfire leaves him with no power for later, regardless of if he hits or misses something with the spellfire.)
If you think it is imbalancing at low level the best thing to do is:


> A character with Spellfire wielder feat can only "discharge" levels of spellfire in a single round equal to her positive constitution modifier plus her character level.
> So a 3rd (3) level character with 16 (+3) constitution can only fire a 6d6 Spellfire bolt or heal 12 hp with Spellfire in a single round even if she has 16 levels of Spellfire stored up or a 1st level character with 10 constitution can only fire a 1d6 bolt even is she had 10 levels of Spellfire stored.



This makes it not so strong at low levels as to let you outright kill bigg baddys.
4d6 at first level is not as bad as 20d6.


			
				Aaron L said:
			
		

> *Well, when I insult myself I generally don't take too much offense  *



LOL!


----------



## Humanophile (Apr 4, 2002)

My problems with it:


It's a FR feat.  As such, it's balanced for a higher power level, and as such is to be kept far, far away from my games.  Not to get up on a soapbox, but while FR isn't inherently munchkin, munchkins flock to realms material like flies to honey.  As such, I tend not to allow anything Faerunian without plenty of thought.  If you're playing a high powered FR game, though, this shouldn't worry you overmuch.
Taking it automatically makes the character a Big Cheese.  A bigger cheese than the other characters.  This may just be me, but anything that brings in more attention for the character should arise out of the campaign, not something they chose to pick up that someone else didn't.  It's kinda like the half celestial template; even if it's balanced to howevermany levels, it still makes the PC a bigger name than his adjusted levels would indicate, which is something the party needs to be built around ahead of time.


----------



## ruleslawyer (Apr 5, 2002)

Humanophile said:
			
		

> *My problems with it:
> 
> It's a FR feat.  As such, it's balanced for a higher power level, and as such is to be kept far, far away from my games.  Not to get up on a soapbox, but while FR isn't inherently munchkin, munchkins flock to realms material like flies to honey.  As such, I tend not to allow anything Faerunian without plenty of thought.  If you're playing a high powered FR game, though, this shouldn't worry you overmuch.*




Ah, my pet peeve resurfaces once more...

Why does everyone keep suggesting that FR = higher power level? AFAICT, every feat, PrC, and item in FR is balanced with the core rules, and other than the badly-worded spelldancing ability of the Spelldancer PrC, the FR rules create far less potential for abuse than do the splatbook or even core rules. 

This, BTW, is not aimed at your particular comments, Humanophile, but more at the specter of FR-bashing that seems to haunt every D&D3e-related board.  Sigh...


----------



## I'm A Banana (Apr 5, 2002)

I just hate FR because I hate the fact that authors like to make their own pet wizards that do all the REALLY important stuff.  But let's not turn this into a Realms-discussion.

I still allow basically anything from FR in my homebrew campaign, and a PC elf of mine took the Spellfire feat. She's used it all of once, and the druid did better healing. 

I even adjusted it slightly so that she could absorb area-effect spells (though they'd still hit everything else, just not the wielder).

IMHO, it's kinda worth it...with that feat, the PC basically takes something that gives the DM an excuse to make trouble for them. Since my campaign isn't FR, I've altered it so a group of elvish neo-nazi racists are trying to use her as an icon of the "true power of elvenhood." She just faught off an attempt of the bard-leader of the cabal to wed and reproduce with her.

And, of course, she was a wizard. No way she's gonna be able to take on a cabal of assassins without a bit of help from the other PC's. 

She's lookin' at he Spellfire Channeller PrC, now.

I'm not having a problem with it, but I did reserve veto power when I allowed her to take it. So far, so cool.


----------



## Tyrion (Apr 5, 2002)

ruleslawyer said:
			
		

> *
> 
> Ah, my pet peeve resurfaces once more...
> 
> ...




I have to disagree here. Unintentionally or not, FR does raise the power level...especially for spellcasters. Witness the Archmage, Incantantrix, or the Spellcaster Prodigy feat for some examples.

Less potential for abuse than the splatbooks? Perhaps. Certainly, the non-wizard PrCs don't compare to the best of Sword and Fist or Masters of the Wild...but I've yet to see anything in Tome and Blood that beats the Archmage for pure power.


----------



## Warchild (Apr 5, 2002)

Well, speaking as a medium-level FR fan, it definitely ups the power level. The prestige classes in the FRCS pretty much prove that.  Doesn't matter if you are having fun, though.

AS to the power of Spellfire:

The feat is incredibly powered, but the prestige class ends up quite weak compared to the other characters.
Not to mention the statement "all you need is a wizard in the group to pump you up".....well that works when all you have is the feat and it doesn't hurt to have a 1-2 shot burst of extra power. As a class, you will have a VERY hard time convincing other PC's to just walk around and constanly fill you up. Won't happen. Why would a wizard spend a 3rd level spell slot to memorize a spell that will give you 3 levels of spellfire (3D6 damage to one target), instead of just memorizing a fire ball that does 5-10 d6 damage to a handful of enemies?? He wouldn't. He didn't in my campaign. Even with levels of the prestige class, the character quickly ended up much weaker than the other classes. The ability to fire off a couple big blasts isn't a big deal when the wizard can already do it. 

In Short...the Feat is way powerful and hard to swallow. 
The prestige class is just the opposite, warn your player before she takes levels in it, it could turn out to be a big disappointment, mostly if she is expecting to kick a lot of butt. Not to mention the ability (though a touch attack) ends up using her poor base attack, which if it hits, still allows a saving throw to avoid half damage. Some ability , like the levels for healing is nice, but quite patheic compared to a cleric. The character becomes a utility character that can help out in some situations, deal a couple big punches or heal some wounds, then runs and hides.


----------



## Tewligan (Apr 5, 2002)

Thanks for the input, all.  It sounds like this may be okay at higher levels, but a bit too much early on.  Also, someone mentioned that wizards wouldn't memorize spells specifically to power up the spellfire.  What I meant was that they could dump spells that they memorized but turned out not to be useful.  "Hmm, I didn't need speak with plants after all - guess I'll drop it into the healing pool."
Anyway, thanks to everyone who's seen this in action.  I haven't used it, and was just curious how well it worked before I decided to okay it or not.  I think I'm leaning toward "not."


----------



## Renshai (Apr 5, 2002)

After running several games using the Core Splatbook and running several games using the Forgotten Realms Material I can say that there really isn't a difference in power level. Prestige Classes can really not be used to measure a power level comparison. Prestige Classes, by their own nature, are different. One might be very low powered while the next will offer more. It proves true with every Prestige Class I've ever seen. 

The Feats are balanced with the Core game. I saw no differences in power levels between the core games and FR. I suppose a powergamer could find some way to bend the rules to his/her whims, but that is true with any game/setting/material.

Just my thoughts...

Ren


----------



## jasamcarl (Apr 5, 2002)

*Uh....*

Ok, i am here to defend FR. I will not go into overt detail, but suffice it so say that with the exception of the Incanatrax, no one who has actually ever PLAYED these classes believes them to be grossly out of line...the Archmage gives up a gross amount of aggregate utility for that power, the same applys to the Red Wizard and any other dc-centered prestige class..and again not to get into an a debate on RP Game Theory, but this loss makes the prcs in question more 'passive' in their potential effectivness, i.e. subject to dm's fiat. 

