Wikia

Dungeons and Dragons Wiki

Talk:Improved Extra Spell (3.5e Feat)

9,567pages on
this wiki

Back to page

Balance Point Edit

Looks more like Unquantifiable to me--after all, on one hand someone could pick up Dancing Lights (the cantrip) with this feat (a monk-level example of the use of this feat), while another caster could gain a wizard-level spell, which would make the feat in that case wizard-level. --Ghostwheel 04:59, January 12, 2010 (UTC)

If we assume that people are actually using the feat the way it was designed, they'll be picking up wizard-level spells. Doesn't make the feat wizard-level though, because it doesn't mean it's as powerful as the reference wizard-level feats. (Which it isn't.) Surgo 05:01, January 12, 2010 (UTC)
Eh, I'd say (for example) glitterdust is wizard-level even as a level 3 spell. Same with polymorph at its higher level. And then there's the planar binding series; stick those on a warmage and optimize it correctly without too many other feats, and you're pretty deep in wizard-land, I think --Ghostwheel 05:12, January 12, 2010 (UTC)
Sure, but what I'm getting at is there's no transitive property between balance points. A feat that lets you pick up a wizard-level spell isn't necessarily a wizard-level feat. Surgo 13:35, January 12, 2010 (UTC)
This argument illustrates, for me, the difference between tier one and tier two, or between wizards, sorcerers (and rogues, via UMD), and so on, wherein the wizard has access to spells ad nauseum, whereas the sorcerer (and the rogue) have access to the same level of power, but are much more limited in their scope (although I understand the counter argument of a wizard level flash in the pan still being wizard level). One of the troublesome (or great, I suppose, depending on your perspective) things about our balance points is that for our purposes the top two tiers are more or less condensed into one. Although I am not totally sure, at the moment, as to how I would quantify this feat, a more obvious example of a wizard level feat of this ilk, although it is not quite as flexible, would be the Tome-wrought Devil Preparation and the other, similar feats requiring A Feast Unknown. Granted they offer more than just added spells (and the freedom of choice is taken out of your hands), but by contrast this looks quite tame. -- Jota 16:18, January 12, 2010 (UTC)
And at the same time, this feat has the potential to unbalance a rogue-level game all by itself if you use it to pick up very specific spells (you know the ones I'm talking about), which is the one of the definitions of a wizard-level feat IMO. That said, let me make an analogy with a feat that's already Unquantifiable, Leadership. On one hand, the DM might pick the cohort, and give the character who took the feat a commoner (probably not going to happen, but just for the sake of this example). In this case, the feat would probably be Monk-level. On the other hand, if the character picked up a blasting, double-wand-wielding, metamagic-triggering, fraction-cost-crafting artificer, Leadership could easily be wizard-level (or beyond). Isn't that the reason it could be unquantifiable, because its level of power rests solely on what the character picks? Same with this feat. --Ghostwheel 17:39, January 12, 2010 (UTC)
Erm, a Rogue can already pick up any of these wizard-level spells himself with a scroll. Surgo 17:47, January 12, 2010 (UTC)
Except they the scrolls can easily be taken away from him or never granted in the first place. That kind of restriction lets a DM sunder/whatever the scrolls, allows them to make buying more impossible, make it so that characters can't find copies of that specific spell in scroll-form, etc, while for this feat the new spell becomes an inherent part of the character and can't be really stripped apart from the DM saying, "No you," and either banning this feat or banning a specific spell from the game. If the reason that wizards are wizard-level isn't because their strong spells are inherent and can't easily be stripped (apart from taking away their spell component pouch I guess, but you know what I mean), then I'm not sure why they are. Or else, you can take a look at almost any trick a straight wizard gets and say, "a rogue can do it too with UMD". So that argument doesn't work so well... --Ghostwheel 17:59, January 12, 2010 (UTC)
Under the DMG rules, magic items are available to be bought period if you go to a place with the proper wealth, and the nonexistence of a scroll should be assumed to be the equivalent of the banning of a feat or spell. Just because you can exploit some big trick (which rogues can do) doesn't make you wizard level. If we want to pursue this argument further, which I imagine we do, it'll have to wait until I get back from class. Surgo 18:04, January 12, 2010 (UTC)
According to the DMG, sticking his head in a bucket of water will bring a Frenzied Berserker from -10000 to -1 HP. In practice, both for this rule and the above, in short it's the DM who says, "Yes, you found it," or "No, you didn't find it." Though that's going off on a tangent, so let's bring it back for a moment; In essence, the power of this feat is variable, depending on what spells are allowed, which spell the player chooses, and how the spell is used. It could in theory introduce wizard-level stuff into a rogue-level game (giving a warmage wizard-level spells, for instance) or be a feat that's burnt if it's used to pick up "something flavorful" as so often seems to happen amongst "hardcore roleplayers" who subscribe to Stormwind Fallacy. In the end, just as Leadership is, the power of this spell rests completely on what's chosen, with no set balance level in and of itself, which is why I think the Unquantifiable balance level would be best for it. (And stop acting like Unquantifiable is a badge of shame! :-P) --Ghostwheel 18:30, January 12, 2010 (UTC)
Could we perhaps have a 'variable' or 'dependent' tag then (only as powerful as the resultant choice)? This wouldn't have to replace 'unquantifiable' as there is still a place for that. On the other hand, assuming a 'reasonable level of optimization,' it might be fair to call this wizard level. I can see it going either way, to be honest. This is one of those things where applying the system to feats is awkward. -- Jota 18:42, January 12, 2010 (UTC)
I'm sorry but reverting to "in the DMG you can do the bucket of water trick" is not a valid reduction in the balance point system, because any rules argument can be reduced to that and in that case we don't have rules to begin with. As for the rest of the argument, I'm not taking this feat assuming variance in spells allowed. I'm taking it, assuming that you can take any spell you damn well choose. In which case it might stack up to Quicken Spell (the Rogue benchmark feat), but not Divine Metamagic (the Wizard benchmark feat). And one more time, there is no transitive property for balance points. Wizard-level in terms of feats and wizard-level in terms of classes have nothing to do with each other. The only thing you can assume from balance points is relation to the reference. Surgo 22:00, January 12, 2010 (UTC)
So, in equivalence, you're saying that every spell out there is rogue-level if it were one level higher and you needed to spend a feat for it? That sounds... not right at all :-/ --Ghostwheel 22:33, January 12, 2010 (UTC)
Uh, no, that's not what I said at all. In fact, that's almost the opposite of what I said. I said that there is no transitive property for balance points. A wizard-level spell and a wizard-level feat are different things. A feat that gives you something wizard-level is not necessarily, by itself, wizard level. The only thing you have to compare it to is the reference feat for that balance point. Surgo 22:49, January 12, 2010 (UTC)

Around Wikia's network

Random Wiki