Talk:A Feast Unknown (3.5e Feat)

From Dungeons and Dragons Wiki
Jump to: navigation, search


RatedNeutral.png Eiji-kun is neutral on this article and rated it 2 of 4.
I like the idea. The idea of necromancy being feats over spells is both cool (they are, in a way, like "item creation") and allows mundane Frankenstiens to exist. I should like this, but I can't. The problem is two-fold. One is how Tome handles undead itself, and the other is how it handles the undead limit. It's as your Cha mod, and per feat, which has the problems as spoken of below. I rather like the old pool of undead, it's both simplier and more fitting IMO. The CR limit helps prevent abuse anyway. Because of that, it's down to dislike (or would, keep reading), which is a shame because using old pools of undead for all of your necromancy would bring this to a neutral or even a like.

Unlike wrapping of the ages, the ability to eat your enemies boosts this back up to a neutral.

RatedFavor.png DanielDraco favors this article and rated it 4 of 4!
I'm a big fan of necromantic creation feats, and this is a quite nice one.

RatedDislike.png Synar dislikes this article and rated it 1 of 4.
Not even mentionning the healing aspect or the scent buff which are further free bonus, the core of this feat is broken. You can take this feat at level 1 and create and control (in addition to any control pool) up to maybe 5 ghouls with a good enough charisma bonus. At level one. This means your feat is more powerful than the entire party. And this is not even speaking of the fact that ghouls can have spawns of their own. And by level 3 you can upgrade to ghasts, with the same problem. Lets compare it to the spell create undead (spell level 6th) ([1]), shall we? To create a ghoul, you need to be level 11 at least. 11. Compared to 1. To create a ghast, you need to be level 12. Furthermore, the creation process take one hour (for one undead) (as opposed to instantaneous or sstandard action? This is not written), costs money (as opposed to being free), and does not give you control nor any additional undead pool (as opposed to cha mod number of undead). This feat possess potential, but the creation process need to be explained in more details, the undead pool may need some rework and most importantly the prerequs should be higher, either for taking this feat or creating undeads. At low levels this is simply broken.

(Scrap the part about the spawn undead abilities or the creation process as I clearly can't read (too lazy to browse the original source and thought it was homebrew) but it still is too powerful

There's actually a Tome of Necromancy template for ghouls, but it does still have issues at level 1. Surgo (talk) 18:36, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
RatedDislike.png Ghostwheel dislikes this article and rated it 1 of 4.
What Synar said, at very low levels this feat is extremely strong. It might suck later, but that doesn't make this feat any better, much like the Artificer (which has the opposite problem, and which FrankTrollman derided as extremely poor design throughout its entire progression). On the flipside, if you rule that the ghast/ghoul keeps its level or if you create a ghast out of some high-CR monster, then this is as broken as Leadership and just as bad at mid-levels.

Simple fix?[edit]

Just make the maximum CR of the undead you create equal to your class level -2. That should supply enough of a buffer to not make it too overpowered. I suppose you can still pump your Charisma to unreasonable levels, but at the very least you won't be walking around with a squad of zombies the same CR as you. . Even then, I would give it at least a High balance point. --Sulacu (talk) 21:15, 1 August 2014 (UTC)


Anyone oppose increasing the balance level of this feat? Would lower me from an oppose, certainly. Unquantifiable might even be proper in this case since it can basically be Leadership at many levels. --Ghostwheel (talk) 20:08, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

I don't see a problem with boosting it to High or Unquant. The initial moderate was added by you anyway. - Tarkisflux Talk 23:34, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
Wait a minute, Ghost. You added a balance point to this article and then proceeded to give it an opposed rating largely based on its balance point? That is a little bit of a faux pas, don't you think? --Sulacu (talk) 01:20, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
It was almost 5 years ago, when we were doing the "add balance to things that don't have it" push after the initial split. Ghost did a lot of those (thanks again!), so having one balance error and forgetting that you did it isn't something I'm going to fault him for (even if it is a bit amusing). - Tarkisflux Talk 16:41, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
That's the short of it. Wasn't even worth replying to. --Ghostwheel (talk) 17:19, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
DislikedSynar + and Ghostwheel +
FavoredDanielDraco +
NeutralEiji-kun +