# Complete Mage - Is it out yet?



## Olaf the Stout (Oct 3, 2006)

I know that Complete Mage is an October release so does that mean it is out now?  If not does anyone know when it will be released this month?

Olaf the Stout


----------



## Crothian (Oct 3, 2006)

Nope, for some reason I'm thinking the 10th.


----------



## Nonlethal Force (Oct 3, 2006)

Amazon.com is reporting Oct. 10 - just to confirm what Crothian asserted as a feeling.


----------



## pawsplay (Oct 3, 2006)

Crothian and Amazon.com are soul mates.


----------



## Laman Stahros (Oct 3, 2006)

According to my FLGS, 2nd Tuesday is WotC official release day for books.


----------



## Crothian (Oct 3, 2006)

pawsplay said:
			
		

> Crothian and Amazon.com are soul mates.




Well, we do share programming.


----------



## Banshee16 (Oct 3, 2006)

My FLGS said it was coming out on the 3rd.  They could have been wrong though.  Maybe he's releasing it early....either that, or he wanted to sucker me into ponying up the cash upfront, since I was already in the store, instead of waiting until the last minute..

Banshee


----------



## Particle_Man (Oct 3, 2006)

Sometimes stores do weird things like "I have it in on day X but can't release it officially until day Y".  I wonder if Oct. 10 is day X or Y?  I hope that I can get it on the 10th.  I wanna see what the Hexblade and Warlock get!


----------



## Razz (Oct 3, 2006)

According to UPS, I get mine later today.   

I'll be answering questions here when I get the chance. Better yet, rather than typing things out twice I'll provide a link to the WotC Boards where I will originally be writing it out.


----------



## Nightfall (Oct 3, 2006)

Raz,

All I want to know is this: Ultimate Magus, is really that Ultimate or just semi-ultimate? And what can it do that Archmage can't?


----------



## Nightchilde-2 (Oct 3, 2006)

The official street date is Oct. 10th, according to my distributors.


----------



## Klaus (Oct 3, 2006)

Razz said:
			
		

> According to UPS, I get mine later today.
> 
> I'll be answering questions here when I get the chance. Better yet, rather than typing things out twice I'll provide a link to the WotC Boards where I will originally be writing it out.



 Dude, Ctrl+C, Ctrl+V!

Do you think Crothian got to be where he is with an attitude like that?


----------



## Nightfall (Oct 3, 2006)

I thought he paid off Eric to give him 2,000 posts.


----------



## Crothian (Oct 3, 2006)

Klaus said:
			
		

> Do you think Crothian got to be where he is with an attitude like that?




Ya, you'd never catch me posting to a site like that


----------



## Nightfall (Oct 3, 2006)

Not to mention the fact WotC forums aren't that accepting of my love of Scarred Lands or my obsession of all things Orcus related.


----------



## Crothian (Oct 3, 2006)

Nightfall said:
			
		

> Not to mention the fact WotC forums aren't that accepting of my love of Scarred Lands or my obsession of all things Orcus related.




Okay, I admit they have their good sides


----------



## JEL (Oct 3, 2006)

I'd really appreciate info being posted here.  I can't access the Wizards site at all from work and even at home their boards come through really screwy.


----------



## Olaf the Stout (Oct 4, 2006)

Nightfall said:
			
		

> Not to mention the fact WotC forums aren't that accepting of my love of Scarred Lands or my obsession of all things Orcus related.




And you're under the impression that we are here Nightfall!    

Just kidding.    

Olaf the Stout


----------



## Nightchilde-2 (Oct 4, 2006)

Particle_Man said:
			
		

> Sometimes stores do weird things like "I have it in on day X but can't release it officially until day Y".  I wonder if Oct. 10 is day X or Y?  I hope that I can get it on the 10th.  I wanna see what the Hexblade and Warlock get!




I can answer that to some degree (being a store owner and all that).

What you're talking about is the Release Date vs. the Street Date.

Release Date is the date (some) distributors will release the product to stores.

Street Date is the official "we can sell this now" date.  Publishers generally don't like people selling before the Street Date.  It's supposed to keep things nice and even as far as starting stores off with having product available for sell the same day, thus not giving one store an advantage over the other.

The problem is, some stores (not mine) break Street Date and sell things early.  This, indeed, sucks for those of us playing by the rules.  BTW, Oct 10th is the Street Date.


----------



## Olaf the Stout (Oct 4, 2006)

Nightchilde-2 said:
			
		

> I can answer that to some degree (being a store owner and all that).
> 
> What you're talking about is the Release Date vs. the Street Date.
> 
> ...




Thanks for that Nightchilde-2.  I have now confirmed from multiple sources that the 10th is the street date for Complete Mage (and any other WotC releases for October I imagine).

Olaf the Stout


----------



## Nightchilde-2 (Oct 4, 2006)

Olaf the Stout said:
			
		

> Thanks for that Nightchilde-2.  I have now confirmed from multiple sources that the 10th is the street date for Complete Mage (and any other WotC releases for October I imagine).
> 
> Olaf the Stout




No problemo.

You'd be correct.  Complete Mage, MM Special Edition and Expedition to Castle Ravenloft all have a Street Date of 10/10, as does the Monster Gift Set.

(All according to my distributor, of course.  They have occasionally gotten dates wrong, and I haven't heard much hype from them (or WotC) about the Monster Gift Set)


----------



## Banshee16 (Oct 4, 2006)

Nightchilde-2 said:
			
		

> I can answer that to some degree (being a store owner and all that).
> 
> What you're talking about is the Release Date vs. the Street Date.
> 
> ...




I called my store today, and he was mistaken...he thought it was coming out this week, but admitted it's next.

Banshee


----------



## Greg K (Oct 4, 2006)

Razz is answering questions about the book on the WOTC boards (in the new releases).  So far, the only thing I have found interesting from the thread are the new invocations. Hopefully, I'll find many of the new spells and feats of interest, because the variant class features and most of the  prcs sound disappointing in my opinion.


----------



## Razz (Oct 4, 2006)

I've been answering a lot of questions HERE so feel free to check it out.


----------



## Felon (Oct 4, 2006)

Nightchilde-2 said:
			
		

> The problem is, some stores (not mine) break Street Date and sell things early.  This, indeed, sucks for those of us playing by the rules.




Well, I can empathize, but suffice to say it sucks big-time to want a product that I know the owner has on-hand and be told to come back in a week because they're "playing by the rules". The publisher gets paid, the distributor gets paid, the retailer gets paid, and I'm the one doing the paying--yet these rules aren't in place to serve me. In light of that, I gotta applaud the guy who breaks the rules.


----------



## JEL (Oct 4, 2006)

Razz said:
			
		

> I've been answering a lot of questions HERE so feel free to check it out.




Someone mind c/ping the info here?


----------



## Greg K (Oct 4, 2006)

JEL said:
			
		

> Someone mind c/ping the info here?




Here you go.

PRESTIGE CLASSES:

Abjurant Champion: Warrior who dabbles in abjuration magic.
Prerequisites: BAB +5, Combat Casting feat, must be able to cast 1st-level arcane spells, including one abjuration, must be proficient with at least one martial weapon
---5-level prestige class
---HD d10
---Good BAB
---Good Will saves
---2 skill points/level (Climb, Concentration, Craft, Handle Animal, Intimidate, Jump, Knowledge (arcana), Ride, Spellcraft, Swim)
---+1 level of existing arcane spellcasting class for all 5 levels
---Abjurant Armor 1st level (gain +1 extra shield or armor bonus to AC per class level to a spell that grants such AC bonuses such as mage armor or shield)
---Extended Abjuration 1st level (duration of abjuration spells are doubled as if Extend Spell feat was applied, without change in level)
---Swift Abjuration 2nd level (can cast abjuration spells as a swift action as if Quicken Spell with no change in level, can use this for spells of a spell level equal to 1/2 class level rounded up)
---Arcane Boost 4th level (as a swift action, can spend an uncast spell or spell slot to grant an insight bonus for 1 round equal to the spell level to one of the following: attack rolls, weapon damage rolls equal to x2 spell level, bonus to AC, bonus to all saves, resistance to acid, cold, electricity, fire, or sonic equal to 5 x spell level)
---Martial Arcanist 5th level (Caster level in chosen arcane spellcasting class is equal to your base attack bonus, unless it would be higher. Can apply this feature to only one arcane spellcasting class to which your Abjurant Champion levels had increased its caster level)


Eldritch Disciple: Multiclass warlock/divine spellcaster (particularly Cleric since it has a Turn/Rebuke Undead requirement, but the adaptation states you can ditch that requirement to come up with warlock/druid or warlock/favored soul combos. Though, the problem is one of its main abilities is based off of using up your Turn/Rebuke undead uses)
Preq:Knowledge (religion) 8 ranks, Knowledge (the planes) 4 ranks; ability to cast 2nd-level divine spells; ability to use least invocations; ability to turn/rebuke undead; must worship a chaotic or evil deity
Abilities: 10 / 9 Warlock/Divine spells. gets Gift of the Divine Patron, increased levels in Turn/Rebuke Undead, Eldritch Spellweave, and Timeless Body.


Eldritch Theurge: Multiclass warlock/arcane spellcaster.
Preq: Knowledge (arcana) 8 ranks, Knowledge (the planes) 8 ranks; ability to cast 2nd-level arcane spells; ability to use least invocations; eldritch blast +2d6
Abilites:gets Eldritch Spellweave, damage reduction cold iron (which stacks with Warlock one), Fiendish Resilience (stacks with Warlock), and two invocations accessible only by this prestige class---Spellblast and Greatreach Spellblast.
Spellblast: Lets you place an arcane spell that affects an area (like fireball) into your eldritch blast so that when the blast hits, the spell takes effect too.
Greatreach Spellblast: Let's you place an arcane spell with a range of touch (like vampiric touch or shocking grasp) into your eldritch blast so that when your blast hits, the spell takes affect too.
Eldritch Spellweave: Not an invocation, but a class feature, it lets you apply any eldritch essence invocation you know into an arcane spell that requires a melee or ranged touch attack. The spell's level must be as high as the eldritch essence invocation used. If the essence requires a saving throw, use the normal save for the essence. If the essence changes the type of damage, it can only be applied to a damaging spell


Enlightened Spirit: Warlock who takes on celestial characteristics.
Preq: any good alignment, Knowledge(the planes) 8 ranks, and eldritch blast +3d6.
*does not increase warlock caster level*
---HD d6
---Medium BAB
---Good Will saves
---2 skill points/level (Bluff, Concentration, Craft, Diplomacy, Intimidate, Jump, Knowledge [arcana], Knowledge [religion], Knowledge [the planes], Profession, Sense Motive, Spellcraft, Use Magic Device)
---Aura of Courage at 1st-level (as the paladin ability)
---Aura of Menace at 1st-level (5-foot radius, as the ability archons gets)
---Spirit Blast invocation (eldritch blast deals 1 point of extra damage per die to undead and affects incorporeal creatures with no miss chance)
---Eldritch Blast increases by 1d6 at 2nd, 4th, 6th, 8th, and 10th level (at least this one increases)
---Spirit Armor at 2nd level (gain +1 sacred bonus to AC, increases to +2 at 6th level and +3 at 10th level)
---Celestial Flight invocation (sprout shimmering spirit wings and can fly at a speed equal to land speed at good maneuverability)
---Tongues spell continously active
---Can learn any one least, lesser, or greater blast shape invocation at 5th-level
---Energy resistance 5 (that stacks) to any two of the following at 5th-level: acid, cold, electricity, and fire
---Holy Blast invocation at 7th level (eldritch blast deals 1 point of extra damage per die to evil outsiders and affects them with a dimensional anchor)
---Transform Magic invocation (use melee touch attack to target foe with a greater dispel magic effect. If a spell is successfully dispelled, you or an ally within 30 ft. of you heal 5 points of damage per spell level of the spell that was dispelled. Cannot transform own invocations)
---Death Ward at 10th level (immune to death spells, magical death effect, energy drain, and negative energy effects)

Holy Scourge: Arcane spellcaster specialized in blasting evil.
Prerequisites: Any good, Knowledge (religion) 2 ranks, able to cast three evocation spells, able to cast 3rd-level arcane spells
---5-level prestige class
---HD d6
---Poor BAB
---Good Will saves
---2 skill points/level (Concentration, Craft, Knowledge (arcana), Knowledge (religion), Knowledge (the planes), Profession, Spellcraft)
---+1 level of existing arcane spellcasting class at 2nd-5th level
---Code of Conduct (devote self to destruction of evil, particularly those dwelling on evil magic, if you screw up you becom an Ex-Holy Scourge, but can atone, etc.)
---Dedicated Spellcaster 1st-level (gain +1 bonus to caster level when casting good spells, cannot cast evil spells)
---Righteous Evocation 1st level (evocation spells deal an extra 1 point of damage per spell level against evil creatures and consists of pure divine energy so no resistance or immunity, at 5th level this increases to 2 points of damage per spell level)
---Arcane Smite 2nd level (like Smite Evil but once per day, except you apply the effec to an arcane spell that requires a melee or ranged attack roll, also the spell has the Good descriptor if used, at 4th level you can do this 2/day)
---Devoted Arcanist 3rd level (can add class level on caster level checks made to overcome spell resistance of evil creatures with arcane spells)


Lyric Thaumaturge: Bard with enhanced spellcasting prowess.
Prerequisites: Knowledge (arcana) 6 ranks, Perform (any) 9 ranks, Spellcraft 6 ranks, Melodic Casting feat, ability to cast 2nd-level arcane spells, bardic music 5/day
---10-level prestige class
---HD d6
---Medium BAB
---Good Reflex and Will saves
---4 skill points/level (Bluff, Concentration, Craft, Decipher Script, Diplomacy, Knowledge (all), Perform, Profession, Sense Motive, Spellcraft, Use Magic Device)
---+1 level of bard spellcasting abiltiy for all 10 levels
---Bardic Music uses increase as normal
---Bonus Spell (At 1st level gain an additional 1st or 2nd level bard spell slot, gain an additional 3rd or 4th slot at 4th level, gain a 5th level slot at 7th level, gain a 6th level slot at 10th level)
---Captivating Melody at 2nd level as bonus feat
---Spell Secret (Gain more spells known from Sorceror/Wizard spell list, gain a 1st or 2nd level spell known at 3rd level, a 3rd or 4th level spell at 6th level, and a 5th or 6th level spell at 9th level)
---Sonic Might 5th level (can expend a bardic music use to add 1d6 points of sonic damage per spell level to any spell with the sonic descriptor)
Reply With Quote

Master Specialist: Wizard with greater mastery over school of specialization.
10-levels, 
---d4 HD,
--- Poor BAB, 
---Good Will saves,
--- 2 skill points/level (Concentration, Craft, Decipher Script, Knowledge (all skills), Profession, Spellcraft).
---All 10 levels grant a +1 level of wizard spellcasting ability
---Skill Focus (Spellcraft) at 1st level
---Expanded Spellbook at 2nd, 5th, and 8th level (can add a spell from your chosen school to add to your spellbook in addition to the normal 2 you get per wizard level)
---Greater Spell Focus of chosen school at 3rd level
---Minor School Esoterica at 4th level (you gain a benefit depending on your chosen school of magic, for example, abjuration gives you competence bonus to dispel checks equal to 1/2 class level)
---Caster Level Increase at 6th and 9th (add 1 to caster level when casting spells from chosen school)
---Moderate School Esoterica (as the Minor one, only you receive another benefit based on your chosen school. Using Abjuration again as an example, you'll get the ability to suffer no adverse affect if you pass a save on a spell that has partial or half effect)
---Major School Esoterica (as Minor and Moderate, using abjuration once again, you can cast personal spells as touch spells and abjuration spells that emanate from you can emanate from target touched)
Reply With Quote

Nightmare Spinner: Arcane spellcaster who weaves fear into illusions
Prerequisites: Bluff 4 ranks, Intimidate 4 ranks, Sense Motive 4 ranks, ability to cast 3rd-level arcane spells, ability to cast at least one fear spells and at least one mind-affecting illusion spell
---5-level prestige class
---HD d4
---Poor BAB
---Good Will saves
---4 skill points/level (Bluff, Concentration, Decipher Script, Diplomacy, Intimidate, Knowledge (all), Prfession, Search, Sense Motive, Spellcraft)
---+1 level of existing arcane spellcasting class 2nd-5th level
---Bonus Spells 1st level (gain an extra spell slot per spell level to prepare an illusion spell or gain a spell slot per spell level that can only be used for an illusion spell known if a spontaneous caster)
---Immunity to Fear at 1st
---Inspire Fear at 1st (standard action can create a mind-affecting fear effect that makes living creature within 30 ft. shaken for a number of rounds equal to class level, can be used 3 + Charisma modifier times per day, uses don't stack)
---Nightmare Phantasm 2nd level (as a free action, can give the phantasm descriptor to a glamer or figment illusion spell and the target of the spell becomes shaken everytime they attempt a Will save to disbelieve the illusion, no save, can be used 3 + Charisma modifier times per day)
---Spirit Chill 3rd level (creatures affected by fear spell you cause from any source takes nonlethal damage equal to 1d6 if shaken, 2d6 if frightened, or 3d6 if panicked)
---Deadly Nightmare 5th level (can create mind-affecting fear effect on a living creature to make it drop dead within 30 ft. Target makes Will save or dies of fright. Fails if HD is twice your character level, can be used 3/day).

Ultimate Magus: Multiclass arcane preparation spellcaster/arcane spontaneous spellcaster (yes, you've read that correctly )
Preq: Knowledge (arcana) 4 ranks, Spellcraft 8 ranks; any metamagic feat; able to spontaneously cast 1st-level arcane spells; able to preapre and cast 2nd-level arcane spells from a spellbook
Abilities: gets Arcane Spell Power, Expanded Spell Knowledge, Augmented Casting, and 2 bonus feats
Odd progression warning: 1st level states that you receive a "+1 level of lower-level existing arcane casting class" only, so pretty much, you increase whichever is lower in caster level, your sorceror or wizard level. It says this again at 4th-level and 7th-level. The rest of the levels both classes increase simulatenously.
Arcane Spell Power: Caster level increases by 1 for all arcane spells. Increases again at 4th, 7th, and 10th for a total of +4 caster level to all arcane spells.
Expanded Spell Knowledge: At 2nd level, can select one 0 or 1st-level spell from spellbook and add it to Sorceror spells known, even if you can't cast spells of that level yet. Can add another every two levels thereafter. At 4th level it can be a 0-2nd level spell, at 6th it can be a 0-3rd level spell, at 8th it can be a 0-4th level spell and at 10th it can be a 0-5th level spell.
Augmented Casting: This can be used 3 + 1/2 class level times per day. Can sacrifice a spell or spell slot from one of your classes to apply the effect of a metamagic feat that you know to a spell cast using another arcane class (For instance, you could sacrifice a sorceror slot to apply a metamagic effect to a wizard spell). This sacrificed spell or slot is lost (just as if you had cast it) in addition to the spell you are actually casting. The level of the spell augmented can't be higher than 1/2 class level. Level fo spell sacrificed must equal or exceed the spell level adjustment of the metamagic feat. To empower a spell, you'd have to expend a 2nd-level or higher spell. You can't use this ability to augment a spell already affected by a metamagic feat.
Bonus Feat: Gain bonus metamagic feat at 5th and 9th level.

Unseen Seer: Stealthy character who dabbles in divination magic.
Prerequisites: Hide 8 ranks, Search 8 ranks, Sense Motive 4 ranks, Spellcraft 4 ranks, Spot 8 ranks, ability to cast 1st-level arcane spells, including at least 2 divination spells
---10-level prestige class
---HD d4
---Medium BAB
---Good Will saves
---6 skill points/level (Bluff, Concentration, Decipher Script, Diplomacy, DIsguise, Forgery, Gather Information, Hide, Knowledge (all), Listen, Move Silently, Profession, Search, Sense Motive, Spellcraft, Spot)
---+1 level of existing arcane spellcasting class for all 10 levels
---Damage Bonus 1st level (deal extra 1d6 damage with sneak/sudden/skirmish attack, must choose which one gets the increase, gain another 1d6 at 4t, 7th, and 10th)
---Advanced Learning 2nd, 5th, and 8th level (can add new spell to spellbook or known spells, must be a divination spell but can be from any class spell list)
---Silent Spell feat at 2nd level
---Divination Spell Power 3rd level (gain +1 caster level when casting arcane divination spells, +2 at 6th level, and +3 at 9th level, but cast other arcane spells at -1 caster level at 3rd level, -2 at 6th level, and -3 at 9th level)
---Guarded Mind 5th level (permanently protected by nondetection, character level=caster level)
Reply With Quote

Wild Soul: Arcanist who wields power from the realm of fey.
Prerequisites: Any nonlawful, Knowledge (arcana) 8 ranks, Knowledge (nature) 4 ranks, must be able to cast 2nd-level arcane spells, must make peaceful contact with fey creature and peacefully spend at least a day among fey
---10-level prestige class
---HD d4
---Poor BAB
---Good Will saves
---2 skill points/level (Concentration, Craft, Diplomacy, Knowledge (arcana), Knowledge (nature), Knowledge (the planes), Spellcraft)
---+1 level of existing arcane spellcasting class 2nd-10th level
---Seelie Courtier 1st level (must pick whether you're bound to Seelie Court or Unseelie Court based on your alignment, gain bonus to Bluff, Diplomacy, and Intimidate equal to class level made against fey and magical beasts)
---Spontaneous Spells (can spontaneously cast specific spells from a list provided to you, a spell from 1st through 9th level. The list depends on whether you've chosen Seelie or Unseelie Courts)
---Seelie Bond 2nd level (gain benefits when casting summon seelie ally or summon monster to bring forth a creature from the summon seelie ally list that last as long as creature is alive and duration of spell is still going; the benefits are cumulative, at 2nd gain immunity to magical and nonmagical sleep, 4th level gain +2 bonus to saves against enchantment, 6th level increase land speed by 10 feet, 8th level add 1 to DC of saves against illusion spells you cast, at 10th add 1 to DC of saves against enchantment spells you cast)
---Summon Seelie Ally 2nd level (can use this ability 3/day and functions like summon monster only you summon a creature from the list provided to you, and it depends on whether you chose Seelie or Unseelie Court. The creatures on the list can also be summoned with a summon monster spell. This list can also be expanded upon the DM's permission)

Spellcasting Progressions:
As for the other dabblers, Abjurant Champion is a 5-level PrC (+5 arcane caster levels in total), Holy Scourge is a 5-level PrC (+4 arcane caster levels in total), Lyric Thaumaturge is a 10-level PrC (+10 bard caster levels in total), Master Specialist is 10-level (+10 wizard caster levels), Nightmare Spinner is 5-level PrC (+4 arcane caster levels), Unseen Seer is 10-level PrC (+10 caster levels), and Wild Soul is 10-level PrC (+9 caster levels)  



Quote:
NEW INVOCATIONS

LEAST INVOCATIONS
All-Seeing Eyes: As comprehend languages on written material, and a +6 bonus on Search and Spot checks.
Call of the Beast: Speak with animals and influence their behavior.
Hammer Blast: Eldritch blast deals normal damage to objects.
Otherworldly Whispers: Gain +6 bonus on Knowledge (arcana), Knowledge (religion), and Knowledge (the planes)
Serpent's Tongue: Gain the scent ability, +5 bonus on saves against poison.
Soulreaving Aura: As reaving aura spell, plus gain temporary hit points.
Swimming the Styx: Gain swim speed and ability to breathe water.

LESSER INVOCATIONS
Baneful Blast: Eldritch blast deals extra damage against specified creature type.
Cold Comfort: You and nearby allies protected by endure elements.
Crawling Eye: Your eye leaves your head and grows spidery legs, enabling it to scout for you.
Disembodied Hand: Detach one of your hands and send it forth to manipulate objects or attack.
Mask of Flesh: Touch attack deals 1d6 Charisma penalty to target and transforms you to look like target.
Relentless Dispelling: As a targeted dispel magic, with additional targeted dispel magic next turn.
Witchwood Step: Walk on water and move through some obstacles unimpeded.

GREATER INVOCATIONS
Caustic Mire: Acidic sludge slows progress, deals damage.
Hellspawned Grace: Transform into a hellcat for 1 round/2 warlock levels.
Hindering Blast: Target of your eldritch blast must succeed on Will save or be slowed for 1 round.
Nightmares Made Real: Create illusory terrain that damages foes and allows you to hide.
Painful Slumber of Ages: Creature falls asleep, takes damage when awakened.

DARK INVOCATIONS
Binding Blast: Target of your eldritch blast must make a Will save or be stunned for 1 round.
Caster's Lament: Your touch can break enchantment, and you can counterspell.
Steal Summoning: Take control of another caster's summoned monster.

There's also 2 new invocations accessible only by taking levels in the Eldritch Theurge prestige class: Spellblast and Greatreach Spellblast. There's 4 new invocations from taking levels in Enlightened Spirit prestige class: Spirit Blast, Celestial Flight, Holy Blast, and Transform Magic  




Quote:

ALTERNATE CLASS FEATURES:


ARCANE HUNTER: Ranger, Level 1st, Knowledge (arcana) 1 rank, replaces 1st favored enemy; Gain favored enemy (arcanists) as 1st favored enemy.

ARCANE STUNT: Swashbuckler, Level 1st, Knowledge (arcana) 1 rank, lose grace class feature; Choose blur, expeditious retreat, feather fall, jump, or spider climb. Can use it as spell-like ability as swift action, duration is 1 round and caster level is Swashbuckler level. Can choose a 2nd one at 11th and duration is 2 rounds for all chosen spells and a 3rd at 20th and duration is 3 rounds for all chosen spells, can use 1 + Intelligence mod per day

ARMORED MAGE: Fighter, Level 1st, Knowledge (arcana) 1 rank, lose proficiency with medium and heavy armor; Choose one arcane spellcasting class and you avoid arcane spell failure in light armor and light shields, only applis to spells of a level equal to or lower than Fighter level + 1.

CURSE BREAKER: Paladin, Level 6th, Knowledge (arcana) 1 rank, replaces remove disease; Gain remove curse instead, and at 12th level can use two uses to do break enchantment

DIVINE COUNTERSPELL: Cleric or Paladin, 1st or 4th Level, Knowledge (arcana) 1 rank, lose turn/rebuke undead; 1 + Charisma modifier times per day can use dispel magic to counter a spell, adding cleric level to d20 roll and do not need to identify spell being cast.

DIVINE MAGICIAN: Cleric, Level 1st, Knowledge (arcana) 1 rank, gain only one domain; Can add one 1st level abjuration, divination, or necromancy wizard spell to cleric spell list, and again each time you gain access to a new spell level by choosing same level spell as one you gained access to.

ELEMENTAL COMPANION: Druid, Level 1st, Knowledge (the planes) 1 rank, speak Auran, Terran, Ignan, or Aquan, lose animal companion and wild empathy; Gain Small elemental (air, earth, fire, water) of whose language you can speak at 1st level. At 4th it becomes Medium, at 10th Large or can stay at Medium and gain other abilities, at 16th can become Huge, or remain same size and gain other benefits.

FOCUSED SPECIALIST: Specialist Wizard, Level 1st, lose one spell slot of each spell level and choose another prohibited school; Gain 2 additional spell slots per spell level that can only be used for chosen school.

SOULWARP STRIKE: Monk, Level 1st, Knowledge (arcana) 1 rank, lose 1st level bonus feat; Channel necromantic energy into unarmed strike. Declare before attack roll, in addition to damage it nauseates living creature for 1 round (or sickened if pass Fortitude save). Can use as many times per day as monk level.

SPELL REFLECTION: Monk, Ranger, Rogue, or Scout, Level 2nd (Monk or Rogue), 5th (Scout), or 9th (Ranger), Knowledge (arcana) 1 rank, lose evasion and if get improved evasion, get evasion instead; If enemy misses with spell or spell-like ability, can use immediate action to redirect it back at the caster. Use only on affects that require an attack roll. If single spell misses more than once (for example, scorching ray) then you can redirect each one that misses. Can use this ability 1 + Dexterity modifier per day.

SPELL SENSE: Barbarian or Rogue, Level 3rd, Knowledge (arcana) 1 rank, replaces trap sense; Gain +1 dodge bonus to AC against spells and spell-like abilities, increases by 1 for every 3 levels.

SPELLBREAKER SONG: Bard, Level 1st, Knowledge (arcana) 1 rank, Perform (any) 3 ranks, lose countersong; Use bardic music to give 20% spell failure to spellcasters within 30 feet casting spells with verbal components. Can maintain the song for 3 rounds.

STALWART SORCEROR: 1st level, need Knowledge (arcana) 1 rank, reduce number of sorceror spells known for your highest-spell level by 1. When you gain access to higher level spells later, you receive back the spell slot from the old spell level and lose the slot from the new highest spell level; The benefit is you gain extra hit points equal to 2 times your sorceror class level. Every time you gain a level you gain another 2 hit points. You also gain Martial Weapon Proficiency feat for a melee weapon of your choice along with Weapon Focus with that weapon.  

Quote:

RESERVE FEATS

Ah, this new category of feats is interesting. They explain the reason for it's creation. The purpose of a Reserve feat is, even though you have to keep a spell prepared or a spell slot on hold in order to benefit, the benefits are worthwhile. The higher the spell level you hold, the stronger the benefit. The good thing about Reserve feats is they're usable at will with no limit.

