User talk:Tarkisflux/Dabbler in Spellcasting (3.5e Feat)

No Necromancer?
Title says it all, really. - MisterSinister 04:52, 18 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Probably not. It's intended to be utility casting effects (blasting line not withstanding), and necromancer casting is mostly offensive. Plus, I don't want to make myself cry writing up a half caster progression for a necromancer. - Tarkisflux Talk 07:12, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Still early, but it seems a tad too powerful for Moderate level
Maybe it's just me, but having a feat with essentially no requirements other than character level 3rd seems a bit too strong. I know it's still in its early inception, but it seems to fit nicely on the Rogue level (particularly if chosen essentially to provide what another class lacks). Even if it is, by nature, half spellcasting (or rather one-fourth spellcasting, as half the amount of spell levels and "half" the amount of spells doesn't usually lead to exactly half the amount of spellcasting; if the character has half-CL then it's one-eighth spellcasting...). It just pings me as too powerful for one feat (unless it's to par with Tome feats, in which case it can range to not at all to just fine). I presume the limiting factor will be the lists of spells, but I see a natural way to hinder it; split it into 5 feats, in which the requirement is "cast spells of X level" except for the first. Maybe allow the first to grant Spellcraft as a class skill for all your skills, as well. While it may seem a lot of investment, it won't be that much if dealing with Fighters (they get less general feats, but if they only care for Fighter feats they won't notice the change at all. Another thing that bugs me is how it doesn't work with ALL spellcasting classes rather than a subset of them. Sure, you don't want to give more power to Clerics and Wizards because it's mostly for Dilettantes, but how about existing half-spellcasting classes who get shafted if they multiclass into a more "martial" PrC? Unless you're planning another feat for them (and exclusively for them, though you've mentioned you dislike the idea of half-casting on a class, hence why you see no problems placing it into a feat), they get nothing. I'll be observing this, though, because it intrigues me how it can fall in line with Dragonmarks and also how it can be developed as per Incarnum feats. That, and how it may open towards a Psionic or Mystery-using form of Dilettante. - T.G. Oskar 05:40, 18 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Well, I was already planning to break it up into 5 feats in a chain (much as I dislike feat chains), each of which would be moderate level. You could spend a feat at 3rd level to get a few cantrips, and 1 at 6th to get a few 1st level spells, and so on. It's why the table is broken up already, I'm just going to do the work on one page and move it around later. Each feat would also add the new level to your class spells, so you don't get wand use before you get spell use. And CL is intended to scale at half character level, capped at the max level of the progression granted by the feat. Since you could be getting useful things at those levels instead of a few utility effects (shock trooper, robilar's, etc.), I'm pretty confident it will work out balance wise with those tweaks, which aren't represented here just yet. I wasn't planning on granting spellcraft or concentration as class skills, though I suppose I could throw them in with cantrips to make the initial feat less useless. Along with a retroactive skill point adjustment for any half-ranks a character might happen to have.


 * A feat that granted half casting classes full advancement when they took a class that didn't advance any other spellcasting would be fine. I thought about writing it yesterday or the day before, just haven't done it yet. But I didn't want to build it into this because it would be too wordy and weird, and it didn't fit with the reduced spell lists I was doing. I also haven't figured out the balance of it yet, since it implies that a 1 level dip in a half casting class and a feat is worth a half casting progression (as long as you don't have another progression). That said, if you want to beat me to it, feel free. - Tarkisflux Talk 07:12, 18 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Balance regarding Shock Trooper/Robilar's/Domain feats might be debatable. Comparing one iteration of the feat with the end of a small feat chain where all its constituent parts are actually useful will lead to think that getting the feat is weak, but when doing a side-by-side comparison (Spellcasting Dilettante 1 vs. Power Attack/Combat Reflexes, then Spellcasting Dilettante 2 vs. Shock Trooper/Robilar's Gambit), the feeling seems to be less toward "weak" and more towards "sacrificing vertical progression for horizontal progression". It still depends on the feat lists, because stuff like Fireball or Lightning Bolt may not seem fair compared to those feats (or Domain feats), but the reverse is true when you add in Alter Self, Haste, Dispel Magic or even something unassuming (Pyrotechnics?), or when you get choices that synergize with your build (Enlarge Person comes to mind). Half CL won't make it all the more useful, but in some occasions a high CL isn't exactly necessary (for example, if the spell last minutes per level). In my case, I prefer to depend less on feats (particularly with classes that have small amounts of feats) and more on direct alteration. It's a bit more complex (you have to essentially homebrew the class from scratch, but with stuff like Shining Blade of Heironeous or Defender of Sealtiel a fix doesn't hurt them), but the result is more satisfactory since it essentially affects the classes you want (instead of the classes you don't) and bypasses the problem of a power boost without some effort. I'll leave you to do it, but I can drop ideas if you want. - T.G. Oskar 07:33, 18 June 2012 (UTC)


 * I'm not actually sure if this is a serious work or a proof of concept sort of thing yet. And it's definitely not intended to fix any classes out there, because I don't think half casting matters enough to do that. Feel free to toss out ideas though. - Tarkisflux Talk 08:36, 18 June 2012 (UTC)