Heres what I feel is a fair question: If we were to strip away the flavor of the spell, and just look at it mechanically, is there any reason to say a homebrewed spell couldn't be created with the exact same casting time, requirements, and cost ... But have it grant Immunity to fire, or acid, etc.? Hell, make it one level higher even. It certainly works for the purposes of an Ambassador type spell, for travelling between planes.
I think those wouldn't be any less game-breaking then Heroes Feast. I think there are two reasons why those spells don't already exist:
1) It would really bloat up the spell list and one spell that just let you choose the damage type would probably be too strong.
2) I think they want you to have to take different prep measures for different kinds of fights. If the answer to every dragon fight was "Cast X Feast first," it would be a lot more bland (and take a lot less effort and thought) than having a different method for each type.
So if I were homebrewing a solution maybe cold prep requires finding the right gear. Maybe fire prep is a boon from an ice creature. Necrotic prep is a ritual. I think my players would enjoy hunting down the right tools for the job, and it's more rewarding to use when it took some effort to get.
So you feel Heroes Feast is a bit OP for it's level?
Heroes' Feast is a spell that reflects a 3.5e 'layer buffs before combat' play style, in an edition that has tried to get rid of that play style. It shouldn't exist.
So you would support the DM either nerfing it or even getting rid of it essentially? Interesting, I appreciate the input.
@scatterbraind - Yeah, that sounds like an interesting variation, a Ritual or Quest type "spell" to get a sort of Blessing or Boon. Along the lines of killing the Medusa to be able to kill the Kraken kinda thing.
So you feel Heroes Feast is a bit OP for it's level?
Heroes' Feast is a spell that reflects a 3.5e 'layer buffs before combat' play style, in an edition that has tried to get rid of that play style. It shouldn't exist.
But it does, which means the designers felt differently than you do.
Let's see here, 11th level caster to cast a 6th level spell. 1000 gp gem which is consumed every time it is cast. The effect is basically the same as a Periapt of Proof against Poison. So to make it "fair", the obvious solution is to increase the material component cost to a 2500 gp gem which is consumed per person it effects. Which would make it a virtual Potion of Poison Immunity. Yes, the spell has some other effects, which still makes it a better "value". But this is a quick and dirty fix to a problem which really doesn't need a solution.
Heroes’ Feast only confers immunity to poison, not to poison damage. These are different things.
If that was the intent, it would be written as "Immunity to being poisoned". It's certainly possible that RAI was that, but as written it's immunity to all effects that are classed as poison, which is somewhat vague because 5e doesn't actually have effect descriptors, which leads to occasional awkward phrasing such as Stinking Cloud, which it would be much simpler to just call '3rd level conjuration [poison]'
Acknowledging that the SAC says what it says about it, I wholeheartedly disagree with your assertion here; if the intent were to grant immunity to poison damage, it should specifically say "damage," like every other instance of damage resistance/immunity in the game. I'm not arguing with here; I'm just annoyed at the designers' laissez-faire attitude toward consistency of their mechanics language.
Acknowledging that the SAC says what it says about it, I wholeheartedly disagree with your assertion here; if the intent were to grant immunity to poison damage, it should specifically say "damage," like every other instance of damage resistance/immunity in the game. I'm not arguing with here; I'm just annoyed at the designers' laissez-faire attitude toward consistency of their mechanics language.
Dwarven Resilience grants Advantage on saves against Poison. Tell me what class of effects that actually works against...
I think that SagaTympana & Pantagruel666 are effectively in agreement, and certainly share a certain contempt with myself for the way the rules language is handled, particularly considering how the more recent editions were becoming extraordinarily precise - 5e has a level of regression within it.
i think your failing to take into account how rare this spell should actually be able to be cast considering the material component requirement. a gem encrusted bowl worth 1000gp shouldnt be something your party just casually has an abundance of. sure maybe they find one or manage to find someone selling one but they shouldnt have access to funds or the bowls were they can jut cast this every day without crippling the party funds. also if they arent doing it in a safe environment then punish them for the attempt similar to going to sleep in the fields without a watch.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
So you feel Heroes Feast is a bit OP for it's level?
I think those wouldn't be any less game-breaking then Heroes Feast. I think there are two reasons why those spells don't already exist:
1) It would really bloat up the spell list and one spell that just let you choose the damage type would probably be too strong.
2) I think they want you to have to take different prep measures for different kinds of fights. If the answer to every dragon fight was "Cast X Feast first," it would be a lot more bland (and take a lot less effort and thought) than having a different method for each type.
So if I were homebrewing a solution maybe cold prep requires finding the right gear. Maybe fire prep is a boon from an ice creature. Necrotic prep is a ritual. I think my players would enjoy hunting down the right tools for the job, and it's more rewarding to use when it took some effort to get.
My homebrew subclasses (full list here)
(Artificer) Swordmage | Glasswright | (Barbarian) Path of the Savage Embrace
(Bard) College of Dance | (Fighter) Warlord | Cannoneer
(Monk) Way of the Elements | (Ranger) Blade Dancer
(Rogue) DaggerMaster | Inquisitor | (Sorcerer) Riftwalker | Spellfist
(Warlock) The Swarm
Heroes' Feast is a spell that reflects a 3.5e 'layer buffs before combat' play style, in an edition that has tried to get rid of that play style. It shouldn't exist.
So you would support the DM either nerfing it or even getting rid of it essentially? Interesting, I appreciate the input.
@scatterbraind - Yeah, that sounds like an interesting variation, a Ritual or Quest type "spell" to get a sort of Blessing or Boon. Along the lines of killing the Medusa to be able to kill the Kraken kinda thing.
But it does, which means the designers felt differently than you do.
Let's see here, 11th level caster to cast a 6th level spell. 1000 gp gem which is consumed every time it is cast. The effect is basically the same as a Periapt of Proof against Poison. So to make it "fair", the obvious solution is to increase the material component cost to a 2500 gp gem which is consumed per person it effects. Which would make it a virtual Potion of Poison Immunity. Yes, the spell has some other effects, which still makes it a better "value". But this is a quick and dirty fix to a problem which really doesn't need a solution.
Acknowledging that the SAC says what it says about it, I wholeheartedly disagree with your assertion here; if the intent were to grant immunity to poison damage, it should specifically say "damage," like every other instance of damage resistance/immunity in the game. I'm not arguing with here; I'm just annoyed at the designers' laissez-faire attitude toward consistency of their mechanics language.
Dwarven Resilience grants Advantage on saves against Poison. Tell me what class of effects that actually works against...
A monk's Purity of Body grants immunity to poison without mentioning damage.
Canto alla vita
alla sua bellezza
ad ogni sua ferita
ogni sua carezza!
I sing to life and to its tragic beauty
To pain and to strife, but all that dances through me
The rise and the fall, I've lived through it all!
Or they failed at editing, which would hardly be a surprise. It's a direct translation of a 3.5e spell.
I think that SagaTympana & Pantagruel666 are effectively in agreement, and certainly share a certain contempt with myself for the way the rules language is handled, particularly considering how the more recent editions were becoming extraordinarily precise - 5e has a level of regression within it.
Edit skill check DC 15 :: Failed...20
i think your failing to take into account how rare this spell should actually be able to be cast considering the material component requirement. a gem encrusted bowl worth 1000gp shouldnt be something your party just casually has an abundance of. sure maybe they find one or manage to find someone selling one but they shouldnt have access to funds or the bowls were they can jut cast this every day without crippling the party funds. also if they arent doing it in a safe environment then punish them for the attempt similar to going to sleep in the fields without a watch.