PDA

View Full Version : [D&D3.5] Melee-style Metamagic Feats



Altair_the_Vexed
2009-09-25, 02:53 AM
Thought up a couple of metamagics for a mainly melee caster:

Touch Spell
Benefit: You alter the range of ranged touch spell to become a touch spell. The touch spell uses up a spell slot one level higher than the spell's actual level.


Weaponised Touch Spell
Benefit: You cast a touch spell through a melee weapon, delivering the spell along with the damage of the weapon. The weapon holds the charge in the same manner as a regular touch spell. The spell is discharged when the weapon hits. It need not overcome damage reduction.
The weaponised touch spell uses up a slot one level higher than the spell's actual level.

EDITED to reflect advice below
-------

What do you think? Broken? Too exploitable? I'm most concerned about the increase in level slot - is one level enough?

Generally, I'm running games from the SRD, so if these combine with splatbook metamagic to be too awesome, I'd like to know, but I'm less concerned than if I missed something Core.

Ashtagon
2009-09-25, 04:03 AM
1) Converting a ranged touch spell to a touch spell seems reasonable, although the only use for it would be to make sure the charge is still held if you miss your attack roll. I'd add a note that such a spell can still only affect a single target (not up to 6 willing targets as for a regular touch spell).

2) Converting personal spells to touch spells leads to ridiculous levels of abuse. Tenser's Transformation seems like the most obvious one, although I'm sure there's a ton of others.

3) This weaponised feat seems very reasonable. Bear in mind that the touch spell needs to score a touch hit, but the weapon would need to get past armour to score a hit. You should clarify whether or not it is possible to successfully touch the target for the spell if your attack roll beats his touch AC but doesn't beat his armour AC.

I'd actually be will to allow item 1) for free as a default, and possibly even item 3). I don't think these even warrant adding to the spell's level if you cut out 2).

DracoDei
2009-09-25, 05:05 AM
2) Converting personal spells to touch spells leads to ridiculous levels of abuse. Tenser's Transformation seems like the most obvious one, although I'm sure there's a ton of others.
True Strike, especially if the meleeist in question has Power Attack.

Zovc
2009-09-25, 09:01 AM
3) This weaponised feat seems very reasonable. Bear in mind that the touch spell needs to score a touch hit, but the weapon would need to get past armour to score a hit. You should clarify whether or not it is possible to successfully touch the target for the spell if your attack roll beats his touch AC but doesn't beat his armour AC.

I'd actually be will to allow item 1) for free as a default, and possibly even item 3).

You have to change it from a touch attack to a normal attack when adding the weapon to the equation. The obvious bonus for doing this is that you get to add your weapon's damage to the attack. The more subtle repercussions of this are that you can grab a spear and give your touch attacks range (and immunity to AoO), and that there's no difference in the roll you're making if your opponent doesn't have armor.

ericgrau
2009-09-25, 09:39 AM
I'd be tempted to make the first a feat work without any level adjustment; just remove personal spells as mentioned. But make sure there isn't a way someone could seriously abuse it first. Like finding some big advantage to holding the charge. Or another ability that works too well with touch spells.

The second feat should work only when the weapon deals damage, like a spell storing weapon, but while letting you hold the charge if you miss. Clerics still have a pretty good chance of hitting with their weapon. This one is almost as good as quicken spell whenever you're making a single attack, and the level adjustment should be higher. Maybe a +3 or +2.

lightningcat
2009-09-25, 11:55 AM
The second feat should work only when the weapon deals damage, like a spell storing weapon, but while letting you hold the charge if you miss. Clerics still have a pretty good chance of hitting with their weapon. This one is almost as good as quicken spell whenever you're making a single attack, and the level adjustment should be higher. Maybe a +3 or +2.

As long as you are still limited to one charge per held weapon (and you lose it if you put the weapon away), I think +1 level makes sense. Plus this would be a good addition to characters that combine casting and fighting (Bladesingers, Eldritch Knights, Clerics, etc).

Altair_the_Vexed
2009-09-25, 01:53 PM
Okay - I was a little dubious about the personal-to-touch conversion, myself, so it's good to hear it confirmed by all you lovely people. :smallbiggrin:

(Editing the OP to reflect your advice....)