Now to Warchild and others, what prcs in MoF do you find to have unbalanced an actual game. And i might add that this applys to Spellfire as well, which has been the victim of overtly simplistic analysis from the outset...


----------



## Humanophile (Apr 5, 2002)

*Re: Uh....*

Unbalanced MaoF PrC's?  You mean other than the incantrix (I like where they were going with it in theory, but free metamagicing and +1/level spellcasting boosts were a little much).  But I'll chalk that up as one mistake in a book and not hold it against the FR.

And as for the archmage, I don't have the book, but what are the prerequs on that?  I'll be willing to buy that it's "just" powerful instead of overpowered, since high level characters are supposed to have more goodies at their disposal.

But all that aside, Forgotten Realms is balanced on a high power level.  Not "It's balanced vs. the core books with high point buy and liberal magic".  As a matter of fact, that's kind of the point.  If you play high powered and cinematic, I've found that FR is right up your alley.  And if you like those, you'll be inclined to see anything in that vein as more balanced than anything that isn't.  Fans of anything tend to have that habit.

On the other hand, if you like grittier or lower powered, you're apt to see more cinematic or high powered skills as even more powerful than they really are, and certainly they'll disrupt your mood.  And I've found that a base FR character in a basic, 25 pointbuy, straight outa the core books campaign is a head above the rest.

...And since this thread is degenerating, I may as well hijack it and ask; why do FR campaigns start at first level?  Everything about the setting (kewl races, more background, starting more heroically) seems like it'd work better if you came in the door at 3rd-5th level.


----------



## hong (Apr 5, 2002)

*Re: Re: Uh....*



			
				Humanophile said:
			
		

> *...And since this thread is degenerating, I may as well hijack it and ask; why do FR campaigns start at first level?  Everything about the setting (kewl races, more background, starting more heroically) seems like it'd work better if you came in the door at 3rd-5th level. *




IMO, _D&D_ works better if you come in the door at 3rd-5th level.


----------



## Warchild (Apr 5, 2002)

*Re: Uh....*



			
				jasamcarl said:
			
		

> *Ok, i am here to defend FR. I will not go into overt detail, but suffice it so say that with the exception of the Incanatrax, no one who has actually ever PLAYED these classes believes them to be grossly out of line...the Archmage gives up a gross amount of aggregate utility for that power, the same applys to the Red Wizard and any other dc-centered prestige class..and again not to get into an a debate on RP Game Theory, but this loss makes the prcs in question more 'passive' in their potential effectivness, i.e. subject to dm's fiat.
> 
> Now to Warchild and others, what prcs in MoF do you find to have unbalanced an actual game. And i might add that this applys to Spellfire as well, which has been the victim of overtly simplistic analysis from the outset... *




Well Firstly, you don't need to defend FR against me, i play the game every other week and i thinks its just fine. But i am alos being frank about it...FR is overpowered. Now to specifics

First Arch Mage..its only overpowered depending on how you look at things. It does give up some stuff, in order to gain other stuff. Some people just value utility over power. i don't have a major problem with it.

Divine Champion - overpowered. There is no reason a fighter shouldn't get this class (mechanically speaking of course). It requirements are quite weak and there is no draw back. You get 2 feats (don't lose anything there), full combat, D10 HD, TWO superior saves, Lay on hands, Smite Infidel, Sacred Defense, Divine wrath, and a better skill list(religion and the all mighty Spot). Overpowered. Its the sort of thing FR-bashers...well, bash.

Guild Thief...same thing, next to no significant requirements and its WAY better than actually being a rogue. It has 2 less skill points, but Leadership bonuses, FEATS, no loss in uncanny dodge, better sneak attack (almost certaintly), makes getting this class imperative for anyone wanting to keep up with other characters.

Heirophant....the Arch Mage divine counterpart.....except that is requirements are much weaker than the Arch Mage and they don't have to sacrifice spell slots to get their abilities. ouch.

Shadow Adept????!!!....come on. The only drawback to the TON of powerful abilities and spell boosts they get is the requirement is the lost of 2 Wisdom points, they can't cast spells with the LIGHT descriptor(oh darn), and their Caster level for Evocation and Transmutation is minus 1. Plus, they can get out of the Wisdom loss at that.

I could desrcibe more, but i don't have the time or energy.

I like the Forgotten Realms. I also am honest that it is a power gamers paradise. Not that they are alone are in this these days, i've never a more blantant power up book than Masters of The Wild, which is supposedly default Greyhawk. sheesh!


----------



## jasamcarl (Apr 5, 2002)

*The purpose of prcs.....*

i will counter the others later, but conscerning the Shadow adept..one of the stated purposes of prcs is to provide a viable path for concepts which cannot be implemented in a balanced fashion using the core rules alone. The shadow adept is the answer for those who wish to (ultra)specialize in the weaker schools such as illusion and necromancy by paying a further penaly in the form of a Wis drop and Evocation/Trans caster level, two of the more potent schools. 

Just to paint a broad swath over many of these arguments, IN PLAY and at the levels many of these 'wow' abilities become available, they do not present a significant factor in actual balance because (and this applys to the Spellfire feat as well) there is a significant OPPURTUNITY COST to their mere use, especially in combat, but even without at these levels their effect can barely be felt.....


----------



## ruleslawyer (Apr 5, 2002)

Since I started this thread hijack: My apologies to those who want a discussion about spellfire.

To dive into the fray, however:

Archmage: Definitely not overpowered. Requires a "burn feat" (Skill Focus: Spellcraft), and you have to trade off spell slots for every ability you get in return. The advantage that a sorc has in having more spell slots to sacrifice is eroded by the entry requirement of knowing 5th- or higher-level spells from five schools.

Divine Champion & Guild Thief: OK, I haven't playtested these. But in all honesty, I see more fighters choosing butch classes like the OotBI, Weapon Master, or pretty much anything from OA (if they have access to it) over the Divine Champion. 

Hierophant: This class is not the same as the archmage. It has NO SPELLCASTING PROGRESSION. Enough said.

Shadow adept: OK, I agree here, although I almost think the class _needs_ to have its abilities for consistency of flavor. Moreover, having to make additional checks to counterspell and detect magic vs. pretty much every other spellcaster in the game IS a bit of drawback.

Incanatrix: I really loathe the amount of bashing this class gets on the boards. Unless you _really_ love metamagic, this class gives pretty much no benefit over playing a straight wizard, AND requires the Iron Will feat. Moreover, the Incanatrix's Instant Metamagic ability was nerfed in errata to not allow metamagicking that would raise a spell's effective level above the maximum spell level that the character can cast. The Loremaster (DMG) is a substantively more powerful PrC.


----------



## jasamcarl (Apr 5, 2002)

*Now to the Divine Champion*

As my ealier post indicated, prcs are actually a BALANCING factor in certain cases by making some concepts viable within the rules, to an extent, the Divine Champion is one of them. By my count, a fighter who takes this prc will loose a net of one fighter feat. Not much when you look down the list of abilities and the will save huh? But consider that some of these abilities are cha dependent, a usual dump stat for most fighters. Now note that the that the prc is Five levels, the class level being a precondition for Lay on Hands along with Charisma. Now take a look at the BAB req..you won't be seeing this prc until 8th level...that healing is looking pretty minor....The smite ability is subject not just to the dm's choice of monsters, which have a sound mechanical basis as well as encounter charts to provide some degree of consistency, but to the DMs choice of his npc's PATRON DIETYs... a somewhat passive ability. Now take a look at the Weapon Focus requirement, right on target right? But the bonus feats provided do not allow weapon spec, a logical choice at this level for any fighter with weapon focus, because at this point the marginal benefit of taking on new 'feat chains' begins to decline, you now want power.