They stated that these are good for those spellcasters that like to save their spells for just the right moment or are too worried about running out of spells. It gives them something worthwhile to do other than aid another or use up charges from wands and scrolls.

For example, I'll show you guys one of the reserve feats that looks cools, Storm Bolt.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
STORM BOLT: Ability to cast 3rd-level spells; As long as you have an electricity spell of 3rd level or higher available to cast, you can fire a 20-foot line of electricity as a standard action. This bolt deals 1d6 points of electricity damage per level of the highest-level electricity spell you have available to cast. As a secondary benefit, you gain a +1 competence bonus to your caster level when casting electricity spells.
------------------------------------------------------------------

Most of the reserve feats, in fact I believe all of them, run along these lines. I like them, they appear to be very useful and worthwhile to invest in. There's quite a number of reserve feats in the book, 25 in total.


As for the other reserve feats, of course there's nondamaging ones. There's Aquatic Breath which lets you breathe water and air normally, Borne Aloft let's you fly 30 feet once per round, Clutch of Earth lets you impede a target's movement, and Shadow Veil let's you obscure a target's sight  



Quote:
FEY HERITAGE FEATS

Fey Heritage: +3 bonus on Will saves against enchantments
Fey Legacy: Gain spell-like abilities usable 1/day (confusion, dimension door, summon nature's ally V, character level=caster level)
Fey Power: +1 caster level and save DC on enchantment spells and warlock invocations
Fey Presence: Gain spell-like abilities usable 1/day (charm monster, deep slumber, disguise self, caster level=character level)
Fey Skin: Gain DR/cold iron  



Quote:
Other Feats

SOMATIC WEAPONRY: Pretty much what I expected and what I am sure everyone will be happy about. Requirements are cheap, and you can basically use your weapon, or any item in fact, for the somatic component of a spell.

MINOR SHAPESHIFT: This reserve feat says you need to have a polymorph spell of 4th level or higher on hold. But at will, you can gain one of several benefits such as +2 to melee damage or a claw attack dealing 1d6 damage and a couple of others. It also gives you +1 caster level when casting spells o the polymorph subschool.

ENERGY ABJURATION: You gain energy resistance every time you cast an abjuration spell equal to 1 + spell's level x 5 against any type of energy. Once you're hit by an energy, it wears off. It can be taken as a wizard bonus feat.

METAMAGIC SPELL TRIGGER: You can apply any metamagic feat you know to a spell you cast from a spell trigger item like a staff or wand. You expend one extra charge for each spell level increase the metamagic feat imposes. However, you can't apply the feats if it will take the spell beyond 9th-level.


----------



## Jdvn1 (Oct 5, 2006)

Olaf the Stout said:
			
		

> I know that Complete Mage is an October release so does that mean it is out now?  If not does anyone know when it will be released this month?
> 
> Olaf the Stout



 Good rule of thumb: 1st Tuesday of the month, but never earlier than the 6th.


----------



## Nightchilde-2 (Oct 5, 2006)

Felon said:
			
		

> Well, I can empathize, but suffice to say it sucks big-time to want a product that I know the owner has on-hand and be told to come back in a week because they're "playing by the rules". The publisher gets paid, the distributor gets paid, the retailer gets paid, and I'm the one doing the paying--yet these rules aren't in place to serve me. In light of that, I gotta applaud the guy who breaks the rules.




Well, fortunately no stores down here in Dallas, that I'm aware of, break street date so it's not that big of an issue for me. In fact, Alliance (my distributor) sets their release date as just in time for me to receive product on the street date anyway.

It's still frustrating to hop on here sometimes and see it happening, though...


----------



## JEL (Oct 5, 2006)

Greg K said:
			
		

> Here you go.




Very much appreciated.  And to Razz too for posting it in the first place.


----------



## Felon (Oct 5, 2006)

Greg K said:
			
		

> RESERVE FEATS
> Ah, this new category of feats is interesting. They explain the reason for it's creation. The purpose of a Reserve feat is, even though you have to keep a spell prepared or a spell slot on hold in order to benefit, the benefits are worthwhile. The higher the spell level you hold, the stronger the benefit. The good thing about Reserve feats is they're usable at will with no limit. They stated that these are good for those spellcasters that like to save their spells for just the right moment or are too worried about running out of spells. It gives them something worthwhile to do other than aid another or use up charges from wands and scrolls.
> 
> For example, I'll show you guys one of the reserve feats that looks cools, Storm Bolt.
> ...




Seems like reserve feats go a ways towards turning casters into warlocks. Cool.

I like the idea that the spells scale with the spells left in reserve, but it soundss like not all of them do.


----------



## Gold Roger (Oct 5, 2006)

I so love reserve feats already. I hope we will see more of those.


----------



## Beckett (Oct 5, 2006)

Reserve feats sound very cool.  Reminds me of an old Dragon article, which talked about how a wizard who can cast fireball should be able to light his pipe with a snap of his fingers.  Sounds like it will be easier for wizards to do something cool every round, instead of wondering whether they should cast now or later.

I'm looking forward to picking up my copy.


----------



## rgard (Oct 5, 2006)

Greg K said:
			
		

> Here you go.
> 
> <SNIP>
> 
> ...




Hi Greg, thanks for posting all of that.  Great stuff!!!  About the Eldritch Theurge, can you tell us the BAB, Saves (i'm assuming Will good) and whether the Eldritch Blast increases in power?

Thanks,
Rich


----------



## Evilhalfling (Oct 5, 2006)

Bother.
Now I have to buy another book


----------



## spectre72 (Oct 5, 2006)

Greg K said:
			
		

> FEY HERITAGE FEATS
> 
> Fey Heritage: +3 bonus on Will saves against enchantments
> Fey Legacy: Gain spell-like abilities usable 1/day (confusion, dimension door, summon nature's ally V, character level=caster level)
> ...




Can you give any more info about these?

Is there a prerequisite for taking fey feats?

These intrigue me alot.

Thanks
Scott


----------



## atom crash (Oct 5, 2006)

> Well, I can empathize, but suffice to say it sucks big-time to want a product that I know the owner has on-hand and be told to come back in a week because they're "playing by the rules". The publisher gets paid, the distributor gets paid, the retailer gets paid, and I'm the one doing the paying--yet these rules aren't in place to serve me. In light of that, I gotta applaud the guy who breaks the rules.




While not every book sold has a strict on-sale date, it is not uncommon for them to do so. This practice usually happens with bigger titles by more popular authors. Publishers set these dates, and once set they expect retail outlets to adhere to them; the retailers can be required to sign an affidavit legally binding them to the onsale date. 

(Remember all the big to-do about a store selling the latest Harry Potter book early? And how many stores had midnight sales? That's because of the strict onsale dates.)

Onsale dates are ostensibly set so that everyone can begin selling their copies at the same time; this levels the playing field for stores who are subject to distribution channels that can take longer to ship product to them. For some types of books -- mysteries, memoirs, the latest Harry Potter book -- it's also done so that secrets revealed in the book can't become news content -- spoiling the secret -- before the book can be sold. That's kind of like walking out of the first screening of a film and telling the people who are waiting in line to see it next how it ends. Or like illegally downloading a new album before its release.

Incidentally, I have noticed that WotC books are generally available through larger brick & mortar retailers 2 weeks after the release date, though I don't know if this is a conscious decision or if that's just the way it works because of existing distribution channels. 

The "guy who breaks the rules" can be subject to fines levied by the publisher for breaking onsale dates, and in some cases the publisher/distributor will make sure that the guy who routinely breaks the rules will not receive copies of new titles before the onsale date in the future.


----------



## Whizbang Dustyboots (Oct 5, 2006)

I'm mildly concerned about the reserve feat. I'd like to see what all the choices are and some number crunching. I don't know that most preparation casters use up ALL their spells in a given day, so the sacrifice is a mild-to-non-existant one.

I like the idea in theory, but I think it might be a bit too good. I might double the spell requirement or something.


----------



## Felon (Oct 5, 2006)

So far as we've seen, a reserve feat seems to require a certain level of spell to be retained. To get stormbolt, you have to keep an electricity spell of at least 3rd-level available. If they keep that trend up, and characters aren't reaping big rewards for keeping trivial spells unused, then they should be in good shape.

If a mage reaches a point where he can afford to keep a lightning bolt uncast, then he's probably at a point where a 3d6 attack is no big whoop, eh?


----------



## JEL (Oct 5, 2006)

spectre72 said:
			
		

> Can you give any more info about these?
> 
> Is there a prerequisite for taking fey feats?
> 
> ...




If they're like the other heritage feats, I imagine you have to have a sorcerer to take them.

The reserve feats sound like they're meant to address the issue Monte Cook had brought up a while back regarding spell casters.


----------



## Greg K (Oct 5, 2006)

Hi all,
To those asking for more info, I just copied that info from a thread at WOTC boards. I'll try to copy and paste more info as it comes. The real person to thank (and whom to ask specific questions) is Razz as he is the actual source of the information


----------



## Aaron L (Oct 5, 2006)

Greg K said:
			
		

> SOMATIC WEAPONRY: Pretty much what I expected and what I am sure everyone will be happy about. Requirements are cheap, and you can basically use your weapon, or any item in fact, for the somatic component of a spell.





Ive been waiting for this feat for EVER, I was just talking about wanting it on the WotC message board like last week, seriously.

Thats AWESOME.


----------



## Whizbang Dustyboots (Oct 5, 2006)

Felon said:
			
		

> If a mage reaches a point where he can afford to keep a lightning bolt uncast, then he's probably at a point where a 3d6 attack is no big whoop, eh?



Unless you're at the epic levels, I can't imagine 3d6 is never going to make a difference, especially when it's potentially 3d6 every round until a spell can be dropped to really turn the tide. If nothing else, this is the Mook Killer feat, and given that a pile of mooks is bad news for the robe-wearing members of a party, that's a good thing.

I honestly can't imagine someone playing an arcane spellcaster and NOT taking this feat.


----------



## Greg K (Oct 5, 2006)

Hi all,
Here is some more Complete Mage preview goodness posted by Razz at the WOTC boards

PREREQUISITES FOR MASTER SPECIALIST PRC
Prerequisites: Knowledge (arcana) 5 ranks, Spellcraft 5 ranks, Spell Focus (school of specialization), must be able to cast 2nd-level arcane spells, must be a specialist wizard


RAPID METAMAGIC
You possess an uncanny mastery of your magic, enabling you to modify spells on the fly much faster than others can.
Prerequisites: Spellcraft 12 ranks, ability to spontaneously cast spells
Benefit: When you apply a metamagic feat to a spontaneously cast spell, the spell takes only its normal casting time.
Normal: Spontaneous casters applying metamagic must either take a full-round action (if the spell normally requires a standard action or less) or add a full-round action to the casting time (if the spell takes 1 full round or longer to cast).

RESERVE FEATS
Acidic Splatter: [Ability to cast 2nd-level spells] Create orb of acid 1d6damage/level, +1 caster level on acid spells
Aquatic Breath: [Ability to cast 3rd-level spells] Breathe normally in air or water, +1 caster level on water spells
Blade of Force: [Ability to cast 3rd-level spells] Surround a weapon in force, +1 caster level on force spells
Borne Aloft: [Ability to cast 5th-level spells] Fly 30 feet once per round, +1 caster level on air spells
Clap of Thunder: [Ability to cast 3rd-level spells] Touch attack does 1d6damage/spell level and bestows deafness, +1 caster level on sonic spells
Clutch of Earth: [Ability to cast 2nd-level spells] Impede creature's movement, +1 caster level earth spells
Dimensional Jaunt: [Ability to cast 4th-level spells] Teleport 5 feet/spell level, +1 caster level on teleportation spells
Dimensional Reach: [Ability to cast 3rd-level spells] Summon a small item, +1 caster level on summoning spells
Drowning Glance: [Ability to cast 4th-level spells] Exhaust an air-breathing foe, +1 caster level water spells
Face-Changer: [Ability to cast 3rd-level spells] Alter your appearance, +1 caster level on glamer spells
Fiery Burst: [Ability to cast 2nd-level spells] Create fire burst 1d6damage/spell level, +1 caster level on fire spells
Hurricane Breath: [Ability to cast 2nd-level spells] Bull rush foes from a distance, +1 caster level on air spells
Invisible Needle: [Ability to cast 3rd-level spells] Create force dart 1d4 damage/spell level, +1 caster level on force spells
Magic Disruption: [Ability to cast 3rd-level spells] Reduce effect of enemy spellcasting, +1 caster level on abjuration spells
Magic Sensitive: [Ability to cast 3rd-level spells] Detect magic instinctively, +1 caster level on divination spells
Minor Shapeshift: [Ability to cast 4th-level spells] Grant physical benefit, +1 caster level on polymorph spells
Mystic Backlash: [Ability to cast 5th-level spells] Target's spell damage self, +1 caster level on abjuration spells
Shadow Veil: [Ability to cast 2nd-level spells] Obscure a target's sight, +1 caster level on darkness spells
Sickening Grasp: [Ability to cast 3rd-level spells] Sicken a target with a touch, +1 caster level necromancy spells
Storm Bolt: [Ability to cast 3rd-level spells] Create line of electricity 1d6 damage/spell level, +1 caster level on electricity spells
Summon Elemental: [Ability to cast 4th-level spells] Summon elemental, +1 caster level on summoning spells
Sunlight Eyes: [Ability to cast 2nd-level spells] See in darkness 10 feet/spell level, +1 caster level on light spells
Touch of Distraction: [Ability to cast 3rd-level spells] Impose -2 penalty on target's attack or Reflex save, +1 caster level on enchantment spells
Wind-Guided Arrows: [Ability to cast 3rd-level spells] Apply modifier to ranged weapon attack, +1 caster level on air spells
Winter's Blast: [Ability to cast 2nd-level spells] Create cold cone 1d4 damage/spell level, +1 caster level on cold spells


----------



## Aaron L (Oct 5, 2006)

Greg K said:
			
		

> STORM BOLT: Ability to cast 3rd-level spells; As long as you have an electricity spell of 3rd level or higher available to cast, you can fire a 20-foot line of electricity as a standard action. This bolt deals 1d6 points of electricity damage per level of the highest-level electricity spell you have available to cast. As a secondary benefit, you gain a +1 competence bonus to your caster level when casting electricity spells.





Wow.  That is.... rad!


I cant wait to get this book.


----------



## Felon (Oct 5, 2006)

Whizbang Dustyboots said:
			
		

> Unless you're at the epic levels, I can't imagine 3d6 is never going to make a difference, especially when it's potentially 3d6 every round until a spell can be dropped to really turn the tide. If nothing else, this is the Mook Killer feat, and given that a pile of mooks is bad news for the robe-wearing members of a party, that's a good thing. I honestly can't imagine someone playing an arcane spellcaster and NOT taking this feat.




Oh, I can. Wands and (later) staves can easily make that 3d6 look pretty piddling. It's the exact same deal with a warlock's eldritch blast...except the stormbolt doesn't have essences to enhance its effectiveness...and it's not an unspecified energy type...and a spell of the wizard's highest level has to be reserved for it to remain equivalent damage...


----------



## BryonD (Oct 5, 2006)

Felon said:
			
		

> Oh, I can. Wands and (later) staves can easily make that 3d6 look pretty piddling. It's the exact same deal with a warlock's eldritch blast.



I'm thinking they are a touch on the powerful side for a feat.
It is hard to compare a ranged touch to a line.  But a 20 foot line is pretty small.
If it is a little over power, I'm thinking that the fun added will cancel that out.
 

I really like the concept and flavor.   A Lot.

And I agree that a wand of Lightning Bolt would make this almost pointless.  So it can't be to bad.    


Is there a save involved?


----------



## Whizbang Dustyboots (Oct 5, 2006)

Felon said:
			
		

> Oh, I can. Wands and (later) staves can easily make that 3d6 look pretty piddling. It's the exact same deal with a warlock's eldritch blast...except the stormbolt doesn't have essences to enhance its effectiveness...and it's not an unspecified energy type...and a spell of the wizard's highest level has to be reserved for it to remain equivalent damage...



We'll see. My gut says, a year from now, one or more of the reserve feats are a "must have" for arcane spellcasters. At least Force Dart uses a smaller damage die.


----------



## Gold Roger (Oct 5, 2006)

Whizbang Dustyboots said:
			
		

> We'll see. My gut says, a year from now, one or more of the reserve feats are a "must have" for arcane spellcasters. At least Force Dart uses a smaller damage die.




You say that as if it's a bad thing. I personally welcome casters that hold for a whole day.


----------



## Whizbang Dustyboots (Oct 6, 2006)

Gold Roger said:
			
		

> You say that as if it's a bad thing. I personally welcome casters that hold for a whole day.



Say what like it's a bad thing? I'm in favor of casters being able to do something cool every round -- I love Monte's spitballing of, essentially, merging wizards and warlocks in 4E, with fewer wizard spells in return for effects similar to reserve feats -- I just think that the current reserve feats might be a little TOO good. It's not as though wizards are underpowered to start off with.


----------



## Cthulhudrew (Oct 6, 2006)

Whizbang Dustyboots said:
			
		

> I honestly can't imagine someone playing an arcane spellcaster and NOT taking this feat.




I was thinking the same thing, actually. In fact, my first thought*, was "why even bother ever using the lightning bolt? Just hang one in reserve and zap people, you'll do as much damage, even if you don't have quite the same range.

*Thought based, naturally, solely on what I see here, and not having read the book for myself yet.


----------



## BryonD (Oct 6, 2006)

3d6 at 20 ft is significantly less than 7d6 (minimum) at 120 ft.

I do agree that any character who takes this feat is GOING to hold a bolt in reserve.  But isn't that the point?  It doesn't show that a feat is broken to say that a player will do with it what it is designed to do.

There is a lot of total damage upside, but there is also a lot of opportunity cost downside.
The up is better than the down, sure.
But, to my admittedly so far untested judgement, the up isn't so much better than the down that the feat is not beyond the high end of feats.

I still agree with Felon that a wand of lightning bolt is pretty easy to get and provides a lot more punch than this does.  Heck, a wand of scorching ray or acid arrow would provide more punch.


----------



## Felon (Oct 6, 2006)

Cthulhudrew said:
			
		

> I was thinking the same thing, actually. In fact, my first thought*, was "why even bother ever using the lightning bolt? Just hang one in reserve and zap people, you'll do as much damage, even if you don't have quite the same range.




Note the bolt only does 1d6 per _spell_ level, not 1d6 per _caster_ level. Thus, holding a lightning bolt in reserve only yields 3d6 damage.



			
				BryonD said:
			
		

> I still agree with Felon that a wand of lightning bolt is pretty easy to get and provides a lot more punch than this does.  Heck, a wand of scorching ray or acid arrow would provide more punch.




Exactly. These feats are neat, but I'm not sure why wands get overlooked when it comes to addressing the limitations on vancian slots.

Then again, it's always easy to fall into the trap of thinking damage output as the sole index for the concepts of "power" and "balance".


----------



## Ciaran (Oct 6, 2006)

Felon said:
			
		

> Exactly. These feats are neat, but I'm not sure why wands get overlooked when it comes to addressing the limitations on vancian slots.



A lot of people play low-wealth or "low-magic" campaigns where it's difficult or impossible to craft items.  Others play in fast-paced adventuring games where their PCs don't have the time or opportunity to craft or purchase magical items.


----------



## Nightchilde-2 (Oct 6, 2006)

Felon said:
			
		

> Oh, I can. Wands and (later) staves can easily make that 3d6 look pretty piddling. It's the exact same deal with a warlock's eldritch blast...except the stormbolt doesn't have essences to enhance its effectiveness...and it's not an unspecified energy type...and a spell of the wizard's highest level has to be reserved for it to remain equivalent damage...




Wands and staves run out of charges.  Replacing them costs either gp or XP & requires time.

Wands and staves can be disarmed.  Then they can be used against you.

Wands and staves can be sundered.

Wands and staves have a static caster level that won't increase for penetrating spell resistance.

Wands and staves have to be carried around.


----------



## I'm A Banana (Oct 6, 2006)

> Oh, I can. Wands and (later) staves can easily make that 3d6 look pretty piddling. It's the exact same deal with a warlock's eldritch blast...except the stormbolt doesn't have essences to enhance its effectiveness...and it's not an unspecified energy type...and a spell of the wizard's highest level has to be reserved for it to remain equivalent damage...




It's a psychology thing. The idea that a wand's rescource is limited (even if it is more charges than people can usually use in a month) makes people more reluctant to use it.

The irony is that a wand is more effective at a lower cost than a feat....you don't get that many feats as you level up, but you get loads of GP and wands (and scrolls) are cheap as heck. But those feats will probably be more popular because they are permenant modifications rather than disposable equipment.


----------



## coyote6 (Oct 6, 2006)

Kamikaze Midget said:
			
		

> It's a psychology thing. The idea that a wand's rescource is limited (even if it is more charges than people can usually use in a month) makes people more reluctant to use it.
> 
> The irony is that a wand is more effective at a lower cost than a feat....you don't get that many feats as you level up, but you get loads of GP and wands (and scrolls) are cheap as heck. But those feats will probably be more popular because they are permenant modifications rather than disposable equipment.




Are wands really that cheap? They cost spell level*caster level*15 gp per charge; that's 225 gp per 5d6 _fireball_. An EL6 encounter is supposed to be worth 2000 gp, on average; after you split it four ways, the wizard who uses one _wand of fireballs_ charge has spent almost half the money he earned. And the save DC on that _fireball_ is all of 14; IME, that means many foes will be taking half damage. 

That's where wands really suck: saving throw DCs; the most powerful wand you'll ever own has a save DC of 16, while your typical spellcaster's 4th level spells will have an 18+ DC (4 for level, 15+1 [level increase] ability, +2 stat boosting item). That's 15% more foes who will succeed, and each shot will cost you at least 420 gp. 

Penetrating spell resistance has similar problems; and it gets worse as the spellcaster's level gets higher.

Me, I find the Reserve feats idea intriguing, and I wish to subscribe to the newsletter look forward to picking up the book.


----------



## BryonD (Oct 6, 2006)

Nightchilde-2 said:
			
		

> Wands and staves run out of charges.  Replacing them costs either gp or XP & requires time.



50 charges lasts a VERY long time.



> Wands and staves can be disarmed.  Then they can be used against you.
> 
> Wands and staves can be sundered.



Neither of these have ever happened in one of my games.  Weapons yes, wands and staves no.  Overlooked tactic?  maybe.  Doesn't matter though because bottom line is the same, no issues here.



> Wands and staves have a static caster level that won't increase for penetrating spell resistance.



Staves dont.
And a wand of LB does better damage than this power and has much better range.



> Wands and staves have to be carried around.



shrug


----------



## WarlockLord (Oct 6, 2006)

I really, really like the reserve feats.  Mystic Backlash looks interesting.  Also, I notice storm bolt allows no save nor touch attack.  This should be good.  Plus, it's virtually unlimited.


----------



## I'm A Banana (Oct 6, 2006)

> Are wands really that cheap? They cost spell level*caster level*15 gp per charge; that's 225 gp per 5d6 fireball. An EL6 encounter is supposed to be worth 2000 gp, on average; after you split it four ways, the wizard who uses one wand of fireballs charge has spent almost half the money he earned. And the save DC on that fireball is all of 14; IME, that means many foes will be taking half damage.




A wand will last more than 1 encounter, though. With 50 charges, a wand can last every turn a wizard has for a good 10 encounters. That's 20,000 GP until he has to buy another one, and by that point he can probably afford a 7d6 fireball or two. 

I'll more or less agree with the "low saving throws" thing, but that's what makes it worthwhile to cast fireball even when you have a wand of fireball.


----------



## Banshee16 (Oct 6, 2006)

Greg K said:
			
		

> Hi all,
> Here is some more Complete Mage preview goodness posted by Razz at the WOTC boards
> 
> PREREQUISITES FOR MASTER SPECIALIST PRC
> ...




These Reserve Feats sound a heck of a lot like Locus Feats, which were introduced in the Scarred Lands book "Secrets of the Asaatthi".  The only difference is that Locus Feats required you to have a specific spell in memory, and sometimes a minimum number of ranks in particular skills....but they gave slightly more powerful abilities.

Wonder if that's what inspired the idea?

Banshee


----------



## Felon (Oct 6, 2006)

Ciaran said:
			
		

> A lot of people play low-wealth or "low-magic" campaigns where it's difficult or impossible to craft items.  Others play in fast-paced adventuring games where their PCs don't have the time or opportunity to craft or purchase magical items.




Well, I won't hazard a guess as to what percentage "a lot of people" really comprises, but suffice to say if you pare away the magic bling, you're playing a pretty radically different game--in some ways, it's like playing rock/paper/scissors without the scissors, because magic items provide some significant checks and balances (they'll keep a fighter from being outmeleed by a wildshaping druid, for instance). I think any useful discussion here has to assume people are playing the game using the guidelines set forth in the core books. 



			
				Nightchilde-2 said:
			
		

> Wands and staves run out of charges.  Replacing them costs either gp or XP & requires time. Wands and staves can be disarmed.  Then they can be used against you. Wands and staves can be sundered. Wands and staves have a static caster level that won't increase for penetrating spell resistance. Wands and staves have to be carried around.




This is a big fat "so what?" situation. Sure, items are external components. They have to be created/purchased/wielded/toted and so forth--but D&D characters pretty much learn to reconcile themselves with carrying magic items. It's what the game makes allowances for. You either find items as treasure or you buy them. 



			
				coyote6 said:
			
		

> That's where wands really suck: saving throw DCs; the most powerful wand you'll ever own has a save DC of 16, while your typical spellcaster's 4th level spells will have an 18+ DC (4 for level, 15+1 [level increase] ability, +2 stat boosting item). That's 15% more foes who will succeed, and each shot will cost you at least 420 gp. Penetrating spell resistance has similar problems; and it gets worse as the spellcaster's level gets higher.
> 
> Me, I find the Reserve feats idea intriguing, and I wish to subscribe to the newsletter look forward to picking up the book.




Wands are intentionally designed to scale so that using one is inferior to actually casting the equivalent spell. But I think it's plain to see that the reserve feats are geared to be inferior to actually casting the equivalent spell as well. 

Now don't get me wrong, I've already said I think reserve feats are cool-looking, but I don't think they change the core game all that fundamentally, except maybe around 3rd to 5th level, where reserve feats first become available, because that's a little before wands come into prevalence.


----------



## Felon (Oct 6, 2006)

Banshee16 said:
			
		

> These Reserve Feats sound a heck of a lot like Locus Feats, which were introduced in the Scarred Lands book "Secrets of the Asaatthi".  The only difference is that Locus Feats required you to have a specific spell in memory, and sometimes a minimum number of ranks in particular skills....but they gave slightly more powerful abilities.
> 
> Wonder if that's what inspired the idea?




I think the roots of reserve feats lie in the psionic focus feats. They introduced the concept of getting some benefit out of exercising restraint, rewarding players for not shooting their wad right away.


----------



## Sanackranib (Oct 6, 2006)

Nightfall said:
			
		

> I thought he paid off Eric to give him 2,000 posts.




obviously its been a while since I've been on. I remember what a big deal it was when he reached 12k! :\


----------



## Banshee16 (Oct 6, 2006)

Felon said:
			
		

> I think the roots of reserve feats lie in the psionic focus feats. They introduced the concept of getting some benefit out of exercising restraint, rewarding players for not shooting their wad right away.




I suppose it's possible....but it seems like these reserve feats are doing almost exactly the same thing as the Locus Feats do..

Of course, I'm not the writer of the book, so I have no idea what he was thinking when he was doing it.

Banshee


----------



## Cthulhudrew (Oct 6, 2006)

Felon said:
			
		

> Note the bolt only does 1d6 per _spell_ level, not 1d6 per _caster_ level. Thus, holding a lightning bolt in reserve only yields 3d6 damage.




D'OH! 

Yessiree, I know how to read.


----------



## Whizbang Dustyboots (Oct 6, 2006)

Banshee16 said:
			
		

> I suppose it's possible....but it seems like these reserve feats are doing almost exactly the same thing as the Locus Feats do..
> 
> Of course, I'm not the writer of the book, so I have no idea what he was thinking when he was doing it.



Well, it's not like there's a giant pool of D20 writers, nor of top-drawer material. I think it's perfectly reasonable to think all of these things are pretty much connected, either by having similar influences or as a direct adaptation of a good idea seen previously.


----------



## Gold Roger (Oct 6, 2006)

Whizbang Dustyboots said:
			
		

> Say what like it's a bad thing? I'm in favor of casters being able to do something cool every round -- I love Monte's spitballing of, essentially, merging wizards and warlocks in 4E, with fewer wizard spells in return for effects similar to reserve feats -- I just think that the current reserve feats might be a little TOO good. It's not as though wizards are underpowered to start off with.




Wizards have more than enough up-front power, but their staying power is somewhere down there.

I see the reserve feats as evening that power distribution out- they sacrifice some of that up-front power, because they don't throw out all high level spells available as soon as possible, and in turn gain a fair amount of staying power.


----------



## Felon (Oct 6, 2006)

Cthulhudrew said:
			
		

> D'OH!
> 
> Yessiree, I know how to read.




Hey, it's rather convuluted anyway....character level, caster level, spell level. I've got a player new to D&D who won't touch a spellcasting class.


