Shardsfal Quest -- Power Spell, Spell Cleave

[Reese]

sorry, but i'm going to have to call you out on these two feats

they aren't metamagic feats, becasue they are not directly applied to a spell to modify the casting parameters. With the exception of the "sudden" metamagic line, which automatically applies a specific metamagic feat as a free action, all metamagic feats are used as part of the preparation of a spell, and generally effects the level of spell slot a spell occupies

they are, rather, general feats (or caster feats if you prefer)

also, with the Power spell feat, there is a class ability that has this effect called warmage's edge (warmage, miniature's handbook) and the effect boosts damage on a per-spell basis, not a per attack basis... (damage is divided as you choose amongst multiple missle attacks such as magic missile, for instance, not granted to each missile) i imagine that the ability was more balanced this way, and an ability that gives free extra damage like this should have some extra limits to keep it from getting out of hand

requiring the feat to be applied specifically to one class when chosen would also be a good balancing factor (the warmage's edge ability applied only to warmage spells cast) but that may be a bit much

otherwise, i am very much enjoying the three books i got yesterday;
shardsfall quest, mech manual, and 2nd age of walkers

[mythfish]

I don't feel that power spell is in any way out of balance. Maybe in the case of a high level wizard using magic missile I'd call it borderline. Being able to throw 5 magic missiles at up to 9 points each for 45 points of damage with no save and no to hit roll seems a touch harsh, but for most spells and at lower levels I think it's just fine.

Personally, I feel that generally when a feat and a class ability do more or less the same thing, the feat SHOULD be slightly more powerful. It's the reward a player gets for using one of a limited number of slots to acquire the ability as opposed to just getting it for free for being of the right class. It's when the warmage takes the power spell feat that you really have to worry about balance. There are an awful lot of feats out there that I would never take simply because there are better choices for my very limited number of available slots, and I don't think I'm even remotely a munchkin or powergamer. Well, okay, maybe remotely.

Mostly unrelated, I just had a cool idea for a class that has no inherent spellcasting ability of its own, but is able to get metamagic feats and apply them to others' spells.

[MagusRogue]

*snickers* you're in my game, mythfish. I got an eye on you for that powergamer comment. *snickers*

i don't find much wrong with them, either. it's generally good thoughts. might need some tinkering in the long run, but i doubt any of my players'll even consider it.

[Reese]

Personally, I feel that generally when a feat and a class ability do more or less the same thing, the feat SHOULD be slightly more powerful.

i'v found, personally, that ability like feats tend to be at the same or slightly lower power (especially class defining abilities made to feats)

such feats that mimic class abilities also tend to be available later that the original clas ability, becaue either of prereqs, attack bonus reqs, or spellcasting reqs (or even pain old character level reqs)

for instance, the stunning fist feat is available to monks many levels before a regualr character could take it, and monks have an innate bonus with it unique to their class

at the very least, i think restricting it's use to a single class (per feat spent to take power spell) would be fair (or require you to chose arcane or divine when taking it)

[MagusRogue]

actually, you find this opposite in some classes. Take the Artificer (from Eberron). It gains Craft Wand at 6th level, while a wizard may take the same feat with his 5th level bonus feat.

[Reese]

ah, so THAT's where that class is from, i was wondering why i didn't see it in the DM books...

*shrug*

most class abilities, though, become available before similar feats, or at the same point where the feat would ahve become available, in the case of abilities that mimic feats (and that would be a class granting a feat, not a feat granting a class ability, anyway)

[MagusRogue]

true, true.

[Reese]

and the majority of spellcasters cannot take craft wand until level 6 in any case, sice most casters gain feats every 3rd level just like the rest of the classes

wizards are the exception to this (wizards, and characters who are multiclass with non-caster class levels equal to a multiple of 3 +1)

[MagusRogue]

wizards are the most likely of item crafters, however. Remember that sorcerers really are more like half-dragon people, clerics are too busy healing, and druids too busy cleaning up the forests. With the exception of cloistered priests, clerics also are more martial and forward in their training, not apt to spending years pouring over tomes and practicing out formulae like a wizard would.

[Reese]

you realize that you're helping my side of the argument now, right?
(of course, i'm not familiar with the artificer class, but...)

item creation can be considered one of the defining traits of wizards since they are the class most prone to doing so; thus, any feat that grants the ability to create an item could be considered a class skill in much the same way certain rogue abilities have become feats (that is, all of the abilities rogues can take at 10th, 13th, 16th, 19th level...)

(hey, in 2nd edition, a wizard didn't need a feat to make a magic item, they just did )

[MagusRogue]

lol who said i was arguying by this point. *chuckles* didn't wizards need some kind of proficiency to make items in 2e btw? *been so darn long since I played 2e...*

[Reese]

mm... nope, you just decide you want to amke it, gather materials, and boom, item made

the book wasn't very clear, though, and i always thought you actually got XP (instead of spending it) for making the items

of course, i don't ahve my 2nd ed. book any more, so...

