Talk:Master Caster (5e Feat)

I noticed the comment on Green Dragons page and thought I'd look too. What strikes me the most is disadvantage against all your spells. Adding ability modifier to damage seems a mute and you get two spells, neat! I'll wait to be corrected, but like I said, disadvantage on all spells at all times....yeesh. BigShotFancyMan (talk) 07:21, 2 October 2017 (MDT)

Consideration

So BigShotFancyMan i just checked Green Dragons page.and he said, and i qoute. "

I read the feat as balanced how it is currently written. Like noted on the talk page, various other feats are twisted into your example above. This is the core of the problem.

I understand the feat to be a certain "rogue-wizard" magic. This is because of the disadvantage and the spell casting modifier damage bonus. For me, getting a spell is not really part of the feat.

If you want your feat title back, why not get rid of the extra spell, and change it to something like. "Choose one spell you know with a level-based progression. You may cast this spell at your highest level without capping the damage at a certain step. You may change this spell for another one by taking a long rest." --Green Dragon (talk) 00:17, 4 October 2017 (MDT)

" and i might end up doing his suggestion, and make it a single spell, that can be changed at every long rest. however i still want it to be based on the time you take it, and what spell levels you have access to; and would you be against, a cantrip and 1 spell of any level you have access to, if this is to be the combined feat of Cantrip master and Spell Master? --Justsomedndplayers (talk) 12:43, 5 October 2017 (MDT)

I'm not 100% of it just because the similarity of to magic initiate. I mean at one point you say you may take his suggestion (which I've mentioned before I support the idea completely) of just one spell then finish with making it cantrip plus appropriate level spell. I know the other benefits separate this feat from Magic Initiate but why not flavor it different too? Inherently, I don't see anything broken by adding the cantrip on as well, just the things I've mentioned in my comment that rub me the wrong way. BigShotFancyMan (talk) 13:10, 5 October 2017 (MDT)

well. Before hand it was only 1 first level spell. But a cantrip and 1 any level spell (you have access to the level of) does make some sense if i think anout this as a merged feat. If it rubs you the wrong way then test it out. In your game(s) for tye original, and currently proposed.

• 1 cantrip and 1 spell from any class
• Disadvantage on saving throws and damage reduction against your spells
• Change out able on long rest.
• You can now add your spell casting ability modifier(s) to spells if they dont add them already.

Hows that sound? --Justsomedndplayers (talk) 16:22, 5 October 2017 (MDT)--Justsomedndplayers (talk) 16:22, 5 October 2017 (MDT)

The feat should not give disadvantage on all saving throws against the user's spells. This is non-negotiable and I've explained why this is broken multiple times. As for the rest, give me some time to think it over. — Geodude671 (talk | contribs | email)‎ . . 16:30, 5 October 2017 (MDT)

Going to second what Geodude said. The disadvantage vs all spells is too much. TOO MUCH. I will step away at this time though. Everything has been said, admins are here, and I feel I am part of a Facebook post that just won't stop lol cheers on this. I hope to not see it on my down the long list of 5e "needs balance" stubs. BigShotFancyMan (talk) 21:14, 5 October 2017 (MDT)

For what it's worth, my original idea when merging them was for it to be a spell of any level, 0-9, without cantrips being separate. But if you think a cantrip should be allowed separately, that is fine too :) Just explaining my original intent.--GamerAim (talk) 06:03, 6 October 2017 (MDT)

Ironicly it was geodude who wanted it to be disadvantage on saving throws and damage reduction. Which green dragon himself was fine with Additionally its not much to put into effect. The only alternative i would consider is casting a spell with an acfion cost as a reaction or as a bonus action. So as far as im concerned, now your changing your minds on this feat. And i would rather it be deleted at this point because of how nothing i want for this feat is going to stay. And no comprimises on your parts will be done when i myself have compromised. --Justsomedndplayers (talk) 12:16, 6 October 2017 (MDT)