----------



## Klaus (Oct 6, 2006)

I´d gladly keep a lightning bolt on reserve in exchange for the ability to deal 3d6 damage on a 20´ line at friggin´ will!

Imagine, you could even keep a lowly shocking grasp (touch, maxes out at 5d6) on reserve and in exchange do 1d6 damage on a 20' line at will. 5 uses and you've already achieved the maximum damage you'd be able to deal with a shocking grasp.


----------



## JPL (Oct 6, 2006)

I like that Ultimate Mage prestige class...I had a similar notion a few months back.

The are filling some interesting niches with the new prestige classes...I am a big fan of prestige classes that take an otherwise mechanically non-viable class combo (say, wizard / warlock) and make the concept work.


----------



## BryonD (Oct 6, 2006)

Klaus said:
			
		

> I´d gladly keep a lightning bolt on reserve in exchange for the ability to deal 3d6 damage on a 20´ line at friggin´ will!
> 
> Imagine, you could even keep a lowly shocking grasp (touch, maxes out at 5d6) on reserve and in exchange do 1d6 damage on a 20' line at will. 5 uses and you've already achieved the maximum damage you'd be able to deal with a shocking grasp.



True.

But doing 5d6 in one round is much better than 1d6 in each of 5 rounds.
And for a 6th level Wizard or Sorcerer to spend turns doing a 20 ft 1d6 eletricty lines is a heavy loss in opportunity to do better things.
I'm still not saying that this a a poor feat by any means.  
But I think that a caster that went to this as a primary attack option would be seriously underachieving.  But it makes a decent secondary power and flavor idea that seems ok for a feat cost.


----------



## Felon (Oct 6, 2006)

Klaus said:
			
		

> I´d gladly keep a lightning bolt on reserve in exchange for the ability to deal 3d6 damage on a 20´ line at friggin´ will! Imagine, you could even keep a lowly shocking grasp (touch, maxes out at 5d6) on reserve and in exchange do 1d6 damage on a 20' line at will. 5 uses and you've already achieved the maximum damage you'd be able to deal with a shocking grasp.




From the description, I get the impression that the spell reserved must be at least 3rd-level. 

Even if it's not--geez, get a 1st-level wand of magic missiles, for pete's sake.


----------



## Klaus (Oct 6, 2006)

You're right, you need a 3rd-level spell. Still, the ability to deal 3d6 damage along a 20´ line at will is nothing to sneeze at. And this is only Storm Bolt. Dimensional Jump allows for (at minimum) 20'-range teleportation at will, which is a great utility feature to use throughout the day. There are other very nice feats in there too.


----------



## Whizbang Dustyboots (Oct 6, 2006)

Felon said:
			
		

> Even if it's not--geez, get a 1st-level wand of magic missiles, for pete's sake.



So ... instead of _this_ feat, burn another feat, some cash and some XP?

Or hope your DM has Magic-Marts?


----------



## Whizbang Dustyboots (Oct 6, 2006)

Klaus said:
			
		

> You're right, you need a 3rd-level spell. Still, the ability to deal 3d6 damage along a 20´ line at will is nothing to sneeze at. And this is only Storm Bolt. Dimensional Jump allows for (at minimum) 20'-range teleportation at will, which is a great utility feature to use throughout the day. There are other very nice feats in there too.



The one that allows apparently at-will face changes is nice if you're of a race that predominates an area. (Less useful for, say, a gnome illusionist, although it does give that +1 to glamers which presumably stacks with the racial ability, the paragon class ability, spell focus and greater spell focus ...)


----------



## Sir Brennen (Oct 6, 2006)

Klaus said:
			
		

> You're right, you need a 3rd-level spell. Still, the ability to deal 3d6 damage along a 20´ line at will is nothing to sneeze at. And this is only Storm Bolt. Dimensional Jump allows for (at minimum) 20'-range teleportation at will, which is a great utility feature to use throughout the day. There are other very nice feats in there too.



??? My reading is that being able to cast 3rd level spells is a prerq for the feat, but its effects aren't based off of 3rd level spells only. So if I still have Shocking Hands memorized as my only Electrical spell, I can still use the Storm Bolt feat ability for 1d6 damage.

On another point: From a summary on the WotC boards, it looks like the effects of the resever feats allow saves in some cases. So that takes the power down another notch.

Also, reserve feats allow a sorcerer to be even more flexible - if a wizard casts the lightning bolt spell he has memorized, and has no other "electricty" spells uncast, he loses the primary benefit of the feat.

If a sorcerer simply _knows_ lightning bolt, he can use the 20' electrical line as long as he has _any_ 3rd level slots left. And he could use all those slots to cast *Summon Monster 3* if he wanted, not lighting bolt.

If a sorcerer knows an Electricy spell for each of his slot levels, he can use the "at will" ability as long as he has even one unspent spell slot left. The wizard might loose the benefit after casting just one or two spells, even if he's 20th level (of course, the wizard would probably have more than one spell of the proper descriptor memorized, but you get the point.)

For those complaining this book doesn't give the sorcerer enough love, I don't think you're looking hard enough...


----------



## BryonD (Oct 6, 2006)

Whizbang Dustyboots said:
			
		

> So ... instead of _this_ feat, burn another feat, some cash and some XP?
> 
> Or hope your DM has Magic-Marts?



You post seems to suggest that obtaining a CL1 wand of magic missles should be a big deal.
If that is the case then I'd suggest that you're not playing with the same assumptions the bulk of the D&D gamers are.  I'm not saying there is the slightest thing wrong with that.  But if a CL1 Wand is a big deal to you, then you are going to have an issue with stuff in supplements and that is just the way it is.  

If the wand is not a big deal to you, as it is not with a large portion of gamers, then Felon's point stands.

Further: the cash and XP for a CL1 wand are SO small that I'd say trading a spell slot for that isn't really all that bad anyway....  (you left the important spell slot out in your post)


----------



## Voadam (Oct 6, 2006)

These reserve feats look great. I shouldn't have looked at this thread. Now I want this book badly and I'm unlikely to get it.


----------



## Particle_Man (Oct 6, 2006)

If the creature has Lightning resistance 10, I would rather shoot a 5d6 bolt than a series of 3d6 bolts.


----------



## carmachu (Oct 6, 2006)

Those feats look ok, but I'll reserve final judgement for a full reading. I mean, 3d6 is ok, but a wand of lightning bolts is better. 

*shrug* I want to look at some of the other ones, specifically the summon elemental one.


----------



## Milkman Dan (Oct 6, 2006)

Oddly, at least in my case, it wasn't the extra ability that drew me to the Reserve Feats as much as the +1 caster level that's tacked on.  See, according to Complete Mage's description of Reserve Feats, it's a full-time, "always on" benefit.

For classes that specialize in certain spells (for example, an elemental savant who is specialized in electricity spells, like my PC), that can be a significant benefit on top of the ability.  

There's also talk of Clap of Thunder feat being useful for arcane tricksters, since it's a damaging touch attack.


----------



## Shaele (Oct 6, 2006)

*Rapid Metamagic?*



			
				Greg K said:
			
		

> RAPID METAMAGIC
> You possess an uncanny mastery of your magic, enabling you to modify spells on the fly much faster than others can.
> Prerequisites: Spellcraft 12 ranks, ability to spontaneously cast spells
> Benefit: When you apply a metamagic feat to a spontaneously cast spell, the spell takes only its normal casting time.




Umm. Does this imply that sorcerers can use Quicken Spell now?!? (I wouldn't think so, for balance reasons, but the thought is there). Even if not, still worth it just to get back to standard actions


----------



## Mouseferatu (Oct 6, 2006)

Sir Brennen said:
			
		

> ??? My reading is that being able to cast 3rd level spells is a prerq for the feat, but its effects aren't based off of 3rd level spells only. So if I still have Shocking Hands memorized as my only Electrical spell, I can still use the Storm Bolt feat ability for 1d6 damage.




Not quite. The effect is based on the highest-level electrical spell you have available to cast, _if it meets the minimum requirement_. _Shocking grasp_ does not. Each feat specifies the requirements in its write-up.


----------



## Mouseferatu (Oct 6, 2006)

Shaele said:
			
		

> Umm. Does this imply that sorcerers can use Quicken Spell now?!? (I wouldn't think so, for balance reasons, but the thought is there). Even if not, still worth it just to get back to standard actions




The intent was, indeed, to allow sorcerers to use Quicken.


----------



## Sir Brennen (Oct 6, 2006)

Hey! Thanks for chiming in on the thread, Ari! 


			
				Mouseferatu said:
			
		

> Not quite. The effect is based on the highest-level electrical spell you have available to cast, _if it meets the minimum requirement_. _Shocking grasp_ does not. Each feat specifies the requirements in its write-up.



Ah, I thought those requirements were just to get the feat, not what spell levels it would work with. Guess I need to get the book.

Still, hold a 5th level spell in reserve, and you got your 5d6 wand of lightning bolts for free.


----------



## I'm A Banana (Oct 6, 2006)

> I suppose it's possible....but it seems like these reserve feats are doing almost exactly the same thing as the Locus Feats do..
> 
> Of course, I'm not the writer of the book, so I have no idea what he was thinking when he was doing it.




Reminds me a lot of what Monte said in a recent update, that spellcasters could use some constant "always on" minor magical powers and then be able to rock out every once in a while.

I think it's more a case of "great minds think alike" in all these cases.


----------



## Voadam (Oct 6, 2006)

Sir Brennen said:
			
		

> Still, hold a 5th level spell in reserve, and you got your 5d6 wand of lightning bolts for free.




5th level lightning spell? Lightning bolt 3, electicity orb 4, chain lightning 6, others?

So for a sixth level slot, known chain lightning spell, and a feat you can get your minimum power sorcerer made lightning bolt wand as an innate power.


----------



## BryonD (Oct 6, 2006)

Sir Brennen said:
			
		

> Still, hold a 5th level spell in reserve, and you got your 5d6 wand of lightning bolts for free.



5th level slot, plus a feat, and your lightning bolt is only 20ft long.  So you are a 9th+ level caster getting a 5th level caster effect with 1/6 the range.  And it costs you a feat.
And, I don't know yet, but I bet there is a save that is pretty low.
There are much better things a 9th level wizard could be doing.

All in all it still sounds fair to above average.  I don't have a problem with above average (so far).


----------



## BryonD (Oct 6, 2006)

Voadam said:
			
		

> 5th level lightning spell? Lightning bolt 3, electicity orb 4, chain lightning 6, others?
> 
> So for a sixth level slot, known chain lightning spell, and a feat you can get your minimum power sorcerer made lightning bolt wand as an innate power.



If a wizard prepares a silent electricty orb, does that count as 4th?  (I'm really asking)
If yes, does a sorcerer with silent spell and electricity orb count as long as he has a level 5+ slot?

Regardless, for balance purposes I think it is fair to assume that an appropriate spell of each valid level may come into play.


----------



## BryonD (Oct 6, 2006)

Mouseferatu said:
			
		

> The intent was, indeed, to allow sorcerers to use Quicken.



The "normal casting time" wording is going to cause some rules forum fun.....

Makes sense to ME, but still....


----------



## Mouseferatu (Oct 6, 2006)

BryonD said:
			
		

> The "normal casting time" wording is going to cause some rules forum fun.....
> 
> Makes sense to ME, but still....




Yep. I intended "normal" to mean "The casting time is not increased, as it usually is when a sorcerer applies a metamagic feat." I did _not_ intend it to mean you can't Quicken, but obviously I could have phrased it a little better.


----------



## BryonD (Oct 6, 2006)

Mouseferatu said:
			
		

> Yep. I intended "normal" to mean "The casting time is not increased, as it usually is when a sorcerer applies a metamagic feat." I did _not_ intend it to mean you can't Quicken, but obviously I could have phrased it a little better.



Meh.  I'm fine with normal english.  
Though the clarification IS appreciated.


----------



## I'm A Banana (Oct 6, 2006)

> So for a sixth level slot, known chain lightning spell, and a feat you can get your minimum power sorcerer made lightning bolt wand as an innate power.




All of these are much more valuable than a drop in the bucket of GP, too. You get hundreds of thousands of gold pieces, of which a wand takes up only a very small fraction, and you get seven feats (not counting bonus feats, eight if you're a human). You've spent the equivalent of 1/7th of your entire character's GP throughout the course of his career to be able to use a wand at will instead of "virtually every turn for a month".


----------



## Voadam (Oct 6, 2006)

BryonD said:
			
		

> If a wizard prepares a silent electricty orb, does that count as 4th?  (I'm really asking)
> If yes, does a sorcerer with silent spell and electricity orb count as long as he has a level 5+ slot?
> 
> Regardless, for balance purposes I think it is fair to assume that an appropriate spell of each valid level may come into play.




Metamagic only increases spell slot, not spell level normally. I don't have CM to examine the exact language, but it sounds like spell level is the determining factor so it sounds like a metamagicked 4th using a 5th slot is still 4th and would do 4d6.

I agree though that Spell Compendium, 3rd party sourcebooks, energy substituted spells, and future WotC spells could provide electrical subtype spells for all levels and should be expected when designing the feat. Out of the core though there is only lightning bolt and chain lightning for qualifying spells.


----------



## Particle_Man (Oct 6, 2006)

Voadam said:
			
		

> Metamagic only increases spell slot, not spell level normally. I don't have CM to examine the exact language, but it sounds like spell level is the determining factor so it sounds like a metamagicked 4th using a 5th slot is still 4th and would do 4d6.




Sounds like Heighten Spell just became a more useful feat.


----------



## Klaus (Oct 6, 2006)

Particle_Man said:
			
		

> If the creature has Lightning resistance 10, I would rather shoot a 5d6 bolt than a series of 3d6 bolts.



 I'd rather find out that a creature is resistant to electricity through a wasted use of an at-will ability than through the wasted use of a 3rd-level spell slot.


----------



## Felon (Oct 6, 2006)

Whizbang Dustyboots said:
			
		

> So ... instead of _this_ feat, burn another feat, some cash and some XP? Or hope your DM has Magic-Marts?




Bryon already largely covered this point, but I don't know why you presume a character has to make his own wands, and I don't know how hard I should have to "hope" that a DM allows characters to attain trivial magic items that easily fall within the DMG's guidelines. A 5th or 6h level character should be able to afford 750 gp, and even small towns can handle that purchase limit.

But heck, since you brought it up, let's consider dropping a feat on Craft Wands instead of a reserve feat. With the feat, you can craft a wand for any spell you know. That's a lot more versatility. The trade-off is the cost in XP (minor) and gp (which is half what it costs to buy the wand flat-out).

Like Bryon, I'm hardly implying that reserve feats stink, just that there's always been a way for a mage to get off a small spell virtually every round. They don't alter the very fabric of the game--except maybe for folks who play an aberrant version of D&D where magic items get short shrift.


----------



## Felon (Oct 6, 2006)

Voadam said:
			
		

> So for a sixth level slot, known chain lightning spell, and a feat you can get your minimum power sorcerer made lightning bolt wand as an innate power.




Well, I hate to keep driving the same point, but the average wealth for an 11th-level character is 66,000 gp (88,000 for a 12th). Again, the wand of lightning bolts is well within attainability. Heck, this mage is gearing up for staffs.   

But yeah, it's nice enough.


----------



## Set (Oct 6, 2006)

> These Reserve Feats sound a heck of a lot like Locus Feats, which were introduced in the Scarred Lands book "Secrets of the Asaatthi". The only difference is that Locus Feats required you to have a specific spell in memory, and sometimes a minimum number of ranks in particular skills....but they gave slightly more powerful abilities.




I like these better, actually.  The +1 caster level and the much easier to meet prerequisites make them very nice compared to the Locus feats.  (I *loved* the Locus feats, and even wrote up a bunch of alternates on the WW boards after they were introduced, but they just didn't offer enough bang to be worth the multiple feats necessary to get to the 'good stuff,' unless you took the specific Locus Master PrC in the book and got bonus Locus feats and abilities.)

I've noticed this a couple of times.  The Scarred Lands writers came out with some really neat 'Scion feats' for a Sorcerer of whatever bloodline, and a bit later WotC came out with some Bloodline feats that did the same thing, but significantly more powerfully.  To my mind, this is probably the best part of the OGL.  The best ideas from third-party publishers can be pillaged and pulled into the core game.


----------



## Greg K (Oct 7, 2006)

Set said:
			
		

> I like these better, actually.  The +1 caster level and the much easier to meet prerequisites make them very nice compared to the Locus feats.




I was driving one of my friends around and we were discussing that we wanted more prerequisites.  Goes to show different playstyles and all.


----------



## Greg K (Oct 7, 2006)

Here is another from Razz

CAPTIVATING MELODY: (Bardic music, ability to cast arcane spells) As swift action before casting a spell, make a Perform check (DC 15 + spell level). If you succeed, you can sacrifice one use of bardic music to increase save DC of next enchantment or illusion spell you cast in same round by 2. If the Perform check fails, you gain no benefit but still lose the bardic music use. You can only use this feat on spells from a class that grants you the use of bardic music.


----------



## Particle_Man (Oct 7, 2006)

Klaus said:
			
		

> I'd rather find out that a creature is resistant to electricity through a wasted use of an at-will ability than through the wasted use of a 3rd-level spell slot.




But it ain't wasted if damage gets through.  I suppose a mage with this reserve could do: Zap for 3d6, do 11-10=1 damage, find out the creature is only slightly hurt, and then say "what the hell" and go for the full lightning bolt for more damage.  Or pull out his wand of fireballs.


----------



## Cadfan (Oct 7, 2006)

I am less interested in the damaging versions of the reserve feats than in the utility versions.  I'm especially interested in their use by multiclass or non primary spellcasters.

...I should explain my reasoning.  Sorcerors hardly need more spells per day.  Wizards?  They'll get some benefit, but not a ton at higher levels, especially for the damagine attacks that dont' grow incredibly fast.

Nonprimary spellcasters often have significant limits on spells per day.  For example, a hexblade runs out of spells very, very quick.  These feats could give them permanent magical natures to augment their abilities.  Reserve feats that look good for hexblades: Blade of Force, Dimensional Jaunt, Dimensional Reach, Face Changer, Magic Disruption, Minor Shapeshift, Sun Light Eyes, Wind Guided Arrows.

I don't have the actual text of these feats, just the preview in this thread.  But all of them look fun, useful, and thematic.


----------



## I'm A Banana (Oct 7, 2006)

I do really like the Hexblade potential in these....makes it much more viable to be "always magical," like a Warlock with better melee potential....big fan.

Speaking of,  yes, the utility is somehow more interesting than the POWER. I thought the same thing for the warlock....magical lazer at will blah blah blah....but I can basically teleport around whenever I want? Something tells me the guards at the gates will not be barring my entrance anymore....

It was like when I saw that Warlocks could walk around surrounded in a swarm of bugs at all times....the possibility to just threaten *everyone* with creepy crawlies was very amusing to me. You can't make a bug-proof home, after all....

Mweeheehee...


----------



## Felon (Oct 7, 2006)

Milkman Dan said:
			
		

> Oddly, at least in my case, it wasn't the extra ability that drew me to the Reserve Feats as much as the +1 caster level that's tacked on.  See, according to Complete Mage's description of Reserve Feats, it's a full-time, "always on" benefit.




Actually, I forgot to reply to this earlier, but I think you're absolutely right. This caster level boost is what makes the feat superior to wanding.

It also creates an interesting tactical choice where a caster's tempted all the more to burn that spell that's giving him a constant spell-like ability.


----------



## Klaus (Oct 7, 2006)

It's the return of the Rainbow spell!!!

Can Druids still use it?

And now that the book is out, is there anything in there to boost familiars?


----------



## Greg K (Oct 7, 2006)

Some new spells that Razz listed as his favorites.  I personally dislike them, but I thought that I would share them anyway.

Prismatic Deluge: 40 ft. wide, 80 ft. high area effect that hits everything in it as if they walked through a prismatic wall.

Repelling Shield: As the shield spell, except it bull rushes enemies that attack you.

Lightning Leap: Turn into a lightning bolt and move through your enemies as the bolt, dealing damage.

Transcend Mortality: Wu jen only spell, but gives you crazy powerful benefits for 1 round/level. Then you die. Heh.


----------



## Aaron L (Oct 7, 2006)

Greg K said:
			
		

> Lightning Leap: Turn into a lightning bolt and move through your enemies as the bolt, dealing damage.





Actuallly, I think that spell sounds cool as hell.


----------



## Greg K (Oct 7, 2006)

here is more from Razz

MINOR ESOTERICA
Abjuration: Gain competence bonus on dispel checks equal to 1/2 class level.
Conjuration: Summoned creatures gain extra hit points equal to caster level.
Divination: Divination spells with concentration as duration last an additional number of rounds equal to 1/2 class level after you cease concentrating.
Enchantment: Targets of charm spells don't receive a bonus to saves when being threatened or attacked. Also, targets of compulsions don't get a bonus to saves for doing actions beyond their nature.
Evocation: Gain bonus to Concentration checks equal to 1/2 class level when casting evocation spells.
Illusion: Will disbelief illusions have DC increases by 2
Necromancy: Undead allies within 60 ft. gain turn resistance and bonus on saves equal to class level for a number of rounds equal to class level when you cast necromancy spell.
Transmutation: Your transmutation spells stay in effect for 1 round after being dispelled.

MODERATE ESOTERICA
Abilities here last a number of rounds equal to spell's level.

Abjuration: If subject to a spell that has a partial or half effect on a successful save, you suffer no adverse affect on a successful save.
Conjuration: Dispel checks against your conjuration spells treat your caster level as if 5 higher.
Divination: Gain uncanny dodge for duration of a cast divination spell.
Enchantment: Can make a reroll on an failed Will save against an enchantment or mind-affecting spell or ability; must accept 2nd result.
Evocation: Gain resistance 20 to any one energy type that matches a descriptor used by the spell you cast.
Illusion: Gain concealment
Necromancy: Immune to ability damage, drain, energy drain, and negative levels.
Transmutation: Can reroll failed Fortitude save against a transmutation spell or ability; must take 2nd roll.

MAJOR ESOTERICA
These abilities can be used 3/day.

Abjuration: Can cast personal abjuration spells as touch spells. If spell has an emanation effect centered on you, it centers on recipient instead.
Conjuration: Can cast conjuration spells with a casting time of standard action as a swift action.
Divination: Gain true seeing for 5 rounds after casting a divination spell.
Enchantment: Creatures that save against your enchantment spells must make the save again 1 round later with a +5 bonus on the save.
Evocation: Creatures that fail a save against your evocation spell suffers half the damage 1 round later.
Illusion: Can cast any illusion spell as stilled and silent and eschew materials without increase in caster level or casting time.
Necromancy: Undead allies within 60 ft. gain fast healing 10 for 5 rounds after casting necromancy spell.
Transmutation: When a creature successfully saves against a transmutation spell you cast, it takes damage equal to level of the spell.


----------



## BryonD (Oct 7, 2006)

Aaron L said:
			
		

> Actuallly, I think that spell sounds cool as hell.



Somewhere out there some 3rd party did this already (back when 3rd parties actually DID stuff).
It was called Ride the Lightning.
And yeah, seems pretty cool.
Dragon Magic had the same thing with a fire spell.


----------



## BryonD (Oct 7, 2006)

Greg K said:
			
		

> here is more from Razz
> 
> MINOR ESOTERICA
> <snip>



I wish there was more necromancy stuff for non-undead leaders.
Some white necromancy support would be nice, imo.


----------



## HeapThaumaturgist (Oct 7, 2006)

Greg K said:
			
		

> Lightning Leap: Turn into a lightning bolt and move through your enemies as the bolt, dealing damage.




Excellence.  Our cleric got an item with this 1/day already.  Hasn't come into play yet, but sounds great for getting those soft, tastey casters out of situations where they've been outflanked and cut off from the team.  A little bit Dimension Door, a little bit Blasty, right through the enemy position.

--fje


----------



## Sammael (Oct 7, 2006)

Greg K said:
			
		

> Transcend Mortality: Wu jen only spell, but gives you crazy powerful benefits for 1 round/level. Then you die. Heh.



Sounds a bit like _4th Dimension Transformation_ from RIFTS England. My Temporal Raider character kept wanting to use it, but the risks were a bit too much.


----------



## Felon (Oct 7, 2006)

Greg K said:
			
		

> MINOR ESOTERICA
> Enchantment: Targets of charm spells don't receive a bonus to saves when being threatened or attacked. Also, targets of compulsions don't get a bonus to saves for doing actions beyond their nature.




I have some real trepidations about this one. A charm or compulsion is an insidious thing, usually tatamount to a subtle save-or-die effect, and available at a lower level than stuff like Slay Living or Finger of Death. The saving throw bonuses reign in their abuse potential.

On another note, am I the only one who would love to see some kind of "Eldritch Assassin" prestige class for warlock/rogues in The Complete Scoundrel?


----------



## WarlockLord (Oct 8, 2006)

Are reserve feats spell-like or supernatural abilites?


----------



## Felon (Oct 8, 2006)

I wonder if there are any good 1st-level evocation spells? Be awful nice for a warmage to finally get some use out of his 3rd-level advanced learning.


----------



## Whizbang Dustyboots (Oct 8, 2006)

Hmmm, it'd be cheesy of me to do it, but it looks like, as written, it'd be perfectly kosher for me to go gnome illusionist 1/bard 1/gnome paragon 3/master specialist (illusionist) X, since the requirements are second level arcane spells, not necessarily second level spells of a character's specialization.

Assuming, you know, my Savage Tide DM goes for it.


----------



## BryonD (Oct 8, 2006)

Whizbang Dustyboots said:
			
		

> Hmmm, it'd be cheesy of me to do it, but it looks like, as written, it'd be perfectly kosher for me to go gnome illusionist 1/bard 1/gnome paragon 3/master specialist (illusionist) X, since the requirements are second level arcane spells, not necessarily second level spells of a character's specialization.
> 
> Assuming, you know, my Savage Tide DM goes for it.



Are you suggesting this build might be broken???


----------



## Greylock (Oct 8, 2006)

Regarding street date:

I saw all of these titles at my FLGS last Friday, but they don't "display" them. They will sell to trusted customers. Breaking street date is a big no-no in my book, having spent twenty years in the record business, but I can understand the frustration felt at the FLGS. The big-box stores around here for the last year or so have openly flaunted street dates, especially with WotC books, so the game store has made some effort to get things a little early. With a Borders a few miles up the street and a B&K a few miles down, the game store has to do what it can. If I were in the same boat as a small business owner I'd break street too.


----------



## TheNovaLord (Oct 8, 2006)

Klaus said:
			
		

> It's the return of the Rainbow spell!!!
> 
> Can Druids still use it?
> 
> And now that the book is out, is there anything in there to boost familiars?




was looking at the online piccies from complete mage for a nice jpeg for a character. Just how mnay of the pictures where of elf (or other pointy earred) spell users. couldt find a nice human one to fit

Book looks kinds interesting

JohnD


----------



## Thanee (Oct 8, 2006)

Shaele said:
			
		

> Umm. Does this imply that sorcerers can use Quicken Spell now?!? (I wouldn't think so, for balance reasons, but the thought is there). Even if not, still worth it just to get back to standard actions




There are already multiple abilities, that allow sorcerers to use Quicken Spell...

Incantatrix PrC from PGtF (highly limited in application, though)
Arcane Preparation feat from Complete Arcane
Metamagic Specialist ability from PHB II

And that's just the updated 3.5 versions, some of those were around in 3.0 already. 

Bye
Thanee


----------



## Thanee (Oct 8, 2006)

Sir Brennen said:
			
		

> Still, hold a 5th level spell in reserve, and you got your 5d6 wand of lightning bolts for free.




Especially for a sorcerer, a feat is hardly something I would call for free. 

But the RESERVE feats certainly sound like a good idea and on first glance appear quite good on the balance scale as well. Well done! 

Heighten Spell is already as close to a must-have matamagic feat for a sorcerer as it gets, and this will (likely) make it a little more useful. 

Energy Substitution will also work, to a degree, I suppose.

Bye
Thanee


----------



## BryonD (Oct 8, 2006)

Thanee said:
			
		

> But the RESERVE feats certainly sound like a good idea and on first glance appear quite good on the balance scale as well. Well done!



Yeah, they seem to help capture a master of the arcane feel beyond just being "spell casters".
Kinda like Monte's Magister has.
I'm not complaining about how they were.  But this is nice gravy on top.


----------



## Whizbang Dustyboots (Oct 8, 2006)

"Flouted" street dates. 

To flaunt them would be to go "na na, look at the street date, yoooou caaaan't haaaave iiiit!"


----------



## Remathilis (Oct 8, 2006)

There is a pic called "fire and ice" is it a spell? Whats it do? and is it based of the spell in Planescape: Torment?


----------



## Greylock (Oct 9, 2006)

Whizbang Dustyboots said:
			
		

> "Flouted" street dates.
> 
> To flaunt them would be to go "na na, look at the street date, yoooou caaaan't haaaave iiiit!"




I do not think you know the meaning of the word I used, sir. 

And, in addtion, I am not a flutist.


----------



## Razz (Oct 9, 2006)

D&D News states there's going to be epic material for Warlocks as a Web Enhancement later this month. 

So, when exactly is this web enhancement coming? The anticipation is too much!


----------



## Marshall (Oct 9, 2006)

Probably shortly after Excerpt 2 for CM that was due last week.....


