Difference between revisions of "Talk:Harrier Mage (5e Feat)"
Ghostwheel (talk | contribs) (Added rating.) |
Gr7mm Bobb (talk | contribs) (→Hopeful Counter Argument: new section) |
||
| Line 4: | Line 4: | ||
|reason=Way too powerful compared to other 5e feats. Basically this emulates sorcery points without having an actual cost. | |reason=Way too powerful compared to other 5e feats. Basically this emulates sorcery points without having an actual cost. | ||
}} | }} | ||
| + | |||
| + | == Hopeful Counter Argument == | ||
| + | |||
| + | In response to Ghostwheel. Ok, so your argument is that this behaves too closely towards what Sorcery points can accomplish for a Sorcerer? I disagree. Instead I'd like to point out that the 2 bullets provided offer limited but potent boons that I'd expect any magic user to be able to learn if they wanted their spells to have more effect in the event of a "whiff". This is why elemental master provides damage penetration and spell sniper allows for ridiculous distances to be attained on spells. The redirect and reclaim functions of the feat consume the users precious Reaction that is normally reserved for an attempt at survival, so if the mage is willing to "go ham" on a target they have to commit to the idea. The redirect is preformed with limited range and if that range is honestly an issue dropping down to 10ft might be a decent option to reign in some latent power. As for reclaim, it consumes not only the users reaction to reclaim the spell, but it also occupies the users concentration. This means it will shunt aside anything that they are currently occupied with and it leaves the reclaimed spell vulnerable to being smacked out of the mage. For the second bullet, it was designed to create a mechanic for "spell penetration" to a target without mussing with numbers or the balance of the bound accuracy system. Based on previous material released by WotC via UA and published works, it has come to my attention that it should read that it provides Disadvantage in the presence of advantage only.--[[User:Gr7mm Bobb|Gr7mm Bobb]] ([[User talk:Gr7mm Bobb|talk]]) 22:07, 22 December 2017 (MST) | ||
Latest revision as of 05:07, 23 December 2017
Ratings[edit]
|
Ghostwheel opposes this article and rated it 0 of 4. |
|---|---|
| Way too powerful compared to other 5e feats. Basically this emulates sorcery points without having an actual cost. |
Hopeful Counter Argument[edit]
In response to Ghostwheel. Ok, so your argument is that this behaves too closely towards what Sorcery points can accomplish for a Sorcerer? I disagree. Instead I'd like to point out that the 2 bullets provided offer limited but potent boons that I'd expect any magic user to be able to learn if they wanted their spells to have more effect in the event of a "whiff". This is why elemental master provides damage penetration and spell sniper allows for ridiculous distances to be attained on spells. The redirect and reclaim functions of the feat consume the users precious Reaction that is normally reserved for an attempt at survival, so if the mage is willing to "go ham" on a target they have to commit to the idea. The redirect is preformed with limited range and if that range is honestly an issue dropping down to 10ft might be a decent option to reign in some latent power. As for reclaim, it consumes not only the users reaction to reclaim the spell, but it also occupies the users concentration. This means it will shunt aside anything that they are currently occupied with and it leaves the reclaimed spell vulnerable to being smacked out of the mage. For the second bullet, it was designed to create a mechanic for "spell penetration" to a target without mussing with numbers or the balance of the bound accuracy system. Based on previous material released by WotC via UA and published works, it has come to my attention that it should read that it provides Disadvantage in the presence of advantage only.--Gr7mm Bobb (talk) 22:07, 22 December 2017 (MST)