I wanted the feat to inflict disadvantage on only saving throws to avoid or reduce damage dealt by a spell, whereas it seems you want to inflict disadvantage on non-damaging spells as well, such as hold person. Please correct me if I am wrong. And I don't remember ever saying anything about damage reduction? That's not even a thing in first-party 5e; I do have a variant rule on this wiki but there's no DR in official 5e. — Geodude671 (talk | contribs | email)‎ . . 12:22, 6 October 2017 (MDT)

EDIT: Actually that's not true; the Heavy Armor Master feat effectively grants DR 3/magic. 12:30, 6 October 2017 (MDT)

No only to the damaging spells and spells that have saving throws and cause damage based on the save (Famous one: Fireball). and there are other-ways to get around hold person besides just resisting the hell out of it. but at the end of the day, it all comes down to the dice rolls. i had disadvantage against hold person before, and rolled well on disadvantage breaking it, or you can just ya know, counter/dispel. or damage the caster to break concentration. or just have a spell guard shield, oil of slipperiness, ring of spell turning, have freedom of movement or lesser restoration. hell ioun stone, absorbtion. your so worried about the hold person spell. hell some races naturally have advantage, like gnome,naturally against spells. so how is giving a feat, "opponents have disadvantage on saving throws, and damage reduction.against your spells" such a huge issue? hell if your solo lvl 1ing something then its not the feat man, its the person. because at the end of the day, preparation and luck (both as a feat and natural thing) decide how shit goes down. --Justsomedndplayers (talk) 12:59, 6 October 2017 (MDT)

"No only to the damaging spells and spells that have saving throws and cause damage based on the save"

Okay, I feel better now, as I did in fact misinterpret your proposal. Perhaps in the future you should try to word things more clearly and be more explicit.

I keep using Hold Person as an example because it's a low-level spell that is commonly encountered, but there are plenty of other spells that inflict debilitating status conditions on a failed saving throw, such as levitate, suggestion, bestow curse, fear, hypnotic pattern, slow, stinking cloud, banishment, confusion, polymorph, contagion, dominate person, and more. You'll notice I want my version of the feat to keep the disadvantage on saving throws against spells that deal damage like Fireball or Lightning Bolt, because I originally read this feat as being intended to be used by blaster sorcerers or evocation wizards, and I didn't feel that the increase in damage from disadvantage on those saving throws would be particularly game-breaking, whereas many of these non-damaging spells such as the ones I listed above can completely remove enemies from the fight if successful, regardless of how big their HP buffer is, or otherwise significantly impede their ability to fight effectively. — Geodude671 (talk | contribs | email)‎ . . 13:29, 6 October 2017 (MDT)

I am really worried about the free spells. I would change this to a specific spell optimization beyond its max level-values. Advantage against spells is too good as a feat, that's why it's in a race's option, but toning it down like now makes this usable for me. --Green Dragon (talk) 13:28, 6 October 2017 (MDT)

My version of the feat gives disadvantage on saving throws against only damaging spells like Fireball, and not against non-damaging spells like HOLD PERSON. This gives a boost to damage output (I want to say it's roughly a 50% boost, but I haven't run the numbers) while not allowing the user to abuse HOLD PERSON or other spells.

As for the free spells, I'd rather the spell grant only one spell that uses a spell slot, but other users want it to give one cantrip as well. I am against this but it seems the consensus is against me; it's not the end of the world if it gives a cantrip also. — Geodude671 (talk | contribs | email)‎ . . 13:43, 6 October 2017 (MDT)

So as it is right now, Disadvantage on spells like fireball which damage, but have a saving throw for damage reduction. 1 cantrip and la evel spell you have access to, changeable on long rests. And adding your spellcasting modifier(s) to a spell if it doesnt already

This is fine yes? Cause if so then i think we have resolved feat to be "balanced" --Justsomedndplayers (talk) 16:41, 6 October 2017 (MDT)