How about... as a new metamagic feat, Personal-to-Touch has a level bump of +4? Higher? Lower? Or just too broken?
I guess this comes down to: Is +20 to hit on your next attack too much for a Level 5 spell?

Fizban
2009-09-26, 09:20 AM
Compare Weaponized touch spell to Smiting Spell (PHB): smiting spell requires you to cast it before attacking and costs +2 levels, and sets a limit on how long you can "hold the charge". Not saying which is better, just offering the comparison.

Altair_the_Vexed
2009-09-27, 04:18 PM
Compare Weaponised touch spell to Smiting Spell (PHB): smiting spell requires you to cast it before attacking and costs +2 levels, and sets a limit on how long you can "hold the charge". Not saying which is better, just offering the comparison.
Do you have a page ref for that? I don't seem to be able to find it.

arguskos
2009-09-27, 04:38 PM
Smiting Spell in the PHB2, not the PHB.

PinkysBrain
2009-09-27, 04:41 PM
2) Converting personal spells to touch spells leads to ridiculous levels of abuse. Tenser's Transformation seems like the most obvious one, although I'm sure there's a ton of others.
Nothing gishes can't do anyway.

PS. Smiting Spell is +1, not +2.

PPS. I don't think anyone ever uses smiting spell (well maybe with arrows to get one hit kills in the surprise round with manyshot or telekinesis, but as far as "normal" use goes I doubt anyone uses it) so making something better isn't a big deal.

DragoonWraith
2009-09-27, 04:45 PM
I don't see why either of these should require a level adjustment. Spending a feat on each seems like payment enough to get these... I guess you should check the spell list to see if there are any ranged touch spells that would be bad as melee touch spells (not sure how that's even possible). Also, look into effects that only work with Touch spells - the Imbued Summoning spell comes to mind (but ranged touch buff spells do not, so I don't think there's any way to actually use that).

But as intended, they just give meleemancers a few more options, which is good, and in general use they offer nothing (or even a penalty) to regular casters.

PId6
2009-09-27, 04:47 PM
Compare Weaponized touch spell to Smiting Spell (PHB): smiting spell requires you to cast it before attacking and costs +2 levels, and sets a limit on how long you can "hold the charge". Not saying which is better, just offering the comparison.
It's PHB2, only +1 level, and lets you use it on ranged weapons like crossbolts and thrown spears. And it still sucks.

I'd definitely make Touch Spell +0 instead of +1. Ranged touch is almost always better anyway, so it's more of a downgrade than an upgrade. Only real "exploit" I can think of is Duskblades using it along with Arcane Channeling, but Duskblades need some Nice Things anyway.

Likewise, Weaponized Touch Spell should be +0 as well. The only thing it really does is add a bit of weapon damage to touch spells (or the other way around) at the cost of targeting regular AC rather than touch. You can't even use this with full attacks, and your to-hit chances are much lower, so I'd say the drawbacks are more than significant enough to make it +0.

Edit: Wow, that's a lot of ninjas.

Edit: Personal to Touch is horrendously abusive though.

PinkysBrain
2009-09-27, 04:51 PM
spell can still only affect a single target (not up to 6 willing targets as for a regular touch spell).
You can touch up to 6 willing targets in a round, but unless a touch spell says differently it will still discharge after the first touch ... so this is a non issue.

onthetown
2009-09-28, 06:23 AM
Consider that Maximize Spell requires a spell slot 3 levels higher than the spell you're casting... Maybe put Weaponised Touch Spell up there as well, or only 2 spell slots? Depending on what level you are, it can lead to the same amounts of massive damage as Maximize Spell..

I like, though :smallbiggrin:

DragoonWraith
2009-09-28, 08:47 AM
Consider that Maximize Spell requires a spell slot 3 levels higher than the spell you're casting... Maybe put Weaponised Touch Spell up there as well, or only 2 spell slots? Depending on what level you are, it can lead to the same amounts of massive damage as Maximize Spell..

I like, though :smallbiggrin:
Err... how? You get the spell's damage (or effect), plus a melee attack. Maybe along side some other melee attacks, depending on BAB, but those attacks are normal and not really part of the discussion (since the spell goes off on the first one). Also, Maximize Spell is generally (read: almost always) not worth the spell level adjustment, so it's probably a bad barometer of power.