----------



## Whizbang Dustyboots (Oct 9, 2006)

Greylock said:
			
		

> I do not think you know the meaning of the word I used, sir.



I humbly disagree, sir.


			
				Dictionary.com said:
			
		

> flaunt  /flɔnt/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[flawnt] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
> –verb (used without object)
> 1.	to parade or display oneself conspicuously, defiantly, or boldly.
> 2.	to wave conspicuously in the air.
> ...



Compare with:


			
				Dictionary.com said:
			
		

> flout  /flaʊt/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[flout] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
> –verb (used with object)
> 1.	to treat with disdain, scorn, or contempt; scoff at; mock: to flout the rules of propriety.
> –verb (used without object)
> ...



English has vastly more words in it than any other language. I suppose using the fourth-ranking definition of a word is not technically incorrect, but it's certainly much less precise than using the word that means exactly what was intended, rather than a hybrid of its meaning and its antonym.


----------



## Solarious (Oct 9, 2006)

Whizbang Dustyboots said:
			
		

> English has vastly more words in it than any other language.



[Off Topic]Mind you, this is mostly because English mugs other languages in the middle of the night, drags them off into inky alleyways, and then rifles through their pockets for new vocabulary.[/Off Topic]

Back on topic, I've posted my comments on the WoTC boards on the Master Specialist's Estorica abilities, but I'll reiterate my final comments: I'm going to rip into the guts of that book, throw away everything I don't like, and then make a Flesh Golem out of it. Grinning like a Cthulhu Cultist on the verge of raising R'lyeh all the way.


----------



## Whizbang Dustyboots (Oct 9, 2006)

Yeah, Master Specialist does indeed look to be a big French kiss to specialists. I especially like the very low entry requirements.


----------



## Solarious (Oct 9, 2006)

I didn't need that mental image.


----------



## glass (Oct 9, 2006)

Whizbang Dustyboots said:
			
		

> "Flouted" street dates.
> 
> To flaunt them would be to go "na na, look at the street date, yoooou caaaan't haaaave iiiit!"



They could be flaunting their flouting, though! 


glass.


----------



## mhacdebhandia (Oct 9, 2006)

Solarious said:
			
		

> [Off Topic]Mind you, this is mostly because English mugs other languages in the middle of the night, drags them off into inky alleyways, and then rifles through their pockets for new vocabulary.[/Off Topic]



To more accurately quote the original James D. Nicoll:

The problem with defending the purity of the English language is that English is about as pure as a cribhouse whore. We don't just borrow words; on occasion, English has pursued other languages down alleyways to beat them unconscious and rifle their pockets for new vocabulary.​
He certainly has a way with words. More on his *Wikiquote page*.


----------



## Aus_Snow (Oct 9, 2006)

It's now (_just_ now) the official release date, here.

Yay! As I said, I'm intrigued by this one, and I quite like a fair amount of what I've seen so far. It's off to the FLGS ASAP, for to check it out.


----------



## Plane Sailing (Oct 10, 2006)

I look forward to seeing this arrive in the UK...


----------



## Felon (Oct 11, 2006)

Yahoo! Complete Mage and Expedition to Castle Ravenloft were waiting for me when I got home today. Not bad for an order I placed Saturday. Good job this time, Amazon.


----------



## Kid Charlemagne (Oct 11, 2006)

I just got mine at Games Plus - and hte one immediate positive thing I noted is that the prestige class info isn't repeated in the example NPC - there's just a full stat block of the NPC.  Less wasted space, yay!


----------



## Felix (Oct 11, 2006)

Mine's on hold at my FLGS.

Teach me to go for a run without my wallet and a sweat-proof bag!


----------



## Felon (Oct 11, 2006)

So, to answer my own question about the warmage's 3rd-level adaptive learning, there are two new 1st-level evocation spells. One is basically a variant of faerie fire, causing creatures within a small radius to radiate torchlight and inflicting minor damage on sun-susceptable creatures. The other fires a jet of steam of steam at opponents within a small line, inflicting 1d4/level. Both are nominally better than any other 1st-level evoc spells the warmage could adapt from either Spell Compendium or PHB II.

In general, seems like a large chunk of the spells are geared towards the higher levels. Typically I only pay attention to levels 1-4, with anything over 6 being considered fairly unattainable.

I'd say the feats are the best section, followed by the prestige classes, followed by the mage archetype advice, then the spells and magic items pull up the rear.

The section on mage archetypes is pretty insightful. It actually quantifies the types of mages that I despise in a typical game--in particular, the "strategist", whose brilliant strategy is generally to find those cheeseball conjuration spells that essentially ruin opponents' ability to maneuver, and typically offer no save or spell resistance to ignore the effects. I also liked how they were pretty honest about certain spells just being flat-out better than most others of the same level, like greater invisibility.


----------



## Driddle (Oct 11, 2006)

Whizbang Dustyboots said:
			
		

> I suppose using the fourth-ranking definition of a word is not technically incorrect, but it's certainly much less precise than using the word that means exactly what was intended, rather than a hybrid of its meaning and its antonym.




Bravo! BRA-VO!!! ((insert applauding icon here))


----------



## Felon (Oct 11, 2006)

I notice that the duskblade is mentioned in passing in a few places, but they don't get any new spells. Wondery why?


----------



## Particle_Man (Oct 11, 2006)

Felon said:
			
		

> I also liked how they were pretty honest about certain just being flat-out better than most others of the same level, like greater invisibility.




That said, they introduced a 4th level spell that is flat out worse.  It lets you go invisible once, but only after you make a successful attack.  As opposed to, you know, having greater invisibility, which would allow you to attack again and again without losing invisibility, and does not require a successful attack to activate.

And my transmuting Hexblade did not get much of a boost.  One transmutation spell (animate weapon) which has a will save (object) but I have to touch the weapon in question.  But lots of illusion spells (which is odd, since the Hexblade does not get Spell Focus (Illusion) or its Greater cousin on their list of bonus feats.


----------



## Particle_Man (Oct 11, 2006)

Felon said:
			
		

> I notice that the duskblade is mentioned in passing in a few places, but they don't get any new spells. Wondery why?




PHB II classes are too new, is my guess.  The first four completes have been out for a while.


----------



## Pants (Oct 11, 2006)

I ordered _Complete Mage_ yesterday from buy.com. Got a package today, opened it up and found out they had sent me the _D&D Basic Game_.  :\ 

At least it only took them a day to send me the wrong item


----------



## Psion (Oct 11, 2006)

Pants said:
			
		

> I ordered _Complete Mage_ yesterday from buy.com. Got a package today, opened it up and found out they had sent me the _D&D Basic Game_.  :\
> 
> At least it only took them a day to send me the wrong item




Ruh-roh, Raggy!

I ordered D20 Dark Matter, Dragon Magic, and Spacecraft 2100AD-2200AD from Buy.

Did I just play the lottery?


----------



## Felon (Oct 12, 2006)

Particle_Man said:
			
		

> PHB II classes are too new, is my guess.  The first four completes have been out for a while.




Well, as I said, they're not so new that they didn't get mentioned in several places. It's not like deciding what to put on their spell list is hard. It's rather formulaic, actually.

Wonder how long before we get duskblades issuing the same complaints as warlocks do today about their shortage of invocations?


----------



## Pants (Oct 12, 2006)

Psion said:
			
		

> Ruh-roh, Raggy!
> 
> I ordered D20 Dark Matter, Dragon Magic, and Spacecraft 2100AD-2200AD from Buy.
> 
> Did I just play the lottery?



Heh, I've never had a problem with them before until now.

EDIT: Well, it seems like the buy.com webpage is completely broken. This does not bode well.


----------



## Nyeshet (Oct 12, 2006)

I ordered mine from Amazon on Sat night, and I received it on Wednesday. Not quite as swift, but at least it was the right item!  

Actually, I have had trouble (once) with Amazon in the past. I ordered "Life in the Undergrowth" - a David Attenborough series on insects - and I received "Final Destination 3" instead. The case and DVD looked like what I ordered, but what was recorded on it . . .   They were nice enough to swiftly replace it and emailed a label so I could ship the incorrect DVD back to them for free. 

Getting back to thread-relavent material, does anyone else think that a Wizard (evoker) 3 / Master Specialist (evoker) 10 / Elemental Savant (acid or lightning) 4 / Archmage 3 could be quite a potent blaster? Especially if you use the Evoker alternate class feature in UA that removes the familiar in exchange for a +1 to caster level for a single energy type? Even without the Archmage levels, this would be a 17th level blaster with some remarkable power behind their spells, I think.


----------



## Psion (Oct 12, 2006)

Pants said:
			
		

> Heh, I've never had a problem with them before until now.




Well, my Dragon Magic/Dark Matter/Spacecraft order came through okay.

But Amazon is promising me that the order containing my Complete Mage is going to take forever.


----------



## d20Dwarf (Oct 14, 2006)

Felon said:
			
		

> I think the roots of reserve feats lie in the psionic focus feats. They introduced the concept of getting some benefit out of exercising restraint, rewarding players for not shooting their wad right away.




I can't say that my inspiration for reserve feats *wasn't* psionic focus feats (whereas I can definitely say it wasn't locus feats or whatever, because I've never heard of those), but I don't think I'd taken a close look a the new psionic book when I was conceiving these. It was in the middle of my work for Champions of Ruin, I was sitting there one day ruminating on my dislike of playing spellcasters and what I could do to make them cooler. The idea of reserve feats came to me and I'm pretty sure I whipped off an article to Dragon that day and then offered them to WotC for Champions of Ruin after I didn't hear back from Dragon. 

I was happy to hear earlier this year when I visited WotC that they were going to surface in Complete Mage...I do so little actual work for D&D these days that it's nice to make some contribution.  (The reserve feats went through development since my initial offerings, but I"m not sure how much since I haven't seen the book yet. So, I can't claim credit for the end result, just the initial 10-15 feats I sent in, and I suppose the spur to use the idea in the first place  I'm usually not a credit whore, but I'm proud of the idea of reserve feats and think they're going to change how a lot of people play spellcasters, so in this case I'll make an exception  ).


----------



## d20Dwarf (Oct 15, 2006)

Gold Roger said:
			
		

> Wizards have more than enough up-front power, but their staying power is somewhere down there.
> 
> I see the reserve feats as evening that power distribution out- they sacrifice some of that up-front power, because they don't throw out all high level spells available as soon as possible, and in turn gain a fair amount of staying power.




Exactly. I enjoyed the days when your party would literally push as far as they could all day instead of shooting their wad every encounter and then resting. Whiny wizard players and wizard spell power and slots are one reason the game is shifting toward the blow your wad paradigm, I think it's kinda sad.


----------



## Twowolves (Oct 19, 2006)

d20Dwarf said:
			
		

> Whiny wizard players and wizard spell power and slots are one reason the game is shifting toward the blow your wad paradigm, I think it's kinda sad.




So, now the paradigm is "Diablo III: The Tabletop"? That's exactly what I see the Warlock and these Reserve feats as doing; turning D&D into a simulation of a computer game.

What use is the druid spell Call Lighting, compared to this? Cast a 3rd level spell, get 3d6 electrical damage 5'r/round for CL rounds, vs memorize a lightning bolt with a reserve feat and do 3d6 electrical damage 20' line/round all day long? Yeah, I know it's a druid spell vs a wizard spell, but please, the comparison isn't that far off. 

Let's just say I'm less than pleased with the direction the guys at WoTC are taking the game as we head toward the eventuality of a 4th ed somewhere down the line.


----------



## Felon (Oct 19, 2006)

d20Dwarf said:
			
		

> Exactly. I enjoyed the days when your party would literally push as far as they could all day instead of shooting their wad every encounter and then resting. Whiny wizard players and wizard spell power and slots are one reason the game is shifting toward the blow your wad paradigm, I think it's kinda sad.




I really wish I knew where the heck you were going with all that. Wizards always had a problem with blowing their wad, even moreso in older editions of the game. If a wizard's complaining because he has nothing to do much of the time due to the slot system, that's a pretty legitimate whine.



			
				Twowolves said:
			
		

> So, now the paradigm is "Diablo III: The Tabletop"? That's exactly what I see the Warlock and these Reserve feats as doing; turning D&D into a simulation of a computer game.




Well, there's truth to that. I don't think there's been a designer in years who's thought D&D should endeavor to bear any strong resemblance to the sword-and-sorcery literature that spawned it. Magic is a commonplace, all-purpose, safe, and reliable resource, to a degree that would make Gandalf or Elric's head spin.


----------



## BryonD (Oct 20, 2006)

I got my copy a few days ago and I really like it.

Based on other reserve feats I'm betting the lack of a save for Storm Bolt is an error.  shrug

I think the Abjurant Champion is a bit overpowered.  I'm not sure why any elf wizard10 would ever bother to take Wiz11 now unless they have abjuration as prohibited.  (Yeah, combat casting is over-rated, but for this class I'll live with it)


But some interesting classes, fun feats and pretty good new spells that are not all just new window dressing.  I'm quite happy, best book in quite a while.


----------



## BryonD (Oct 20, 2006)

Twowolves said:
			
		

> What use is the druid spell Call Lighting, compared to this? Cast a 3rd level spell, get 3d6 electrical damage 5'r/round for CL rounds, vs memorize a lightning bolt with a reserve feat and do 3d6 electrical damage 20' line/round all day long? Yeah, I know it's a druid spell vs a wizard spell, but please, the comparison isn't that far off.



First, the druid could take this feat also.

Second, I'll take a 30' line that I can place 150+ feet away from myself without costing a feat over a 20 foot line that starts at myself and costs a feat.
And seriously, if a wizard uses more than 5 storm bolts in a battle (enough to "outgun" call lightning at minimum level) then that wizard has really wasted a lot of turns that could have been spent doing much better things than 3d6 20 ft lines.


----------



## Amazing Triangle (Oct 20, 2006)

Most of the reserve feats take a 2nd level spell or higher max 4th level.  A wizard taking this feat (6th level) for having 3rd level spells.  So your choices are:

1. Shoot a 120 foot line of electricity for *6d6* once

or

2. Shoot a 20 foot line of electricity for *3d6* every round

So the feat allows you a much lesser version of the normal spell you are holding on to.  As a wizard I would rather be 120 feet away than 20 feet.


----------



## Whizbang Dustyboots (Oct 20, 2006)

I must be missing it, but how do I know the DC, range and duration for the Dazzling Illusion feat?


----------



## Twowolves (Oct 20, 2006)

BryonD said:
			
		

> First, the druid could take this feat also.




I don't have the book, only casually reading through it and reading about it here, but I was under the impression it had an arcane caster requirement. Is that not the case?



			
				byronD said:
			
		

> Second, I'll take a 30' line that I can place 150+ feet away from myself without costing a feat over a 20 foot line that starts at myself and costs a feat.
> And seriously, if a wizard uses more than 5 storm bolts in a battle (enough to "outgun" call lightning at minimum level) then that wizard has really wasted a lot of turns that could have been spent doing much better things than 3d6 20 ft lines.




That's sidestepping the issue somewhat. The comparison was: why take a spell that does x for a limited number of times per day, when you can take a feat and do it all day long? Why not a Reserve feat that let a cleric heal 1d8/level of a reserved Conjuration[Healing] spell at will? Would everyone still think this was balanced? Charm effect at will? Invisibility? Remove Disease? Dispel Magic? There are monsters have hefty LA modifiers for at will abilities that are far less useful than this.


----------



## d20Dwarf (Oct 20, 2006)

Twowolves said:
			
		

> So, now the paradigm is "Diablo III: The Tabletop"? That's exactly what I see the Warlock and these Reserve feats as doing; turning D&D into a simulation of a computer game.
> 
> What use is the druid spell Call Lighting, compared to this? Cast a 3rd level spell, get 3d6 electrical damage 5'r/round for CL rounds, vs memorize a lightning bolt with a reserve feat and do 3d6 electrical damage 20' line/round all day long? Yeah, I know it's a druid spell vs a wizard spell, but please, the comparison isn't that far off.
> 
> Let's just say I'm less than pleased with the direction the guys at WoTC are taking the game as we head toward the eventuality of a 4th ed somewhere down the line.




D&D is what it is, it's not Diablo, and it's not sword and sorcery literature. If you want D&D to mimic Elric or Gandalf, as Felon said, then you're going to have to make a whole lot of changes to the system to make yourself happy. Reserve feats were my way of making the game a little more like I wanted it, and WotC agreed that it was a good option to present in Complete Mage. These are options, they're not changing anyone's game but the DMs that allow them.


----------



## boolean (Oct 20, 2006)

Whizbang Dustyboots said:
			
		

> I must be missing it, but how do I know the DC, range and duration for the Dazzling Illusion feat?




There's no save, within 30 feet of the caster, one round.


----------



## Twowolves (Oct 20, 2006)

d20Dwarf said:
			
		

> D&D is what it is, it's not Diablo, and it's not sword and sorcery literature.




No, it's not literature, it was once _based _ upon literature. Now it's based on Gauntlet and Diablo.




			
				d20dwarf said:
			
		

> If you want D&D to mimic Elric or Gandalf, as Felon said, then you're going to have to make a whole lot of changes to the system to make yourself happy. Reserve feats were my way of making the game a little more like I wanted it, and WotC agreed that it was a good option to present in Complete Mage. These are options, they're not changing anyone's game but the DMs that allow them.




Options in an "official" WotC product. That carries more weight than options in any 3rd party book, and they are not even campaign setting specific optional rules (like the Incantrix), or an optional system (like Incarnum), they are meant for generic, baseline D&D campaigns. The fact that WotC is happy with both the Warlock and these feats means that they are changing the direction the game will go for a next edition, and I for one don't think I'm ok with it.


----------



## BryonD (Oct 20, 2006)

Twowolves said:
			
		

> I don't have the book, only casually reading through it and reading about it here, but I was under the impression it had an arcane caster requirement. Is that not the case?



 It is not.



> That's sidestepping the issue somewhat. The comparison was: why take a spell that does x for a limited number of times per day, when you can take a feat and do it all day long? Why not a Reserve feat that let a cleric heal 1d8/level of a reserved Conjuration[Healing] spell at will? Would everyone still think this was balanced? Charm effect at will? Invisibility? Remove Disease? Dispel Magic? There are monsters have hefty LA modifiers for at will abilities that are far less useful than this.



I don't see how responding to your point is side stepping it.

Obviously it is significant that none of the examples you list actually exist.
Which seems to be an example of you sidestepping the point I made.
When compared straight up, storm bolt has some very significant disadvantage compared to call lightning (costs a permanent feat and very inferior range).
When looked at itself, it is hard to make a case that is overpowered because the caster could be doing much better things with his combat rounds.

Inventing an obviously broken feat does nothing to show that an actualy feat is broken.

However, reasonable versions may be imaginable.  For example, following the reserve feat model perhaps a dispel magic effect with a check of 1d20+reserved spell level and a range of touch would be ok.  I'm shooting from the hip on that and would need to think about it some more.  But a weaker dispel check that requires actually touching the target would be signficant drawbacks.  This may not apply as well because dispel has so many uses outside combat that the opportunity cost is not as big a deal.  

As for healing, well, maybe both the reserve feat model and the dragon shaman model could work.  Healing touch for 1 pnt/spell level with a maximum healing of up to 1/2 targets full HP.

Not every concept works for the reserve feat idea.  But I'm convinced that storm bolt does (with a save added perhaps), and I'm not yet convinced that any others that are actually in the book have a problem.


----------



## Banshee16 (Oct 20, 2006)

Twowolves said:
			
		

> So, now the paradigm is "Diablo III: The Tabletop"? That's exactly what I see the Warlock and these Reserve feats as doing; turning D&D into a simulation of a computer game.
> 
> What use is the druid spell Call Lighting, compared to this? Cast a 3rd level spell, get 3d6 electrical damage 5'r/round for CL rounds, vs memorize a lightning bolt with a reserve feat and do 3d6 electrical damage 20' line/round all day long? Yeah, I know it's a druid spell vs a wizard spell, but please, the comparison isn't that far off.
> 
> Let's just say I'm less than pleased with the direction the guys at WoTC are taking the game as we head toward the eventuality of a 4th ed somewhere down the line.




There is plenty of use for the spell.  I understand that the feat scales depending on the level of spell you keep to "power" it.  For the purposes of this example, 3d6 for 20' really isn't much.  Sure, at lvl 5, it might mean *a little*.  But that's an average of 10.5 dmg/round at 20', and if the opponent saves, it's basically 5 hp.  A wizard could do that with a crossbow.  Worst case scenario, he keeps Chain Lightning, which is lvl 6, and gets a 6d6 bolt at 20'....he's now out one 6th lvl spell for a short range attack that will do 6d6 (average 21 dmg, or 10 on a successful save).  My experience is that at the level he'll have Chain Lightning, many characters won't have difficulty making that save.  And it's entirely possible that opponents might have Electricity Resistance 10.  

And to use it, he has to be within 20' of his opponent.  so basically, he's almost close enough to be engaged in melee, which is the worst situation he can be putting himself in.

IMO, it's a sub-optimal choice.  It does give a bit of flavour though.  It allows you to have the character known as the storm mage, who can shock people around him with deadly (to commoners) bolts of electricity, or expend it in one large bolt.  To equal CR creatures and NPCs, however, I don't think it will really do much.

So the lvl 5 mage keeps his lightning bolt memorized, and zaps the lvl 5 fighter standing 20' away.  he does, what, 10 dmg as his best result, or, if the fighter saves, 5 dmg.  The fighter takes one move action, and whacks him with his greatsword.  He might only do ave. damage, so let's say with a STR 14, that's 9 dmg.  The average lvl 5 mage has what.....14 hp?  By contrary, that average fighter, assuming no CON bonus, began with 32, and is now down to either 22, or 27.  In round 2, the wizard can continue using that ability, or unleash his lightning bolt for 5d6 (ave. 17.5/8.5).  Meanwhile, the fighter is going to whack him again, and assuming ave. damage, the mage is now bleeding to death.

Alternatively, if the fighter has a Longbow or Crossbow, he uses his move action to stay past the 20' range, and feather the mage, one round after another.

I see this as giving a bit of flavour, so a wizard can have a slight magical attack that remains forever....but it's by no means unbalanced.  The idea of a mage getting into the thick of it with his quarterstaff, club, or maybe darts has always stricken me as somewhat incongruous.  Now he can at least be still doing something magical.

Banshee


----------



## Knight Otu (Oct 20, 2006)

Twowolves said:
			
		

> So, now the paradigm is "Diablo III: The Tabletop"? That's exactly what I see the Warlock and these Reserve feats as doing; turning D&D into a simulation of a computer game.



How so? Maybe it'll help if you describe what that "Diablo Paradigm" is, but I can't see anything like that. Introducing the warlock or reserve feats or any other option does not limit your roleplaying possibilities - you won't see boxes pop up before your eyes asking you to choose between two conversation options. The DM won't whip out complex tables of random encounters with great numbers of foes each combat, and a complex system of Attack, Damage, Evade, Defend, Luck, etc scores that only a computer can keep track of. Characters won't be restricted in gaining just one class of weapon. Characters won't be locked into a single progression path.


----------



## Aaron L (Oct 20, 2006)

Hasn't the "oh noes, my D&D is getting turned into a video games!!!11!!" argument gotten stale yet?


----------



## Voadam (Oct 20, 2006)

Good job on the reserve feats Wil.

I see these as great for someone who wants to do something in combat but have most of their focus on nonzap spells.

So a wizard takes this feat, keeps one chain lightning uncast and zaps in every combat. All the rest of their spells can be for divinations and utilities then. They stay active (although not optimized by any stretch) in combat using magic (better flavor than a crossbow) while focusing their resources on other activities. And it is not dependant on charged wands. Great flavor option.


----------



## Felon (Oct 20, 2006)

Amazing Triangle said:
			
		

> Most of the reserve feats take a 2nd level spell or higher max 4th level.  A wizard taking this feat (6th level) for having 3rd level spells.  So your choices are:
> 
> 1. Shoot a 120 foot line of electricity for *6d6* once
> or
> ...




Remember, the feat also adds +1 caster level with electricity spells, so it's actually 7d6.


----------



## Felon (Oct 20, 2006)

Aaron L said:
			
		

> Hasn't the "oh noes, my D&D is getting turned into a video games!!!11!!" argument gotten stale yet?



See, if it were the same handful of folks making the complaint, it'd be stale. The fact that different folks keep coming to that conclusion indicates that it remains topical.


----------



## Whizbang Dustyboots (Oct 20, 2006)

Twowolves said:
			
		

> Options in an "official" WotC product. That carries more weight than options in any 3rd party book, and they are not even campaign setting specific optional rules (like the Incantrix), or an optional system (like Incarnum), they are meant for generic, baseline D&D campaigns. The fact that WotC is happy with both the Warlock and these feats means that they are changing the direction the game will go for a next edition, and I for one don't think I'm ok with it.



Yeah, look at how the optional stuff in 1E totally changed the direction of 2E! It was cavaliers and gray dwarves everywhere!

And lordy, you can't open a book without tripping over a 2E optional system that's now a core part of 3E! Like ... well, I'm sure there's lots of them!


----------



## Whizbang Dustyboots (Oct 20, 2006)

Voadam said:
			
		

> Good job on the reserve feats Wil.
> 
> I see these as great for someone who wants to do something in combat but have most of their focus on nonzap spells.
> 
> So a wizard takes this feat, keeps one chain lightning uncast and zaps in every combat. All the rest of their spells can be for divinations and utilities then. They stay active (although not optimized by any stretch) in combat using magic (better flavor than a crossbow) while focusing their resources on other activities. And it is not dependant on charged wands. Great flavor option.



Most of them aren't even zaps. Illusionists who can change what their face looks like for brief periods at will until they blow all their illusion spells will be a lot of fun in intrigue games, and spellcasters who can breathe water (or air, if appropriate for the race) as long as they hold onto the right spell is a powerful, powerful option (that, yes, you have to sink a feat into to use).

In a lot of ways, I think the zap reserve feats are the least interesting ones.


----------



## Voadam (Oct 20, 2006)

Whizbang Dustyboots said:
			
		

> And lordy, you can't open a book without tripping over a 2E optional system that's now a core part of 3E! Like ... well, I'm sure there's lots of them!



kits = prestige classes?


----------



## Crothian (Oct 20, 2006)

Felon said:
			
		

> See, if it were the same handful of folks making the complaint, it'd be stale. The fact that different folks keep coming to that conclusion indicates that it remains topical.




Or that people just copy other people's opinions.   I see little orginal thought in these current claims.   :\


----------



## Whizbang Dustyboots (Oct 20, 2006)

Voadam said:
			
		

> kits = prestige classes?



I think kits are probably closer to alternate class features, but even then, a package of flavor tweaks doesn't really map to any existing 3E system perfectly.


----------



## Voadam (Oct 20, 2006)

Whizbang Dustyboots said:
			
		

> I think kits are probably closer to alternate class features, but even then, a package of flavor tweaks doesn't really map to any existing 3E system perfectly.




All right, you'd have to go to Mongoose's Quintessential series to get the 3e equivalents.


----------



## Felon (Oct 20, 2006)

Crothian said:
			
		

> Or that people just copy other people's opinions.   I see little orginal thought in these current claims.   :\




It's not original, but arguements don't have to be original to be either valid or topical. In this case, it's the material that's being criticised (reserve feats) which is relatively new.

Also, I note that the coy rebuttals to the claim are pretty much by-the-numbers dismissals as well.

I don't think it's hard to understand why some folks don't like magic being this ever-available super-power. I've adapted, but sometimes it's a shame that nobody uses grappling hooks anymore, they just fly or dimension hop up to the top of the fortress wall and toss down a knotted rope. Nobody forages for food anymore, they just have hundreds of iron rations stuffed in their bags of holding and handy haversacks. And so forth. D&D feels very distanced from the source material that inspired it.


----------



## Whizbang Dustyboots (Oct 20, 2006)

Well, it depends on the campaign. My players think their grappling hook is the greatest item ever invented. Frankly, they're sort of weird about it.


----------



## Eridanis (Oct 20, 2006)

This discussion is starting to stray into the "questioning the poster's motives" groove that gets threads shut down. Please keep it civil and to the topic at hand.

And I looooove the idea of reserve feats. I hope that design space gets explored more down the road.


----------



## ruleslawyer (Oct 20, 2006)

Twowolves said:
			
		

> No, it's not literature, it was once _based _ upon literature. Now it's based on Gauntlet and Diablo.



Ah, yes. The imaginary past. 

Whether or not D&D made claims to be based on fantasy literature, it has never modeled that literature well from Day One, with the possible exception of Vance's stories (and even then, Vance's casters aren't exactly like D&D wizards). Look at how much adaptation was needed to make D&D work with the Hyboria or Lankhmar settings (starting with the 1e modules), despite the fact that those settings are presumably part of its inspiration. 

If anything, thanks to the OGL, d20 (if not D&D) is being used to increasingly model S&S and high fantasy much better than previous versions of D&D. The Black Company and Conan magic systems are excellent reflections of their inspirations, and the BCCS system (or Elements of Magic) works pretty well for a Lord of the Rings or Earthsea setting (where magic is physically taxing and must be used with great restraint) as well.

