What changes would make Reserve feats more worthwhile?

[Coidzor]

Preferably without stepping on the Warlock's or DFA's toes.

Or if it steps on the Warlock's/DFA's toes, then what changes would be necessary to maintain those?

So a recent thread (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?515104-Reserve-feats-what-am-I-missing) has gotten me thinking about this subject again.

So far the only real thought I've had has been to basically give them Warlockesque damage scaling of 1 damage die for every 2 caster levels or 1 damage die for every 2-4 caster levels in addition to damage dice equal to the level of the spell slot being held in reserve or one's highest uncast spell (slot).

Though the thought of changing them even more drastically so that they're not keeping a spell slot in reserve and instead are just spending a feat for a scaling magical trick struck my mind as well.

[J-H]

I think some of them are generally worthwhile. The ones that require regular attacks should probably change to ranged touch, though.

You could give them a damage dice bump (d6->d8->d10) at levels 12 and 18, and add similar scaling for non-damaging reserve feats (increased range, duration, flight speed, or size of the elemental summoned).

[Cosi]

Reserve feats are only really worth it if you're in a relatively low optimization environment and expect long work days. And that's true basically regardless of how good you make them. In a higher optimization game, you can rely on minions or buffs to carry you through extra encounters. If you work day is short, you're likely only running out of spells at 1st or 2nd level when you can't have Reserve feats anyway. The Reserve feats that people like (e.g. Elemental Summoning) are ones that give you powers that have a use outside combat.

So if you wanted to make Reserve feats good, you'd have to offer people some kind of ability that was useful outside combat. Like if there was an Illusion reserve feat that gave you silent image usable once every hour/ten minutes/minute/at-will if you had a 3rd/5th/7th/9th level Illusion spell available. Or a reserve feat that gave you some kind of stone shape ability while you had an [Earth] spell prepared.

[StreamOfTheSky]

I think they're fine for what they are. Some are actually really strong compared to similar feat benefits (Holy Warrior, Minor Shapeshift, the one to get an elemental buddy, the one to teleport at will) as it is. Even the blasting ones are decent overall, maybe they could use a longer range / larger area, that's about it.

If a caster thinks they're too weak to ever use in combat, he should conserve his resources carefully to make sure he has a few spells for every battle, then. Meanwhile, when I'm a caster tossing Acidic Splatter, I feel a little bad about my one feat obsoleting an entire class. *shrug*

People also ignore the 2ndary benefit, a +1 CL increase to the relevant subschool. That's not amazing, but it's still pretty nice.

[OldTrees1]

There are a few that are already worthwhile* and the category does fairly well on the good feats to bad feats ratio. I think you could get away with just printing more Reserve Feats

*
Acid Splatter
Dimensional Jaunt
Fiery Burst
Invisible Needle
Minor Shapeshift
Summon Elemental
Touch of Healing


Although I am biased. I would gladly trade away 9th level spells in exchange for a progression of homebrewed Reserve Feats as class features.

[Mordaedil]

The one that allows you to basically fly for a brief period can't be underestimated either, I feel. Maybe there are better ways of earning flight, but I reckon merely having that amount of mobility regardless of how you decided to build your character prior to be extremely useful...

That is, until the DM starts making everything 40 feet away and out of reach, just to be that kind of DM.

[Pinkie Pyro]

You could do what i do: if the spellslot they have reserved has metamagic, that metamagic applies to the reserve feat effect.

IE:

fell drain fireball in a 5th level slot deals 3d6, but deals 1 negative level.

or extended persist summon monster whatever in a 9th level slot would let you summon a tiny elemental for 2 days.

[Vizzerdrix]

Give the party longer work days and ban ropetrick.

[ace rooster]

Give the party longer work days and ban ropetrick.

This, pretty much. The issue is that reserve feats only really shine if casters are likely to run out of spells, which very rarely happens at higher levels. It simply takes too much real life time to run that many encounters.

