Beating a dead Arcadian Pony

What conditions would prove you wrong?

I'm going to list what I think the conditions are, please tell me if I miss anything.

To prove the point wrong a feat is needed that is:
A. Form an official WOTC 3.5 source.
B. Contains a specific benefit to the character possesing that feat.
C. Contains a specific penalty to the character possesing that feat.
D. That penalty must not be something that can be turned off. An example would be the power attack feat where a player can choose not to use power attack.
E. That penalty must not be something that can be completly negated. However if the ability penalized is not used that does not count as being negated because the penalty could arise later in game play.

Are these reasonable terms?

I was, I quoted the pages.

Yeah, the second quote.

In the discussion of weather or not a feat could have penalties as the Planewalker feats do and still be built along lines that have already been demonstrated in WOTC official material there has been issued challenge from Xan to prove him wrong by submitting a feat that demonstrates these types of penalties. Here I submit the Shadow Weave feat as a feat that does just this.

Player's Guide To Faerun: Page 43
Exact text of the feat:

A. Form an official WOTC 3.5 source.
- Yes. The Player's Guide to Faerun is a WOTC 3.5 source according to the 1st paragraph on the 1st page of that book.

B. Contains a specific benefit to the character possessing that feat.
- Yes. Paragraphs one, two and five all give benefits to the character. One allows a character to access the Shadow Weave. Two grants a +1 increase to saving throws and caster level checks for the character when casting spells from the enchantment, illusion, and necromancy schools. This bonus applies for spells of those schools from any source, arcane or divine(see D&D 3.5 PHB pg 169 paragraph 3) since this is a general feat and does not specify arcane, divine or a specific spell caster class.

C. Contains a specific penalty to the character possessing that feat.
- Yes. Paragraphs three and four both contain penalties. Paragraph 3 reduces the effective caster level for evocation and transmutation for the character. Paragraph 4 removes the character's ability to cast any spells with the light descriptor regardless of school.

E. That penalty must not be something that can be completely negated. However if the ability penalized is not used that does not count as being negated because the penalty could arise later in game play.
- Yes. The penalties above are never completely negated as long as the Shadow Weave feat is present for the character.
- A specialist wizard character who takes evocation and transmutation as his prohibited schools is still penalized through the restrictions pertaining to casting spells with the light designator. As well that character may take levels in another spell casting class that would not have any schools restricted and the penalties to those schools would apply to the other spell casting class. I say may above because I have been unable to find a final ruling on the issue of weather or not restricted schools apply if a character multiclasses in another class that grants spells from a different list. The PHB is not specific and I am currently awaiting a response from WOTC help. However it does not affect the penalty restricting spells with the light designator.
- Also it is known that outside of the specific feat text the nature of the Shadow Weave may reduce a user's sanity if they are not a worshiper of Shar. In effect this is another penalty but does not count as a specific one.

Gods help me for wading in on this but... here goes.

Natural Heavyweight
(Planar Handbook, pg. 40, which makes it clearly WotC and 3.5e)
It's a feat that may be taken at any level and you can't turn it off once you've taken it.
Benefits: Carrying capacity is doubled, +2 circumstance bonus on Climb and Jump checks.
Drawbacks: -2 penalty on Balance, Ride, Swim and Tumble checks.

This fits every single one of the criteria set for this debate. The only way to reject this example is to pile on additional constraints.

Please explain.

Sorry, I was exhausted and had to sleep for a bit.

Here is one way you can nullify the -2 penalities:

Acrobatic: +2 to Jump & Tumble checks
Agile: +2 to Balance & Escape Artist checks
Animal Affinity: +2 to Handle Animal & Ride checks
Atheletic: +2 to Climb & Swim checks

as the penalty is a -2 for the four skills in question, they cancel one another out. However, the easiest way is to just not take the feat and get a bunch of bags of holding or other magic so you can carry double your normal carrying capacity without needing this feat.

I'm sorry - and after this - certainly hatchet burying will occur.

But my local Guvner says 2 + -2 = 0 and 2 + 0 = 2 and 0 < 2.

I've followed this debate for a long time, and strong language aside, there have been good arguments made on both sides. I'm coming into this fresh and without bias. I just want to try my hand at Xan's challenge.

The point of all this, of course, is proof-of-concept. Xan's asking us to show that WotC has a game mechanic that is similar to what we are using for the factions. It's been established that the mechanism chosen for PW will not be changed now, so this debate is largely academic, but if you enjoy a good debate, then it's a valid topic. The caveat being that such a debate needs to remain friendly and not spill over into other threads.

Hmm. Drawbacks that can't be overcome or compensated for? That's a tall order. How 'bout this one...

There's a feat in Complete Arcane called Mage Slayer.

Prerequisite: Spellcraft 2 ranks, base attack bonus +3.
Benefit: You gain a +1 bonus on Will saving throws. Spellcasters you threaten may not cast defensively (they automatically fail their Concentration checks to do so), but they are aware that they cannot cast defensively while being threatened by a character with this feat.
Special: Taking this feat reduces your caster level for all your spells and spell-like abilities by 4.

That's a huge drawback -- it's clear that WotC is willing to apply major downsides to feats. 4 caster levels lost for ALL of your spells, all of the time. 4 caster levels gone from all of your spell-like abilities, all the time. Ouch. Could you overcome it? Well, the feat is available to 6th level wizards. A human 6th level wizard gets 2 feats at 1st level, another at 3rd, a bonus feat at 5th, and takes Mage Slayer at 6th. He gets 13,000 gp worth of gear/money/treasure. I don't believe it can be done but you're welcome to try.