If anything, I'd argue that the warlock, reserve feats, and similar mechanics adhere MORE to classic fantasy paradigms than do the fire-and-forget spell memorization/preparation system. Did Thoth-Amon sit down with the Book of Skelos for an hour every morning getting his demon-summoning rituals imprinted on his mind? Do Gandalf or Galadriel even _have_ spellbooks? Hard to imagine the Lady of Light even being forced to rest eight hours to prepare or restore her powers. OTOH, the ability to exercise a narrow range of powers in a fashion that isn't about a per day mechanic is common to fictional wizards from Morgan Le Fay to Doctor Strange.


----------



## d20Dwarf (Oct 20, 2006)

Whizbang Dustyboots said:
			
		

> In a lot of ways, I think the zap reserve feats are the least interesting ones.




I agree with you, and my original designs were almost all flavor/utility effects, like granting skill bonuses when dealing with evil creatures for Evil spells or additional concealment when hiding for Darkness spells. If anything they might have been a bit underpowered considering they required a feat, which is why I'm always thankful for the time WotC spends developing my ideas, rather than throwing primadonna fits when I don't agree with a change...more often than not ideas are improved and solidified by the process.


----------



## Aaron L (Oct 20, 2006)

I just want to say that I absolutely love the idea of reserve feats.

I cant wait to get Complete Arcane... when I have the money.


----------



## BryonD (Oct 20, 2006)

ruleslawyer said:
			
		

> Ah, yes. The imaginary past.



Nods.



> Whether or not D&D made claims to be based on fantasy literature, it has never modeled that literature well from Day One



Nods more.



> If anything, I'd argue that the warlock, reserve feats, and similar mechanics adhere MORE to classic fantasy paradigms than do the fire-and-forget spell memorization/preparation system.



Nods even more.


----------



## Twowolves (Oct 20, 2006)

ruleslawyer said:
			
		

> Ah, yes. The imaginary past.




It wasn't imaginary! I lived in it, I know!



			
				rl said:
			
		

> Whether or not D&D made claims to be based on fantasy literature, it has never modeled that literature well from Day One, with the possible exception of Vance's stories (and even then, Vance's casters aren't exactly like D&D wizards). Look at how much adaptation was needed to make D&D work with the Hyboria or Lankhmar settings (starting with the 1e modules), despite the fact that those settings are presumably part of its inspiration.




There is no "claims to be based", it WAS based. The 1st ed DMG had a list of novels it was based on. No, it wasn't a 100% modeling of any one setting, that kind of stuff gets you sued (thus, no "hobbits", but "halflings" are just fine). D&D originally grew out of tabletop wargames, and those roots were deeper than any one source of fiction for a setting. But just because E.G.G. went way out into left field to get his magic system (most likely because he felt fire'n'forget was better suited to wargaming) doesn't invalidate the literary roots of D&D. Fafhrd & Grey Mouser, Conan, Three Hearts and Three Lions, Lord of the Rings, Dying Earth, all of these were the ingredients that went into making the game what it once was.  Yes, the SRD and the d20 system is the best ruleset yet for tailoring the game into any one of these. I never once claimed to have a problem with 3rd ed or d20. However, molding the game to one of these settings means stripping out the rest.

I also made a distinction that these feats were not setting specific, or even an alternate magic system. Were this the case, these feats would be much easier to swallow. But they aren't, they are the direction that the CORE GAME is heading. And it IS like Diablo/Gauntlet. Calling my assertation unoriginal doesn't automatically make it so. If 4th ed came out tomorrow and these reserve feats were in them, would ANY spellcaster NOT take one? I doubt it, and that sets off red flags for me.



			
				Whizbang said:
			
		

> Most of them aren't even zaps. Illusionists who can change what their face looks like for brief periods at will until they blow all their illusion spells will be a lot of fun in intrigue games, and spellcasters who can breathe water (or air, if appropriate for the race) as long as they hold onto the right spell is a powerful, powerful option (that, yes, you have to sink a feat into to use).




Illusionists that can change their appearance? Hat of Disguise and/or Robe of Blending (minus the bonus to hide). 1800gp/30,000gp. Spellcasters that can breathe air? Clear Ioun Stone (minus the nourisment part)/Helm of Underwater Action (minus the vision boost)/Necklace of Adaptation (minus the poison protection. 4000gp/57,000gp/9000gp. All of these items do a little more than just the feat, but the feats also give other bonuses AND don't take up a magic item slot on the body. 

People have posted lots of mathmatical arguments about how the feats are sub-optimal in some situations, without acknowledging that they are far superior in others. A 6th level sorcerer can cast Scorching Ray for 4d6 flame, one target, ranged touch, no save ONCE, or can at the same level just NOT cast a spell and get a shorter range, 3d6 line area of affect (currently written with NO save, no roll to hit) AT WILL. People say that the character could do similar damage with a crossbow, but you can disarm/sunder a crossbow, and they will run out of bolts eventually. Only does around 10 points of damage? How much better would a Magic Missile do? Not much. I tried the most direct comparison I could think of, with the lightning reserve feat and Call Lightning, and the best response was "Call Lighting has better range". And a full round casting time too! So what? No they aren't identical, but when it comes down to it, why memorize Call Lightning (10'r, save for half) when you can get pretty close to it (3d6 line, no to hit, no save) all day long even after the cows come home? 

Spellcasters already have means of doing "something cool" every round. They are called wands and scrolls. But these are finite. If you start giving at will spell-like abilities, why bother with any bookkeeping at all? Get rid of hit points, get rid of healing spells, get rid of any of the dreaded "resource management" aspects of the game, and it now bears a striking resemblance to an FPS video game. Or Gauntlet.


----------



## Knight Otu (Oct 21, 2006)

Twowolves said:
			
		

> No they aren't identical, but when it comes down to it, why memorize Call Lightning (10'r, save for half) when you can get pretty close to it (3d6 line, no to hit, no save) all day long even after the cows come home?



Because Call Lightning is better in most aspects than Stormbolt. Range is critical to a spellcaster, but it isn't the only point where it wins out.
* Damage potential - under the right circumstances, Call Lightning deals 3d10 points per bolt.
* Area - while harder to use to good effect, Call Lightning has a larger area.
You cannot just reduce the game to damage dealt. That does a great disservice to the breadth of the game.



> and it now bears a striking resemblance to an FPS video game. Or Gauntlet.



I don't know what games you've played, but most FPS games I heard of still use ammution and life bars. In fact, "no resource management" doesn't sound like any computer game I know, RPG or otherwise. :\ These feats don't take away resource management - they modify resource management.


----------



## BryonD (Oct 21, 2006)

Twowolves said:
			
		

> It wasn't imaginary! I lived in it, I know!



Dude, there are a lot of people on these boards that lived it.

The DMG list did nothing to change that D&D magic-users went around throwing extremely un-Gandolf spells like magic missle and fireball.  And they were all fire and forget.
Arcane caster as blaster mage is as old as D&Ds chainmail roots.

Can you offer an ACTUAL example of how 1e or other editions were like Conan or LotR?
The STORIES and SETTINGS were most certainly based on these things.
The way arcane casters worked in play was VERY much similar to now.


----------



## Ciaran (Oct 21, 2006)

Twowolves said:
			
		

> All of these items do a little more than just the feat, but the feats also give other bonuses AND don't take up a magic item slot on the body.



Because item slots are _so much_ rarer and more precious than feats?


----------



## Twowolves (Oct 21, 2006)

BryonD said:
			
		

> Dude, there are a lot of people on these boards that lived it.
> 
> The DMG list did nothing to change that D&D magic-users went around throwing extremely un-Gandolf spells like magic missle and fireball.  And they were all fire and forget.
> Arcane caster as blaster mage is as old as D&Ds chainmail roots.
> ...




GandAlf didn't throw a lot of spells, no. But like I said, Gygax drew on multiple settings and threw them into a blender. At any rate, that is totally beside the point. d20Dwarf said D&D was not fantasy literature, and I said it was _inspired _ by literature. Tell me again how I'm wrong about that because some aspect of the magic system doesn't reflect every wizard archetype in fantasy literature? Where did I say that arcane casters weren't "blaster mages"? Stop putting words in my mouth and read what I actually said. What I said was the magic system was designed BECAUSE of the games chainmail roots, not because of any one setting. E.G.G. liked Vance, so that's how he described it.

Actual examples of how 1st ed or other editions were like Conan? Pretty much the whole concept of a fighter with a pile of hit points not being affected by his wounds, despite being hacked at by hordes of opponents? How about halflings being hobbits with the serial numbers filled off. Do you really mean to suggest that D&D wasn't inspired by Tolkein, Leiber, Howard, Vance, Anderson, Lovecraft, et al?

What, exactly, are you trying to say here? Are you actually insinuating that D&D was NOT based on fantasy literature?


----------



## Twowolves (Oct 21, 2006)

Ciaran said:
			
		

> Because item slots are _so much_ rarer and more precious than feats?




Umm... yeah, they are. Hence the reason making an item fit in a non-standard space makes it more expensive. Some of the items are priced the way they are is because you can't easily combine two effects because they occupy the same slot. Give a character a power via a feat that frees up an item slot and now you can have both. Obviously, there are more repercussions to these feats than some seem willing to admit.

And even if you ignore the item slot aspect, how much is a feat worth? A feat that duplicates the effects of a 30,000 gp item isn't worth it? I was under the impression, correct me if I'm wrong, that wizards could take these reserve feats instead of metamagic and item creation feats as their bonus feats. Is this not so?

Do you, then, contend that if these feats are made available, that a majority of arcane casters would not take one? Would not feel they _had _ to take one, to stay competitive?


----------



## Twowolves (Oct 21, 2006)

Knight Otu said:
			
		

> Because Call Lightning is better in most aspects than Stormbolt. Range is critical to a spellcaster, but it isn't the only point where it wins out.
> * Damage potential - under the right circumstances, Call Lightning deals 3d10 points per bolt.
> * Area - while harder to use to good effect, Call Lightning has a larger area.
> You cannot just reduce the game to damage dealt. That does a great disservice to the breadth of the game.




But, it's not better. One a rare occaision (almost completely at the whim of the DM) the spell does an average of an extra 6 points of damage. The feat can also do more damage the more potent spell held in reserve, so both are potentially more damaging under different circumstances. And Call Lightning doesn't effectively have a larger area. I was mistaken about it's area:



			
				SRD said:
			
		

> Call Lightning
> <snip>
> Immediately upon completion of the spell, and once per round thereafter, you may call down a 5-foot-wide, 30-foot-long, vertical bolt of lightning that deals 3d6 points of electricity damage. The bolt of lightning flashes down in a vertical stroke at whatever target point you choose within the spell’s range (measured from your position at the time). Any creature in the target square or in the path of the bolt is affected.




So, it is essentially a 6 square vertical line, vs a 4 square horizontal line. It's a lot easier to catch multiple foes in a horizontal line than a vertial one, so the difference in area isn't really a factor. 

Once again, the comparison is a 3rd level spell, 1 round casting time, does 3d6 electrical damage in a 30' vertical line per round for caster level rounds, at medium range,  and has a Reflex save for half damage, at the cost of one 3rd level spell slot, vs a feat that does 3d6 electrical damage (in this case) in a 20' line, no save, no roll to hit, at will, as a standard action. AND it has a constant, secondary effect (+1 CL for electrical spells, is it?) So far, the only way Call Lightning is better is at range, everything else is worse. Is it really any different if we compare Scortching Ray and some of these feats? 4d6 fire, ranged touch, no save, vs xd6 at will?

I certainly don't ever wish to reduce the game to damage dealt and nothing more. Don't misread me. I have issues with these feats precisely because they make damage more abundantly accessable for the very classes that already had the lion's share of the magical damage output capacity.



			
				Banshee16 said:
			
		

> So the lvl 5 mage keeps his lightning bolt memorized, and zaps the lvl 5 fighter standing 20' away. he does, what, 10 dmg as his best result, or, if the fighter saves, 5 dmg. <snip>
> 
> Alternatively, if the fighter has a Longbow or Crossbow, he uses his move action to stay past the 20' range, and feather the mage, one round after another.




So, if the zappy feat only does 10 dmg in this case, how much will the same caster's magic missile do? 6-15, average of 10.5. Same exact damage, but now the caster has to give up something to get the effect: a spell slot. Also as I understand it, the Stormbolt feat has no save.

You mention bows and crossbows, but they can be sundered, they can be disarmed, they require ammunition (which is still finite, until they design a feat that says otherwise). Your arguement seems to be that fighters have better damage output potential, but that's nothing new. Putting a fighter and a wizard 20' apart and letting them slug it out always plays to the fighter, even in previous editions. The wizard's real special ability is the ability to break the rules everyone else has to play with, not damage output. Wizards can fly, turn people to stone, disappear, conjure monsters, etc etc etc. In a different setup, the wizard can have other spells prepared and in place to make this mental exercise completely swing the other way. Comparing zappy feat damage output to mundane combat is apples and oranges, hence the reason I compared them to other spells.

I find it almost amusing how many people have attributed all sorts of untrue motives and sentiments to my objections to these feats. I'm no WotC hater, I'm not a 3rd ed basher, I'm not a "4th ed is coming, the sky is falling!" doomsayer. I'm none of these things, despite some people's efforts to paint me as such.


----------



## Knight Otu (Oct 21, 2006)

Twowolves said:
			
		

> Umm... yeah, they are. Hence the reason making an item fit in a non-standard space makes it more expensive.



In normal (non-epic, non-psionic) games, there are eleven item slots that can be filled and changed as money allows, and the possibility of slotless items. Contrast that to a maximum of thirteen feat slots for a wizard that can *never* be changed once chosen. Item slots are a limited, but not a receeding resource. Feats are limited and receeding. Money is close to a self-replenishing resource in D&D.



> But, it's not better. One a rare occaision (almost completely at the whim of the DM) the spell does an average of an extra 6 points of damage. The feat can also do more damage the more potent spell held in reserve, so both are potentially more damaging under different circumstances. And Call Lightning doesn't effectively have a larger area. I was mistaken about it's area:



I said myself that the area is harder to use to good effect. And if you keep a higher spell slot in reserve, then call lightning is no longer the direct comparison that you wanted. That would be lightning storm, 5th level, deals 5d6 damage (or 5d10), and has a long range.



> So far, the only way Call Lightning is better is at range, everything else is worse.



In some aspects, it is worse. In many aspects, it is a wash. In some aspects, it is better. And range is a critical aspect. The farther away you get from your enemies, the better. You have to nearly get into melee to use this feat.



> Is it really any different if we compare Scortching Ray and some of these feats? 4d6 fire, ranged touch, no save, vs xd6 at will?



Scorching ray makes it even clearer that the spell is generally better. 2d6 fire, against a minimum of 4d6 fire, and upwards to three times 4d6 fire.



> You mention bows and crossbows, but they can be sundered, they can be disarmed, they require ammunition



If the first two things happen, then the archer is too close to his enemies. And the feat also requires "ammution" - namely to keep a better spell uncast.



> Putting a fighter and a wizard 20' apart and letting them slug it out always plays to the fighter, even in previous editions.



See? Range is important. A spellcaster doesn't like to get that close to his enemies, which this feat requires. It's nice against mini-threats, but absolutely horrible against anything that survives your first attack.



> Comparing zappy feat damage output to mundane combat is apples and oranges, hence the reason I compared them to other spells.



That wasn't a comparison between spells and mundane damage, though - that's how the feat will play out in actual play. The feat is absolutely not a substitute for a spell of the level kept in reserve. Its either a mook-killer, or a finisher after you pounded the opponent with better-range and/or better-damage spells. At any other time, using the feat is no good.



> my objections to these feats.



What are your objections, honestly? So far, I've only seen that you consider them "video-gamey," which really doesn't mean anything. You seem to equate it to a lack of resource management, or perhaps taking away the need of thinking. The faux-spell portions of the feats however require good thinking to make them effective, and only shift the resource management. The faux-spell portions are always weaker than a spell of the held level, after all.


----------



## BryonD (Oct 21, 2006)

Twowolves said:
			
		

> GandAlf didn't throw a lot of spells, no. But like I said, Gygax drew on multiple settings and threw them into a blender. At any rate, that is totally beside the point.



The point is whether or not D&D wizards were ever like the wizards in these settings.



> d20Dwarf said D&D was not fantasy literature, and I said it was _inspired _ by literature. Tell me again how I'm wrong about that because some aspect of the magic system doesn't reflect every wizard archetype in fantasy literature? Where did I say that arcane casters weren't "blaster mages"? Stop putting words in my mouth and read what I actually said.




OK, here is what you ACTUALLY said


			
				Twowolves said:
			
		

> So, now the paradigm is "Diablo III: The Tabletop"? That's exactly what I see the Warlock and these Reserve feats as doing; turning D&D into a simulation of a computer game.
> 
> Let's just say I'm less than pleased with the direction the guys at WoTC are taking the game as we head toward the eventuality of a 4th ed somewhere down the line.



It is very clear to me that you are saying that arcane casters are becoming something that they use to not be.  And the blantant implication in your references to warlock and reserve feats, storm bolt in particular, is the "at will attack abilities" is the concern you are referencing.  I'm not putting words in your mouth to say that moving from Gandalf to Diablo implies they were once not blaster mages.



> Actual examples of how 1st ed or other editions were like Conan? Pretty much the whole concept of a fighter with a pile of hit points not being affected by his wounds, despite being hacked at by hordes of opponents? How about halflings being hobbits with the serial numbers filled off. Do you really mean to suggest that D&D wasn't inspired by Tolkein, Leiber, Howard, Vance, Anderson, Lovecraft, et al?



Dodge the point much?

Please show me an example of where arcane casters functioned in early systems in a way consistent with any of these authors other than the simple fire and forget Vance part.
You are claiming that arcane casters are becoming more like Diablo and yet you have still yet to provide a SINGLE example to support that claim.  It is interesting that you have go around the block to talk about Conan's HP, but can't seem to speak to your own initial point.



> What, exactly, are you trying to say here? Are you actually insinuating that D&D was NOT based on fantasy literature?



If I meant that I'd say that instead of saying exactly the opposite, as I already did.
(You wouldn't be trying to put words in my mouth now would you?)

What, exactly, I'm trying to say here is that the D&D wizard is no further from typical literature wizards than it ever has been before.  And I further saying that your claim to the contrary remains completely unsupported by a single example of a EITHER how they were more like literature in the past OR how they have substantively changed.


----------



## Psion (Oct 21, 2006)

Got my copy yesterday. So far pretty decent. I like that it focuses on concept building sort of PrCs instead of schticks you just plug into.

Not being a big fan of the warlock, a bit too much space was squandered on supporting it for my needs, but I am sure all the warlock lubbers should be pleased.

A few things I can see probably won't make it into my game. I really raised an eyebrow over the heritage feat that grant multiple spell like abilities.

I really don't see what all the bruhaha is over the reserve feats. Really, I think it has nice flavor and helps mages scale better. As noted in the behind the scenes, they represent powers quite a bit lower level. At low levels, after a mage runs out of spell slots (or are "holding back the big guns", they are basically useless, and fall back on the old light crossbow. I don't want my mage to be a crossbowman. I'd rather the mage pump a few crackling bolts of electricity out to support the combat.

It will add some endurance to mages, but I don't see that disrupting the flow of my games in a bad way.


----------



## Psion (Oct 21, 2006)

BryonD said:
			
		

> I think the Abjurant Champion is a bit overpowered.  I'm not sure why any elf wizard10 would ever bother to take Wiz11 now unless they have abjuration as prohibited.  (Yeah, combat casting is over-rated, but for this class I'll live with it)




Yeah, it seems like they assume you'd take a few combatant levels, but you really don't need to. Me, I see it as a nice mix-in or follow-on class for an eldritch knight.


----------



## Psion (Oct 21, 2006)

Twowolves said:
			
		

> That's sidestepping the issue somewhat. The comparison was: why take a spell that does x for a limited number of times per day, when you can take a feat and do it all day long? Why not a Reserve feat that let a cleric heal 1d8/level of a reserved Conjuration[Healing] spell at will? Would everyone still think this was balanced?




No, because that's _different_. That would be a substantial boon to party resources. The whole party could be healed after every fight with no expendiature of the healer's spell slots.

"Weak but enduring combat resources" as reserve feats seem to be largely balanced by opportunity cost. Sure, it's nice to pump out effects during combat and not lose any resources over it. But it will take you multiple rounds to do as much damage with fiery bursts as you could do with the one fireball you have in reserve to power them. In the time that is happening, your party (and potentially you) are taking damage from the foes you haven't slain because of it.


----------



## Kaodi (Oct 21, 2006)

*Hmmm...*

I wonder what would happen if you combined a druid with Aquatic Breath, Borne Aloft, Clutch of Earth, Drowning Glance, Fiery Burst, Hurricane Breath, Summon Elemental and Wind Guided Arrows... Muahaha... hahahaha... HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

Well, you couldn't have *ALL* of those feats, but as long as you always kept one of your highest level spell slots open, I imagine, it might, just might, be possible to have the benefit of every single one of those feats from being able to spontaneously cast summon natures ally.


----------



## Rolzup (Oct 21, 2006)

Twowolves said:
			
		

> That's sidestepping the issue somewhat. The comparison was: why take a spell that does x for a limited number of times per day, when you can take a feat and do it all day long? Why not a Reserve feat that let a cleric heal 1d8/level of a reserved Conjuration[Healing] spell at will? Would everyone still think this was balanced? Charm effect at will? Invisibility? Remove Disease? Dispel Magic? There are monsters have hefty LA modifiers for at will abilities that are far less useful than this.




Charm?  Invisiblity?  Dispel Magic?  All available to the Warlock, albeit with limitations.

(Charm, for example, can only have one subject at a time.  If you Charm someone else, your previous victim is freed.)

Healing?  Play a Binder, Bind Buer, and you can heal 1d8+level damage all day long.  Only once every five rounds, mind, but still.  Alternatively, he can heal one point as a astandard action every single turn.  Same Vestige also renders everyone within 30' of the Binder immune to poison abd disease as long as they *remain* within 30'.  Doesn't cure 'em, but suppresses the effects of their illness.

And I have no problem at all with any of these abilities.

I like seeing the paradigm change.  It's a far cry from AD&D, where your magic-user had a grand total of one spell/day at first level.  If recource management falls by the wayside entirely, I shan't mourn it.


----------



## Particle_Man (Oct 21, 2006)

Kaodi said:
			
		

> I wonder what would happen if you combined a druid with Aquatic Breath, Borne Aloft, Clutch of Earth, Drowning Glance, Fiery Burst, Hurricane Breath, Summon Elemental and Wind Guided Arrows... Muahaha... hahahaha... HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
> 
> Well, you couldn't have *ALL* of those feats, but as long as you always kept one of your highest level spell slots open, I imagine, it might, just might, be possible to have the benefit of every single one of those feats from being able to spontaneously cast summon natures ally.




Not quite.  some of the reserve feats require you to hold back a high level "electricity" spell, while others require you to hold back a "teleportation" spell, while others require you to hold back a "polymorph" spell, etc.  I think you might be able to "link" two or three feats to the same uncast spell, but that is about it.

Now if the druid were a spontaneous caster, that might be a different story...


----------



## Psion (Oct 21, 2006)

A snippet of flavor text, of all things, has caught my ire.

The description of a wizard preparing a spell on page 34 sounds a bit too much like the outdated concept of "memorizing" a spell.


----------



## Twowolves (Oct 21, 2006)

BryonD said:
			
		

> The point is whether or not D&D wizards were ever like the wizards in these settings.




No, you are misquoting me. d20dwarf said that D&D wasn't literature. I said it was based on literature. Peroid. You asked for an example of how D&D was like Conan or LotR. Not once was the specifics of the magic system involved in this particular part of the thread. So now your point is that the original magic system wasn't like the magic seen in Howard or Tolkien's books, when everyone already said it came from Jack Vance? So what? The original magic system was more like one of the sources of inspiration than any of the others. The 1st ed ranger was Aragorn, period, straight down to the fact that they could use crsytal balls, aka pallantirs. Regenerating, fire-loathing trolls came straight from Anderson's "Three Hearts and Three Lions". I have clearly shown how 1st ed D&D was based on the works of a handful of authors, and that's what you asked for. Next time ask for examples of how the magic system is the same, instead how the entire game is the same.




			
				ByronD said:
			
		

> OK, here is what you ACTUALLY said
> 
> 
> 
> ...




Let me make it extra special clear to you. I think these feats take the hard decision making out of the class, not that they make blasters into better blasters. There is no tough decision between casting Call Lighting or using the Stormbolt feat, except certain specific situations. I never even said anything about D&D wizards being like Gandalf, that IS putting words in my mouth. 

Once again, making the blasters able to blast away at will without losing out on their built in per day limits WILL reduce the ammount of resource management in the game now. That makes the game more like Gauntlet than like D&D. To me it's the same as making a feat in the Point Blank Shot chain that lets the user have infinate arrows, or feats that let you survive without breathing or eating.




			
				ByronD said:
			
		

> Dodge the point much?




No, actually, I don't. But hey, thanks for the attitude.



			
				ByronD said:
			
		

> Please show me an example of where arcane casters functioned in early systems in a way consistent with any of these authors other than the simple fire and forget Vance part.




Since he lifted the magic system straight from Vance, why would anyone have to show any other examples than Vance himself? 



			
				ByronD said:
			
		

> You are claiming that arcane casters are becoming more like Diablo and yet you have still yet to provide a SINGLE example to support that claim.




How about the fact that instead of casting a spell, they can just not cast it and have the ability to zap something all day long. Don't like the diablo analogy? Then how about Gauntlet. Zap zap zap little balls of fire as fast as you can hit the button. The Wizard in Gauntlet had to "resource manage" his nuke-the-board Magic Potions, and now that's pretty close to what D&D blasters will be like in the future, zap zap zap until the fit hits the shan and they actually cast a spell. 




			
				ByronD said:
			
		

> It is interesting that you have go around the block to talk about Conan's HP, but can't seem to speak to your own initial point.




I was commenting on the fact that D&D as a whole did indeed have it's roots in fantasy literature. You asked for examples of such. You didn't ask for magic system examples. I gave you examples, and I've given you more. Shall I pick out the original cleric spell list and show you chaper and verse in the Bible that inspired these things? The Bible doesn't have prophets zapping people all day long, does that mean it's any less of a source of inspiration for the game?



			
				ByronD said:
			
		

> What, exactly, I'm trying to say here is that the D&D wizard is no further from typical literature wizards than it ever has been before.  And I further saying that your claim to the contrary remains completely unsupported by a single example of a EITHER how they were more like literature in the past OR how they have substantively changed.




Not a single example, except the only one that matters: Vancian magic. The magic system came straight from there, fire'n'forget. Now, they fire a little bit all day long, and don't have to forget. Sounds like a substantial change to me.


----------



## Twowolves (Oct 21, 2006)

Psion said:
			
		

> "Weak but enduring combat resources" as reserve feats seem to be largely balanced by opportunity cost. Sure, it's nice to pump out effects during combat and not lose any resources over it. But it will take you multiple rounds to do as much damage with fiery bursts as you could do with the one fireball you have in reserve to power them. In the time that is happening, your party (and potentially you) are taking damage from the foes you haven't slain because of it.




So, you admit, these feats will skew the CR system? Taking multiple rounds to do potentially unlimited damage is not as balancing as some claim. A flying mage with one of these feats can go aloft, and unless the enemy has ranged, they are eventually screwed. Yes, the damage output per round is less, but the total damage output is off the scale. How many low CR fights can you have per day now? Without question the answer is "more", and that forces the game into a different direction.  

Wizards already had a way to pump out effects during combat, wands and scrolls. These required a feat too (or else twice as much of another resource, gold), and they had limits. Charges were a limit, as was the fact they could be disarmed or stolen. One NPC with one of these zappy feats can kill hundreds of civillians in a city, and when the watch shows up to stop him, he's still got his full allotment of spells. Teleport away and do it again tomorrow. With no resource limit, one character can eventually kill all the peons in a nation, without fear of being caught with his mystic pants down. 

Seriously, Magic Missile (other than being a force effect) becomes useless, so long as one of a character's highest level spells is uncast. At 9th level, a zappy feat does 5d6 at will, a Magic Missile will do 10-25 once, and from there it just gets worse.


----------



## BryonD (Oct 21, 2006)

You're still missing the whole opportunity cost thing.


----------



## Twowolves (Oct 21, 2006)

BryonD said:
			
		

> You're still missing the whole opportunity cost thing.




No, I'm not missing it. I am saying it's not as balancing as everyone says it is. The feats change how the players will approach combats in play, and push the flavor of the game in a certain direction, especially at mid levels. I'm fully aware that the greatest resource a character has at higher levels is their number of actions. I just firmly believe that these feats will become "must have" feats in any game that allows them, and that they will completely change the way the game is played.


----------



## Whizbang Dustyboots (Oct 21, 2006)

I'm pretty sure Fly is something that has been around in D&D long enough for the CR system to adapt to.

And Borne Aloft doesn't let a wizard stay up in the air indefinitely. You have to be on ground at the beginning and end of each round.


----------



## Twowolves (Oct 21, 2006)

Whizbang Dustyboots said:
			
		

> I'm pretty sure Fly is something that has been around in D&D long enough for the CR system to adapt to.
> 
> And Borne Aloft doesn't let a wizard stay up in the air indefinitely. You have to be on ground at the beginning and end of each round.




I take it "Borne Aloft" is another reserve feat?

