Talk:Dynamic Potential (3.5e Feat)

Ratings

	Enigma favors this article and rated it 4 of 4!
	Going to take this as a biotechnician soon. Looking forward to it

Luigifan18 favors this article and rated it 4 of 4!

I simply love the idea of this. It helps soulmelds and non-full spellcasters a great deal. I've always felt that the spell DC system was a bit too prone to falling behind anyways; lower-level spells should still be able to remain useful in high-level games, especially when they lack higher-level counterparts, and they are much too prone to falling behind entirely at epic levels. And soulmelds just plain get shafted, well, well before epic levels. I wish I could more-than-favor this. It's just so good.

	Foxwarrior is neutral on this article and rated it 2 of 4.
	In one way, this is a feat solution for a variant rule/ACF problem. In another way, if you try really hard, you can find situations where the save DC being lower is actually perfectly reasonable.

	Aarnott likes this article and rated it 3 of 4.
	I wish this didn't have to be a feat (that is, the game was designed with this mechanic in mind). Either way, a feat is a good way to make this rules fix in games that don't have it houseruled right in. It can allow a character to make something their schtick for an entire adventuring career.

	Havvy dislikes this article and rated it 1 of 4.
	This should be a general rule rather than a feat.

	Leziad likes this article and rated it 3 of 4.
	Great feat, a sure investment for many classes.

Objection!

That's a reason for dislike? Meh. -- Eiji-kun 03:28, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

That is actually a pretty weak reason to dislike an article Havvy. I call shenanigans. - Tarkisflux ^Talk 03:41, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

I, on the other hand, consider it a legitimate, if under-explained, one. Simply-put, this should be part of the rules as-said, not something you have to invest a feat in. -MisterSinister 09:47, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Certainly it should be. But since it isn't. I figure this is more versitile. If the DM is playing a game where everyone has this by default, he will give everyone this by default. And for those that don't, this gives high level PCs the end they need over their non-augmented fellows in keeping their DCs up. For these games, this is a definate advantage.

I do object to the dislike. I could understand if he thought it was a bad idea to run DCs like this, but rather the complaint is 'this isn't free'. And that's... well, weak. -- Eiji-kun 09:58, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Havvy's not even saying he dislikes the idea here. He's saying it doesn't go far enough, and he dislikes it for not being his preferred solution to what he sees as a problem (which I actually don't even agree is a problem, I should probably write that rant someday). So for those games who don't think about making it the default or who don't agree that it should be the default (like, well, mine), would having this be better than not having it at all? A dislike suggests that it shouldn't be allowed, while a neither or a qualified like suggest that it's not ideal but better than not having it at all, both of which seem closer to Havvy's actual position. - Tarkisflux ^Talk 19:17, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Fair enough on the reasoning, but how could having a 9-point DC disparity ever be acceptable? Unless you believe low-level spells should become invalid over time (which is something I am vehemently against). - MisterSinister 19:48, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

This isn't really the place to get into that. Maybe I'll get a short rant posted later. - Tarkisflux ^Talk 20:47, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Balance

Is this really a High-level feat? I doubt that giving Moderate-level classes level-appropriate save DCs would make them overpowered. I suspect it would for Low-level classes, though.

Should I be saying High-range or High-point instead? --Foxwarrior 01:42, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

I'd say unquantifiable. On one hand, you've got it on something... like, say, Mind Thrust (scaling DC, always does 1d10 damage), on the other you've got Glitterdust and at that point you can win the day with a level 2 spell that scales to its most powerful DC. --Ghostwheel 02:19, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

It's only unquantifiable if you have no reason to expect your higher-level spells to be better than your lower-level ones. Glitterdust only makes sense in your example if there aren't any better level 7 spells you could be casting instead (Assuming that you're level 13 or higher, obviously). Would you say that there are weak classes who are only weak because their SoDs are always saved? --Foxwarrior 02:28, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Honestly... I think it actually might be better than a lot of higher-level spells that require saves. The majority of spells that are "better" than it usually don't have a saving throw, like Solid Fog, or buff yourself into some unspeakable monster, like Shapechange. I would definitely take Glitterdust over Flesh to Stone, Phantasmal Killer, Finger of Death, or many similar spells. So does that mean it would be unquantifiable? --Ghostwheel 03:31, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

My general guideline for feat balance is that you should consider whether it's better than the alternatives available at each balance point, then pick a balance point such that characters at or above that point generally don't regard it as the only rational choice. If no High-level or weaker classes get glitterdust, then it doesn't really matter that this feat is awesome with glitterdust (albeit still only a little bit better than Heighten Spell if you really like glitterdust that much), and you should be considering how it improves the Warmage's evocation instead.

...Stupid Bards. --Foxwarrior 03:47, 14 June 2012 (UTC)