I grabbed this feat for last nights session as a play test on an NPC but as I was starting to use it, I noticed there is no information how to cast the spells you've chosen. I don't think the cantrip is an issue, as those are unlimited, but the 1st level spell needs to be clarified. BigShotFancyMan (talk) 08:21, 12 October 2017 (MDT)

My Revision

I feel the need to explain my reasoning for my edit to the page. As it was, the feat basically gave a free heightened spell metamagic on every spell, meaning that creatures have disadvantage on saving throws against debilitating effects like hold monster or banishment. I limited that aspect of it to inflicting disadvantage on only damaging spells, as that seemed to be more reasonably powered and in line with the intent of the feat, which is to allow the user to inflict more damage. I also limited them to learning one damaging cantrip, instead of any two damaging spells, to bring it in line with the Spell Sniper feat from the PHB.

Also, you mentioned people "just being able to take a metamagic feat." Metamagic is not granted by feats in this edition; instead, it is a sorcerer class feature, torn from the screaming hands of the most pampered brats of 3rd edition. I imagine there is probably a feat that grants it on this wiki, but only the sorcerer gets it using just first-party content. — Geodude671 (talk | contribs | email)‎ . . 10:43, 2 October 2017 (MDT)

I'm in favor of the changes although I think the intent for the 3rd benefit is to use your classes spellcasting ability modifier. Why did you add level restriction? SRD doesn't have any feats that way. Aside from human variant, there aren't many ways to take this feat before level 4 correct? BigShotFancyMan (talk) 12:11, 2 October 2017 (MDT)

I added the level restriction specifically to stop the human variant from taking it, because I felt that the feat would be overpowered at lower levels. The only other way to get comparable damage output using only first-party content is with use of the Undying Light Warlock patron from UA, which got revised later to restrict the bonus damage to only one damage type. To my knowledge other classes need to wait until 6th level (dragon sorcerer) or 8th level (some cleric domains). If you don't feel that was appropriate, feel free to change it.

I changed the spellcasting ability for the third benefit to mimic spell sniper. Again, if you want to change it, feel free. — Geodude671 (talk | contribs | email)‎ . . 12:24, 2 October 2017 (MDT)

Since your open to the idea, when I get to a PC I'll make the changes I asked about. I'll try to play test them and offer insight if it's too strong. I don't THINK it will be but for the sake of continuity I'd like to try it without level restriction. BigShotFancyMan (talk) 12:45, 2 October 2017 (MDT)

Comparing Spell Master to Cantrip Master, to solve its "balance issue"

So Cantrip Master- [[1]] Does the following, with the prerequisite- Prerequisites: The ability to cast at least one spell.

When it comes to Cantrips, practice makes perfect, and you've practiced to the point that few can match you. You gain the following benefits:

When you cast a cantrip that deals damage, you add your spellcasting modifier to the damage roll if you don't already.

Opponents have disadvantage on saving throws against your cantrips.

You learn one cantrip that requires an attack roll or saving throw. Choose the cantrip from the bard, cleric, druid, sorcerer, warlock, or wizard spell list. Your spellcasting ability for this cantrip depends on the spell list you chose from: Charisma for bard, sorcerer, or warlock; Wisdom for cleric or druid; or Intelligence for wizard.

Spell Master: My Last Edit Prerequisites: ability to cast at least 1 spell

You have cast spells so much that you have learned to add your personal strength and taste to each spell.

When you cast a spell that deals damage, you add your spell casting modifier to the damage roll if you don't already.

Opponents have disadvantage on saving throws against your spells.

You learn 2 spells that requires an attack roll or saving throw. Choose the Spell from the bard, cleric, druid, sorcerer, warlock, or wizard spell list. That you have an available spell slot for.

Your spell casting ability is the same as your normal spell casting ability for these spells.