[sleepyphoenixx]

Summon Elemental and Minor Shapeshift are good as is, and Dimensional Jaunt is useful too (if a little expensive for what it does, imo). I'd remove the spell slot requirement though and simply go by "highest level X spell you can cast".

For the damage ones i'd suggest simply doubling the damage to 2d6/spell level and removing the requirement to keep a spell memorized. The feat cost is enough.
That's still nothing earth shaking, especially considering the range and area limitations, but at least it's not a total waste of an action. That's simply the nature of non-optimized blasting.


Give the party longer work days and ban ropetrick.

Any half-way optimizing caster is just going to go for gishing and all-day buffs instead of going for (damaging) reserve feats. Because they're simply that bad.
If you spend your actions doing piddly damage on an enemy that your parties melee will overkill on their next action anyway you're not actually any less useless than if you're doing nothing, it just feels that way.

[J-H]

2d6/level scaling is a bad idea until around level 10-12ish. Otherwise, a 5th-level wizard has a 5d6 Fireball powering a 6d6 Fiery Burst.

[Mr Adventurer]

Additional permanent buffs that go along with the caster level boost - I'd look at that small subset of spells they introduced where learning them gave you e.g. Fire Resistance 2.

However, I would not do anything to make Reserve feats more worthwhile, except perhaps to change the requirement to "one of your highest level spell slots" and make the effect scale by caster level, so they're more useful for multiclass spellcasters who probably would appreciate them more (I've played a Gish who would have loved a reserve feat but his lower spellcasting made it more irrelevant).

Because - why, of all the things a person can play, would you buff spellcasters?

[druid zook]

Tome of Magic has feats that boost supernatural abilities like "metamagic" feats. Reserve feats are supernatural abilities that could benefit.

[sleepyphoenixx]

2d6/level scaling is a bad idea until around level 10-12ish. Otherwise, a 5th-level wizard has a 5d6 Fireball powering a 6d6 Fiery Burst.
You're forgetting that throwing spells like Fireball without any metamagic or other boosting is the most inefficient use of spell slots possible (aside from healing hp damage). And those Fireball spells actually have a long range and a decent area, not a 5ft radius at 30ft.
This is not a problem. Anyone who actually wants to play a blaster is going to put actual effort into making his blasting spells do damage. With metamagic and abilities that don't do anything for a reserve feat.

Getting 6d6 Fiery Burst at level 5 doesn't break anything. It doesn't even turn you into a blaster (and it shouldn't). It's just barely worth spending a feat on so you have something to do when you don't want to use up your actual spell slots, which will most likely be filled with buffs and BFC - benefitting the party in the end while still letting you sate your blaster urge a little.

Really, blasting is so rare for spellcasters in any but the most low-op games (high-op builds like mailman aside) that encouraging it even a little can only be a positive. Because it's simply not a strong tactic, especially the wimpy blasting a reserve feat grants even with the double damage.


Because - why, of all the things a person can play, would you buff spellcasters?
See the above. This is not a power upgrade (if anything taking & using it is a downgrade), just a fun upgrade. Every turn a wizard spends fiery bursting is a turn he'll be less op than if he'd used Glitterdust, Web or Solid Fog.

[Coidzor]

Give the party longer work days and ban ropetrick.This, pretty much. The issue is that reserve feats only really shine if casters are likely to run out of spells, which very rarely happens at higher levels. It simply takes too much real life time to run that many encounters.

Hence why I'd prefer constructive answers that actually can be put into practice. Telling DMs to be more hardass and run their games in only a very particular way is a useless non-answer.

[Troacctid]

You don't need to make any changes. They're already fine.

Okay, I guess some of the weaker ones could use a buff, but in general they are fine.

[Cosi]

Hence why I'd prefer constructive answers that actually can be put into practice. Telling DMs to be more hardass and run their games in only a very particular way is a useless non-answer.