Fly has been around, yes. Notice that in 3.5 they cut the duration down, limiting the air superiority role of a wizard. Now factor in the fact that the wizard will run out of Fly spells before he runs out of damage output and see if that doesn't skew the overall challenge.


----------



## Whizbang Dustyboots (Oct 21, 2006)

Twowolves said:
			
		

> I take it "Borne Aloft" is another reserve feat?



That's the one I assumed you were refering to that allowed a mage to fly with impugnity. It's only good for aerial hops, not flight, though.



> Fly has been around, yes. Notice that in 3.5 they cut the duration down, limiting the air superiority role of a wizard. Now factor in the fact that the wizard will run out of Fly spells before he runs out of damage output and see if that doesn't skew the overall challenge.



Well, this is assuming the world is full of NPCs stupider than barnyard animals, I guess. Confronted with aerial superiority, I think most city residents would, at a guess, go inside and close their shutters.

This allows the mage to freely urinate on their homes, but that's really about it.


----------



## ruleslawyer (Oct 21, 2006)

Twowolves said:
			
		

> No, you are misquoting me. d20dwarf said that D&D wasn't literature. I said it was based on literature. Peroid. You asked for an example of how D&D was like Conan or LotR. Not once was the specifics of the magic system involved in this particular part of the thread.



Being _based_ in fantasy literature is still different from _being_ fantasy literature. It's a game, not a story, which is the point he was making. The point that _I_ was making, as was BryonD, is that D&D's mechanics were no more a reflection of S&S or classic fantasy in 1e than they are now.


> _ So now your point is that the original magic system wasn't like the magic seen in Howard or Tolkien's books, when everyone already said it came from Jack Vance? So what?_



Actually, that was the point to begin with; no one's changing their arguments except you. Moreover, 1e's mechanics aren't even as precise an adaptation of Vance's mechanics as would be a system that has a mix of fire-and-forget effects and constant effects.


> _The original magic system was more like one of the sources of inspiration than any of the others. The 1st ed ranger was Aragorn, period, straight down to the fact that they could use crsytal balls, aka pallantirs. Regenerating, fire-loathing trolls came straight from Anderson's "Three Hearts and Three Lions". I have clearly shown how 1st ed D&D was based on the works of a handful of authors, and that's what you asked for. Next time ask for examples of how the magic system is the same, instead how the entire game is the same._



That last bit is completely missing the point, which can be restated (*again*; sigh) in the face of this kind of obtuseness as follows:

*Reserve feats, and all the other details that you decry as "video-gamey," are no less true to D&D's literary inspirations than are the fire-and-forget system.*

That was the point that I made, and that BryonD made, and that you're simply choosing to ignore in favor of raising a huge army of strawmen.


----------



## Psion (Oct 21, 2006)

Twowolves said:
			
		

> So, you admit, these feats will skew the CR system?




I said nothing of the sort.

What I did imply is that it has the potential to change the flow of dungeon adventures. But from where I am sitting, not in a bad way.

If for you, the way it changes it is somehow bad, then I recommend you not allow the feat in your game. Just like any other.

For me, I recall playing my illusionist in the original adventure path, trying to stretch my character's endurance to the limit by expending scrolls and suchnot, and being morphed to a second rate crossbowman by that vagaries of the rules. That's an element of the game I don't feel essential. Any party will exhaust from HP and spell slot loss at any rate, I'm not exactly fond of the arcane casters being the "weakest link" in this regard.




> Taking multiple rounds to do potentially unlimited damage is not as balancing as some claim.




Then fighters are clearly overpowered compared to sorcerers.




> A flying mage with one of these feats can go aloft, and unless the enemy has ranged, they are eventually screwed.




So, I see you are trying these rules in absentia and a priori. The character must begin and end their move on stable ground. Unless the wizard has a precipice somehow unreachable by the fighter, it's not going to make them immune to attack.

And then, you assume the character will not have ranged. Most characters that rely on combat as a resource will have access to ranged weapons.



> Wizards already had a way to pump out effects during combat, wands and scrolls. These required a feat too




Wizards get scribe scroll for free. And scrolls and wands don't go away if you "tap out" early.



> (or else twice as much of another resource, gold),




There are other feats that save you gold. Like item creation feats you were just talking about.



> Seriously, Magic Missile (other than being a force effect) becomes useless, so long as one of a character's highest level spells is uncast. At 9th level, a zappy feat does 5d6 at will, a Magic Missile will do 10-25 once, and from there it just gets worse.




Then don't memorize magic missile, or have your sorcerer trade it out.


----------



## Psion (Oct 21, 2006)

Twowolves said:
			
		

> I take it "Borne Aloft" is another reserve feat?
> 
> Fly has been around, yes. Notice that in 3.5 they cut the duration down, limiting the air superiority role of a wizard. Now factor in the fact that the wizard will run out of Fly spells before he runs out of damage output and see if that doesn't skew the overall challenge.




Incorrect. They cut the duration of fly to prevent the early impact to overland travel. Borne aloft doesn't get around that. You have to begin and end you move on the ground.


----------



## BryonD (Oct 21, 2006)

You've gone from it is a paradigm shift to it isn't balanced without really offering a decent case to establish either point.

Thanks, but I don't see any point in going on unless something with a bit more substance comes along.


Anyway, I'll still say I think this is one of WotC's best books in a while.


----------



## Felon (Oct 21, 2006)

In regards to abilities with unlimited usage, has anyone else noticed that the eldritch disciple can convert his eldritch blast into a healing ray? Unlimited healing on tap, at range no less. 

Kiss those wands of cure light wounds goodbye. Mucho healing during battles, and fill up completely after every battle, all at no cost.


----------



## Mouseferatu (Oct 21, 2006)

Felon said:
			
		

> In regards to abilities with unlimited usage, has anyone else noticed that the eldritch disciple can convert his eldritch blast into a healing ray? Unlimited healing on tap, at range no less.




Not _unlimited_, since you have to spend a turn undead use each time you wish to use one of the "gifts." But still _quite_ potent, I'll grant you.


----------



## Knight Otu (Oct 21, 2006)

Twowolves said:
			
		

> No, I'm not missing it. I am saying it's not as balancing as everyone says it is.



You know, we have the technology to test this theory in the Play by Post forums. Find two players to play a fifth-level druid each, one with Call Lightning memorized, and the other using Stormbolt. Find a DM who is willing to whip up a few different scenarios, and willing to DM the druids seperately at the same time through these scenarios. Look who fares better.


----------



## Felon (Oct 21, 2006)

In regards to the unrelenting bickering about D&D and fantasy lit, I think it's pretty clear the game has moved steadily away from its inspirations (Twowolves has provided some good examples). As to the arguement that the game never perfectly modeled its inspirations to begin with, that's true, but it was clear that's what they were going for back then. Gygax et al were doing the best that they could; the practices of game design were still in a very early state. Today, there are folks who could teach a graduate studies class on the subject, but the issue now is that folks have stopped caring about emulating anything. D&D is its own little homonculus, the result of a couple decades of inbreeding. 

That's why games like Iron Heroes, Grim Tales, Midnight, Conan, and so many other games are around.


----------



## Amazing Triangle (Oct 21, 2006)

May I, this argument seems to be about whether you want reserve feats in 4th edition.  Because if this were an argument about whether or not to use reserve feats, it seems silly.  All books beyond Core (PHB) are optional.  So if you don't like it don't use it.  Now if it is power balance you are worried about don't use the book.  If reserve feats become standard in 4e, don't play, change games, or keep playing 3.5e.  

As for the direction that the wizard is going in it is like the fighter.  Do you want fighter feats to have a daily limit?  So the fighter has to manage how many times a day he can use power attack?  The reserve feat Fiery Blast has a 2nd level spell requirement.  Sure at 6th level the 4d6 vs 3d6 example looks nice and pretty but you made a slight error.  At 6th level you are treated as 7th level for spell effects (fire) due to the feat, so it is really 2 4d6 rays vs 3d6 at will.  Sure the at will looks great but 3d6  is on average 11 hp a round.  A greatsword wielding fighter who can attack 2 times every round at 7th level does with a (16 str) (average) 10/attack or 20.  Should the fighter be limited to a certain number of attacks per day?  

But I don't want an answer.  For this is not the place for it.  If you want to argue about the validity of the book or the direction of D&D start a new thread.  This was for questions pertaining to the book and the elements included in it not to argue how your personal disapproval of the _optional_ material.


----------



## Pielorinho (Oct 21, 2006)

*Moderator's Notes*:

This thread has a fair amount of bickering in it that's gotten pretty heated, personal, and snippy.  Do folks think it's worth leaving the thread open?

If so, lemme know, and please pay extra-special attention to keeping discussions polite and respectful; consider the thread to be on double-secret probation .

If not, also lemme know, but follow up on that by not participating in it.

Thanks!
Daniel


----------



## Whizbang Dustyboots (Oct 21, 2006)

Pielorinho said:
			
		

> This thread has a fair amount of bickering in it that's gotten pretty heated, personal, and snippy.  Do folks think it's worth leaving the thread open?



Yes, please.


----------



## Twowolves (Oct 21, 2006)

Psion said:
			
		

> Incorrect. They cut the duration of fly to prevent the early impact to overland travel. Borne aloft doesn't get around that. You have to begin and end you move on the ground.




First: I wasn't talking about the Borne Aloft feat, as I didn't even know it existed.

Secondly: do you have a quote from the designers to back up that it changed to stop overland travel? Or was it because, like 3.0 Bull's Strength, the party could have it up for almost the duration of a typical adventuring day?



			
				Psion said:
			
		

> So, I see you are trying these rules in absentia and a priori. The character must begin and end their move on stable ground. Unless the wizard has a precipice somehow unreachable by the fighter, it's not going to make them immune to attack.
> 
> And then, you assume the character will not have ranged. Most characters that rely on combat as a resource will have access to ranged weapons.




Assuming a wizard won't use spells to tilt a battle in his favor, and will instead stand toe to toe with a melee machine is somehow unfair in a comparison? And I am not assuming that "the character will not have ranged". I'm saying that a lot of foes a character will face will indeed not have ranged attacks. There are in fact lots that don't have enough intelligence to power a light bulb as well. Not every foe will be able to deal with a caster that can blast away at will, and these are the ones the party will be able to take on many many more times per day with the addition of these feats.



			
				Psion said:
			
		

> Wizards get scribe scroll for free. And scrolls and wands don't go away if you "tap out" early.




I don't understand what you are trying to say here. Even though wizards get the feat for free, they still have to pay gold and xp to scribe a scroll, and the scroll goes away when read. Before, you had to lose something (a charge, a scroll, a potion) to get an effect, now you don't.



			
				Psion said:
			
		

> There are other feats that save you gold. Like item creation feats you were just talking about.




Save gold, but still have a finite cost. Spend money and xp for a limited use item for the cost of a feat. Or get a feat and never pay again for unlimited use.



			
				Psion said:
			
		

> Then don't memorize magic missile, or have your sorcerer trade it out.




So, when I postulate that these feats give an unlimited ability better than a limited use first level spell, your answer is to get rid of the spell? That's ok?



			
				Ruleslawyer said:
			
		

> Reserve feats, and all the other details that you decry as "video-gamey," are no less true to D&D's literary inspirations than are the fire-and-forget system.




Look again. The "D&D is based on fantasy literature" and the "reserve feats make the game more like a video game" are SEPARATE TOPICS. Someone said the game is not literature, and I said it was based on it, and proved it. End of that discussion. If you want to start another point, saying that the feats don't make the game more or less like the source material, that's another topic of discussion. Period.

These feats, IN MY OPINION, make the tabletop game more like a clicky video game. That has nothing to do with how close to Conan or Fafhrd or the Bible the game is now or was in the past. I'm fully aware that I don't have to include reserve feats in my game, and I won't. People say this is the best book WotC has put out in a long time, I disagree and won't waste my money on it, especially since it's full of warlock material that I already won't use. 

Finally, I note that not one single supporter of these reserve feats will answer this question: In a game where these feats are available, do you believe they will become "must have" feats, where greater than 2/3 of the people who can take one will?


----------



## Mouseferatu (Oct 21, 2006)

Twowolves said:
			
		

> Finally, I note that not one single supporter of these reserve feats will answer this question: In a game where these feats are available, do you believe they will become "must have" feats, where greater than 2/3 of the people who can take one will?




We've introduced them into two separate campaigns so far, and so far the results are:

A) Fewer than half the people who _can_ take them _have_ taken them.

B) Those who have only have one, as opposed to stocking up on them.

They're nice as fallback options, and they allow the party to go a bit longer before the casters are at the "must sleep now" stage, but playtesting and experience show that they do not dramatically tip the balance of power, nor do they dramatically alter game play other than extending a given "day" of adventuring by a little bit.


----------



## Victim (Oct 21, 2006)

I've played a druid who could blast all day by using a few spells.  While Call Lightning isn't totally unlimited like the reserve feat, one cast can pretty much last an entire battle if you don't mind zapping people for crap damage the whole time.  Add in produce flame and summoned animals and the character can go a long way without resting.

Of course, that strategy ended up getting tossed fairly quickly.  It's an excellent way to manage the number of spells used each day.  It's a rather poor way to manage precious combat actions.  And then there's the theory of constraints.  Spending per day resources at the slowest rate in the group isn't all that great, since the group will usually stop once certain resources are low even if other characters are full.



> Since he lifted the magic system straight from Vance, why would anyone have to show any other examples than Vance himself?




Not really.  The DnD style resource management fire and forget magic is only present in a few of the Dying Earth stories.  And of course, the actual implementation is radically different - a high level DnD wizard will have ~30+ spells of varying magnitude prep'd at once, while a Dying Earth (part 1) caster will have 4 or 5, usually of extreme magnitude.  Of course, it's apparently possible for a normal person to prepare and attempt to cast these spells as well - it's just rather risky AND requires that they somehow access the wizard's stuff.  

DnD magic has little in common with the other forms of magic in the series or other works of Vance; some other characters certainly seem to be able to produce seemingly unlimited minor effects.



> To me it's the same as making a feat in the Point Blank Shot chain that lets the user have infinate arrows, or feats that let you survive without breathing or eating.




Rings of Sustenance.  Bags of Holding.  There's already plenty of ways to get around mundane logistical challenges, and these methods aren't exactly anything new to the game.  Also, I personally am not so fond of buying and tracking the food, water, and other equipment and supplies for an expedition.


----------



## Amazing Triangle (Oct 21, 2006)

Twowolves said:
			
		

> Finally, I note that not one single supporter of these reserve feats will answer this question: In a game where these feats are available, do you believe they will become "must have" feats, where greater than 2/3 of the people who can take one will?




I support their use.  No.  I like it for Warrior/Wizard or straight Wizard builds or maybe Wujen.  So that is 1/5 possible characters who can do.  (No Sorcerer, No Cleric, No Druid, No Favored Soul, No Warmage, No Spellthief, No Shugenja, No Spirit Shaman)


----------



## Twowolves (Oct 21, 2006)

Amazing Triangle said:
			
		

> May I, this argument seems to be about whether you want reserve feats in 4th edition.  Because if this were an argument about whether or not to use reserve feats, it seems silly.  All books beyond Core (PHB) are optional.  So if you don't like it don't use it.  Now if it is power balance you are worried about don't use the book.  If reserve feats become standard in 4e, don't play, change games, or keep playing 3.5e.




Like I said, I personally don't like it, and am afraid that it will be the norm for 4th ed. I won't be using this book now, and if these feats are in the core rulebook in 4th ed, I won't play that either. Saying "don't like it, don't play it" isn't a discussion about the merits of the feats, it's a "take your ball and go home" answer. 



			
				Amazing Triangle said:
			
		

> As for the direction that the wizard is going in it is like the fighter.  Do you want fighter feats to have a daily limit?




Ah, but the fighter can't disintegrate anything, teleport anywhere, summon elementals, fly, etc etc etc. The wizard gets his cake and eats it too.


----------



## Pielorinho (Oct 21, 2006)

Twowolves said:
			
		

> And maybe YOU ought to learn to read.



*Twowolves*, please read my note above VERY carefully, and edit this post accordingly.

Daniel


----------



## Psion (Oct 21, 2006)

Twowolves said:
			
		

> First: I wasn't talking about the Borne Aloft feat, as I didn't even know it existed.




Sorry, then I missed your meaning about air superiority in this context. Just what did you mean, then?



> Secondly: do you have a quote from the designers to back up that it changed to stop overland travel?




I recall it being mentioned, but not where... it might have been on the WotC boards, here, or Andy Collins' boards.



> Assuming a wizard won't use spells to tilt a battle in his favor, and will instead stand toe to toe with a melee machine is somehow unfair in a comparison?




I don't think he'd go toe to toe. I just didn't think borne aloft would make him invincible. But as it appears that's not what you were getting at, nevermind.



> I don't understand what you are trying to say here. Even though wizards get the feat for free, they still have to pay gold and xp to scribe a scroll, and the scroll goes away when read. Before, you had to lose something (a charge, a scroll, a potion) to get an effect, now you don't.




What item creation feats get you, other than choice, is a cost break on magic items. Given the "rate of exchange" for xp, you only end up paying 70% of the total item cost to create an item. So, in short, what I am getting at is that obviating gp costs is fair game for the capabilities of a feat.



> So, when I postulate that these feats give an unlimited ability better than a limited use first level spell, your answer is to get rid of the spell? That's ok?




There are many spells that are good at low level, but not effective at higher level. If I took sleep at lower level, it would certainly be on the chopping block of spells I trade out/never memorize at higher level.

So, yes, I do beleive it is ok.

Edit: And that said, I'm not really sure if I would give up magic missile. It's range and surefire damage still make it a credible choice.


----------



## Twowolves (Oct 21, 2006)

Mouseferatu said:
			
		

> We've introduced them into two separate campaigns so far, and so far the results are:




Wait, the book has been out for a week, and you've run two campaigns with it?



			
				Amazing Triangle said:
			
		

> I support their use. No. I like it for Warrior/Wizard or straight Wizard builds or maybe Wujen. So that is 1/5 possible characters who can do. (No Sorcerer, No Cleric, No Druid, No Favored Soul, No Warmage, No Spellthief, No Shugenja, No Spirit Shaman)




Do you run the game or are you a player? When I posted that question, I was thinking along the lines of "Cleric Bard Druid Wizard Sorcerer", not all the other optional casters out there. I sincerely doubt a 4th ed core PHB will have 30 core classes in it.



			
				Victim said:
			
		

> Rings of Sustenance. Bags of Holding. There's already plenty of ways to get around mundane logistical challenges, and these methods aren't exactly anything new to the game. Also, I personally am not so fond of buying and tracking the food, water, and other equipment and supplies for an expedition.




Ah, but the ring takes up a valuable ring slot, a limited resource. So if no one likes tracking food and water, would it be ok if the next edition removed them from the game? Would it be the right thing to do? But otherwise, thank you for your insight regarding the Druid.



			
				Pielorinho said:
			
		

> Twowolves, please read my note above VERY carefully, and edit this post accordingly.




Sorry boss, I was already typing my reply when you posted. I'll fix it.


----------



## Mouseferatu (Oct 21, 2006)

Twowolves said:
			
		

> Wait, the book has been out for a week, and you've run two campaigns with it?




No, I said we've _introduced_ them to two campaigns, not _completed_ two campaigns. (I'm in more than one ongoing campaign.)

That said, we've got far more than a week's worth of experience with them. I've had access to author's copies of the book for a while, and everyone in my group is under NDA as WotC playtesters, so we've been using the feats (and other stuff from the book) for a couple of months.


----------



## Mouseferatu (Oct 21, 2006)

The general consensus of the group, BTW, is that the feats are _really_ cool, but given the opportunity cost of using them, and the fact that each given feat requires you have spells of a specific type prepared, nobody wants to have more than one or two, at most.

(Those costs being, to keep the feats at effective levels, you cannot cast your most potent spells.)


----------



## Psion (Oct 21, 2006)

Victim said:
			
		

> The DnD style resource management fire and forget magic is only present in a few of the Dying Earth stories.




Zelazny's Nine Princes in Amber is also similar. Though some have argued that the later novels are inspired by D&D, I don't know enough about Zelazny to guess whether such a claim is credible. Nonetheless, so what if it is. Fantasy is an evolving body of work, and D&D has just as much entitlement to innovate there as novels do.


----------



## Amazing Triangle (Oct 21, 2006)

Twowolves said:
			
		

> Saying "don't like it, don't play it" isn't a discussion about the merits of the feats, it's a "take your ball and go home" answer.



[sblock=Comment on this]
You are correct but in the absence of a level comparison you are using a perceived discrepancy to argue that the feat is overpowered.[/sblock]  Sure I can see some ways of abuse (multiple reserve feats) (granted you have to miraculously use more than one standard action a round)  but the fact that any time you use the reserve feat you are doing substantially less damage, at a dangerously closer range, over a longer sustained time.  

You are not talking about the merits of anything, you are arguing that you think that everyone will take this feat.  What about dodge or power attack?  Are those over powered cause they have no limit per day?  Are they overpowered cause a lot of characters that can take them will take them?



			
				Twowolves said:
			
		

> Do you run the game or are you a player? When I posted that question, I was thinking along the lines of "Cleric Bard Druid Wizard Sorcerer", not all the other optional casters out there. I sincerely doubt a 4th ed core PHB will have 30 core classes in it.




Again with the 4th edition thing, please start a new 4th edition thread and go from there.  I was thinking in the bigger scope of the current gaming environment.


----------



## Whizbang Dustyboots (Oct 21, 2006)

Mouseferatu said:
			
		

> The general consensus of the group, BTW, is that the feats are _really_ cool, but given the opportunity cost of using them, and the fact that each given feat requires you have spells of a specific type prepared, nobody wants to have more than one or two, at most.
> 
> (Those costs being, to keep the feats at effective levels, you cannot cast your most potent spells.)



It'll be interesting to see if the waterbreathing one becomes, as I imagine it will be, essentially a required spell for ocean-going campaigns, possibly including the Savage Tide. (Depending on how watery later adventures are.)


----------



## Twowolves (Oct 21, 2006)

Psion said:
			
		

> Sorry, then I missed your meaning about air superiority in this context. Just what did you mean, then?




All I was saying was that in one poster's set up, he had a wizard 20' away from a fighter, get off one zap, and then get hacked to pieces. I stated that in ANY set up where the wizard is expected to stand there and slug it out, no matter what edition of the rules we are discussing, will always end with the fighter winning. It plays to the strengths of the fighter and ignores the strengths of the wizard. The wizard should cast other, utilitarian spells (like fly) and then now can lean on his Stormborn feat for damage. It was a hypothetical situation.





			
				Psion said:
			
		

> What item creation feats get you, other than choice, is a cost break on magic items. Given the "rate of exchange" for xp, you only end up paying 70% of the total item cost to create an item. So, in short, what I am getting at is that obviating gp costs is fair game for the capabilities of a feat.




Ah I get it. But as I see it, already the game has shifted from "Item creation feats let you make items" to "Item creation feats get you a 70% discount at the Magic Items 'R' Us store". And in any case, the point I was trying to make was that these feats not only save money, but item slots. But that's for the non-zappy feats, and I am not 100% familiar with those (nor with the zappy ones, since I only skimmed the book and know what I read here).




			
				Psion said:
			
		

> There are many spells that are good at low level, but not effective at higher level. If I took sleep at lower level, it would certainly be on the chopping block of spells I trade out/never memorize at higher level.
> 
> So, yes, I do beleive it is ok.




Sleep does not, and was never meant to scale with level. Magic Missile does, up to 9th level. So I give an example of the feat making what was once the fall-back offensive spell into an outdated and useless option. Magic Missile, if I remember correctly, has always been considered "overpowered" in 3.x ed, and now the power creep has officially made it obsolete.


----------



## Psion (Oct 21, 2006)

Twowolves said:
			
		

> And in any case, the point I was trying to make was that these feats not only save money, but item slots.




Wands and scrolls (the orginal thrust of your comparison) don't consume item slots.



> Sleep does not, and was never meant to scale with level.




Then why is it fair to trade out sleep, but not magic missile? Is your essential objection here that it changes the landscape of spells in the game? Some argue (principally in Mystic Theurge threads) that lower level spells become less relevant as you level anyways.



> Magic Missile does, up to 9th level. So I give an example of the feat making what was once the fall-back offensive spell into an outdated and useless option. Magic Missile, if I remember correctly, has always been considered "overpowered" in 3.x ed, and now the power creep has officially made it obsolete.




As I mention above, I'm not so sure I would trade it out. And there are certain campaigns where such a trade out would be undesirable, given the magic missile's range.


----------



## Rystil Arden (Oct 21, 2006)

Knight Otu said:
			
		

> You know, we have the technology to test this theory in the Play by Post forums. Find two players to play a fifth-level druid each, one with Call Lightning memorized, and the other using Stormbolt. Find a DM who is willing to whip up a few different scenarios, and willing to DM the druids seperately at the same time through these scenarios. Look who fares better.



 I'll help--I'll even give you the last time I was in a group that used Call Lightning as one of the scenarios (it's from Old One's cool Arthurian one-shot Blood Altar of Wodan):

You're standing on a hill in the ruins of an ancient church, and below, 100 feet away, is an amphitheatre where hundreds upon hundreds of Saxon guards have built up a massive shield wall to block your seven heroes from reaching the dark ritual sacrifice of innocent villagers on the Blood Altar.  To make the shield wall, the Saxons are in rank, packed more than one to a square, and the priests are standing together on top of the altar and casting the ritual, albeit another 40 feet away.  Meanwhile, every round, three or four groups of six enemies each arrive, having heard the horn of battle, and it is all that your group's meleers can do to stave them off (until Artorius, played by me, goes postal and charges for the amphitheatre, anyway).


----------



## Crothian (Oct 21, 2006)

Twowolves said:
			
		

> Fly has been around, yes. Notice that in 3.5 they cut the duration down, limiting the air superiority role of a wizard. Now factor in the fact that the wizard will run out of Fly spells before he runs out of damage output and see if that doesn't skew the overall challenge.




A flying blaster is no different then a flying archer.  Flying archers have been around since day one and they cause no problems.


----------



## Rystil Arden (Oct 21, 2006)

Crothian said:
			
		

> A flying blaster is no different then a flying archer.  Flying archers have been around since day one and they cause no problems.



 Crothian is exactly right--in fact, the flying archer has better range than a flying blaster with reserve feats.  And the Warlock with Eldritch Spear and Fell Flight is better at it too.


----------



## Twowolves (Oct 21, 2006)

Psion said:
			
		

> Wands and scrolls (the orginal thrust of your comparison) don't consume item slots.




Two separate points: They say these feats give wizards something to contribute per round, to which I say the old way of doing this was wands and scrolls, which are finite and require money and/or xp. The utility reserve feats give an ability that frees up item slots (ring/helm).




			
				Psion said:
			
		

> Then why is it fair to trade out sleep, but not magic missile? Is your essential objection here that it changes the landscape of spells in the game? Some argue (principally in Mystic Theurge threads) that lower level spells become less relevant as you level anyways.




I'm saying that Magic Missile, which when 3rd ed was being built, was considered almost too powerful for a 1st level spell (range, autohit, no save, affects incorporeal) is now almost moot by the time the zappy reserve feats are available. It goes to my estimation that these feats are too good.




			
				Crothian said:
			
		

> A flying blaster is no different then a flying archer. Flying archers have been around since day one and they cause no problems.




Flying archers have a finite limit; arrows. They also rely on another player or a magic item to give them flight capability. Archers don't have area of effect. Archers can be disarmed. 



			
				Mousferatu said:
			
		

> The general consensus of the group, BTW, is that the feats are really cool, but given the opportunity cost of using them, and the fact that each given feat requires you have spells of a specific type prepared, nobody wants to have more than one or two, at most.




I will agree, it's early to tell, but here you say no one wants more than one or two? It's gone from "must have" to "must have only one or two"?


----------



## Particle_Man (Oct 21, 2006)

I know the pain of the long-distance flyer.  Our DM decided to throw 6 warlocks at us  !  Our solution?  Get below decks (we were on a barge) and buff up, and then go up and shoot at them with bows and crossbows, switching out to get healed as needed.  Eventually we brought them down (though they didn't fly away when they should have, due to a lucky crit on my part) but there were holes in the barge when we were done.  

That said, I don't think Warlocks have destroyed the game as we know it, nor do I think Reserve feats are a threat to it.

In fact, I was thinking ahead and might take Minor Shapeshift for a 15th level feat should my Hexblade live that long.  Unlike most of the others, activating it is a swift action, so there is less "Action opportunity cost" and it would give me an option if my Hex doesn't work vs. the big bad (because if BBEG makes the save vs. my Hex, there is not that much point in trying a Baleful Polymorph, as he would probably just make the save - better to "save a slot" and buff up a bit with temporary hp).

In any case, I would, as in my initial example above, see if there is any chance that a DM would use reserve feats, and if so, how that would impact the players.  That might help us judge if they are too powerful (nothing like getting your own back at you).  I loved playing a Warlock and was scared to face 6 of them while playing a mainly meelee oriented warrior type.  But in the end, we did bring them down, and I don't think it was an unfair situation.


----------



## Felon (Oct 21, 2006)

Pielorinho said:
			
		

> *Moderator's Notes*:
> 
> This thread has a fair amount of bickering in it that's gotten pretty heated, personal, and snippy.  Do folks think it's worth leaving the thread open?