--- Both add your spellcasting mod to damage

Both Have the disadvantage on saving throws against spells, Cantrip master is not unbalance apparently, even though CANTRIPS dont have slots, and spells do, so would it not be fair to give disadvantage on your limited spells vs your infinate spells?

so the argument of perma heighten spell is invalid because all this feat is, is an extention into your spells beyond cantrips. since at this time and before cantrip master is not marked with it being unbalanced.

if you want me to change it from

"You learn 2 spells that requires an attack roll or saving throw. Choose the Spell from the bard, cleric, druid, sorcerer, warlock, or wizard spell list. That you have an available spell slot for."

to

You learn 2 Spells that requires an attack roll or saving throw. Choose the Spells from the bard, cleric, druid, sorcerer, warlock, or wizard spell list. Your spellcasting ability for these Spells depends on the spell list you chose them from: Charisma for bard, sorcerer, or warlock; Wisdom for cleric or druid; or Intelligence for wizard That you have an available spell slot for."

i would be fine with this change, however the previous edits Geodude671 im not ok with. the prerequisite on this feat is the just needing the ability to cast at least 1 spell, i do want it to have a lvl requirement, as you put in place. so for now i am editing it. but i will put up a template to stop constant edits until then.

Hopefully this new version will be sufficient. --Justsomedndplayers (talk) 14:19, 2 October 2017 (MDT)

(Note: I typed the following message before I had an edit conflict with GamerAim and JSDP.)

Cantrip Master didn't have a template slapped on it because A) probably no one noticed, and B) to my knowledge there are no first-party cantrips that inflict debilitating status conditions, whereas inflicting disadvantage on saving throws against all spells makes it MUCH easier to inflict effects like the aforementioned Hold Monster or Banishment, which are particularly debilitating. The reason higher-level spells have limited use is because they are more powerful, while cantrips can be used at will because they are not particularly powerful, and are the spellcaster's equivalent of a martial character's weapon attacks.

When judging the power level of a piece of homebrew, to determine how balanced it is or isn't, you don't compare it to other pieces of homebrew. This wiki is notorious among the D&D community for having a lot of homebrew that is poorly balanced, overpowered, and/or broken (as in, it doesn't work), and comparing homebrew to other homebrew can and does result in massive power creep. You are supposed to compare it to the power level of the SRD, the core books, or all first-party content, because ideally this material is meant to be used alongside first-party material.

Inflicting disadvantage on saving throws against all spells you cast steps on the toes of the sorcerer way too much, as well as making a character way too good at debuffing. Additionally, your latest edit granting two spells also steps on the toes of the Magic Initiate feat, granting both more spells and at a higher level than it grants.

Additionally, in my opinion, this is an inappropriate use of {{Design Disclaimer}}. The design disclaimer is meant to be used to denote a piece of content that deviates significantly from precedent. I suggest you read Help:Precedent#If you deviate from precedent to better understand the purpose of the design disclaimer and how to use it properly.

To resolve the balance issues, I propose the following changes:

• Remove {{Design Disclaimer}}, as this is an inappropriate use of it.
• Make the feat inflict disadvantage on saving throws against only damaging spells, allowing the feat to not outclass Heightened Spell.
• Make the feat grant one 1st-level spell, to avoid stepping on the toes of the Magic Initiate feat.

I also am going to request dispute resolution on User talk:Admin.

— Geodude671 (talk | contribs | email)‎ . . 14:52, 2 October 2017 (MDT)

ok, Compared to Magic Initiate, which gives 2 cantrips, i see it fair that the feat gives you 2 spells, of any spell slots you have available. (maybe i will add, at the time of taking the feat, and those spells cant be changed out.)

Similar to Cantrip Master, which is currently balanced atm. so not outclassing magic initiates possible heightened spell at this time.

Also we can agree to disagree in this regard, to keep up the DD. i do see a possible edit war happening again, and i want to avoid that. so lets discuss it, before editing past this point. i am open to compromise, but you must be too.