Also, it's kind of a crappy answer in this case. Forcing everyone through longer work days to make a couple of obscure feats slightly more appealing just doesn't seem like a great plan.

[Eldonauran]

I'd suggest just making them more appealing. Have them provide the basic ability and then when you reach a certain caster level (or spell level), have them offer a little more 'kick'. For example:

Acidic Splatter [Reserve]
You can channel magical energy into orbs of acid.
Prerequisite: Ability to cast 2nd-level spells,
Benefit: As long as you have an acid spell of 2nd level or higher available to cast, you can throw an orb of acid as a ranged touch attack. The attack has a range of 5 feet per level of the highest-level acid spell you have available to cast and deals 1d6 points of damage per level of that acid spell. As a secondary benefit, you gain a +1 competence bonus to your caster level when casting acid spells. When your caster level with acid spells reaches 11, you may throw as many orbs of acid per round as your base attack bonus allows.

[Jack_Simth]

I'd suggest just making them more appealing. Have them provide the basic ability and then when you reach a certain caster level (or spell level), have them offer a little more 'kick'. For example:

Acidic Splatter [Reserve]
You can channel magical energy into orbs of acid.
Prerequisite: Ability to cast 2nd-level spells,
Benefit: As long as you have an acid spell of 2nd level or higher available to cast, you can throw an orb of acid as a ranged touch attack. The attack has a range of 5 feet per level of the highest-level acid spell you have available to cast and deals 1d6 points of damage per level of that acid spell. As a secondary benefit, you gain a +1 competence bonus to your caster level when casting acid spells. When your caster level with acid spells reaches 11, you may throw as many orbs of acid per round as your base attack bonus allows.
That could be quite the kick, especially on something like an Unseen Seer / Arcane Trickster build....

[Eldonauran]

That could be quite the kick, especially on something like an Unseen Seer / Arcane Trickster build....

Was merely an example. Like any changes, it would have to be vetted and tested before implementation.

[Deophaun]

Tome of Magic has feats that boost supernatural abilities like "metamagic" feats. Reserve feats are supernatural abilities that could benefit.
The main problem is that those feats are terrible. Burn a feat for a once-per-day kick is not a good trade, especially to use with a reserve feat that you intend to spam.

[StreamOfTheSky]

Hence why I'd prefer constructive answers that actually can be put into practice. Telling DMs to be more hardass and run their games in only a very particular way is a useless non-answer.

Well, yes, but the true answer is "severely nerf the amount of spells per day that casters get," and that's more upfront work and somehow controversial.


Also, it's kind of a crappy answer in this case. Forcing everyone through longer work days to make a couple of obscure feats slightly more appealing just doesn't seem like a great plan.
The issue of casters having too many spells per day goes way beyond trying to legitimize reserve feats. It's one of the single biggest balance issues in 3E.

I've been DMing a game that goes from level 1-20, they're level 16 now, and going out of my way to make long adventuring days just to keep the casters in check is outright draining. Both in prep, and in how it makes the adventures drag on for too long, killing the players' excitement over the mission they're trying to complete.
It's too late to fix for this campaign, but I never want to deal with this ever again, and as a quick band-aid I've been considering some sort of houserule to "fast forward" through half the obligatory long day and just say they had some fights and remove half their daily spell slots. Otherwise, the last few levels are going to take years...

[Troacctid]

Well, yes, but the true answer is "severely nerf the amount of spells per day that casters get," and that's more upfront work and somehow controversial.
It is a bit easier now that you can just say "Use the spells per day table from 5e. No bonus spells for high ability scores. Have fun."

[StreamOfTheSky]

It is a bit easier now that you can just say "Use the spells per day table from 5e. No bonus spells for high ability scores. Have fun."

Haven't seen that table, but that sounds too simplistic. I'm fine w/ bonus spells for high ability score...but never more than +1 per level per day. And at low levels the spells/day are pretty balanced. It's after the first few levels where I'd say...casters should only be gaining one or two new slots of *any* level generally (obviously every time they get a new spell level, they'd get their one slot there...perhaps there should be less spell levels, too...having 9 guarantees some avalanche effect).