It's a good thread. It's some of the posters that might need to be kicked from it if they can't play nice.


----------



## Crothian (Oct 21, 2006)

Twowolves said:
			
		

> Flying archers have a finite limit; arrows. They also rely on another player or a magic item to give them flight capability. Archers don't have area of effect. Archers can be disarmed.




Ya, archers are not perfect.  But like flying wizards have weaknesses too.  And that is why like flying archers, flying wizards even with these feats will be perfectly fine.  And I imagine if we stated them up, the flying archer would be better then the flying reserve feat wizard.


----------



## Psion (Oct 21, 2006)

Twowolves said:
			
		

> Two separate points: They say these feats give wizards something to contribute per round, to which I say the old way of doing this was wands and scrolls, which are finite and require money and/or xp. The utility reserve feats give an ability that frees up item slots (ring/helm).




Which feats are you talking about here then?

An item creation feat will continue to give you cost savings into high levels, which seem to me to be as likely to be on the same order as a reserve feat, which really only emulate low level spell abilities.



> I'm saying that Magic Missile, which when 3rd ed was being built, was considered almost too powerful for a 1st level spell (range, autohit, no save, affects incorporeal) is now almost moot by the time the zappy reserve feats are available. It goes to my estimation that these feats are too good.




Once again, no, I don't really think a reserve feat zap is a full replacement for magic missile, due to range issues already mentioned.


----------



## chaotix42 (Oct 21, 2006)

So far, in my roommate's Shackled City campaign the elven enchanter/master specialist has taken Fiery Burst (I think that's the name). He's been riding a Scorching Ray to get a 5-ft. radius burst of flame at will for 2d6 damage. We just hit 5th level at the end of the last adventure and he added fireball to his spellbook to get a 3d6 burst with the reserve feat. He's a Focused Specialist, so he gets a ton of enchantment spells and fits in a few straight offensive spells and the biggest fire spell he can get, which he sits on until casting it is absolutely necessary. The always available burst of fire damage is handy indeed, and helps out in combat quite a bit with his narrow selection of spells.

Overpowered though? I would disagree with such a notion. Reserve feats are an inexhaustible resource, true, but after the Tome of Battle nothing is quite the same in our D&D games anymore. I'm quite enjoying the changes.


----------



## BryonD (Oct 22, 2006)

Mouseferatu said:
			
		

> The general consensus of the group, BTW, is that the feats are _really_ cool, but given the opportunity cost of using them, and the fact that each given feat requires you have spells of a specific type prepared, nobody wants to have more than one or two, at most.
> 
> (Those costs being, to keep the feats at effective levels, you cannot cast your most potent spells.)



Side question: Do you have any idea if Storm Bolt was intended to have a save?  That one thing just seems out of character with the other feats, as well as with of effects of that nature in general.


----------



## Rystil Arden (Oct 22, 2006)

BryonD said:
			
		

> Side question: Do you have any idea if Storm Bolt was intended to have a save?  That one thing just seems out of character with the other feats, as well as with of effects of that nature in general.



 I know I'm giving it a Reflex Save for half.  It seems just a bit much without it.


----------



## BryonD (Oct 22, 2006)

Rystil Arden said:
			
		

> I know I'm giving it a Reflex Save for half.  It seems just a bit much without it.



Agreed.  I just wanna know if I'm house ruling or one step ahead of errata.


----------



## Rystil Arden (Oct 22, 2006)

BryonD said:
			
		

> Agreed.  I just wanna know if I'm house ruling or one step ahead of errata.



 One step ahead of errata can mean years--like when I houseruled down the DCs on the Psionic powers that randomly scaled +1 per PP, for instance.


----------



## Knight Otu (Oct 22, 2006)

Twowolves said:
			
		

> I will agree, it's early to tell, but here you say no one wants more than one or two? It's gone from "must have" to "must have only one or two"?



To me, it reads as if Ari says "Our group thinks that the feats are far from a must have for our casters, and those casters who are interested to take such a feat aren't interested to take multiple of these feats - at most one or two."


----------



## Mouseferatu (Oct 22, 2006)

Knight Otu said:
			
		

> To me, it reads as if Ari says "Our group thinks that the feats are far from a must have for our casters, and those casters who are interested to take such a feat aren't interested to take multiple of these feats - at most one or two."




Yep. I never said that everyone "must have one or two." I said that people think the concept is nifty, and _those who take them_ haven't taken more than one or two.


----------



## Mouseferatu (Oct 22, 2006)

BryonD said:
			
		

> Side question: Do you have any idea if Storm Bolt was intended to have a save?  That one thing just seems out of character with the other feats, as well as with of effects of that nature in general.




Well, when I initially wrote the feat, it had a 30 foot range, but was usable against only one target and required a ranged touch. When it was changed to a 20-foot line, my guess is that it should have had a saving throw added in, but this was missed.

So while I don't know if it was _intended_ to have a save, it seems to me that it _should_, and that this would put it in line with the other, similar reserve feats.


----------



## BryonD (Oct 22, 2006)

Thanks, that makes sense.
A ranged touch with no save is ok and it would be fairly easy to see how that could get missed in a switch from touch to a line.


----------



## BryonD (Oct 22, 2006)

Mouseferatu said:
			
		

> Yep. I never said that everyone "must have one or two." I said that people think the concept is nifty, and _those who take them_ haven't taken more than one or two.



I think they will be fairly common.  But to me it is because they are good feats AND give a nice bit of flavor to a mage that goes beyond X slots of spells.

That said, feats are still pretty precious and I've no doubt that there will be a fair number of builds without them also.  My group also tends to stay with one campaign for more than a year so new characters mainly come for the occasional death.  So it takes a long time to even establish the idea of a "must have", much less have it cause any real impact.  I'd (seriously) expect 4th Ed to be around by the time I see more than 3 or 4 PCs with any of these feats and it would not at all suprise me to see fewer or even none.

Master Specialist I see coming into play A LOT, but I like that because it actually ties the specialist to their chosen school in a way I've always found lacking in core.

Again, I'm just really happy with this book.


----------



## Particle_Man (Oct 22, 2006)

I just realized that a mage sitting on a high-level spell purely to fuel a reserve feat will have a special, dedicated hatred for spell-thieves that steal the very spell the mage was sitting on.


----------



## Particle_Man (Oct 22, 2006)

Come to think of it, getting negative levels would suck, for similar reasons.


----------



## Rystil Arden (Oct 22, 2006)

Particle_Man said:
			
		

> I just realized that a mage sitting on a high-level spell purely to fuel a reserve feat will have a special, dedicated hatred for spell-thieves that steal the very spell the mage was sitting on.



 Bwahaha, awesome combo!

Enemies of a nigh-epic PC Wizard who refused to take Spell Mastery once humbled her by sending Spellthief ninjas to steal all her spells prepared and then trapping her inside a minimum-security room with a poor lock, but she couldn't get out 

Spellthieves aren't great PCs, but they can be fun enemies.


----------



## Felon (Oct 22, 2006)

Mouseferatu said:
			
		

> Well, when I initially wrote the feat, it had a 30 foot range, but was usable against only one target and required a ranged touch. When it was changed to a 20-foot line, my guess is that it should have had a saving throw added in, but this was missed.
> 
> So while I don't know if it was _intended_ to have a save, it seems to me that it _should_, and that this would put it in line with the other, similar reserve feats.




How about that invisible needle? 1d4 per spell level, requires a normal attack roll (not touch), and only affects one target. Seems pretty weak compared to the other reserve feats. Is it supposed to actually be an invisible attack? The name suggests as much, but nothing in the description does.


----------



## ruleslawyer (Oct 22, 2006)

Twowolves said:
			
		

> Look again. The "D&D is based on fantasy literature" and the "reserve feats make the game more like a video game" are SEPARATE TOPICS. Someone said the game is not literature, and I said it was based on it, and proved it. End of that discussion.



a) You are the person who brought up both... in the same sentence, with a clear link between the two.

b) No one was arguing with you about D&D being inspired by fantasy literature.


> If you want to start another point, saying that the feats don't make the game more or less like the source material, that's another topic of discussion. Period.



No it isn't. That WAS the point of discussion to begin with. Please don't misinterpret people's posts to the point of ignoring their content; it isn't respectful conduct. Thank you.

EDIT: Back to topic for everyone else, with apologies!


----------



## Mouseferatu (Oct 22, 2006)

Felon said:
			
		

> How about that invisible needle? 1d4 per spell level, requires a normal attack roll (not touch), and only affects one target. Seems pretty weak compared to the other reserve feats. Is it supposed to actually be an invisible attack? The name suggests as much, but nothing in the description does.




As a force effect, it's considered mechanically more potent than a comperable energy effect.

That said, if you wanted to jazz it up a bit--perhaps by, as you imply, making it truly invisible, and thus requiring a roll to detect where it came from--I don't think that'd break anything. (Though I'd need to try it in play to be sure, of course.)


----------



## brehobit (Oct 22, 2006)

Mouseferatu said:
			
		

> As a force effect, it's considered mechanically more potent than a comperable energy effect.
> 
> That said, if you wanted to jazz it up a bit--perhaps by, as you imply, making it truly invisible, and thus requiring a roll to detect where it came from--I don't think that'd break anything. (Though I'd need to try it in play to be sure, of course.)



That _may_ make the opponent lose their dex mod against it.  Not sure how I'd treat an invisible attack...

Mark


----------



## BryonD (Oct 22, 2006)

Felon said:
			
		

> How about that invisible needle? 1d4 per spell level, requires a normal attack roll (not touch), and only affects one target. Seems pretty weak compared to the other reserve feats. Is it supposed to actually be an invisible attack? The name suggests as much, but nothing in the description does.



Just an undeveloped thought here....

What about making each missle a flat 1d4+1 with no attack roll required and no save.
Then allow 1 missle per 3 spell levels.
Thus you get a very short range version of magic missle.
For a caster of Level 5-10 you get one missle, CL11-16 can get 2 and 17+ can get 3.  All with a significantly cut down range.

Or 1 missle for 1d4+spell level.

Or 1 missle but with better range based on spell level.


----------



## Felon (Oct 22, 2006)

Mouseferatu said:
			
		

> As a force effect, it's considered mechanically more potent than a comperable energy effect.
> 
> That said, if you wanted to jazz it up a bit--perhaps by, as you imply, making it truly invisible, and thus requiring a roll to detect where it came from--I don't think that'd break anything. (Though I'd need to try it in play to be sure, of course.)




Well, the point of it being invisible would be to deny its target its Dex bonus--great for unseen seer or arcane trickster. 

Even allowing for its force effect, this is a sub-par ability compared to other reserve feats. The damage is lower than any of the other single-target damage-dealing abilities, and it requires a normal attack roll. One of those things might be worthwhile for a force effect, buth both? Heck, just the fact that it's a single-target effect makes it inferior to many of the reserve feats. Unless there's something else I'm missing, some jazzing up is in order.


----------



## Rystil Arden (Oct 23, 2006)

Felon said:
			
		

> Well, the point of it being invisible would be to deny its target its Dex bonus--great for unseen seer or arcane trickster.
> 
> Even allowing for its force effect, this is a sub-par ability compared to other reserve feats. The damage is lower than any of the other single-target damage-dealing abilities, and it requires a normal attack roll. One of those things might be worthwhile for a force effect, buth both? Heck, just the fact that it's a single-target effect makes it inferior to many of the reserve feats. Unless there's something else I'm missing, some jazzing up is in order.



 I forget--does it allow SR?  If not, it ignores energy resistance and SR, with no save and could be about right.


----------



## Banshee16 (Oct 23, 2006)

Twowolves said:
			
		

> But, it's not better. One a rare occaision (almost completely at the whim of the DM) the spell does an average of an extra 6 points of damage. The feat can also do more damage the more potent spell held in reserve, so both are potentially more damaging under different circumstances. And Call Lightning doesn't effectively have a larger area. I was mistaken about it's area:
> 
> 
> 
> ...




You've just done exactly the same thing.  It's been a few days since I posted that argument, but I don't believe I said anything about you being a 3E basher, or WotC.

As to the other comments, I'm not making any kind of statement about wizard vs. fighter damage output.  What I am doing is pointing out that the reserve feat isn't making the wizard more powerful than a regular wizard.  Sure, crossbows can be disarmed or sundered.  They can also be picked up again.  Casting spells can be disrupted.  And crossbow bolts are far easier to replace than either memorized spells, or wands.  What's the going rate?  1 GP for 20 bolts or something?

As to the Stormbolt example you point out, thanks for taking it further.  You make the case that the wizard can get better damage from the magic missile spell, and it requires a spell slot.  Well.....so does Stormbolt.  You need to keep your lightning spell memorized, thus using up a spell slot, or the ability doesn't work.

Banshee


----------



## Felon (Oct 23, 2006)

Rystil Arden said:
			
		

> I forget--does it allow SR?  If not, it ignores energy resistance and SR, with no save and could be about right.




Reserve feats grant supernatural abilities, so none of them are affected by SR. So, relatively speaking the needle still comes up more than a tad short. We're talking really pitiful damage here, after all.


----------



## Rystil Arden (Oct 23, 2006)

Felon said:
			
		

> Reserve feats grant supernatural abilities, so none of them are affected by SR. So, relatively speaking the needle still comes up more than a tad short. We're talking really pitiful damage here, after all.



 Even so, 1d4 force per spell level with a ranged touch and no SR would be overpowered in my mind (and yes, I alternately ban Orb of Force or require SR), as it is damage that is virtually unstoppable at sufficient level.  

If you changed this to a ranged touch attack, one hundred first level Wizards with this feat would soundly destroy a Great Wyrm dragon of your choice.


----------



## BryonD (Oct 23, 2006)

Rystil Arden said:
			
		

> Even so, 1d4 force per spell level with a ranged touch and no SR would be overpowered in my mind (and yes, I alternately ban Orb of Force or require SR), as it is damage that is virtually unstoppable at sufficient level.
> 
> If you changed this to a ranged touch attack, one hundred first level Wizards with this feat would soundly destroy a Great Wyrm dragon of your choice.



100 5th level wizards.  And 95 of them would run away before getting close enough to attack, leaving the other 5 to run away out of common sense rather than dragon fear.

But I'm just being picky....  


Seriously, the lack of SR may be a real issue to consider.  Though in typical circumstances the low damage and opportunity cost should still keep things in check.


----------



## Rystil Arden (Oct 23, 2006)

BryonD said:
			
		

> 100 5th level wizards.  And 95 of them would run away before getting close enough to attack, leaving the other 5 to run away out of common sense rather than dragon fear.
> 
> But I'm just being picky....
> 
> ...



 Ah yes, the level requirement is an issue.

It needn't be 100 if they're 5th level, then.  30 will do the trick.  100 could kill it in one round before it could take a turn, though.


----------



## Felon (Oct 23, 2006)

Rystil Arden said:
			
		

> Even so, 1d4 force per spell level with a ranged touch and no SR would be overpowered in my mind (and yes, I alternately ban Orb of Force or require SR), as it is damage that is virtually unstoppable at sufficient level.



Your position doesn't make a lot of sense. You say a ranged touch force attack that allows no SR is overpowered, while an energy a ranged touch energy attack that allows no SR and  does more damage isn't, even though all creatures who just happen to lack the requisite energy resistance will also find it to be "unstoppable"--and more painful.



			
				Rystil Arden said:
			
		

> Ah yes, the level requirement is an issue. It needn't be 100 if they're 5th level, then.  30 will do the trick.  100 could kill it in one round before it could take a turn, though.



100 or 30, it is a silly scenario lacking practical value, as amassing that many people around your dinner table poses a bit of a logistical challenge.


----------



## Felon (Oct 23, 2006)

BryonD said:
			
		

> Seriously, the lack of SR may be a real issue to consider.  Though in typical circumstances the low damage and opportunity cost should still keep things in check.



That and the logistical problems with getting 100 players huddled around your dinner table (although it appears we're down to 30 now). 

The reserve abilities shouldn't be supernatural IMO. That offers all kinds of new considerations. For one thing, consider what it costs to make a spell silent or still, which are benefits that a supernatural ability get by default. Supernatural abilities can even be used while grappled with no Concentration check. They're true super-powers.


----------



## Rystil Arden (Oct 23, 2006)

Felon said:
			
		

> Your position doesn't make a lot of sense. You say a ranged touch force attack that allows no SR is overpowered, while an energy a ranged touch energy attack that allows no SR and  does more damage isn't, even though all creatures who just happen to lack the requisite energy resistance will also find it to be "unstoppable"--and more painful.
> 
> 
> 100 or 30, it is a silly scenario lacking practical value, as amassing that many people around your dinner table poses a bit of a logistical challenge.



 I don't like the no-SR on any of them, frankly.

As to the 'silly' scenario, it isn't silly at all.  It is a practical issue on why the NPCs can't just kill the Great Wyrm dragon (Based on the average NPCs per settlement in the DMG 30 5th-level Wizards is a trivial expense for a large kingdom that contains a metropolis and wants to eliminate a powerful enemy--heck, relatively small bad guy groups in published adventures have more personnel than that).


----------



## Rystil Arden (Oct 23, 2006)

Felon said:
			
		

> That and the logistical problems with getting 100 players huddled around your dinner table (although it appears we're down to 30 now).
> 
> The reserve abilities shouldn't be supernatural IMO. That offers all kinds of new considerations. For one thing, consider what it costs to make a spell silent or still, which are benefits that a supernatural ability get by default. Supernatural abilities can even be used while grappled with no Concentration check. They're true super-powers.



 I tend to agree.  I'm definitely adding Reserve Feats to my game, but in addition to adding the Reflex save to Storm Bolt, I'm making them SLAs like the Warlock invocations.  I'd allow meta-SLA feats and Ability Focus to work on them too.


----------



## Felon (Oct 23, 2006)

Rystil Arden said:
			
		

> I don't like the no-SR on any of them, frankly.
> 
> As to the 'silly' scenario, it isn't silly at all.  It is a practical issue on why the NPCs can't just kill the Great Wyrm dragon (Based on the average NPCs per settlement in the DMG 30 5th-level Wizards is a trivial expense for a large kingdom that contains a metropolis and wants to eliminate a powerful enemy--heck, relatively small bad guy groups in published adventures have more personnel than that).




I haven't seen any small bad guy groups in published adventures that have 30 or more 5th-level wizards. It takes a very, very large city to amass that kind of force, and I imagine most of the wizard's guild would find something better to do that day, as they're not silly enough to think that just because they've each got these little 3d4 water pistols that the great wyrm is as good as dead. He's got a little more going for him than just SR and natural armor. Trust me, it's just not a very good scenario.


----------



## Rystil Arden (Oct 23, 2006)

Felon said:
			
		

> I haven't seen any small bad guy groups in published adventures that have 30 or more 5th-level wizards. It takes a very, very large city to amass that kind of force, and I imagine most of the wizard's guild would find something better to do that day, as they're not silly enough to think that just because they've each got these little 3d4 water pistols that the great wyrm is as good as dead. He's got a little more going for him than just SR and natural armor. Trust me, it's just not a very good scenario.



 That's because the baddies tend to be Fighters and Rogues more often, but most of them definitely have members in that number, even for small and relatively unimportant enemy groups that would be encountered in a level 7ish adventure (to scale it down just a bit--in a level 3ish SCAP adventure, a minor and relatively worthless group of goblins had ~10 4th-level Adepts and many more combat-centred goblins).

A dragon may have more going for it than SR and AC, but none of that will protect it from an at-will touch attack attack that deals force damage with no SR allowed (though remember, this is hypothetical, as currently we have a quite fine non-touch attack force effect).  Obviously it can sit in its lair behind layers of traps, but these guys would be effective in preventing it from going on the offensive.


----------



## Felon (Oct 23, 2006)

Rystil Arden said:
			
		

> A dragon may have more going for it than SR and AC, but none of that will protect it from an at-will touch attack attack that deals force damage with no SR allowed.



Man, you're still trying to support this? Uggh.   

Quite a great deal of a dragon's resources would protect him from wizards trying to pelt him with a feeble 3d4 damage attack with minimal range. The wyrm would annihlate them utterly, probably halving their number's with a single blast of breath. They're a minimal threat. 

I'm beginning to think you must be kidding, because you've had sufficient time to reconsider how this is a completely unworkable scenario and that these 30 doomed wizards would never get the drop on the wyrm, much less drive him into hiding. For that matter, I don't know how you could find this one unlikely, impractical scenario provides sufficient evidence that a 1d4/level ability that requires a normal attack roll is on par with a 1d6/level ability that requires a touch attack roll.


----------



## Rystil Arden (Oct 23, 2006)

Felon said:
			
		

> What are you talking about? Quite a great deal of a dragon's resources would protect him from wizards trying to pelt him with a feeble 3d4 damage attack with minimal range. The wyrm would annihlate them utterly, probably halving their number's with a single blast of breath. They're a minimal threat.
> 
> I'm beginning to think you must be kidding, because you've had sufficient time to reconsider how this is a lousy, horrible, unworkable scenario and that these 30 doomed wizards would never get the drop on the wyrm, much less drive him into hiding. For that matter, I don't know how you could find this one ill-conceived, unlikely, impractical scenario provides sufficient evidence that a 1d4/level ability that requires a normal attack roll is on par with a 1d6/level ability that requires a touch attack roll.



 Please, there's no need to continue like that--we're discussing this here, so let's avoid posts where 50% of the words are taken up by insults and appeal to ridicule fallacy.

Let's say we've got a Great Wyrm Blue.  The wizards can easily stand such that he's not going to take out very many in one breath weapon.  If you assume large killings on the part of the dragon, that's fine too, though we may want to knock the wizards' number up to 50 in that case.  50 will kill the thing in two rounds without casualties and can easily do so in three rounds even losing 10 or 15 men per round.

EDIT: Based on your last edit, I think you've forgotten that I'm explaining why the force attack would be overpowered as a touch attack, not in its current incarnation as a non-touch.


----------



## Felon (Oct 23, 2006)

Rystil Arden said:
			
		

> Please, there's no need to continue like that--we're discussing this here, so let's avoid posts where 50% of the words are taken up by random insult words.



I'm sorry, but your scenario is half-baked, and there's just no way to tip-toe around that. You may be a fine person, but the scenario is just not thought out that well. That you don't own up to that after all these posts, that you just dig in your heels like this scenario really amounts to something with pragmatic value, compounds that geometrically.



> Let's say we've got a Great Wyrm Blue.  The wizards can easily stand such that he's not going to take out very many in one breath weapon.  If you assume large killings on the part of the dragon, that's fine too, though we may want to knock the wizards' number up to 50 in that case.  50 will kill the thing in two rounds without casualties and can easily do so in three rounds even losing 10 or 15 men per round.




Most likely, they'll stand wherever the wyrm wants them to stand. Since he's the one with superior resources--divination magic, terrain-controlling magic, you name it--he's the one who will dictate on what terms the battle takes place. Don't you get that? He doesn't even have to let them stay close enough to use the crappy needle. He can kill them from hundreds of feet away if he pleases. Then take into account all the spells he'll have, all the magic items he'll have--artifacts even--all the ways a wyrm could heal or buff himself, all the defensive wards and glyphs that would kill them off before they could even get their crummy 7.5 danage attack off, and it's just flat-out obvious that you're sitting on a stack of dead wizards.

And then we could go into the logistical problems with amassing 50 or 100 5th-level wizards. Bust out your DMG again.



> EDIT: Based on your last edit, I think you've forgotten that I'm explaining why the force attack would be overpowered as a touch attack, not in its current incarnation as a non-touch.



You've utterly failed to explain why a force would be overpowered as a ranged touch spell while an energy attack isn't. Energy resistance isn't universal.


----------



## BryonD (Oct 23, 2006)

How are they going to make the DC35 will save to get within range?

I'm certainly not willing to assume that one, much less 50, humanoids of any nature can just walk up to less than 30 feet from a great wyrm blue (or even much lesser dragon) so as to get off an attack in the first place.  If we assume that 5% make their save then you only need 1,000 5th level wizards to get 50 of them making an attack.  
1,000 5th level fighters with bows, 2 +1 arrows each and rapid shot would land 100 hits in one round for 550 points of damage assuming none of them gain a STR bonus with their bows.
(Edit: Not that I don't agree with Felon that neither this nor the wizard scenario would ever come close to happening)



I also agree that they should be spell-like abilities, for flavor as much as anything.  And don't see ignoring SR as a good thing.  Though I still don't consider that a deal breaker.


----------



## Rystil Arden (Oct 23, 2006)

BryonD said:
			
		

> How are they going to make the DC35 will save to get within range?
> 
> I'm certainly not willing to assume that one, much less 50, humanoids of any nature can just walk up to less than 30 feet from a great wyrm blue (or even much lesser dragon) so as to get off an attack in the first place.  If we assume that 5% make their save then you only need 1,000 5th level wizards to get 50 of them making an attack.
> 1,000 5th level fighters with bows, 2 +1 arrows each and rapid shot would land 100 hits in one round for 550 points of damage assuming none of them gain a STR bonus with their bows.
> ...



 Heroes' Feast


----------



## BryonD (Oct 23, 2006)

When did the 11th level cleric show up?



And is it not ok for the wizards to achieve the same result as the equal level fighters?


----------



## Rystil Arden (Oct 23, 2006)

Felon said:
			
		

> I'm sorry, but your scenario is half-baked, and there's just no way to tip-toe around that. You may be a fine person, but the scenario is just not thought out that well. That you don't own up to that after all these posts, that you just dig in your heels like this scenario really amounts to something with pragmatic value, compounds that geometrically.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



 Energy resistance is accessible.  The difference is that force + no save + no SR + touch attack (effectively no attack roll needed in thsi case) is unavoidable.  Energy attacks at least he can cast a quick level 2 Energy Resistance spell and be done with them and immune to all 50 of the attacks.

As to controlling the battle--that's true if the dragon is hiding in his lair or attacking these wizards.  The problem is when the wizards are attacking him while he's going after something else.  Let's say he comes to eat soem sheep and finds out that there's also 30-50 massmorphed Wizards set up around him and spread out with Heroes' Feast up.  Assuming that he doesn't flee (which just proves he is outmatched), what does the dragon do?

By the way--perhaps we should fork a new thread?


----------



## Rystil Arden (Oct 23, 2006)

BryonD said:
			
		

> When did the 11th level cleric show up?
> 
> 
> 
> And is it not ok for the wizards to achieve the same result as the equal level fighters?



 1000 >> 50 

The 11th-level Cleric is below standard max level for any Metropolis.  Frankly, against a CR 21+ dragon, I won't begrudge the Wizards that.  Or the Fighters if they like.


----------



## BryonD (Oct 23, 2006)

Do great wyrms just go blindly scooping up random sheep herds in your campaigns?
In mine the sheep (or whatever) are pretty much brought to the dragon when you get anywhere near this power level.


----------



## Rystil Arden (Oct 23, 2006)

BryonD said:
			
		

> Do great wyrms just go blindly scooping up random sheep herds in your campaigns?
> In mine the sheep (or whatever) are pretty much brought to the dragon when you get anywhere near this power level.



 The Great Wyrm is the master of its domain.  Since I don't allow effects like the hypothetical touch attack Invisible Needle to ignore SR, it knows that it can do what it wants with impunity unless some nigh-epic opponents appear, so if it enjoys the thrill of the hunt, it'll go for it.  With the needle, it has to not do this.


----------



## BryonD (Oct 23, 2006)

Rystil Arden said:
			
		

> 1000 >> 50
> 
> The 11th-level Cleric is below standard max level for any Metropolis.  Frankly, against a CR 21+ dragon, I won't begrudge the Wizards that.  Or the Fighters if they like.



Shrug

Now you are selectively using the meta-setting to the wizards advantage while refusing to accept that the dragon should gain comparable opportunities.
If the wizards get allies then the dragon must get his as well.
If you stop begrudging the dragon access to his resources, then the wizards will be a minor afternoon's amusement.


To get to the bottom line, without the slightest abuse of the rules this would NEVER come close to working in any of my campaigns and therefore this basis for the feat being a problem is groundless.  If this WOULD be a problem in your campaign then I would suggest that it is a problem with YOUR campaign, not the feat.


----------



## BryonD (Oct 23, 2006)

Rystil Arden said:
			
		

> The Great Wyrm is the master of its domain.  Since I don't allow effects like the hypothetical touch attack Invisible Needle to ignore SR, it knows that it can do what it wants with impunity unless some nigh-epic opponents appear, so if it enjoys the thrill of the hunt, it'll go for it.  With the needle, it has to not do this.



But it is completely helpless to catch on to the ambush?????
It was helpless to ever become aware that the wizards did something to know he was coming?

Or are there 50 L5 wizards permanetly doing NOTHING but waiting around as sheep for weeks and weeks hoping the dragon attacks him?  And again in THIS case why does NOTHING in the dragon's resources alert him to this long term plan?

You still are not getting outside of just completely absurd assumptions that allow the wizards full advantage of detailed setting and support while denying the dragon the most basic assumptions of gear or preparation.  It is beyond a simple double standard.  
You would need to do a LOT better than this to even make it seem like the "balance" here is remotely debatable.


----------



## Rystil Arden (Oct 23, 2006)

BryonD said:
			
		

> Shrug
> 
> Now you are selectively using the meta-setting to the wizards advantage while refusing to accept that the dragon should gain comparable opportunities.
> If the wizards get allies then the dragon must get his as well.
> ...