--Justsomedndplayers (talk) 15:16, 2 October 2017 (MDT)

No idea where to comment, and sorry to poke the bear, but is there not a resolution here? I saw talk on Green Dragon's page that JSDP isn't happy and I'm sorry it isn't how you would want it. I'm not thrilled with every detail on the current version but I acknowledge it to be fair and balanced. If I use it, I'll just tweak the details in my personal binder. I hope you can see the importance of balance>what would be awesome/great. BigShotFancyMan (talk) 14:30, 3 October 2017 (MDT)

What changes would you like to see made to the feat? — Geodude671 (talk | contribs | email)‎ . . 18:24, 3 October 2017 (MDT)

At the time of taking the feat they can take 2 spells, not 1. From any level that they have available at the time. You add ths change then i will be satisfied. --Justsomedndplayers (talk) 03:23, 4 October 2017 (MDT)

Like I said above, I'm concerned about this feat outclassing the Magic Initiate feat. If we do decide to make your proposed change, how do you feel about changing the prerequisite to something requiring a certain level of spell slot, since those that take this feat are supposed to be experienced spellcasters? This would let Magic Initiate have the niche of both being available earlier and to more characters. — Geodude671 (talk | contribs | email)‎ . . 10:13, 4 October 2017 (MDT)

I think I was being asked, and it's just a preference thing. "You may use your spellcasting ability modifier for this spell" rather than tying it to the class spell list it comes from. And I am not sure if level requirement is still there, but removal of that. Green Dragon makes nice proposal for the spell choosing. BigShotFancyMan (talk) 19:14, 4 October 2017 (MDT)

Since you already done a lot by 1, changing its name so im no longer shown as its maker, 2 getting it locked to your preference. the only proposed condition i said was at the time of taking the feat, those spells do not get changed out. plus its damage dealing, and saving throw spells only.

which is enough of a restriction as it is, because if i could, i would take a healing spell from cleric if i could, but with this feat i couldnt.

so if they want to take it early they can, but it would be a waste to do so. instead waiting for higher levels to take spells from other classes that may give them that extra boost or options for damage types.

so here is how i see it, if your playing dnd, and you see this feat, and it says "at the time of taking this feat, you gain 2 spells from any class for any spell level/slots you have available, these spells cannot be changed out. so your limiting factor is:

• your level and spell level access.
• you decided spells are final. when taking this feat.

if you honor this, as i feel you should because like i mentioned earlier, that it felt Unfair to have my contribution taken, and replaced because of me just wanting to keep the feat i made as it was for now, until i personally play tested it with my group. and you not coming to an agreement even though i requested no more edits should be made until we talked it out. But that was obviously ignored; and i understand the wiki community has their own guidelines for "balance". but then again it almost feels dictator shipped where regardless of what the contribution is or request is of the creator, unless your a mod or admin, might as well go fuck yourself to be honest.

So as i mentioned earlier, i want it to have 2 spells, and the limiting factors where

• Damaging spell, and or saving throw spells only
• limited access based on your level and and spell slot availability (access to level of spells)
• And what ever you chose was final, not changeable (how you can change your spells out based on long rests and stuff.)

and the only benefits are ability to add your spell casting ability modifier to spells that don't already ad it. 2 spells and your spells just give disadvantage --Justsomedndplayers (talk) 12:32, 5 October 2017 (MDT)

What's the issue outclassing the initiate feat? Just asking too. My thought is this feat is Master Caster, not some initiate thing. So why not be slightly better, it does have a pre req on it. So, you could take Magic Initiate and then qualify for Master Caster. I think I am finally starting to understand JDSPs "balance theory" that you couldn't pick level 9 spell as a level one caster because you wouldn't have a spell slot for it. So I get that, and it would force the player to choose an appropriate level to take this feat. I still disagree with getting two spells, one is enough. So like he says, "you learn one spell that you have a spell slot available" or similar language. But the disadvantage on all spells is too much. BigShotFancyMan (talk) 07:21, 5 October 2017 (MDT)

Okay, I think I finally understand the reasoning here. Now that I've slept on it, I feel like granting access to a higher-level spell wouldn't be that bad: the main draw of the Magic Initiate feat is its cantrips; the extra 1st level spell/day is just gravy. I still feel like granting two spells is too much; let's stick with one spell for now, but feel free to make it grant two in your home game.