All in all, i would agree that the Divine Champion is marginally more powerful than would be a straight fighter, but i would challenge a fellow player to know the difference, or the dm for that matter. Balance is always a touchy standard, but this prc is in line with the core classes and far more on target then many(probably most) third party efforts. One has to imagine 'in-play' scenarios as oppossed to going 'jee-wiz' at listed abilities.


----------



## Warchild (Apr 5, 2002)

ruleslawyer said:
			
		

> *Since I started this thread hijack: My apologies to those who want a discussion about spellfire.
> 
> 
> Divine Champion & Guild Thief: OK, I haven't playtested these. But in all honesty, I see more fighters choosing butch classes like the OotBI, Weapon Master, or pretty much anything from OA (if they have access to it) over the Divine Champion. *




Which doesn't mean the DC and GT aren't overpowered. The other prestige classes you mention, in particular the Weapon master has HELLACIOUS requirements. Don't get me started on a lot of those OA classes!! 



			
				ruleslawyer said:
			
		

> *Hierophant: This class is not the same as the archmage. It has NO SPELLCASTING PROGRESSION. Enough said.  *




Oops!! Slipped up on that one! 
Although they do add for spellcaster level, so its not a total loss. One wonders why they didn't go the same route with Arch Mage?


----------



## Warchild (Apr 5, 2002)

*Re: Now to the Divine Champion*



			
				jasamcarl said:
			
		

> *As my ealier post indicated, prcs are actually a BALANCING factor in certain cases by making some concepts viable within the rules, to an extent, the Divine Champion is one of them. By my count, a fighter who takes this prc will loose a net of one fighter feat. Not much when you look down the list of abilities and the will save huh? But consider that some of these abilities are cha dependent, a usual dump stat for most fighters. Now note that the that the prc is Five levels, the class level being a precondition for Lay on Hands along with Charisma. Now take a look at the BAB req..you won't be seeing this prc until 8th level...that healing is looking pretty minor....The smite ability is subject not just to the dm's choice of monsters, which have a sound mechanical basis as well as encounter charts to provide some degree of consistency, but to the DMs choice of his npc's PATRON DIETYs... a somewhat passive ability. Now take a look at the Weapon Focus requirement, right on target right? But the bonus feats provided do not allow weapon spec, a logical choice at this level for any fighter with weapon focus, because at this point the marginal benefit of taking on new 'feat chains' begins to decline, you now want power.*




A loss of one feat, 3 cross skill points, and Weapon Focus feat(no loss really at all with Weapon Focus) in exchange for for the equivelent of cure light wounds 1'day, +2 saves vs divine magic (and spell like and supernatural abilities of outsiders.) - hello!!!, superior Fortitude saves, superior Reflex saves (why? who knows), and Smite Infidel 1/day. With no loss in combat ability or Hit Points. And Knowledge Religion and Spot, which may seem real minor, but most characters (not just fighters) would love to have that as a class skill. Overpowered according to my math. Overpowered in my campaign experience, too!




			
				jasamcarl said:
			
		

> *One has to imagine 'in-play' scenarios as oppossed to going 'jee-wiz' at listed abilities. *




Thats a double edged sword. You can easily imagine a Fighter who didn't dump his Charisma score and a player who already has weapon specializtion by the time he reaches the 7 levels he needs to get the prestige class.
Smite ability affects everything but his own Dieties followers. How often is that likely to occur, attacking his gods people?



uhhh.....oh yeah, Spellfire!! 
Uhm...overpowered Feat and underpowered Prestige class. Did i already say that??


----------



## jasamcarl (Apr 5, 2002)

*Yes, but......*

At the level this prc comes into play cure light wounds and smight occupy a VERY minor place in the balance equation. You do realize we are speaking of the 8-12th level range correct? In that context, that extra feat(as well as the option to make it weapon spec) IS a considerable tradeoff, because either option will provide combat effects that either stack with previously invested feats(feat chains) or compliment those chains (Weapon Specialization, Improved Initiative). To most parties the ability to implement consistently high amounts of damage is more important that a singe sensational attack or power. The latter point is one of the subtle reasons i believe Spellfire is fine(if not underpowered, especially at higher levels). And to make some of these abilities even slightly appreciable, i high cha is a neccesity, and the tradeoff in a point-buy system between that and pretty much EVERY other stat is such a loss as to be laughable. And again the smite and higher saves for divine spells is subject to dm narrative discretion, and the rise in reflex saves is what, +2, +3, subject to a dex score that might very well have been compromised by a higher charisma? The extra class skills are even more passive than the core abilities.

Your points are reasonable, but i believe your critique is colored (and this is common) by a bias to magical, more romantic abilities over hard mechanical questions reality. Monte Cook noted this when analyzing the CRs of certain outsiders which he believed to be too high given their mediocre attack bonuses and hit points...

Probably my last post of the day, i enjoyed this though...


----------



## Snofox (Apr 5, 2002)

*I got nuttin....*

sorry to say I have nothing to add to this, despite the fact that I am currently playing a char that has the spellfire weilder feat .

my post is just to commend jasamcarl...cudos...it is rare to see such an enlightened post in a thread regarding overpowered feats/classes.  I look foward to seeing your perspective on other matters.



ok ok, I'll add my two bits about playing a char with the feat.  In my experience there are two ways to play the game: by the numbers and by the words.  By the numbers is just pure mechanics, just a big dice fest. By the words is the other end of the spectrum, where you might not roll a dice at all.  Hopefully, everyone's games have a lil of each, but I think the difference in the two types is where alot of the "balance" question comes from.  In the game I play in, we're pretty much "anything goes" [read: so unbalanced we don't even care ], and that is great for the group. I have oodles of fun. Do I think my char is balanced vs. anyone else's? I really don't care. It's never come up.  If my char is overpowered, it's not cuz of that feat .  Can the feat unbalance a game? Certainly.  Anything can unbalance a game.  A "smart" player can do tons of things with a mediocre character, let us "dumb" players have our fun with broken ones .