[Troacctid]

Haven't seen that table, but that sounds too simplistic. I'm fine w/ bonus spells for high ability score...but never more than +1 per level per day. And at low levels the spells/day are pretty balanced. It's after the first few levels where I'd say...casters should only be gaining one or two new slots of *any* level generally (obviously every time they get a new spell level, they'd get their one slot there...perhaps there should be less spell levels, too...having 9 guarantees some avalanche effect).
It looks like this.


Full Caster (Bard, Cleric, Druid, Sorcerer, Wizard)
Half Caster (Paladin, Ranger)


http://i.imgur.com/dkJxLza.png
http://i.imgur.com/XoHDSS6.png


And cantrips are at will.

I mean, it's obviously not a perfect fix, because it leaves dead levels where 5e assumed you'd be getting class features that the 3.5e versions of the classes do not get. But hey, it's a quick fix, whatcha gonna do.

[Coidzor]

And cantrips are at will.

And scale to keep something approaching pace with mundane damage output in that system's HP damage paradigm.

I suppose changing Reserve Feats into cantrips and giving them damage to mimic unoptimized mundane damage output would be one solution, but that's quite the retooling, changing the game to be a hybrid between 3.5 and 5e.

[Troacctid]

And scale to keep something approaching pace with mundane damage output in that system's HP damage paradigm.
Well, generally they are designed to do less damage while having some additional effect, but yeah.

[Cosi]

I've been DMing a game that goes from level 1-20, they're level 16 now, and going out of my way to make long adventuring days just to keep the casters in check is outright draining. Both in prep, and in how it makes the adventures drag on for too long, killing the players' excitement over the mission they're trying to complete.

See, this is an attitude I don't understand. Yes, high level casters are very powerful. But so what? High level characters are supposed to be very powerful. By 10th level, an entire army worth of 1st level Warriors is supposed to be a challenge that doesn't even give you XP. If people are breezing through your encounters, you can make the individual encounters more difficult. There's no reason to nerf casters.

[Dagroth]

See, this is an attitude I don't understand. Yes, high level casters are very powerful. But so what? High level characters are supposed to be very powerful. By 10th level, an entire army worth of 1st level Warriors is supposed to be a challenge that doesn't even give you XP. If people are breezing through your encounters, you can make the individual encounters more difficult. There's no reason to nerf casters.

The problem lies in a party with 2 "Wizards", 2 "Clerics", 1 "Fighter" and 1 "Rogue" is so much better than a party with 1 "Wizard", 1 "Cleric", 2 "Fighters" and 2 "Rogues" it's not even funny.

At very low levels (1-3), the second party is actually noticeably better. At low-mid levels (4-7), the two parties are about equal. At middle-ish levels (8-11) the first party is more powerful, unless the melee characters in the second party are highly optimized and the casters in the first party are fairly generic.

At the lower levels, the party has to slow down when the casters run out of steam. At mid-upper levels (12-15) the first party's casters are probably not going to run out of steam before the players do. The second party's casters are probably going to keep going nearly full bore the entire "day", but tough encounters will drain them. The first party just won't have that problem unless they're very non-optimized.

If you never play D&D past level 8 the classes are, in general, pretty balanced. This is why E6 is so popular.

But it gets exponentially harder to get that same gaming experience at higher levels... which is why the higher level game often moves to politics, world-building or out-right extra-planar adventures where the characters can't rest easy in between encounters most times.

[Cosi]

The problem lies in a party with 2 "Wizards", 2 "Clerics", 1 "Fighter" and 1 "Rogue" is so much better than a party with 1 "Wizard", 1 "Cleric", 2 "Fighters" and 2 "Rogues" it's not even funny.

