Talk:Spell Tenacity (3.5e Feat)

Balance Point
Fighter is extremely doubtful. I would be more inclined to say Wizard on account of the fact that you could use this to make blasphemy and similar spells extremely powerful. Unless, of course, for some reason this feat can't be taken by divine casters, and even then you could hypothetically replicate it with wish.

Secondly, and this is much more nitpicky although related to the above, you don't have any specified prerequisites. This is fine, if you want people to interpret it as anyone is able to take this feat. Otherwise I would recommend filling that bit in. - TG Cid 00:53, 26 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Indeed, without actual prerequisites, it means a level 1 caster could litterally double his damage output as easily as by taking this feat. I suggest adding some prerequisites (caster level, I guess?) to delay it a bit. -HarrowedMind 12:32, 27 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Well, except for the spells that go completely insane because of this feat, which probably shouldn't be allowed at Fighter level anyway, this feat grants a (usually small) linear increase in firepower, range, and duration, albeit a bigger one than weapon specialization. If weapon specialization requires level 4 and grants +2 damage, while this grants usually +3.5 damage and extras, it should require a higher caster level than 4. --Foxwarrior 19:17, 27 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Is it just me or is there something wrong with the formatting? As for balance point, definitely fighter level.  "Doubling damage at first level" aside, it's not really a huge issue.  Compare it to a wilder making a wild surge, except the cost is a feat instead of a small chance of failure.  And really, it only gets worse with time as wild surge grows, and this does not.  Looks fighter-level to me. -- Eiji-kun 01:07, 28 February 2012 (UTC)


 * And the bit about blasphemy and the other spells with caster-level dependent effects that can kill if your CL is high enough? Specific, sure, but also conceivable. - TG Cid 02:34, 1 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Indeed. I consider that to be a problem with Blasphemy though, rather than this feat. -- Eiji-kun 15:10, 1 March 2012 (UTC)