----------



## Warchild (Apr 6, 2002)

*Re: Yes, but......*



			
				jasamcarl said:
			
		

> *At the level this prc comes into play cure light wounds and smight occupy a VERY minor place in the balance equation. You do realize we are speaking of the 8-12th level range correct? In that context, that extra feat(as well as the option to make it weapon spec) IS a considerable tradeoff, because either option will provide combat effects that either stack with previously invested feats(feat chains) or compliment those chains (Weapon Specialization, Improved Initiative). To most parties the ability to implement consistently high amounts of damage is more important that a singe sensational attack or power. The latter point is one of the subtle reasons i believe Spellfire is fine(if not underpowered, especially at higher levels). And to make some of these abilities even slightly appreciable, i high cha is a neccesity, and the tradeoff in a point-buy system between that and pretty much EVERY other stat is such a loss as to be laughable. And again the smite and higher saves for divine spells is subject to dm narrative discretion, and the rise in reflex saves is what, +2, +3, subject to a dex score that might very well have been compromised by a higher charisma? The extra class skills are even more passive than the core abilities.*




Well chalk it up to a difference of opinion. 
What stresses me (ok, not really) is that you keep using the lay on hands and smite infidel as passive gains, but when added the oteh Divine Champions other gains, the whole is certaintly not passive. Also i just don't think that  1 less feat inhibits a character from doing high amounts of damage, the character would end up with 10 feats instead of 11. I just don't think 2 feats and 6 skill points (assuming cross class) balances off against 2 feats, cure ability, smite ability, +2 vs divine magic (much better than any 1 feat....except maybe spellfire...hehe), and a total gain of an additional +3 Reflex save (again better than Lightning Reflexes). Now the extra feats, reflex save, and Divine resistance aside, the skills, lay on hands, and extra skills are passive, as you say. But then so, are the requirements for the prestige class. A prestige class with no drawbacks or real costs is a red flag...IMHO naturally! 




			
				jasamcarl said:
			
		

> *Your points are reasonable, but i believe your critique is colored (and this is common) by a bias to magical, more romantic abilities over hard mechanical questions reality. Monte Cook noted this when analyzing the CRs of certain outsiders which he believed to be too high given their mediocre attack bonuses and hit points...*




Monte has also criticised some CR's for being too low as well, because the combination of abilities that make some of the creatures much tougher than theit CR's and BAB/HD would  indicate. 



			
				jasamcarl said:
			
		

> *Probably my last post of the day, i enjoyed this though...  *




I have as well. Its nice for one for this discussions to actually remain civil for once!


----------



## Warchild (Apr 6, 2002)

*Re: I got nuttin....*



			
				Snofox said:
			
		

> *ok ok, I'll add my two bits about playing a char with the feat.  In my experience there are two ways to play the game: by the numbers and by the words.  By the numbers is just pure mechanics, just a big dice fest. By the words is the other end of the spectrum, where you might not roll a dice at all.  Hopefully, everyone's games have a lil of each, but I think the difference in the two types is where alot of the "balance" question comes from.  In the game I play in, we're pretty much "anything goes" [read: so unbalanced we don't even care ], and that is great for the group. I have oodles of fun. Do I think my char is balanced vs. anyone else's? I really don't care. It's never come up.  If my char is overpowered, it's not cuz of that feat .  Can the feat unbalance a game? Certainly.  Anything can unbalance a game.  A "smart" player can do tons of things with a mediocre character, let us "dumb" players have our fun with broken ones . *




Thats great!! Full steam ahead! You should always go with what works for you! 
Let me restate that i have used both the Spellfire Feat and the prestige class. The roleplaying drawbacks DID balance it out for us. We don't run around our game table with an Abacus (sp?), ya know!. I am just saying the Forgotten Realms, every since 2E, has been a haven for power-ups and extremely powerful characters as the rule, rather than the exception. They are continuing that practice with 3E FR. The only difference is, so many others are doing the same these days! 
Game on, people!


----------



## jasamcarl (Apr 6, 2002)

*Ok, ONE last response...*

The drawback to this prc is essentially one feet for the benefits you yourself listed. Now that doesn't sound like an even trade, until you see that the balance was in the placement of along the 1-20 lvl section. My argument is that the key balancing factor for this prestige class is the +7BAB. How worthwhile is Lay on Hands at level 8? And Smite at 12th? Not very unless you have a high Cha, which under most circumstances entails a tradeoff in other stats, each one of which is preferable to Charisma. So we have a couple of meagre abilities which are made only barely potent by sacraficing an even greater amount of hp, damage cap, skills, etc... It doesn't help that the other variable that plays into their effect is class level, in a 5 level class.

Now the two benefits which are actually worth attention, i.e. the +3 ref and +2 saves to divine effects. The latter is heavily dependent upon DM fiat, but still a reasonable advantage given the number of divine effects you could find in the MM. Clear advantages on both ends. So how does the loss of one combat feat balance this?

Well lets look at what the confindent young min/max fighter would do as he is ascending the early levels. Most fighters find a hook, a niche. This involves investment in a feat chain. Now here is the subtle part. Most feat chains provide abilties which compliment each other, allowing for a rapid rise of tactical versatility for the fighter up until that chain is exhausted. Now it just so happens that most of the logical feat paths top out around level 8. how about that?  This is the point where independent feats that compliment any given chain comes in. These include Improved Initiative and... Weapon Specialization!!  Warchild, your comparison of the two above mentioned abilities to combat reflexes and the save boosters isn't very telling, because AT THIS LEVEL those feats are very weak. Weapon Spec, on the other hand, allows any oppurtunities offered by their feat chains to have a much larger payoff, sometimes allowing for near exponentialy higher damage over a given period of combat. Now of course a fighter could take weapon specialization at an earlier level, but that would require he commit two feats, weapon spec AND focus, both of which would have been better spend on any number of feats such as dodge, cleave, spirited charge, etc.. As the fighter enters the Divine Champion, he would very likely be struggling to complete that chain. As it is, he would at the very least have weapon focus, which is weak at this level range, just hanging their with not option to complete the logical prog to Weapon Spec. He who takes this class has to make another choice conscerning Improved Critical..Either way the feat situation is less than optimal.

And this is what it comes down. A +3 to the Relex save or +2 to divine effects are useful in a number of situations, but is it comparable to the constant combat use of a fighter feat prog, especially given the latter is very much active, often reducing the capabilities of the opposition even as it provides defense for the fighter? Now are all the Divine Champion's advantages worth this? Probably, but again you are overstating your case...

This class is actually expertly balanced, and i thank you for pointing it out...i admire Wotc r&d more and more


----------



## Warchild (Apr 6, 2002)

*Re: Ok, ONE last response...*



			
				jasamcarl said:
			
		

> *Now the two benefits which are actually worth attention, i.e. the +3 ref and +2 saves to divine effects. The latter is heavily dependent upon DM fiat, but still a reasonable advantage given the number of divine effects you could find in the MM. Clear advantages on both ends. So how does the loss of one combat feat balance this?
> 
> Well lets look at what the confindent young min/max fighter would do as he is ascending the early levels. Most fighters find a hook, a niche. This involves investment in a feat chain. Now here is the subtle part. Most feat chains provide abilties which compliment each other, allowing for a rapid rise of tactical versatility for the fighter up until that chain is exhausted. Now it just so happens that most of the logical feat paths top out around level 8. how about that?  This is the point where independent feats that compliment any given chain comes in. These include Improved Initiative and... Weapon Specialization!!  Warchild, your comparison of the two above mentioned abilities to combat reflexes and the save boosters isn't very telling, because AT THIS LEVEL those feats are very weak. Weapon Spec, on the other hand, allows any oppurtunities offered by their feat chains to have a much larger payoff, sometimes allowing for near exponentialy higher damage over a given period of combat. *




A +2 to save vs divine magic and outsider abilities certaintly isn'tweak at all. +3 to Reflex saves for a fighter type can be quite effective as well. Again, they are missing out one 1 feat ONLY, not necessarily Weapon Specialization. I don't know of a single feat that gives you +3 to Reflex saves and +2 to save vs divine/outsider magics. Those two abilities are worth 2-3 feats, i would say.



			
				jasamcarl said:
			