Okay, why does that mean we need to nerf Wizards and Clerics instead of buffing Fighters and Rogues? I agree that the phenomena you've diagnosed is real, but why should our response be to take the nerfing stick to casters?


But it gets exponentially harder to get that same gaming experience at higher levels... which is why the higher level game often moves to politics, world-building or out-right extra-planar adventures where the characters can't rest easy in between encounters most times.

Yes, high level adventures are different from low level adventures. If you want to keep having low level adventures, you can just not gain levels. There are more than enough monsters at any particular CR for you to have adventures at that level for as long as your group stays together.

[Dagroth]

Okay, why does that mean we need to nerf Wizards and Clerics instead of buffing Fighters and Rogues? I agree that the phenomena you've diagnosed is real, but why should our response be to take the nerfing stick to casters?



Yes, high level adventures are different from low level adventures. If you want to keep having low level adventures, you can just not gain levels. There are more than enough monsters at any particular CR for you to have adventures at that level for as long as your group stays together.

1) They tried buffing Fighters & Rogues with the Tome of Battle. That's why I put the character types in quotation marks; because it doesn't matter. I could've said 2 "Arcane Full-Casters", 2 "Divine Full-Casters" & 1 "Melee Specialist" and 1 "JOAT".

2) High Level adventures are different because they can't be similar. Because, despite the CR listed on the stat sheet, a good party of level 16s will curb-stomp most any CR 16 encounter... while a party of level 3s will typically have a good fight against a CR 3 encounter.

[Coidzor]

The problem lies in a party with 2 "Wizards", 2 "Clerics", 1 "Fighter" and 1 "Rogue" is so much better than a party with 1 "Wizard", 1 "Cleric", 2 "Fighters" and 2 "Rogues" it's not even funny.

At very low levels (1-3), the second party is actually noticeably better. At low-mid levels (4-7), the two parties are about equal. At middle-ish levels (8-11) the first party is more powerful, unless the melee characters in the second party are highly optimized and the casters in the first party are fairly generic.

At the lower levels, the party has to slow down when the casters run out of steam. At mid-upper levels (12-15) the first party's casters are probably not going to run out of steam before the players do. The second party's casters are probably going to keep going nearly full bore the entire "day", but tough encounters will drain them. The first party just won't have that problem unless they're very non-optimized.

If you never play D&D past level 8 the classes are, in general, pretty balanced. This is why E6 is so popular.

But it gets exponentially harder to get that same gaming experience at higher levels... which is why the higher level game often moves to politics, world-building or out-right extra-planar adventures where the characters can't rest easy in between encounters most times.

Sure, but ultimately it's pretty irrelevant to the particular point of the thread.

We all know that Fighters are largely irrelevant at high level save for a narrow range of applications when they're allowed a clear channel to deal their damage.

That really has jack all to do with being interested in others' thoughts about how to tweak feats which have an interesting concept but lackluster execution in most cases.

Though it seems I am alone in thinking the concept is interesting, alas. At least compared to talking about hybridizing 3.5 with 5e or nerfing casters. :smallsigh:

[Dagroth]

Sure, but ultimately it's pretty irrelevant to the particular point of the thread.

We all know that Fighters are largely irrelevant at high level save for a narrow range of applications when they're allowed a clear channel to deal their damage.

That really has jack all to do with being interested in others' thoughts about how to tweak feats which have an interesting concept but lackluster execution in most cases.

Though it seems I am alone in thinking the concept is interesting, alas. At least compared to talking about hybridizing 3.5 with 5e or nerfing casters. :smallsigh:

Personally, I love Reserve Feats. I think they're cool and should be a little more powerful/interesting... like Invisible Needle attacking Flat-Footed AC the first time its used in a combat.

[Troacctid]

Yeah, I think reserve feats in general are fine. They are pretty well balanced and they work as advertised. Most of them shouldn't need a buff. There are a few stinkers like Drowning Glance and Clutch of Earth, but on the whole—they're fine.