 The point is this:

Powerful creatures, of which Great Wyrm dragons are an example, are typically statted such that they can't be defeated by a group of 100 low-level enemies.  

Take 100 5th-level characters generated with core rules only and buff them up with whatever long-enough-lasting core buffs you'd like (up to and including 6th-through 8th level buffs provided by the highest level local) and standard wealth for NPCs.  You won't have created a force that can defeat a Great Wyrm.  The Wyrm would laugh at this

With this new effect, 100 5th-level Wizards can do it in 1 round.  All they need is for it to drop its guard long enough for them to get in range.

This creates a necessary mindset of paranoia for the Great Wyrms, rather than cocky confidence, as even pathetic weaklings can easily kill them if they make a mistake.  I would rather not have that mindset be required (though some elder dragons in my campaign do indeed have such an attitude)


----------



## BryonD (Oct 23, 2006)

Rystil Arden said:
			
		

> All they need is for it to drop its guard long enough for them to get in range.



Massive flaw alert


----------



## Rystil Arden (Oct 23, 2006)

BryonD said:
			
		

> But it is completely helpless to catch on to the ambush?????
> It was helpless to ever become aware that the wizards did something to know he was coming?
> 
> Or are there 50 L5 wizards permanetly doing NOTHING but waiting around as sheep for weeks and weeks hoping the dragon attacks him?  And again in THIS case why does NOTHING in the dragon's resources alert him to this long term plan?
> ...



 How about a Divination?

"Where should we wait to ambush the dragon?"

"Westman's Field disguised as sheep.
As brightest dawn from night doth creep.
To send the crimson foe to sleep"


----------



## BryonD (Oct 23, 2006)

Rystil Arden said:
			
		

> This creates a necessary mindset of paranoia for the Great Wyrms, rather than cocky confidence, as even pathetic weaklings can easily kill them if they make a mistake.  I would rather not have that mindset be required (though some elder dragons in my campaign do indeed have such an attitude)



I also consider this position deeply flawed because there ARE other spells and effects that will keep dragon's on ther toes.
Yes, there are much higher level.  But because you have failed to actually demonstrate how the wizards could utilize this feat without a twice compounded double stadnard in your assumptions there is no reason to see any change in the status on things.


----------



## Rystil Arden (Oct 23, 2006)

BryonD said:
			
		

> Massive flaw alert



 If those are the kind of replies I'm going to be getting, I guess that means there's no need to continue discussing this.


----------



## BryonD (Oct 23, 2006)

Rystil Arden said:
			
		

> How about a Divination?
> 
> "Where should we wait to ambush the dragon?"
> 
> ...



And the Dragon's spells??????

If a simple divination is an mortal bane to great wyrms then again, the flaw is in YOUR game.

You aren't going to ambush a great wyrm with a simple divination, with or without invisible needle.


----------



## BryonD (Oct 23, 2006)

Rystil Arden said:
			
		

> If those are the kind of replies I'm going to be getting, I guess that means there's no need to continue discussing this.



shrug

Well, if a requirement for discussion is that I must overlook massive flaws in your position  then there certainly is no need to continue.  So I guess you are correct.

Bye


----------



## EyeontheMountain (Oct 23, 2006)

So if the wizards are polymporhpoed as sheep their disguise skill would be roughly 22 or so(assuming they do not have disguise as a class skill and are getting +2 from somewhere like charisma or a feat.) Taht means an average d20 roll of 10 with the +10 disguise check inherent for polymorph-type magics. A Greay Wyrm Red Dragon would most likely have at the very least  +43 from ranks alone, plus his wisdom, and probably some kind of buff.

So he would notice the  disguised wizards and see through their disguise at roughly 210 feet away(At the minimum), well out of range of the force needle.

Nope, don't see it happening.


----------



## Rystil Arden (Oct 23, 2006)

EyeontheMountain said:
			
		

> So if the wizards are polymporhpoed as sheep their disguise skill would be roughly 22 or so(assuming they do not have disguise as a class skill and are getting +2 from somewhere like charisma or a feat.) Taht means an average d20 roll of 10 with the +10 disguise check inherent for polymorph-type magics. A Greay Wyrm Red Dragon would most likely have at the very least  +43 from ranks alone, plus his wisdom, and probably some kind of buff.
> 
> So he would notice the  disguised wizards and see through their disguise at roughly 210 feet away(At the minimum), well out of range of the force needle.
> 
> Nope, don't see it happening.



 You make a good point--the sheep thing isn't going to work based on that.

However, the fact remains that any effect that deals effectively-unavoidable damage is problematic.  Let's say the dragon sees the group of enemies and wants to fry these puny gnats, so he comes in for a breath attack--if they've readied their force needles, he is likely dead before he even gets it off.


----------



## Psion (Oct 23, 2006)

AFAIAC, any assertion about something being overpowered based on 1000 NPCs who just happened to pick this feat and gang up on a dragon is not too realistic of a test of what's balanced in a game.

What's balanced is determined by how the game is played. That is, in a party of adventurers going on adventures. If the feat changes the way THAT scenario plays out, you should decide whether or not you want that change in your game and rule accordingly.

I share concerns about the energy orb spells bypassing SR... then again, I hate magic immune golems, so that negates some of my concern. I think in the final analysis, I still might probably rule out energy orbs but allow the much less potent reserve feats as a fallback. If the players run into a highly magic resistant creature, the mage player need not feel totally ineffective. The overall enjoyment level of the game improves, ergo it seems like a win-win scenario to me.


----------



## Twowolves (Oct 23, 2006)

Rystil Arden said:
			
		

> ByronD said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...




Now you know why I quit posting to this thread. Other than a select few (Felon, Psion, and Banshee16), these types of posts got old, fast. I got tired of having valid arguements ignored over and over and instead taken to task over what "fantasy literature" inspired D&D.


----------



## Rystil Arden (Oct 23, 2006)

Psion said:
			
		

> AFAIAC, any assertion about something being overpowered based on 1000 NPCs who just happened to pick this feat and gang up on a dragon is not too realistic of a test of what's balanced in a game.
> 
> What's balanced is determined by how the game is played. That is, in a party of adventurers going on adventures. If the feat changes the way THAT scenario plays out, you should decide whether or not you want that change in your game and rule accordingly.
> 
> I share concerns about the energy orb spells bypassing SR... then again, I hate magic immune golems, so that negates some of my concern. I think in the final analysis, I still might probably rule out energy orbs but allow the much less potent reserve feats as a fallback. If the players run into a highly magic resistant creature, the mage player need not feel totally ineffective. The overall enjoyment level of the game improves, ergo it seems like a win-win scenario to me.



 Also good points.  For the record, I'm for the current rendition of the feat--just afraid it could become dangerous if it was strengthened.


----------



## BryonD (Oct 23, 2006)

Twowolves said:
			
		

> Now you know why I quit posting to this thread. Other than a select few (Felon, Psion, and Banshee16), these types of posts got old, fast. I got tired of having valid arguements ignored over and over and instead taken to task over what "fantasy literature" inspired D&D.



Right.....

And if only it were reality that you had been taken to task over "what 'fantasy literature' inspired D&D" then you'd have a point.

Your claim that there was a paradigm shift was taken to task and rather they try to defend that invalid argument you tried to misrepresent other people's statements.


----------



## BryonD (Oct 23, 2006)

Psion said:
			
		

> AFAIAC, any assertion about something being overpowered based on 1000 NPCs who just happened to pick this feat and gang up on a dragon is not too realistic of a test of what's balanced in a game.



Correct.  Or even just 50.



> I share concerns about the energy orb spells bypassing SR...



It is a good point.  And the orbs are certainly a much bigger potential issue.



> The overall enjoyment level of the game improves, ergo it seems like a win-win scenario to me.



Exactly.


----------



## Twowolves (Oct 23, 2006)

BryonD said:
			
		

> Right.....
> 
> And if only it were reality that you had been taken to task over "what 'fantasy literature' inspired D&D" then you'd have a point.
> 
> Your claim that there was a paradigm shift was taken to task and rather they try to defend that invalid argument you tried to misrepresent other people's statements.




History lesson for those who didn't read the whole thread:

1) I expressed my opinion regarding the reserve feats, and said they made the game more like Gauntlet and Diablo II.

2) Someone said "D&D ain't literature".

3) I said D&D was once based on fantasy literature.

4) ByronD asked me how it was based on literature.

5) I explained how.

6) He said "no no, how is the _magic system _ based on literature.

7) I explained how it was.

8) He and others repeatedly tried to deny my explanations and turn the discussion to how D&D magic was never like fantasy literature magic in the first place, despite examples to the contrary.

9) I get sick of being accused of misrepresenting others statements and having my examples comparing reserve feats to spells and magic items be mostly ignored and leave these people to their own devices.

I will admit one error, however. I should not have compared these reserve feats to Diablo II. At least in that game, even the zappy attacks drain your mana, a finite reserve of points. In almost every work fantasy lit, magic is somehow taxing, draining, or otherwise limited in it's use. Even Dr Strange gets tired.

The game IS changing, and these feats take it a lot further down that path. If people doesn't want to see it or admit it, fine, they are welcome to their opinions. Just don't try to tell me I'm not entitled to my own.


----------



## Whizbang Dustyboots (Oct 23, 2006)

Twowolves said:
			
		

> The game IS changing, and these feats take it a lot further down that path. If people doesn't want to see it or admit it, fine, they are welcome to their opinions. Just don't try to tell me I'm not entitled to my own.



For the record, if it's an opinion, no one has to "admit" anything. You run to the safety of the word "opinion" when challenged, but you present yours as facts everyone else would be a fool to disagree with.

*Pick a stance.* Either it's incontrovertable fact that reserve feats and the warlock are the shape of 4E, or it's your opinion that these mark a bad direction for the game.

The reason you're getting so much heat is that you're playing both sides of the fence.

Add to that the fact that you insist that supplemental materials from one version of the game are automatically brought into the next version of the game _despite the fact that this didn't happen with 2E or 3E_, and it's no wonder you're getting slapped around a bit here.


----------



## Psion (Oct 23, 2006)

Whizbang Dustyboots said:
			
		

> Add to that the fact that you insist that supplemental materials from one version of the game are automatically brought into the next version of the game _despite the fact that this didn't happen with 2E or 3E_, and it's no wonder you're getting slapped around a bit here.




To be fair, while it's not automatically true, it's certainly a recognizable source for influences. For example, the much rued Attacks of Opportunity showed up in Combat & Tactics for 2e first.


----------



## Victim (Oct 23, 2006)

Yeah, but you can also see AoO in the rules for withdrawing and some of the restricted actions in melee in pure 2e.



> In almost every work fantasy lit, magic is somehow taxing, draining, or otherwise limited in it's use. Even Dr Strange gets tired.




Yeah, magic is often tiring in books.  However, so is swinging a sword.  DnD's tracking of fatigue in pretty much any edition is rather undetailed.  On the other hand, HERO style END tracking is a pain in the ass, so I can't see that I wish it were in DnD.

It's my opinion that we should stop talking about Reserve feats and instead talk about the rest of the book.  Is it just me, or is the evocation specialist feat for breaching energy resistance rather poor?  Since you actually change part of the damage into untyped stuff, in cases where damage is going to blow through the resistance anywary your total damage will be much the same.  35 damage vs Resistance 20 = 15 damage.  35 fire damage -> 25 fire + 10 untyped vs Resistance 20 = 5 fire damage +10 untyped damage.  Granted, it's going to make a big difference in how multiple damage packets go through resistance - scorching ray would hardly lose any damage oddly enough.


----------



## Crothian (Oct 23, 2006)

Twowolves said:
			
		

> Now you know why I quit posting to this thread




All evidence to contrary


----------



## Whizbang Dustyboots (Oct 23, 2006)

Psion said:
			
		

> To be fair, while it's not automatically true, it's certainly a recognizable source for influences. For example, the much rued Attacks of Opportunity showed up in Combat & Tactics for 2e first.



True. But that's a grain of sand on the beach of 2E options (especially later in the game's life). A bare handful made them into 3E in any direct form. (College of Wizardry sort of introduced metamagic, but not in any way resembling the 3E incarnation and, to be fair, even 1E had spells that accomplished a lot of the same things.)

There's so little carryover from options in one edition to the standards in the next that it's futile to point at an option and say "THAT, THAT RIGHT THERE is going to be in the next edition!" Unless, of course, you're working on 4E yourself, in which case, you'd be the last person to say anything of the sort.


----------



## Elemental (Oct 23, 2006)

Psion said:
			
		

> AFAIAC, any assertion about something being overpowered based on 1000 NPCs who just happened to pick this feat and gang up on a dragon is not too realistic of a test of what's balanced in a game.




Although it's a *hilarious* image.

If I were the dragon in that situation, I'd just polymorph into a human farmhand, and then let the bull into the field.


----------



## Felon (Oct 23, 2006)

Rystil Arden said:
			
		

> How about a Divination?
> "Where should we wait to ambush the dragon?"
> "Westman's Field disguised as sheep.
> As brightest dawn from night doth creep.
> To send the crimson foe to sleep"



This is representative of one of the major flaws in your arguement. It does not even cross your mind that a great wyrm would have defenses in place against such tactics. A blue wyrm has 17th level spells and a vast hoard of magic items. Mind blank is easy for him to come by. Much easier than it is for 5th-level wizards to obtain multiple castings of hero's feast and massmorph.



			
				Rystil Arden said:
			
		

> However, the fact remains that any effect that deals effectively-unavoidable damage is problematic.



Your definition of unavoidable is another huge flaw. Spell resistance and armor bonuses to AC aren't the sole factors that prevent "unavoidability", and a touch-based untyped damage attack is hardly "unstoppable". How about the dragon just boosts its touch AC, or casts greater invisibility, or mirror image, or throws up an antimagic field, or stays out of range, or boosts his hit points, or a host of other options at the its disposal? There are numerous established methods for ignoring spell resistance (conjuration school spells), for delivering untyped damage (consecrate spell/corrupt spell feats), and for giving attacks a high chance of hitting (truestrike). You're really just way behind the curve here.


----------



## BryonD (Oct 23, 2006)

Twowolves said:
			
		

> 4) ByronD asked me how it was based on literature.
> 
> 5) I explained how.
> 
> ...



This is what is known as a "lie".

In post 186 I said:


			
				BryonD said:
			
		

> Can you offer an ACTUAL example of how 1e or other editions were like Conan or LotR?
> The STORIES and SETTINGS were most certainly based on these things.
> The way arcane casters worked in play was VERY much similar to now.




That was my first statement on the topic and I immediately specified arcane casters.  (Which, funny thing, is EXACTLY the context you were referrign to within this discussion of new feats for spell casters.)

You then promptly refused to talk about ANY difference between 3E and prior system magic systems and completely abandoned the entire "paradigm shift" comment you previously made.  Instead, you continuously misrepresented any rebuttal of your paradigm shift claim as a claim that there was no literature basis.  

And now you are down to nothing let but silly and easily discredited lies.  Which sums it up pretty well.


----------



## BryonD (Oct 23, 2006)

Twowolves said:
			
		

> The game IS changing, and these feats take it a lot further down that path. If people doesn't want to see it or admit it, fine, they are welcome to their opinions. Just don't try to tell me I'm not entitled to my own.



NOONE is trying to tell you you're opinion.
But, asking for a basis for it is reasonable.  If you refuse to offer one, that will be taken into consideration regarding your opinion.

The game most certainly is changing.  I consider 3X to be vastly superior to prior versions.
However, the idea that there is some paradim shift going on in that arcane casters are moving away from old literature ideas does not stand up to much scrutiny.


----------



## Kaodi (Oct 23, 2006)

*In Response To...*

In my previous mad rambling, I mentioned using a druid using summon nature's ally in conjunction with reserve feats that use air, earth, fire and water. It was dismissed, perhaps rightly so, but since summon nature's ally counts as an air, earth, fire or water spell when used to summon the corresponding elementals, I was merely wondering if there was any mention in the text for reserve feats that expressly discounts spells that have a variable type. So, some people may come to the conclusion that you could in effect use a single spell to power a whole bucket load of reserve feats. This may be an incorrect interpretation of the rules, but is there any actual clarification, or is it going to be an issue for the FAQ or Errata?


----------



## Mouseferatu (Oct 23, 2006)

Kaodi said:
			
		

> In my previous mad rambling, I mentioned using a druid using summon nature's ally in conjunction with reserve feats that use air, earth, fire and water. It was dismissed, perhaps rightly so, but since summon nature's ally counts as an air, earth, fire or water spell when used to summon the corresponding elementals, I was merely wondering if there was any mention in the text for reserve feats that expressly discounts spells that have a variable type. So, some people may come to the conclusion that you could in effect use a single spell to power a whole bucket load of reserve feats. This may be an incorrect interpretation of the rules, but is there any actual clarification, or is it going to be an issue for the FAQ or Errata?




Those spells do not gain the energy type until they are _cast_. The Reserve Feats are based on spells you have _prepared_ (when dealing with preparation-based casters, like druids). Since they are not _prepared_ as energy type spells, and do not gain those types until they are cast, they would not suffice to power Reserve Feats.


----------



## Mouseferatu (Oct 23, 2006)

*blink*

Actually, I was just looking at the spells, and I realized that SNA lacks the "type changing" rules that the SM spells have.   

That seems odd to me. Why would _summon monster_ become a fire spell when used to summon a fire elemental, but _summon nature's ally_ wouldn't?

In any case, my prior answer stands; just substitute _summon monster_ for _SNA_.


----------



## BryonD (Oct 24, 2006)

Mouseferatu said:
			
		

> That seems odd to me. Why would _summon monster_ become a fire spell when used to summon a fire elemental, but _summon nature's ally_ wouldn't?



Heh, you could hand wave it as "it is just calling up part of nature" rather than an arcane control of the fire element......

But I'd think the better answer is "it is an oversight".


----------



## Eela6 (Oct 24, 2006)

Rystil Arden said:
			
		

> Let's say we've got a Great Wyrm Blue. The wizards can easily stand such that he's not going to take out very many in one breath weapon. If you assume large killings on the part of the dragon, that's fine too, though we may want to knock the wizards' number up to 50 in that case. 50 will kill the thing in two rounds without casualties and can easily do so in three rounds even losing 10 or 15 men per round.
> 
> EDIT: Based on your last edit, I think you've forgotten that I'm explaining why the force attack would be overpowered as a touch attack, not in its current incarnation as a non-touch.




Even as a touch attack, the Needle of Force is hardly overpowered, even in your overblown example. Let's take a Great Wyrm Blue Dragon, as you said. It casts as a 17th level sorcerer. It has 8th-level spells - four of them, to be exact. Let's give it three buffs - Persistent Scintillating Scales, Persistent Shield, and Extended Greater Mage Armor. This costs it a fourth-level slot and an  8th-level slot, as well as two feats. Since it has 13 feats, it's not a big deal. In fact, it doesn't need Mage Armor or Shield, there's just no reason why it doesn't have them - or a zillion other buffs for the matter.

This gives it a touch AC of 43 - and a flat-footed AC of 53.

Unless each wizard has an attack bonus higher than 23, they aren't hitting on anything but a natural 20. 50 Wizards will get an average of 2.5 natural 20s, but I'm going to be generous and say that they all get initiative, they're all within fifteen feet, and three of them manage to hit. They do... let's see, 22.5 damage in total. Which would be a big deal if it were more than 4% of it's hit points.

Since they're all within 15 feet of the Dragon, they've got to all be within 60 feet. The Dragon then casts Horrid Wilting.

Assuming they all make their DC 24+ fortitude saves, they still take an average of 29.75 damage. Since the average hit points of a fifth-level NPC wizard (assuming 14 constitution) is 24, they all die. I mean, sure, one or two might live. But they're fifth level, they don't have Teleport or even Dimension Door. They're fighting an enemy that has Limited Wish and thirty-eight hit dice.

Shiny, ain't it?


----------



## Kalshane (Oct 24, 2006)

I finally got the book today and have only had a chance to briefly skim through it so far. I do, however, agree with the assessment that making the Reserve Feat powers count as Supernatural is too much. It doesn't make a lot of sense to me from a thematic standpoint (mages use spells, not supernatural powers. "Hmm, this creature is immune to my spells. Luckily I can turn turn my latent magical power into something that seems very much like magic, but actually isn't. Ha, take that!") or from a balance one. I really like the Reserve Feat concept, but I think they're going to be considered Spell-like in my game.


----------



## Ashardalon (Oct 24, 2006)

Mouseferatu said:
			
		

> *blink*
> 
> Actually, I was just looking at the spells, and I realized that SNA lacks the "type changing" rules that the SM spells have.
> 
> ...




You mean that text?


> When you use a summoning spell to summon an air, chaotic, earth, evil, fire, good, lawful, or water creature, it is a spell of that type.



If so, it's part of the SNA 3 description (the first level where it can summon aligned creatures, but elementals start at SNA 2, oddly enough).


----------



## Mouseferatu (Oct 24, 2006)

Ashardalon said:
			
		

> You mean that text?
> 
> If so, it's part of the SNA 3 description (the first level where it can summon aligned creatures, but elementals start at SNA 2, oddly enough).




Huh. You're right. I just glanced at SNA 1, and was surprised not to see it.

Shows the danger of assumptions...


----------



## Felon (Oct 24, 2006)

Eela6 said:
			
		

> Since they're all within 15 feet of the Dragon, they've got to all be within 60 feet.



That's actually a point I've downplayed about Invisible Needle's lousyness; _on top of_ relatively weak damage, _on top of_ requiring a normal attack roll, _on top of_ being only a single-target attack, it also has a crappy range of 5 feet per spell level. Just lousy. Awful. Bad. All I can think of is that was genuinely intended to be invisible.



> Assuming they all make their DC 24+ fortitude saves, they still take an average of 29.75 damage. Since the average hit points of a fifth-level NPC wizard (assuming 14 constitution) is 24, they all die. I mean, sure, one or two might live. But they're fifth level, they don't have Teleport or even Dimension Door. They're fighting an enemy that has Limited Wish and thirty-eight hit dice.
> 
> Shiny, ain't it?



Well, I'm sure there's some 6th or 7th or 8th-level cleric or wizard or druid spell that can be cast as many times as necessary to protect a small army of wizards from horrid wilting, and so after a moment's deliberation Rystil will rule that adjusting the parameters of his scenario to allow for that poses no problem.   

Yes, Rystil, at this point I am giving you a little well-earned ribbing.


----------



## Kaodi (Oct 24, 2006)

*Still...*

Caster level bonuses stack though, don't they? So, it might be interesting to be a human druid 12 with spell focus (conjuration), augment summoning, borne aloft, hurricane breath, wind-guided arrows and summon elemental, using control winds and summon natures ally v... You could then summon air elementals at caster level 16, and with their augmented strength and constitution, they'd make even nastier whirlwinds. Also, the abilities from borne aloft and hurricane breath could be used while wildshaped, could they not? And depending on how hurricane breath works, may even be more effective using large forms. At the highest levels, I'd work towards getting that greater metamagic rod of maximize, and elemental swarm might just become very... wrong.


----------



## Victim (Oct 24, 2006)

The caster level bonuses from reserve feats are competence bonuses to caster level.  So they aren't going to stack.


----------



## Felon (Oct 24, 2006)

Kalshane said:
			
		

> I really like the Reserve Feat concept, but I think they're going to be considered Spell-like in my game.




I agree. They just went a little overboard in their thinking that the reserve power should be freely available with virtually no restrictions.

I'd say the reserve feats also probably merit some entry-level requirement, sort of like how heritage feats require you to take a useful yet not-so-great feat to begin with. Heck, the caster level bonus is arguably featworthy in and of itself.


----------



## Aus_Snow (Oct 24, 2006)

Victim said:
			
		

> The caster level bonuses from reserve feats are competence bonuses to caster level.  So they aren't going to stack.



But they do (the competence bonuses from individual reserve feats, I mean.)


I'm liking Complete Mage a lot. It's put even more fun into high fantasy D&D. 

I like the character options, feats, spells, items. . . even PrCs! And that's just so far.


----------



## boolean (Oct 24, 2006)

Kaodi said:
			
		

> I was merely wondering if there was any mention in the text for reserve feats that expressly discounts spells that have a variable type.



The general rules for Reserve Feats includes the following on page 37:

"Spells that do not have a descriptor until cast (such as the _summon monster_ spells) can't be used to gain the primary benefit of a reserve feat."


----------



## glass (Oct 24, 2006)

Psion said:
			
		

> To be fair, while it's not automatically true, it's certainly a recognizable source for influences. For example, the much rued Attacks of Opportunity showed up in Combat & Tactics for 2e first.



But the facing rules and specific-crit charts from that same source source didn't.


glass.


----------



## Psion (Oct 24, 2006)

glass said:
			
		

> But the facing rules and specific-crit charts from that same source source didn't.




I never implied they did.


----------



## Kaodi (Oct 24, 2006)

*Oh Well...*

Now that I know that the exploits I could think of off the top of my head don't work, I guess it goes to show that a lot of thought has gone into not making them broken. The only other I can think of is custom making a spell with multiple types, but in general, spells with multiple elements tend to have no element descriptor at all, don't they? Like Storm of Vengeance... Could be an Air spell, an Electricity spell, an Acid spell... instead, it has none.


----------



## Banshee16 (Oct 24, 2006)

Felon said:
			
		

> I haven't seen any small bad guy groups in published adventures that have 30 or more 5th-level wizards. It takes a very, very large city to amass that kind of force, and I imagine most of the wizard's guild would find something better to do that day, as they're not silly enough to think that just because they've each got these little 3d4 water pistols that the great wyrm is as good as dead. He's got a little more going for him than just SR and natural armor. Trust me, it's just not a very good scenario.




That king is making one heck of a risky bet that plunking the future of the kingdom's magical might within 20' of a rampaging dragon will work....he's betting that they'll resist the fear, and also betting that they beat his initiative.....either way, one little exhalation, and that army of mages is going to be a field of briskets.

Banshee


----------



## Banshee16 (Oct 24, 2006)

Rystil Arden said:
			
		

> That's because the baddies tend to be Fighters and Rogues more often, but most of them definitely have members in that number, even for small and relatively unimportant enemy groups that would be encountered in a level 7ish adventure (to scale it down just a bit--in a level 3ish SCAP adventure, a minor and relatively worthless group of goblins had ~10 4th-level Adepts and many more combat-centred goblins).
> 
> A dragon may have more going for it than SR and AC, but none of that will protect it from an at-will touch attack attack that deals force damage with no SR allowed (though remember, this is hypothetical, as currently we have a quite fine non-touch attack force effect).  Obviously it can sit in its lair behind layers of traps, but these guys would be effective in preventing it from going on the offensive.




How so?  If he comes out of his lair, he flies up to these 100 wizards, and breaths from 90' away before coming into the 20' range of the effect.  They wouldn't have a chance.

Banshee


----------



## Anson Caralya (Oct 25, 2006)

Shaele said:
			
		

> Umm. Does this imply that sorcerers can use Quicken Spell now?!? (I wouldn't think so, for balance reasons, but the thought is there). Even if not, still worth it just to get back to standard actions




This really bugs me.  I mean, this seriously, deeply annoys me.  How many years passed before sorcerers finally got a feat allowing full, unrestricted use of metamagic?  If this doesn't destroy game balance (and I believe it doesn't) then why, oh why, did it take us this long to get here?  Please, just explain this to me.  Why the $#&*% does Races of the Dragon have Accelerate Metamagic, which has dragonblood as a prereq and applies to only one metamagic feat, if nine months later we have Complete Mage giving us a feat which has the same application to any metamagic feat and only has Spellcraft ranks as a prereq???  Why cripple sorcerers in comparison to wizards for so long only to reverse it now?  [Stalking off fuming to stamp on Amazon boxes in the basement...]

Sorry, this is all in reference to "Rapid Metamagic."


----------



## Amy Kou'ai (Oct 25, 2006)

So here's a question.

The Enduring Potency portion of the Residual Metamagic feat allows you to cast a spell from your "daily allotment of spells" and then treat a scroll- or wand-casting in the next round "as if it had come from your daily allotment of spells," with respect to caster level and "any other effect".

Does that mean that, for example, I can buy a Wand of Magic Missile (1st), cast Magic Missile (9th), and then cast 9th-level Magic Missiles from the wand repeatedly?


----------



## Mouseferatu (Oct 25, 2006)

Amy Kou'ai said:
			
		

> Does that mean that, for example, I can buy a Wand of Magic Missile (1st), cast Magic Missile (9th), and then cast 9th-level Magic Missiles from the wand repeatedly?




No. It applies only to the _very next round_ after you cast the spell from your own list. So you could not cast 9th-level _magic missiles_ from the wand repeatedly; you could cast 9th-level _magic missiles_ from the wand _once_ for each time you cast _magic missile_ normally, and only if you did so in the immediate following round.


----------



## Amy Kou'ai (Oct 25, 2006)

Mouseferatu said:
			
		

> No. It applies only to the _very next round_ after you cast the spell from your own list. So you could not cast 9th-level _magic missiles_ from the wand repeatedly; you could cast 9th-level _magic missiles_ from the wand _once_ for each time you cast _magic missile_ normally, and only if you did so in the immediate following round.




Well, that's what I'd originally thought until I realized that it stated that the second casting is "as if it had come from your daily allotment of spells."  I was pretty sure what the intent was, though.


----------