		

> *Now of course a fighter could take weapon specialization at an earlier level, but that would require he commit two feats, weapon spec AND focus, both of which would have been better spend on any number of feats such as dodge, cleave, spirited charge, etc.. *




Which is not anything other than your personal opinion here. Opinions vary, but many to most of the fighters i have seen have Weapon Focus and Weapon Specialization by 4th level. They are in no way wasted feats, and certainlty as good as Dodge, Cleave, and Spirited Charge. I don't see how you think they would be better spent on Dodge and Cleave. 




			
				jasamcarl said:
			
		

> *
> As the fighter enters the Divine Champion, he would very likely be struggling to complete that chain. As it is, he would at the very least have weapon focus, which is weak at this level range, just hanging their with not option to complete the logical prog to Weapon Spec. He who takes this class has to make another choice conscerning Improved Critical..Either way the feat situation is less than optimal.*




I don't think nearly so much the hardship you think it is. The only feat chain they are missing out on on completing is The Improved Critical chain, which they can get 1 level later. The could achieve the dodge-mobility-spring attack chain, the Mounted Combat-Trample-Spirited Charge chain, or the Power Attack-Cleave-Great Cleave. This in addition to the Weapon Focus requirement of the class. Frankly i don't see the big struggle to complete any feat chains they might be interested in, in fact any of these could be completed by 4th level. The only thing they struggle against is Weapon Critical, which they cane get  1 level later than they would have if they stayed a Fighter.




			
				jasamcarl said:
			
		

> *And this is what it comes down. A +3 to the Relex save or +2 to divine effects are useful in a number of situations, but is it comparable to the constant combat use of a fighter feat prog, especially given the latter is very much active, often reducing the capabilities of the opposition even as it provides defense for the fighter? Now are all the Divine Champion's advantages worth this? Probably, but again you are overstating your case...*




LOL! You call it overstating my case, i call it overwhelming evidence. 
Lets look at it this way: 
If the Fighter had stayed a fighter he would get these bonuses(8th-12th level fighter):
+5 Base Attack
+3 Fortitude
+2 Reflex
+2  Will save
10 Skill points
5D10 Hit points
3 Feats


What he gains those levels as a Divine Champion:

+5 Attack
+4 Fortitude
+4 Reflex Saves
+1 Will Save
10 Skill Points (plus the Knowlege-Religion and Spot skills)
5D10 Hit Points
2 Feats
-Lay of Hands - Heal 5+CHA bonus hit points per day.
-Sacred Defense - +2 vs Divine magic and outsider abilities
-Smite Infidel - a 1/day ability to add a +0-+5 attack/+5 damage attack against any creature not of his religion
-Divine Wrath - +3 to attack, Damage, and Saves, plus Damage Reduction 5/- for rounds equal to your Charisma Bonus!!!!!



The cost of all these extra abilities is Weapon Focus and 6 (almost certaintly 3 ranks cross classed) skill points. Weapon Focus is never a wasted feat for a fighter, although 6 skill points can be sticky if your not human or real dumb!! 
Any character worth his spurs is going to make sure he has some Charisma bonus, because any points he spends on the stat(assuming you are even using the point system that is), no matter what the cost to his other stats, because the pay off from a higher charisma with this prestige class, WAY more than compensates for the other stat(s) he took away from.

I think if you walked to a fighter an said "hey pal, if you have the Weapon Focus, spend some skill points and give up a Feat, i'll give you an extra +2 to your saves, minor ability to heal yourself, ability to smite 1/day, +2 vs saves vs divine magic/outsider abilities, and Divine Wrath!! How about that?".
Not speak for anyone here, but i think most of them would say yes.





			
				jasamcarl said:
			
		

> *This class is actually expertly balanced, and i thank you for pointing it out...i admire Wotc r&d more and more  *




I'm glad you got something out of it! 
We still don't agree at all, but it was a fun trip. Our point of views are just a little different is all.


----------



## Shard O'Glase (Apr 6, 2002)

Getting back to the spell fire wielder feat thread.  I'd say it is not usable.  Does it unbalance games, well apparently not in some games, then again I've seen games where the low stats on a character are 14, so balance in a campaign is very subjective.  And besides that shouldn't be the question about a feat, does it unbalance the campaign, yeesh if that quesiton is even raised about a feat then you should know the feat has problems.  The question about feats and balance should be about how it compares with other feats.  Is it much better than other feats, a little better, same as, worse etc.  And to me its clear this feat is much better than any other feat published by WOTC.  

   Can anyone name any other feat that comes even close to this feat in power and utility.  Dodge, weapon focus certainly not, mobility, spring attack hah, whirlind attack, power attack, cleave please pathetic in comparison.  Sure you have to actually use an action to absord spell energy, geez I'm sorry a feat doesn't give you the power of a 9th level spell all day, all the time.  But even with that, limitation   you still get ranged energy attacks, and healing power from a single feat.  Even comparred to some of the overpowered feats in MoTW this feat is overpowered.  Would you rather heal at x2 the natural rate, or be able to absord spell energy, and then heal at a comparable level to a cleric of moderate level, hhmmm that's a tough decision.


----------



## jasamcarl (Apr 6, 2002)

*Ok.......*

Warchild, i will agree to disagree, but allow me to make my general position clear, especially in the context of Shard's comment. It is too often the case that balance discussions are pretensed on a certain 'awe' factor at the cinematic flashiness of certain abilities. Spellfire is a case in point. Anyone who wishes to know my specific critique of that feat should search through the archives for the thread dealing with the same issue.

Shard, let me make this as simple as possible; you assertion that balance in campaigns is subjective is right on target, but your claim that their is an alternate system of assessing potency, which you fail to define, is circular and even outright illogical. Perhaps i fail to have the insight that makes spellfire 'apparently' unbalanced, but i will take a guess that it is because of the wild effects that it might have ingame.

I was going to go further with this, but my former posts speak for themselves..jeez....


----------



## Shard O'Glase (Apr 7, 2002)

How is saying the determiner for a balance in a feat shouldn't be if it unbalances a game, but by comparring it to other feats illogical.  This isn't a point system where I can come up with some nice system to say gee everyone spellfire is worth 100 points every other feat is worth 50 points or less see its unbalanced.  No, sorry you just have to look at the other feats and compare it.

So jasamcarl let me make this as simple as possible.  I don't care about cinematic flashiness, all I care about is what one single feat delivers in abilities, and if that is more than any other feat delivers in abilities.  Now I could go down the list of every feat, and show what they did, and then post the entire description of what spell fire does as well.  And do some nice comparison and contrast post.  But, I really don't think that is necesarry.  Think about this spellfire basically can counterspell any spell directed at you for free it doesn't cost them a spell, that in it self could be see as worth more than one feat.  Heck mages have to spend a feat just so they can counter spell spells by using a spell from the same school that it and at least one level higher.  Then a spell fire wielder can actually use that spell energy, for not one, but two things.  Either offensive ranged attacks of decent damage, or decent healing.


----------



## jasamcarl (Apr 7, 2002)

*Uh.....no*

The key words here are 'directed at you'. A mage's counterspell can be targeted at ANY spell that is cast during a given battle, while a character with spellfire has to ready an action on the chance someone would target him/her. As it is, counterspell rarely comes in to play during battles because the ability is passive and you subject the party to perhaps another round of combat by not acting while you are readying an action.