[Rerednaw]

I also like Reserve Feats. For those who haven't read about my wizard (RIP just shy of L7) in the current campaign at level 1 he had 11 encounters over 4 days with no sleep...and it got worse from there. No magic items available, no npc spellcasting, no high level npcs, and effectively no crafting (3 game days worth in 2 game months). 300 gp wealth at level 5 and that was basically spending nada aside from food.

So oh boy did Reserve Feat really shine. We also had a DFA in the party...and when I noticed that barring optimization the DPR was about the same I thought it held up pretty well. Granted below the power curve for the highly optimized foes we face but that's a separate issue.

About the only thing I'd like to see is some scaling with the range with the powers that have a fixed range...say a 50% increase at 10th level or so. (30 feet becomes feet 45 etc...) and maybe some damage scaling. Not to the same extent as a Warlock or DFA but something.

[Cosi]

1) They tried buffing Fighters & Rogues with the Tome of Battle. That's why I put the character types in quotation marks; because it doesn't matter. I could've said 2 "Arcane Full-Casters", 2 "Divine Full-Casters" & 1 "Melee Specialist" and 1 "JOAT".

Tome of Battle was a step in the right direction. It wasn't enough, but there was some stuff there.


2) High Level adventures are different because they can't be similar. Because, despite the CR listed on the stat sheet, a good party of level 16s will curb-stomp most any CR 16 encounter... while a party of level 3s will typically have a good fight against a CR 3 encounter.

First, I don't think high CR encounters are as trivial as you seem to believe. For example, the Trumpet Archon is a 14th level Cleric that is also an Archon.

Second, this is just phrasing the thing I said as bad. But why should high level adventures be like low level ones? We have a space for playing low level adventures: low level. It's not like that environment is going to run out of content while you're still playing the game.


That really has jack all to do with being interested in others' thoughts about how to tweak feats which have an interesting concept but lackluster execution in most cases.

Though it seems I am alone in thinking the concept is interesting, alas. At least compared to talking about hybridizing 3.5 with 5e or nerfing casters. :smallsigh:

Some problems to consider:

1. You only really want one reserve feat. If you have Fiery Burst to use up your actions in combat, you don't need Acid Splatter or the electricity reserve feat.
2. The combat options reserve feats give are pretty bad. Blasting isn't all that good. If you had mini-stinking cloud as a reserve feat, that'd be a lot more impressive than the existing options.
3. Reserve feats are inherently situational. They can't be better than spells, so in most cases you'd rather just cast spells. And in a lot of games (basically all games where there isn't a pressing time constraint), you can just do that.

I still think the best solution is utility abilities in the vein of Summon Elemental. If you have the ability to summon elemental minions, you would still be totally willing to pick up some free uses of silent image, or fabricate type rapid crafting, or plant control in a way that you wouldn't care about an ice based blast when you already had a fire based blast.

[sleepyphoenixx]

Some problems to consider:

1. You only really want one reserve feat. If you have Fiery Burst to use up your actions in combat, you don't need Acid Splatter or the electricity reserve feat.
2. The combat options reserve feats give are pretty bad. Blasting isn't all that good. If you had mini-stinking cloud as a reserve feat, that'd be a lot more impressive than the existing options.
3. Reserve feats are inherently situational. They can't be better than spells, so in most cases you'd rather just cast spells. And in a lot of games (basically all games where there isn't a pressing time constraint), you can just do that.

I still think the best solution is utility abilities in the vein of Summon Elemental. If you have the ability to summon elemental minions, you would still be totally willing to pick up some free uses of silent image, or fabricate type rapid crafting, or plant control in a way that you wouldn't care about an ice based blast when you already had a fire based blast.

Why should you want more than 1 reserve feat? They're supposed to be a backup, not your go-to options.
You should only want to use one when you'd otherwise do nothing because it's not worth using a spell slot or you've run out. Otherwise if you want a selection of at-will abilities you can go play a warlock (or warlock theurge) or a ToB gish.