So, we want to change the first sentence of the third bullet point to "You learn one damaging spell that requires an attack roll or saving throw for which you have spell slots." Does that sound agreeable to everyone?

And to reply to JSDP's comment: I understand you're frustrated, but this is a wiki. You need to be prepared for other people editing the pages you create. If you truly do not want anyone to edit "your" page, you can move it into your userspace, where other users are not allowed to edit, except for administrators to remove content that breaks sitewide rules.

Now, that having been said, the reason I made a new page instead of moving the existing page had nothing to do with taking credit for someone else's work: I was merging the Spell Master and Cantrip Master pages together, like you expressed a desire to do, and I thought the name "Master Caster sounded better than "Magic Master." When I tried to move the page, I got 503 errors every time I tried, and the page just would not move, so I created a new page and made the old one into a redirect. How about I get someone to delete this page and we move the old page the proper way? Would that make you feel better? — Geodude671 (talk | contribs | email)‎ . . 10:31, 5 October 2017 (MDT)

honestly at this point it was settled, a cantrips is a cantrip so not super strong and disadvantage on a saving throwbto reduce damage is to much? I mean we already discussed this and agreed. A cantrip and level spell you have access to would be fine and only disadvantage lm a spell that deals damage and has a saving throw. (Fireball) but since irs being edited so much i just been keeping the one i like in my homebrewery. And share it with people. I just dont wantbto see this feat be a waste of a feat. This feat should be worth taking with enough pros that are equally matched by its cons.

--Justsomedndplayers (talk) 14:58, 14 October 2017 (MDT)

I'm sorry you feel that way, but I don't consider the current revision to be a waste of a feat. A spellcasting "striker", to use 4e terminology, would benefit greatly from taking this feat. And the current revision does give disadvantage against damaging spells like fireball, so I'm not sure what the complaint is there? Feel free to use your version of the feat, but do be aware that your revision of it is significantly more powerful than most, if not all of the first-party feats.

In the future, if you wish to avoid having other people edit "your" pages, please either ensure that the content you create is either of a comparable power level to the content in the core rulebooks or has a good reason not to be, or place your content in your userspace, where other users are not allowed to edit, except for administrators to remove content that breaks sitewide rules. If you do not understand balance, or you do not know how to use your userspace, I or another user would be willing to help you. — Geodude671 (talk | contribs | email)‎ . . 15:58, 14 October 2017 (MDT)

Cantrip Master

This appears to be almost identical to the Cantrip Master (5e Feat), so is there any way they could be merged? The only issue that would need to be worded around would be the third line (knowing cantrips/spells), but I don't see any reason why two nearly-identical feats should exist.--GamerAim (talk) 14:44, 2 October 2017 (MDT)

I guess now I don't need to go to admin talk to request dispute resolution. — Geodude671 (talk | contribs | email)‎ . . 14:55, 2 October 2017 (MDT)

I'm in disagreement on this. The two are different and having looked at Cantrip Master finally, it isn't balance (currently). Please don't merge. BigShotFancyMan (talk) 07:12, 5 October 2017 (MDT)

Disregard, I confused Cantrip Master with Cantrip Caster :( sorry BigShotFancyMan (talk) 07:14, 5 October 2017 (MDT)

Considered Merge

i have thought of that, but i wanted to contact the creator of cantrip master first, in a merge. to create a Magic Master, feat. i mainly made this feat, because of magic missile, and spells that do not add your spellcasting modifiers. (abilty, proficiency, bonuses from feats and item) but to be fair to all spells, i just would of wanted it to have the ability bonus. (unless everyone is ok with having the others added.)

