Talk:Spellbender (3.5e Class)

From Dungeons and Dragons Wiki
Jump to: navigation, search

It doesn't cast spells?

This is a most interesting class indeed, but you should make it more obvious that it can't actually cast spells. Perhaps add a sentence to the summary or something. Also, might I suggest a feat or other such option somewhere that lets you add more than one metamagic feat to a spell at a time? --Foxwarrior 18:58, May 28, 2010 (UTC)

I will definitely update the summary to point out that a spellbender can't cast spells. You are meant to be able to add more than one metamagic feat to a spell, if you have a high charisma (there's a section at the end of the bending section about that). I'll try to make that much more obvious. -Cedges 02:14, May 29, 2010 (UTC)


The Negate Spell bend is badly named, since you're not reducing it's effects to zero just flipping the polarity. I think renaming to Invert Spell or something else would help. An actual action denial ability that really does just murder spells (a la counter spelling) would be a nice ability for them to get early on so they have more to do against enemy spell casters before high levels. - TarkisFlux 00:14, May 29, 2010 (UTC)

Negate can mean invert, but this does conflict with how it's used in stuff like the SRD:Rod of Negation. I deliberately didn't include a counterspell, imagining a character who controls magic to her whim rather than simply abolishing it, but it was the basis around which everything else was balanced. 4 points/level is equivalent to a spell of the same level, so for that much you can double your side's power output via copy or quicken or (with about a 50% chance) destroy one of your enemies'. Negate is one exception to this; it is balanced based on being used offensively against an enemy's defense, if used defensively against their offense it's as good as 6 points/level, but it makes the spellbender slightly more effective vs clerics, which she is weak against due to their wisdom. Another exception is free spell, which costs more because it can add variety or be used to make the spellbender into a caster using items. I'm currently planning to rename this class (and the bends) so that they don't overlap Foxwarrior's Benders, and separate the bends out into a new class feature (spellbends, maybe, or metamagical turns?), and give the player more choices about when to get things like redirect spell, and a choice about getting an outright counterspell. Actually the spellbender is similar to the other benders in that she gains control over a domain, but the mechanic of her bends is quite different. The benders have selectable class abilities, like an a la carte sphere, whereas the spellbender has selectable ability components. -Cedges 02:14, May 29, 2010 (UTC)
Fair enough. I'll wait to see where it goes before commenting further. - TarkisFlux 04:40, May 29, 2010 (UTC)


I don't disagree that the class can get up to wizard level, but being only as powerful as your strongest level ally seems to not set it there. Unquantifiable might be a better call, since this would perform very differently in a fighter level game than any other wizard level character. - TarkisFlux 00:14, May 29, 2010 (UTC)

I placed this in wizard level based on a level 10 SGT with a bard. In a less than rogue level party it definitely becomes less powerful, or worse if facing an enemy caster of higher level. It almost automatically balances itself to the party, except in some campaigns it'd be really inadequate. -Cedges 02:14, May 29, 2010 (UTC)
I saw your SGT and didn't dispute anything in it, but balancing itself to the level of the party is not the same as Wizard level balanced. Auto-balancing is unquantifiable, because it means that the class doesn't bring anything itself and depends on what else is already there. - TarkisFlux 03:19, May 29, 2010 (UTC)