Over the course of any given amount of combats on any given amount of days, how many actions would one have to waste to deal a ranged touch attack which carrys with it a save and whose damage potential is either wasted in one round or simply inefficient relative to other spells or even a melee attack...sorry, the combat application of spellfire has been debated before and i believe the consensus for those who have actually PLAYED with it is that in the capacity, even at low levels, it is a bust.....


----------



## hong (Apr 7, 2002)

*Re: Yes, but......*



			
				jasamcarl said:
			
		

> *
> Probably my last post *




Liar.


----------



## reiella (Apr 7, 2002)

Hmm just a few notes (And a good reason why you should never let a spellcaster being permanently hasted if you can avoid it).

Well as telegraphed...  Haste.  Especially nasty for the mage knowing he's entering a counterspell environment (use the extra partial to ready an action to counterspell, same can hold true for the spellfire feat).  Also a big reason why Larloch the Lich with Con should be feared .

That said, it is about as effectively useful as counterspell if you know you're going to be a target for magic.  Not going to help you against any spell that has the option of area effect.  But hey, at least if you see a Harm coming your way and you win initiative, you're ok.  Would be funny for a first level sorceror to be able to effective deabilitate a spellfire wielder by just making him think he's going to cast Magic Missile at him so to get the wielder to ready an action.

More so worried about the sorceror battery situation, but that is really alot of effort and work for a single 'burst' that's effective at later levels.


----------



## Soltares (Apr 7, 2002)

Clerics also make excellent Spellfire batteries, particularly if they can 'channel' spells into healing or harming magic, as both are single-target spells that are absorbable via Spellfire.  At the end of the day, a friendly Cleric could burn any remaining spell slots into the Spellfire Wielding Fighter or Rogue and it won't really affect him unless the party gets jumped while sleeping (in which case the Spellfire Wielder will have to pick up the healing / blasting duties).  Rogues are nice, Spellfire Sneak Attacks are fun. 

Druids and Wizards are less useful 'charging stations,' since they would not necessarily want to have to restrict their spell selection to spells that a Spellfire Wielder could absorb.  When your most effective spell is Color Spray, you don't want to be wasting a slot on Ray of Enfeeblement to charge up spellfire boy.

Bear in mind that unless you truly enjoy punishing your players for your DM decision to allow this feat into the game, tossing endless Red Wizards / Cult of the Dragon / whatever members at the party because of the Spellfire Wielder is hardly fair to the people who *don't* have the Feat.  Essentially they are getting punished, and possibly killed, by encounters designed to 'balance' a Feat that you chose to allow in the game.

Balance it however you like, but bear in mind that some players will get good and sick of being jumped because of this single player and his special uber-Feat.

It becomes the 'Elric' disadvantage.  To punish you for something good (Stormbringer), we are going to kill off everyone around you.

Now that I think about it, Theseus had this disadvantage long before Elric, and it made the Greek gods look like the assassin who kills 25 innocent bystanders trying to shoot Inspector Clouseau...


----------



## Darkness (Apr 7, 2002)

Aaron L said:
			
		

> *... gold elf bladesinger (me),...  Everyone is just almost completely balanced, with me being the weakest.*



Are you using the bladesinger errata from the Tome & Blood Web Enhancement?


----------



## Shard O'Glase (Apr 7, 2002)

*Re: Uh.....no*



			
				jasamcarl said:
			
		

> *The key words here are 'directed at you'. A mage's counterspell can be targeted at ANY spell that is cast during a given battle, while a character with spellfire has to ready an action on the chance someone would target him/her. As it is, counterspell rarely comes in to play during battles because the ability is passive and you subject the party to perhaps another round of combat by not acting while you are readying an action.
> 
> Over the course of any given amount of combats on any given amount of days, how many actions would one have to waste to deal a ranged touch attack which carrys with it a save and whose damage potential is either wasted in one round or simply inefficient relative to other spells or even a melee attack...sorry, the combat application of spellfire has been debated before and i believe the consensus for those who have actually PLAYED with it is that in the capacity, even at low levels, it is a bust..... *




Note those key words were in my post.  It's not like I missed them.  Yes, it only effects spells directed at you.  But, it is giving the counterspell ability to classes who normally don't even have that option at all vs any spell, and it doesn't cost them a spell to do it.  It just costs the action that counterspelling costs a spellcaster.  Whether it has amazing combat potential or not, isn't the point.  This is a feat, not a long feat chain, not a class, just a feat.  By merely giving the ability to counterspell certain spells without the cost of a spell, you have already made it more than powerful enough to be a feat.  Look at other feats, actually look at them don't just play a spellfire wielder and note that gee he didn't have much more effect on combat than anyone else, cause gee that's nice that  a single feat didn't overpower the abilities of entire classes.  Other feats give fairly minor abilities.  Look at the feat in FR that gives you the all powerful ability to cast a whopping 3 cantrips a day, that is what feats should deliver.  If they deliver much more than that and they are too powerful for a feat.


----------



## jasamcarl (Apr 7, 2002)

*Correction....*

Other feats have minor abilities that see FAR more use in combat...Again, your standard is meaningless because it gives no indication of IN GAME performance... yes you get an ability that mage's get for free, abeit a far more limited one; BUT THAT IS A FREAKIN WEAK ABILITY TO BEGIN WITH!!! You are really hung up on the flashiness of the effect aren't you? Other feats appear more mundane, but are actually of far greater use...

Besides which, comparing individual feats is a useless endeavor because though their stat effect may be minor, in game they compliment other feats to a far greater degree..spellfire should be compared to one shot feats such as Improved Initiative or combat reflexes...any clue as to which is actually more efficient?


----------



## Renshai (Apr 7, 2002)

I don't make comparisons between each and every feat. Each feat's usefulness is subjective to the situation in which it might be used. In a combat-light roleplay heavy game the dodge feat isn't near as useful as Skill Focus (diplomacy) or feats like Silver Palm. 

People's reviews of each minute detail of where a bonus might be gained where someone may or may not have sacrificed the appropriate amount of power for attaining it sent me over the edge laughing. Do you really sit around making this comparisons? Why do this when you could just be playing and enjoying the game.? 

On a personal note. I've used many of these feats/classes and the result did not cause one difference in game play. Not one. Power levels and usefulness of abilities is always subjective to the game that is run, and the Dungeon Master's ability to create challenges (roleplaying and mechanic wise) . 

The feats in the Forgotten Realms Campaign Sourcebook where designed and reviewed by the same exact people that brought you the Core Books as well as the Class Builder books. People just can't seem to let go of their view that anything that originates from a Forgotten Realms has to be unbalanced. 


Ren


----------



## Humanophile (Apr 7, 2002)

Renshai said:
			
		

> *On a personal note. I've used many of these feats/classes and the result did not cause one difference in game play. Not one. Power levels and usefulness of abilities is always subjective to the game that is run, and the Dungeon Master's ability to create challenges (roleplaying and mechanic wise).*




Lemme just point out a couple of inconsistencies here.

First, it's true that a powerful, capable DM can balance any power imbalance, even a god and a kobold commoner in the same party.  That doesn't mean that any sane person would think that that was good game design.  So the game owes it to people who aren't expert DM's to try and keep things mostly balanced, especially in the combat arena.  You can chose less powerful/effective options, but none that come out later should be realistically more powerful than what you have.

