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

Ratings

	Eiji-kun opposes this article and rated it 0 of 4.
	How did I miss this stinker? Others have addressed the details, but I'll just sum it up as so much tl;dr.

Ganteka Future opposes this article and rated it 0 of 4.

This is another one of those cases where you've got a mess of edge cases and circumstantial modifiers, but here we've got that coupled with really irregular bonuses which also have weird scaling modifiers and edge cases. Tack on the clunky prerequisites and special cases and this is all no, not in this form. There might be something here, but I'd never allow it and neither should you. This should be sandboxed.

	Surgo opposes this article and rated it 0 of 4.
	tl;dr. No, really. Way too fucking long and way too complex prerequisites. Clean this up.

Quey opposes this article and rated it 0 of 4.

When I first saw this feat, I exclaimed, "Feats should not be this long!" I mean, really. Way too many prereqs, way too many modifications to how the benefit works, and the special has way too many combinations of things. Make the mechanics simple so that it doesn't require a lookup for every use. Only the "normal" section is really done well. If you want to make this really work, and make sense, there's a lot to do. I'd suggest getting rid of the Knowledge requirement (why should arcana help you with divine spells, or nature with any spells?) and the feats. Maybe just require improved counterspell (or whatever it is). And yeah, as it stands, you're looking at +6 to all spell saves (and SR, which makes no sense) for a feat. Taken together, this falls flat.

Tarkisflux dislikes this article and rated it 1 of 4.

I don't buy the premise of the feat, and see no reason why spending a half second standing there figuring out what is coming is any sort of benefit when you don't have much time more than that to deal with it. Yes, the feat tries to fluff it up a bit, but it just doesn't work for me. Something with a cast time longer than 1 action I could see that argument applying to maybe, but the time scale here is just to short to be relevant IMO. But the fluff is a rather minor concern, and not why I really dislike this feat. I can get past fluff, but not mechanics. Since there is no action to ID a spell with spellcraft and the check scales at half the rate of your likely skill investment, you can gain the bonus on every spell in the round. If you have an immediate action to spend, it's pretty much a give that you'll succeed on the check against any spell you're likely to see. If you don't, it's much less likely (particularly if you don't know the spell), but "much less than pretty much a given" still means that you're reasonably likely to succeed on the check. So, lots of large +6 bonuses floating around that I don't think the game really needed. The prereq line is a mess, and offers 36 different feat and skill combinations to get into it. Really. The special block is also a mess, and scales the already large bonus of a type you probably didn't have. And then offers you extra bonus abilities if you meet new prereqs on top of that. The latter is an interesting idea actually, but not one I can get behind in this multiple benefit path format.

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)

So... it's intentional for you to outgrow the failure chance? And for you to auto-ID 9th level spells as soon as you acquire them? - Tarkisflux ^Talk 22:20, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Yes, it's intentional to eventually outgrow the failure chance. Not to already be well on your way there when you first take the feat! And I didn't realize that you could auto-ID 9th-level spells at the same level that you became able to use them - I thought the Spellcraft DC was higher than it actually was. (Too much time around epic spells, I suppose - have you seen their DCs? I made Rod's Boon and the "Excellent Trainee" feat chain primarily to make those more manageable!) --Luigifan18 (talk) 01:20, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

<Tangent>I've seen the Epic DCs, but never spent much time playing with them in an actual game. But that was years ago, and I've pretty much written off everything over level 20 as a "big unworkable mess that isn't worth worrying about" (Eiji's in progress work not withstanding). So I don't really worry about them much anymore.</Tangent>

Anyway, I had a thought that might be helpful. Make the bonus cost an immediate action, so most characters are limited to 1 per round. It's still a big bonus and they're still extremely likely to get it and there's still a bunch of stuff attached to it that I don't think necessary or useful, but that at least limits it a bit more than the skill check does and may impact them in other ways. Alternately, you could let them have a 10' move as an immediate after IDing a spell so that they can just get out of the way instead of worrying about bonuses and whatnot. - Tarkisflux ^Talk 02:01, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

I just had a better idea, which I've just implemented. If you have to recall information in a big hurry, isn't it harder to recall that information? So, I decided that this feat increases Spellcraft DCs. You can use an immediate action to offset the DC increase a bit. --Luigifan18 (talk) 02:50, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Personally, I don't like that Eiji plans to completely remove epic spellcasting. But I'll have to wait and see what he actually replaces it with to pass judgment. --Luigifan18 (talk) 02:54, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

As a Scaling feat

Would this be better? Forewarned is Foreguarded [Skill] (flavor text) Benefits: This is a skill feat that scales with your ranks in Spellcraft.

• 0 ranks: You gain a +10 bonus on Spellcraft checks to identify a spell being cast.
• 4 ranks: As long as you are not flat-footed, you gain a +4 dodge bonus to AC and a +4 resistance bonus to saving throws against spells that allow spell resistance.
• 9 ranks: As long as you are not flat-footed, you gain +2 SR (or SR 8+LVL, whichever is higher)against spells that allow spell resistance.
• 14 ranks: As long as you are not flat-footed, you gain both evasion and mettle against spells that allow spell resistance.
• 19 ranks: As long as you are not flat-footed, you can choose to ignore the effects of one spell that allows spell resistance per round.

- Fluffykittens

Yes. Yes it would. - Tarkisflux ^Talk 02:53, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

...I tried making a scaling feat once. It was a mess to get everything sorted out, and the page still looks kinda untidy. Plus, if I use the cleaner Tome format, that restricts the progression patterns I can use and automatically associates the feat with the Tome, which I feel like I shouldn't do without the permission of its authors. It's a cool idea, though. I like this feat as is, but perhaps I can use this idea as a Tome-style variant, as soon as I figure out how to work within the engine. --Luigifan18 (talk) 02:57, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

The Tome authors have explicitly said that they don't care who makes what with their work. There is rather a lot of Tome homebrew here that is not written by the original duo. So if that was stopping you, it shouldn't. The more fixed structure is certainly a stronger reason not to do that though. - Tarkisflux ^Talk 03:31, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Streamlining Time

Forewarned is Foreguarded [General] You notice the enemy wizard's gestures and realize that he's casting finger of death. As the black ray arcs towards you, you focus your life energy around your vital organs to shield them from the spell's effect. The ray strikes true, but you stay standing. You grin and say, "That was too easy", then promptly bring your foe down with a phantasmal killer before he can respond.Prerequisites: Spellcraft or Psicraft 8 ranksBenefit: You get a +3 insight bonus to Spell Resistance and Saving Throws against spells you successfully identify, except when you are flat-footed.

You can also use this feat to defend yourself from psionic powers in the same way. Normal: Without this feat, identifying a spell or power being used against you does nothing to help you defend yourself against it (except for perhaps enabling you to counterspell).

There. Essentially the same. As one of the versions you had it at, anyways. --Foxwarrior (talk) 03:04, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

...It is simpler, but I'm pretty happy with the feat the way it is. I suppose I could eliminate some of the prerequisites, but... no, I don't want to rework the psuedo-scaling all over again... *sigh* --Luigifan18 (talk) 03:14, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

It's not about the prerequisites. It's that when I have to present a lot of homebrew to the DM, it's a lot easier to present something that's three sentences long instead of three paragraphs long for the same thing. Surgo (talk) 03:23, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Also, there's no really amazing way to sort through feats, so every time you make a character you have to read at least 10% of the feats at that balance point. Until you've essentially memorized every feat, I suppose. --Foxwarrior (talk) 03:28, 30 October 2012 (UTC)