That does not nullify. That merely compesates for. A character can take all those feats and if they don't have the Natural Heavyweight feat they will be better off in those areas than if they had the Natural heavyweight feat. The negative penalties still apply and are still in the equation. Also if you didn't have to compensate then you wouldn't have to spend those feats to compensate which would free them up for other uses.

In short. Compensation is not nullifcation. The penalty is still there even if it is compensated for. If you are very near-sighted but can correct it with contacts you are still near-sighted.

EDIT: Whoops, looks like there's another page. :oops:

I was afraid this would happen. Here's the feat again. I'd really like the next post to come from Xan. I want him (as the originator of this challenge) to consider the feat on its own merits, unclouded by others' opinions.

"Well, it's been a week and no reply. Guess that means I've successfully met the challenge."

Enzo starts digging a large hole, about the size of, say, a pony...

Okay, to examine "Mage Slayer" will take multiple posts and a bit of time as I'm swamped with creative writing work for school, a playtesting group for my RPG, and I still haven't finished my book that's due 8/1/05.

The first detail that seems to have been overlooked is in the footnote attached to the feat in the feat list:

"A fighter may select this feat as one of his fighter bonus feats."

Granted, that's not enough to prove the intent of the feat as anyone can still take it based on the requirements listed. The requirements for this feat makes it unavailable to wizards until 6th level. For fighters, they can take it by 3rd level. There is a minimum of 2 ranks in Spellcraft to have this feat, a cross-class skill for fighters. The application of Spellcraft by wizards is such that not maxing it out could be a disadvantage for the character in terms of DCs for saves vs. spells cast by wizards who don't maintain their Spellcraft at its highest possible level.

The second clue we have as to who this feat is aimed at is in the flavor text:

"You have studied the ways and weaknesses of spellcasters and can time your attacks and defenses against them expertly."

This wording is stragetically-minded. The timing of an counterstrike is something a nonspellcaster would do.

The third clue is found in two feats that muse Mage Slayer as a prerquisite: Pierce Magical Concealment and Pierce Magical Protection.

"Your firece contempt for magic allows you to disregard the miss chance granted by spells or spell-like abilities."

and

"Your contempt for magic is so fierce that as a standard action you can make a melee attack that ignores any bonuses to Armor Class granted by spells."

If you're intent on taking a feat chain that describes your hatred for your class' most important abilities, then there's a chance that you need to reexamine the character's motivations. However, if you just want to be able to prevent another caster's ability to cast defensively, you can negate the effects of Mage Slayer by taking Practiced Spellcaster:

"Your caster level for the chosen spellcasting class increases by 4."

In this case, you negate the level loss by Mage Slayer.

I didn't know you considered the text of a feat's benefit to be flavor text.

Who the feat is aimed at is (a) impossible to prove and (b) irrelevant. Whether, in your opinion, it makes more sense for a fighter to take "Mage Slayer" or a wizard or a cleric or a bard or a paladin makes absolutely no difference.

You never actually articulated this point, but I think I'll fill it in for you: you believe that, since the feat is so clearly intended for pure-combat-no-spellcasting classes, it is not restrictive for them.

You can never prove, even by deconstructing each sentence in the feat, what class it was "intended" for, if (unlikely) the game designers would be so self-restrictive as to make feats for one class only. Certainly, trying to claim that the strategic or tactical diction means that only a non-spellcaster would take it is ridiculous. Anyone can take a feat like that.

The only thing you've brought up that is an argument based on rules is the idea that it requires both combat capacity (as represented in the BAB requirement) and magical knowledge (as represented by the Spellcraft requirement). But this makes no difference, either. Fighters can take cross-class skills. Characters can multiclass warrior classes with spellcaster classes. Classes exist that have good BAB progressions and have Spellcraft as a class skill. Wizards can be 6th level.

You could take Practiced Spellcaster to undo the effective caster level penalty to one spellcasting class. You'd still have penalties to spell-like abilities and to any other spellcasting class. But you'd still have to use an additional feat just to compensate for the penalty associated with this first feat.

But none of this really matters, because even if your arguments were true, and the feat were used only by people who didn't have levels in spellcasting classes, according to stipulation E, "if the ability penalized is not used that does not count as being negated because the penalty could arise later in game play." Therefore, Mage Slayer beats you.

Like the example wizard victim of this feat, you have no defense against it, and every move you make draws another hit from the opponent.

You haven't proven that this feat doesn't have a counter, Rhys.

By the way, how many feats has WotC published?

Hello! How many times do I have to point things out to you people?

Please, everyone. I don't want to take over the thread, but at the same time, I want to win this challenge fair and square. I can only do that if Xan and I participate in a calm debate. Right now Xan's addressing my offering. Please allow him to do so, and please allow me to defend myself.

I believe that Mage Slayer will stand up to Xan's requirements, but by stepping in, you affect my ability to control the line of reasoning and keep the debate focused on the relevant issues.

Humbly and respectfully,

...

Just waiting patiently [grin]

You're a busy man. I've got it.

And I'm the mechanical engineering lead on a multimillion dollar construction project with an accelerated schedule. I work 60+ hours a week. I'm a busy man too. This is North America in the 21st century... we're ALL busy. If you're too busy to participate in a discussion, why start it up in the first place?

I said I was a patient man, but I'm not prepared to wait until June 7th to hear your response, Xan.

I've met your challenge. Everybody can see that, plain as day. Take five minutes to write the post acknowledging that I did meet all the requirements of your challenge. Then, after you've done that, you can spend the next three months coming up with a challenge that we CAN'T beat. Or you can spend the next three months preparing a long essay explaining why this challenge doesn't mean anything. I don't care.