[mythfish]

I always thought the "spending XP to make magic items" thing was a little ridiculous. I guess I understand it from a balance point of view, but from the logical point of view it makes little sense. Oh hey, I've just crafted this cool thing I've never made before, but somehow I not only didn't learn anything from it, but I'm also farther away from levelling than I was!

But then, a lot of things about d20 just don't make sense when you apply logic to them.

[Reese]

mission accomplished: thread has been hijacked...

i dunno about the lack of logic; there's two factors that are mentioned with the XP cost that explain it nicely

the first is that the time spent crafting an item is time not spent training or improving the core skills of your class (except so far as is required for the crafting of items... that's all you are allowed to do durring crafting times that can extend to months of uninterupted down-time)

the other is that you are imbuing the item with magic, a small part of your lifeforce becomes the very animating force binding the magic to a permanent home, something that magic, in it's chaotic nature, does not appreciate or have easily done to it

let's face it, in the realm of fantasy, any rules can be explained away by the storytelling used to explain the natures of the universe

and, yes, it's also a game balance issue (not that classes are very balanced in a 1v1 nature anyway)

[MagusRogue]

dunno, classes are balanced when you use them correctly. I can make a rogue that'll slaughter any fighter or cleric, for instance. 3.5's alot better in balance than the original.

And i'm with Reese. When you make items, you're not actually doing anything but spending bland months crafting some item, and really not even thinking anymore as you move into automation mode. Then there's drawing magic to invest into the item, and consider your experience your soul (hence why negative-level monsters and spells hit you in your soul).

[mythfish]

And i'm with Reese. When you make items, you're not actually doing anything but spending bland months crafting some item, and really not even thinking anymore as you move into automation mode. Then there's drawing magic to invest into the item, and consider your experience your soul (hence why negative-level monsters and spells hit you in your soul).

I disagree. In many cases, when you craft a magic item you're probably doing something you've NEVER DONE BEFORE, and it involves messing with powerful magics to boot. Hardly the sort of situation you'd want to be in automation mode. Even if it is something you've made before, there are still opportunities to learn from it, as I'm sure any real world craftsman would tell you.

If you're a wizard, how is crafting magic items not training or improving the core skills of your class? It seems to me you'd learn a lot more about magic by creating a magic item you've not made before than by throwing around spells you've already cast a hundred times.

If you have to draw on your soul (experience points) to permanently invest the object with magic, then we are to assume magic comes only from inside a person, and is not an exterior force that is simply manipulated by the wizard. With that assumption, it seems more logical that wizardry is not something you can just learn; you either have the ability or you don't (and that sounds more like D&D sorcery to me). Philosophical arguments aside, if the case is that you have to spend xp to make the magic of an item permanent, shouldn't you then also have to spend xp to cast any spell with permanent duration?

The arguments Reese mentioned read to me like arbitrary justifications for the rule, not logical game-world reasons to have the rule.

Um, and I'm going to mention the power spell feat here again just so it seems to the casual reader that this thread is still on topic.

[Reese]

hehe, since you bring it up, most spells that are made permanent DO require a small expenditure of XP

as for casting spells costing XP, please note that i was describing the process of physically binding magic as somewhat different from manipulating it for a few moments of minutes; magic is a set or rituals (mostly performed in advance when you memorize the spells!) that bring about some change in the world, you're setting up a temporary path that the magic flows into at a minimal cost to yourself... very few spells are innately permanent, and of the ones that are, most of them do cost XP to cast (spells that transform or create an object are not permanent, they are instant and bring the object to it's new state or bring it into existance adn then dissapate, the object itself is typically mundane)

what i say would be costing XP is the permanent binding of a spell to an object, something that magic doesn't do (magic is like a loose girlfriend; it will go on a date with you, but it doesn't want to get maried and settle down) the XP cost is leaving a bit of yourself in the object that will keep the magic in place and functioning properly

and, yes, i think that certain classes that focus around item creation should have a reduced XP cost (or have it removed entierly) since creating an item would be perfect as a means of gaining XP for a class that this is a main occupation

[mythfish]

hehe, since you bring it up, most spells that are made permanent DO require a small expenditure of XP

Do they? Heh, that'll teach me to argue 3.5 without actually owning any of the core books.

you're setting up a temporary path that the magic flows into at a minimal cost to yourself... very few spells are innately permanent, and of the ones that are, most of them do cost XP to cast

what i say would be costing XP is the permanent binding of a spell to an object, something that magic doesn't do (magic is like a loose girlfriend; it will go on a date with you, but it doesn't want to get maried and settle down) the XP cost is leaving a bit of yourself in the object that will keep the magic in place and functioning properly

Eh, it still seems like coming up with the rule and then figuring out why you have the rule instead of deciding how magic should work in the system and then coming up with rules to define it. But I guess I'll buy that argument. Nice analogy, too. But if someone's XP is all it takes, are there ways you can spend someone else'd XP to do it?

I guess I was just spolied early on by Ars Magica, which has the most detailed and well thought out magic system I've ever seen.