Hopefully (talk) will contact or add imput in a possible merge that we could work on. but until then, as seperate feats, i think they are ok for right now, but thank you for reminding me, and recommending the merge again GamerAim (talk)

--Justsomedndplayers (talk) 14:58, 2 October 2017 (MDT)

metamagic feat

So Geodude671, when i said they could just take metamagic feat, i ment this [[2]] which is feat on the wiki. which you could take it, get heighten spell, and a spell. this also give you points to use. and as we all know, a sorcerers turn is not over until they say its over. so, this feat gives sorceres extra points, and choice of another metamagic, while mine, just simple disadvanage without choice. --Justsomedndplayers (talk) 14:49, 2 October 2017 (MDT)

Addressing Marasmusine's Concerns

User:Marasmusine added the {{needsbalance}} template to this page. As the page has been protected due to edit warring, I cannot fix the issues he brought up.

“

Doesn't adequately explain what happens to spells with multiple damage rolls. Do you add your modifier to each damage roll? If so that's really powerful. The saving throw feature is a bit dubious too, as strictly speaking you don't make the saving throw to "avoid or reduce damage", you make a saving throw against the effect of the spell (imagine a hypothetical spell in which if you fail the saving throw the caster can choose an effect, one of which is to deal damage... what happens?)

”

• Yes, the intention is that it adds the modifier to each damage roll. If you think that's too powerful, you can of course change it to apply only once per spell, but the warlock's agonizing blast adds to each damage roll, so there is precedent.
• Okay, I can see why the wording of the second bullet point might be ambiguous. Maybe we can just change it to "damaging spells"? As for the specific situation you used as an example, I would rule that if you failed the saving throw and the caster chose to deal damage with that hypothetical spell, the creature would retroactively gain advantage on the save.

— Geodude671 (talk | contribs | email)‎ . . 11:07, 3 November 2017 (MDT)

Mechanic Intended.

As it Reads. In the most simple of ways.

• When you cast a spell that deals damage, you can add your spellcasting ability modifier to the damage roll if you don't already.

(The entire reason i started this was so you could add your spell mod to magic missile. as well as other spells that dont add your mod to it. because why have a high mod and not be able to apply it. As Mentioned Earlier, There is Agonizing blast, but for simplicity sake, we could reword it to effect the Primary damage to the spell that is casted.

(if any additional damage is applied to spell, like elements, or whatever they do not get the mod boost.)so it would read. "When you cast a spell that deals damage, and it doesn't normally apply your spell casting ability modifier to the damage roll; you can now apply the modifier to the primary damage roll. for the spell. repeat spells like eldrich blast have the mod go to each, however any feature or ability to add a secondary damage. "like adding fire to eldrich blast) the modifier can only be applied to the primary damage. (force for eldrich blast's example.)) (so eldrich blast is 1d10 force damage, and you have an ability that adds 1d6 fire damage to any spell you cast. only the 1d10 would get a +X) not the 1d6.

• Opponents have disadvantage on saving throws to avoid or reduce damage dealt by your spells.

(Example Fireball: Dex save to reduce Damage. This just makes the opponent take disadvantage, which is fair for a caster. This does not mean that it gives disadvantage on spells like hold person, or dominate person. It just gives a disadvantage to a spell with a saving throw to reduce the damage.. this wasn't a big issue earlier because their are ways to negate this.

Secondly; this doesn't include feeblemind because you take damage, then make a save to avoid reduction of intel and charisma, this is not a spell with a save to reduce damage. so it doesn't count. )

• You learn one damaging cantrip and one damaging spell of 1st level or higher for which you have spell slots. Both spells must require either an attack roll or saving throw. Choose one of each such spell from the bard, cleric, druid, sorcerer, warlock, or wizard spell list. Both spells must come from the same spell list. Your spellcasting ability for this spell depends on the spell list you chose the spell from: Charisma if you chose the spell from the bard, sorcerer, or warlock list, Wisdom if you chose the spell from the cleric or druid list, or Intelligence if you chose the spell from the wizard list.

(this is the like metamagicion. except you can learn a higher level spell from a different class. instead of just a cantrip.)

so how many times do you guys think this needs to be edited when it only does 2 things, and gives access to more spells --Justsomedndplayers (talk) 13:31, 15 December 2017 (MST)