Second, I'm wary hearing people say "_I_ played this and it wasn't overpowered.  We tend to think that anything good that happens to our characters is balanced, so I give more weight to people who say that it didn't make someone else who chose the option more powerful than when they took something else.  If you'd let someone you knew had munchkinny tendencies have the feat while turning it down yourself, that gives me a better sense of balance than "well, while I played with it, I didn't notice anything wrong".



> *The feats in the Forgotten Realms Campaign Sourcebook where designed and reviewed by the same exact people that brought you the Core Books as well as the Class Builder books. People just can't seem to let go of their view that anything that originates from a Forgotten Realms has to be unbalanced.
> 
> 
> Ren *




Ahh.  Yes.  The same people who approved the pre-errata incantrix, the psion, Harm, much of Sword and Fist, the cleric being a better spellcaster than the wizard, and your choice of LA numbers.  The playtesters are just players, most of them with prejudices, and not always able to spot a small loophole you could nonetheless choke a tarrasque with.  I'd daresay that many playtesters would also tend towards high fantasy, higher powered, realmsian play.  (Can any playtesters back me up here?  What prejudices did you have, or what prejudices did you see while testing?)  So the fact that it was OK'ed carries some weight with me, but I'll reserve judgement on some particularly tricky bits.

I still say it's better as a template, though.


----------



## Aaron L (Apr 7, 2002)

Darkness said:
			
		

> *Are you using the bladesinger errata from the Tome & Blood Web Enhancement?  *




Yessir I am, but I got killed twice in two game sessions (and four game days), seeing as how I am only a second level bladesinger, it takes several rounds to cast my protective spells, and during that time I can get severely smushed.  And assassins with poison don't help much either.  Now I'm   8th level and the rest of the party is 10th.


----------



## Warchild (Apr 7, 2002)

Renshai said:
			
		

> *Do you really sit around making this comparisons? Why do this when you could just be playing and enjoying the game.? *




On these specific feats/classes i have also seen in action in the game. As a DM, when a player wants to use a feat or class, i do tend to take a look at them and make a judgement call. Call me crazy.




			
				Renshai said:
			
		

> *On a personal note. I've used many of these feats/classes and the result did not cause one difference in game play. Not one. Power levels and usefulness of abilities is always subjective to the game that is run, and the Dungeon Master's ability to create challenges (roleplaying and mechanic wise). *




Great. Some people don't seem to have had the same experience with it you did. Thats why we discuss things. I may be the very first to disagree with, say Jasamcarl, but i like to hear what he has to say. Thats what this thread is about. Although we took a little off-topic for a moment there! 




			
				Renshai said:
			
		

> *The feats in the Forgotten Realms Campaign Sourcebook where designed and reviewed by the same exact people that brought you the Core Books as well as the Class Builder books. *




Well, thats not 100% accurate, a lot of the same people were involved, but it certaintly was not the "same exact" people. Different people were in charge and only 2 of the 5 "main guys" that created the core books made this one.




			
				Renshai said:
			
		

> *People just can't seem to let go of their view that anything that originates from a Forgotten Realms has to be unbalanced. *




Okay, i'll go ahead and take some offense here. I've put my time in the trenches against those that would bash the Realms, right alone side of you, as a matter of fact. So spare me the insinuations that i have something against FR. Thats hogwash. I like the Realms and have nothing against. But i calls'em as i sees'em.
Now...if you weren't talking about me in particular, disregard this last rant!!


----------



## Renshai (Apr 7, 2002)

Humanophile wrote:


> First, it's true that a powerful, capable DM can balance any power imbalance, even a god and a kobold commoner in the same party. That doesn't mean that any sane person would think that that was good game design. So the game owes it to people who aren't expert DM's to try and keep things mostly balanced, especially in the combat arena. You can chose less powerful/effective options, but none that come out later should be realistically more powerful than what you have.




Once again, I believe power/balance will always rest in the hands of the DM and the type of game he or she runs. An abusive player can make a mockery of any game system. Its not the system’s fault  or the options that it presents.  D&D  is designed for variant support of what we call “modern fantasy”. Modern fantasy is a fairly large slate for any set of rules or game to encompass. People will always have their view of what they think works and doesn’t work within that paradigm. 




> Second, I'm wary hearing people say "I played this and it wasn't overpowered. We tend to think that anything good that happens to our characters is balanced, so I give more weight to people who say that it didn't make someone else who chose the option more powerful than when they took something else. If you'd let someone you knew had munchkinny tendencies have the feat while turning it down yourself, that gives me a better sense of balance than "well, while I played with it, I didn't notice anything wrong".




Well, I would give more weight to your views if I hadn’t playtested every major incarnation of the Third Edition rules since it’s first playtest release. Including Forgotten Realms and some Class Building Books. We took our work very seriously and playtested every aspect of the game that we could. It was never a case of justifying a game option because we were giving them “our characters”.    In many cases I allowed the munchkin player in our group (every group has one don’t they?) have free reign of the feats. In fact I still let him look at every feat to get his reaction. Spellfire didn’t impress him at all. He understood the roleplaying stigma that came with it. Although he did comment that the feat would make for some great instances of roleplaying within the game. I don’t see one thing wrong with that.




> Ahh. Yes. The same people who approved the pre-errata incantrix, the psion, Harm, much of Sword and Fist, the cleric being a better spellcaster than the wizard, and your choice of LA numbers. The playtesters are just players, most of them with prejudices, and not always able to spot a small loophole you could nonetheless choke a tarrasque with. I'd daresay that many playtesters would also tend towards high fantasy, higher powered, realmsian play. (Can any playtesters back me up here? What prejudices did you have, or what prejudices did you see while testing?) So the fact that it was OK'ed carries some weight with me, but I'll reserve judgement on some particularly tricky bits.




As I stated above, encompassing something as varied as modern fantasy is difficult. Mistakes will happen. Of course, I don’t see anything wrong with any of the things you listed above. Except Harm. That was a mistake… but one that is easily fixed. 

Indeed. Playtesters are just players. But players that take pride in trying to help create good game material.  Above is where your post loses credibility. Your labeling of playtesters and people who enjoy the Realms has power gamers is a tired old argument that really irks me. I’ve run the Realms for over ten years, and never run a “High Power Game”. In that regard,  we had no prejudices during play. We sat down with a blank slate and tested things on many levels by creating characters, converting characters, creating situations and sometimes just trying to see if we could break do something that would break down the game. The first draft of the Forgotten Playtest rules was terrible. It was so insanely powerful that you would be holding on to the FRCS for dear life if you saw them. In the case of those rules we gave feedback that helped changed the rules to their current status.


----------



## Humanophile (Apr 8, 2002)

Ren, I was unaware that you playtested.  Consider this an apology for the way my statement must've sounded in that case.  I'm just used to hearing "we played with (given rule), and it didn't unbalance the game a bit" a lot, when watching their game shows how badly it does.  Back in 2e, you didn't ask the wizard if free casting unbalanced the game, you asked  the fighter, if there still was one.  That's why I'm wary about what many people say.  This only applies per individual characters, though.