As for the blasting feats i think that the only problem is the damage being too small, especially considering you can't upgrade it meaningfully like you can blasting spells.
It has to do enough damage to make it a decent backup option that's actually worth spending a feat and actions on, and 9d6 damage isn't good damage at level 10, let alone 17.

A reserve feat that did 1d6/charlevel instead would be right at that edge. It's just barely enough damage to actually do something meaningful. Still nothing earthshaking but hey, it's at-will.
It does the same damage as most common blasting spells, yes, but you can actually improve those with metamagic and class abilities if you want to blast. It would also still be limited in range & area compared to actual blasting spells, by a huge margin.
But the simple fact is that a spellcaster using unmodified blasting spells is just wasting spell slots, so why in the world would anyone spend a feat on something that's not even half as good as that - already subpar - option?

[druid zook]

The main problem is that those feats are terrible. Burn a feat for a once-per-day kick is not a good trade, especially to use with a reserve feat that you intend to spam.

What if there were "Improved" versions of these feats that change the first feat to "at will" or " once per round"? Would you be willing to burn two feats?

I wouldn't, but I'm just throwing it out there.

[Troacctid]

I'm not gonna say 9d6 damage at level 20 isn't too low, but I will say you made the Warlock cry.

[sleepyphoenixx]

I'm not gonna say 9d6 damage at level 20 isn't too low, but I will say you made the Warlock cry.

Warlock damage is too low. It's pretty telling that the only halfway worthwhile way to play one as a damage dealer is to abuse the hell out of Hellfire Warlock (pun not intended) or go for one of the options that gives you iteratives (or ideally both).
They should be buffed too if one of your players wants to play one, but this thread isn't about warlocks.

[Cosi]

Why should you want more than 1 reserve feat? They're supposed to be a backup, not your go-to options.

Having an entire category of feat that becomes obsolete once you take one is a waste of space. It also amplifies any discrepancy in power between reserve feats, because if you only take one, whichever is slightly better than the others will be overwhelmingly more common.


You should only want to use one when you'd otherwise do nothing because it's not worth using a spell slot or you've run out. Otherwise if you want a selection of at-will abilities you can go play a warlock (or warlock theurge) or a ToB gish.

I think it's probably good for the game for Wizards to have minor, but magical, utility abilities so that they have something to do in situations that don't merit a spell slot which is still on-concept for them. That starts going to a broader discussion though.


Warlock damage is too low. It's pretty telling that the only halfway worthwhile way to play one as a damage dealer is to abuse the hell out of Hellfire Warlock (pun not intended) or go for one of the options that gives you iteratives (or ideally both).
They should be buffed too if one of your players wants to play one, but this thread isn't about warlocks.

Pretty much anything you can do at-will is only worth it at like half the level it's offered, if that. Really, this goes back to the Casters/Non-Casters tangent from earlier. Almost anything you can do that isn't "cast spells" is bad, not just compared to casting spells, but in absolute terms as well.

[Troacctid]

Do remember that not all the reserve feats are attacks that are redundant with each other. Stuff like Minor Shapeshift, Summon Elemental, Dimensional Jaunt, Magic Sensitive, Holy Warrior, Touch of Healing, Face-Changer, Borne Aloft, Aquatic Breath, Wind-Guided Arrows, Blade of Force—these aren't really competing with each other. And all of them also boost the power of your actual spells, too.

[Deophaun]

What if there were "Improved" versions of these feats that change the first feat to "at will" or " once per round"? Would you be willing to burn two feats?

I wouldn't, but I'm just throwing it out there.
While not optimal, there are levels of play where that would be acceptable.

[Malroth]

I'm ok with Taking a Reserve feat early on mostly because i can fool my DM into thinking i'm a useless combatant who doesn't need to be planned around so i can save my actual spell loadout for when things go horribly wrong.