For the record, yes, Maximize Spell is a trap. Empower Spell is a lot cheaper and for most dies (d4's and d6's), averages almost exactly the same as Maximize. Maximize is better if you're rolling d8's, d12's, or d20's, but a. not many spells roll those, and b. even though it's better, it's not a spell level's worth better.

As usual, the massive difference between spell levels makes it almost impossible to find a sweet spot.

onthetown
2009-09-28, 09:02 AM
Ahh, I just realized the key word was "touch" spell, which makes a little more sense to me now... I was thinking gigantic fireballs of death being channeled through swords, but now I see the point.

I'd love to use this for my Enchantress.

Altair_the_Vexed
2009-09-28, 10:48 AM
I'd definitely make Touch Spell +0 instead of +1.

Likewise, Weaponized Touch Spell should be +0 as well.
So, as a 1st level spell, I could make Ray of Enfeeblement a Touch Spell, and then Weaponise it and smack someone for <weapon damage> + 1d6+1 STR damage? Isn't that a bit too good for a 1st level spell?

Ashtagon
2009-09-28, 11:16 AM
So, as a 1st level spell, I could make Ray of Enfeeblement a Touch Spell, and then Weaponise it and smack someone for <weapon damage> + 1d6+1 STR damage? Isn't that a bit too good for a 1st level spell?

On the downside, you are using two rounds total to set up that attack. That's pretty poor in the action-economy stakes.

Altair_the_Vexed
2009-09-28, 11:24 AM
On the downside, you are using two rounds total to set up that attack. That's pretty poor in the action-economy stakes.
No, you're not - you're learning Ray of Enfeeblement as a Touch and Weaponised Touch spell, and casting it as a standard action.
If you're allowed to do that as a 1st level spell, then there's no reason not to do so if you're a melee caster.

Ashtagon
2009-09-28, 11:39 AM
No, you're not - you're learning Ray of Enfeeblement as a Touch and Weaponised Touch spell, and casting it as a standard action.
If you're allowed to do that as a 1st level spell, then there's no reason not to do so if you're a melee caster.

Oops, my bad. You can cast a touch spell and strike with it in the same round.

On the other hand, in order to set up this weaponised ray, you had to use both your available feats at 1st level. This implies a certain lack of flexibility, which seems a reasonable enough penalty in itself.

Myou
2009-09-28, 11:56 AM
I made this a while ago, concensus was that it was pretty balanced.
Might be what you're looking for.

Aid Spell [Metamagic]:

Benefit:
You may cast a spell that normally has a range of Personal as a Touch spell with a target of one willing creature. The spell effectively becomes a Touch spell, and should be treated as such for all mechanical purposes. An Aid spell uses up a spell slot +2 levels higher than the spell’s actual level, except when applied to a spell that would normally render the caster unable to use spells or reduce their ability to cast spells, in which case it requires a slot +4 levels higher.

DragoonWraith
2009-09-28, 12:58 PM
So, as a 1st level spell, I could make Ray of Enfeeblement a Touch Spell, and then Weaponise it and smack someone for <weapon damage> + 1d6+1 STR damage? Isn't that a bit too good for a 1st level spell?
You burned two feats, at least, to pull this off, you're walking into melee, and plus you need some kind of weapon skills to make it worthwhile. No, I don't think this is too good for a 1st level spell.

And converting personal range spells to anything but personal range spells is a Bad Idea™. There are a great many spells that are balanced solely by that restriction. As soon as you remove it, people can start doing crazy things with them.

The only time it's OK, I'd think, is if you made it a class feature of a class with a static spell list and had it only affect spells cast from that class's slots. Then you can control exactly what spells are being manipulated.

Altair_the_Vexed
2009-09-29, 02:10 AM
I have detected a consensus here.:smallwink:
The OP is edited to remove Personal spells from the mix.

Myou
2009-09-29, 09:28 AM
And converting personal range spells to anything but personal range spells is a Bad Idea™. There are a great many spells that are balanced solely by that restriction. As soon as you remove it, people can start doing crazy things with them.

It can be done by RAW. Spellguard of Silverymoon + Some obscure effect that adds heaing to a spell = Personal spells as touch spells

DragoonWraith
2009-09-29, 01:05 PM
That doesn't mean it's a good idea, though.

And by RAW, Spellguard of Silverymoon is rather difficult to use (unless, of course, you spend almost all your time in Silverymoon)