I will defend myself that I never said, nor meant to imply, that FR playtesters were munchkinny powergamers.  I still hold to my basic belief, though.  Most FR fans I've known have liked a high power level, cosmopolitan atmosphere, and disliked things outside of the modern fantasy gaming cliche.  I'm not saying you are, but the next time you hear someone say "but... that's not D&D!" regarding something in a WOTC book, you'll know who I'm talking about.  (Planescape seemed to draw a lot of that, as did psionics.  All IME, of course.)  I wouldn't expect things like "greater weapon focus, +2 to hit with a weapon, twice as good as the PHB", but at the same time, there's a lot of waffle room between ECL +1 and +2, first and second level spells, and when a prestige classes abilities are OK for their level.  That wiggle room is where prejudices will come into play, and I think that there are both a plurality of modern fantasy fans, and that they're willing to see things that they like in a more favorable light than things they don't.  I'm not accusing anyoen of being biased, I'm accusing them of being human.


----------



## rounser (Apr 8, 2002)

> the cleric being a better spellcaster than the wizard




Just offhand, what is the reasoning behind this?  Apart from no armour check penalty for spellcasting, what else is there?


----------



## MythandLore (Apr 8, 2002)

rounser said:
			
		

> *Just offhand, what is the reasoning behind this?  Apart from no armour check penalty for spellcasting, what else is there? *



I don't know what his reason are, but they do also have more spells per day, they can 'sack' spells to heal or harm, their domains give them extra abilities, they CAN 'heal', they can bring people back from the dead, no need for a spellbook.
Those alone make them better (I'm sure I forgot something) but on top of that they have better hit points, can turn undead, better saves, better BAB, proficient in more weapons, armor, etc.
That just makes them way better.
And what does the Wizard have?
A Familier and a few bonus feats.


----------



## Shard O'Glase (Apr 9, 2002)

Mythandlore covered this fine but to add to and duplicate some of those comments.  Clerics are seen by some to be better spellcasters.  I'm not sure where I fall in this, but I think at least they are equal in just spellcasting add everything else and they are better overall.  As for spellcasting, some say they have worse spells, sighting spells like teleport, damaging attack spells, fly, haste etc.  Others say spell selection about equal, wizards get those sure, but clerics get healing, better div, and once they hit 9th level their direct damage spells equal the wizard, and in some cases surpass the wizard.  Storm of vengence, and fire storm being two good examples.  Add in that wizards have to learn their spells, and have to carry around spellbooks, while clerics just instantly know all their spells and have a better prep policy with no sleep needed, and no spell books and thye start looking good.  Add in more spells per day even without domains, and with domains lots more spells per day, and then the ability to swap spells for heal/inflict spells freeing them up to prepare other spells etc.


----------



## I'm A Banana (Apr 9, 2002)

Of course, IMHO, clerics NEED those bits of added edge.

I mean, they have more spells/day and little powers and such, but a spell list can define a class as easily as other abilities can. The cleric spell list is mostly only useful to help other people save the day. Without a little bit o' butt-kickin', they'd be healing machines, and would loose playability. My group of newbies would still rather have a druid than a cleric, because then they're not so...healing-based. No so supportive. Able to do heroic stuff, and not just help other people to do it.

Anyhoo...

As for the spellfire wielder feat....if the feat is overpowered (as I've said, I've had it in my campaign, and it doesn't seem to be, even without the roleplaying aspect thrown into it), and the PrC is underpowered (haven't seen it in action yet, but...okay), what about granting the feat as a 1st level Spellfire Wielder PrC ability, and requiring some other potent feat (like, I dunno, Skill Focus (concentration) or something) for the prereq in it's place? Would that "balance" everything? Power-up the PrC, make the feat less available, and still not make the PrC too easily accessible?

Just an idea.


----------



## rounser (Apr 9, 2002)

> Without a little bit o' butt-kickin', they'd be healing machines, and would loose playability.




I'm hoping that in 4E the designers will see fit to up the healing potential of druids and bards, and spread the burden of healing.  This would do three things:  It would mean not every party would be semi-obliged to have a cleric, it would increase the usefulness of druids and bards as classes, and it would allow clerics to be toned down a tad so that people wouldn't have to be bribed into playing them with powergaming treats.  Healing magic also fits druids and bards to a tee, IMO.

I doubt this would encroach on the cleric's role, either.  They have enough identity through other divine spells as it is.


----------



## Humanophile (Apr 9, 2002)

rounser said:
			
		

> *
> 
> Just offhand, what is the reasoning behind this?  Apart from no armour check penalty for spellcasting, what else is there? *




...I was referring specifically to the fact that they can cast more low level spells per day than an equal level wizard (domain spells at low levels, and domain spells plus one at high levels, giving them the same spell volume as a sorceror).  More spells known than any realistic wizard too, without spellbook vulnerability.  The rest of the class abilities I'm leaving alone, since they've been brought up by other people already, on many threads.

But on the balancing clerics topic, does anyone else out there think that giving clerics a lay on hands style ability/bardic music-esque prayer, or both would help dispel the "they need these extra slots to heal" story?  I mean, I'm all for spreading the burden of healing too, but the healmaster class should be more focused on healing than "well, we'll give them this and hope they heal with it...".


----------



## Humanophile (Apr 9, 2002)

Kamikaze Midget said:
			
		

> *Of course, IMHO, clerics NEED those bits of added edge.
> 
> I mean, they have more spells/day and little powers and such, but a spell list can define a class as easily as other abilities can. The cleric spell list is mostly only useful to help other people save the day. Without a little bit o' butt-kickin', they'd be healing machines, and would loose playability. My group of newbies would still rather have a druid than a cleric, because then they're not so...healing-based. No so supportive. Able to do heroic stuff, and not just help other people to do it.*




I think that if you want a healmaster class, it should be aimed at the kind of people who like playing supportive characters instead of being a cobbled together bunch of powers to ensure that every party has one.  One of the many things that irks me about the cleric is that they're never required to actually ever heal anyone, even if they're good clerics.  If you're going to power them up that much, at least make sure that they'll do their duties.  (Or that if they don't, some force other than DM fiat applies.  Like I said above, they wouldn't be required to use Lay on Hands if they had it, but if they didn't, it'd be wasted instead of becoming another spell to use for personal glory.)

So I'd prefer either that healing abilities were spread out more, and/or that clerics were forced a little more into the healer/buffer role.  Preferably both.  It shouldn't be a burden someone has to take, it should be a role for the people who like it.



> *Anyhoo...
> 
> As for the spellfire wielder feat....if the feat is overpowered (as I've said, I've had it in my campaign, and it doesn't seem to be, even without the roleplaying aspect thrown into it), and the PrC is underpowered (haven't seen it in action yet, but...okay), what about granting the feat as a 1st level Spellfire Wielder PrC ability, and requiring some other potent feat (like, I dunno, Skill Focus (concentration) or something) for the prereq in it's place? Would that "balance" everything? Power-up the PrC, make the feat less available, and still not make the PrC too easily accessible?
> 
> Just an idea.  *




I still hold to my original opinion.  It's a little overpowered for a lower powered game, and it seems a little on the weak side for such a kewl arcane ability.  So I'd say pump it up a little, and make it a template.  And to the people saying that you couldn't come into game with it then, I'd say that makes it better balanced for first level parties (and if you start at first, your games will tend to be lower powered, IME), while FR games and other games by people who like more heroic settings will start with a few levels already.  Again, all IMHO.


----------

