User talk:Luigifan18/Forewarned is Foreguarded (3.5e Feat)

From Dungeons and Dragons Wiki
< User talk:Luigifan18
Revision as of 22:09, 29 October 2012 by Luigifan18 (talk | contribs) (Comments: No, I didn't intend for this feat to be near 100% accurate when you first got it.)
Jump to: navigation, search

Comments

There's a lot here that I don't like, but we'll start with the bonus size and spellcraft check first. You do know that the spellcraft check is 15+ spell level right? So with the minimum skill ranks (12) and intelligence modifier (+3) they have a +15 to their check. They automatically ID 1st level spells, and ID 9th level spells more than half the time (and eventually get to auto ID them too). And since it doesn't take an action, they can do it against every cast spell if they want. So... was the intent to give them +6 SR and save bonus against almost every spell that isn't cast in ambush against them? - Tarkisflux Talk 20:23, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

The intent was the idea that if you know how a spell works, you have a pretty good idea of how to defend yourself against it. Maybe the bonus can be halved against a spell that you don't know yourself? --Luigifan18 (talk) 20:44, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
... So, "yes" then? It was intended to give people bonuses against everything since they have a negligible (if not actually 0 because there is no auto-fail on 1 rule for skills) chance of failure? Because that is what it does. By level 17, 8 levels after you acquire this feat, you never fail to ID level 9 spells. If that mechanical effect is intentional, you might as well cut the check and simplify to just give it to them. The failure chance here is not significant at any level, so it's not adding very much other than fluff IMO. And if that mechanical effect is not intentional, then you need to rework your core mechanic because that is what you are doing, fluff intentions aside. - Tarkisflux Talk 21:52, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
No, the mechanical effect wasn't intentional. I just thought the effect was powerful enough that it justified some high prerequisites. I'll tone down the prerequisites so that this feat can be taken while there's still a failure chance, then. --Luigifan18 (talk) 22:09, 29 October 2012 (UTC)