PDA

View Full Version : [3.5e] Learning metamagiced versions of spells



Sliver
2010-03-19, 06:58 AM
Just wondering if you, as a player, would consider it, or if you, as a DM, would allow it?

Basically, trading a spell known of the appropriate level to have a metamagic'ed version of a spell you already know, without needing the feat.

It's basically not for the -I know all my list- type of casters, and the others exchange something for something else.

A wizard exchanges a spell he knows for a metamagic'ed version of another, and gains the benefits of not having to spend a feat on a metamagic feat that he will use on only one spell (otherwise he would have taken the feat)

A sorcerer exchanges a spell known, which is a large price, for the same feat and not having the extended casting time from metamagic on the spot.

In addition, such learning pretty much nullifies the use of metamagic reducers, unless one allows them in time of spell learning to reduce level of the final spell.

Would you (as a DM) require something beside the spell known to do it? Temporary access to the metamagic feat (via another caster or a rod)? Some downtime spent on research?

(this is only a theoretical question)

Riffington
2010-03-19, 07:06 AM
I absolutely allow it, but the thing is: it isn't metamagic. It's a different spell that's related to the original one. So the research would probably be easier if you already know the original one (+4 to the Spellcraft roll and/or half cost).

The bit you have to keep track of is, since it isn't metamagic, if you create a longer-duration version you can still put Extend on top of that. So keep that in mind; when you figure out an appropriate level for the new spell it's not necessarily the same level as the spell+relevant metamagic.

Sliver
2010-03-19, 07:09 AM
Yeah, you can still benefit from the same metamagic feat (in some cases) but it is some exchange with rods.. You could use a rod on a metaspell, but with it's new level you might need a greater rod then before..

Jack Zander
2010-03-19, 07:12 AM
Do want!

All my sorcerers would take advantage of this. Wizards not so much, but seeing as how all it takes is some extra gold and research time in comparison to a feat, I'd probably use it for a few of the lesser used ones.

Runestar
2010-03-19, 07:40 AM
I see nothing wrong with it, though I would enforce that the spell's DC is based off its base lv. So if my sorc learns sculpted glitterdust for his 3rd lv spell, its dc is 12+cha mod (since the base spell is a 2nd lv spell) and not 13+cha mod (even though it is treated as a 3rd lv spell).

Sliver
2010-03-19, 08:41 AM
I see nothing wrong with it, though I would enforce that the spell's DC is based off its base lv. So if my sorc learns sculpted glitterdust for his 3rd lv spell, its dc is 12+cha mod (since the base spell is a 2nd lv spell) and not 13+cha mod (even though it is treated as a 3rd lv spell).

Thing is, if he learns sculpted glitterdust, that is another level that he is not getting actual 3rd level spells. If he also needs to spend time and money researching the spell, that is an extra too.. Sorcerers pay more if they want to save the feat, compared to wizards.

Myou
2010-03-19, 08:46 AM
I would never, ever allow this, it's stupidly broken - barring the insanity of metamagic reducers, you never have to take metamagic feats, and can still use metamagic to make your spells really powerful - you're giving casters every metamagic feat for nothng but the price of a spell known, which means for free when you're a wizard. Even as a sorcerer this would be hugely abuseable.

Sliver
2010-03-19, 08:50 AM
For wizards it means he will have to rely on scrolls for level appropriate spells, but yeah, it's better for them. For a sorcerer.. I don't see it.. Spells known are extremely valuable, sacrificing some for the sake of a feat is abusable?

Yuki Akuma
2010-03-19, 08:54 AM
Delayed Blast Fireball and Chained Lightning are canonically metamagic-enhanced versions of Fireball and Lightning Bolt that got so popular they were tweaked into their own spells.

I see no problem with this.

Tinydwarfman
2010-03-19, 09:13 AM
I would never, ever allow this, it's stupidly broken - barring the insanity of metamagic reducers, you never have to take metamagic feats, and can still use metamagic to make your spells really powerful - you're giving casters every metamagic feat for nothng but the price of a spell known, which means for free when you're a wizard. Even as a sorcerer this would be hugely abuseable.

Except that in general, metamagic is a bad idea unless your build is devoted to it. So you get an empowered scorching ray. You're trading away a 4th level spell for that, which could be polymorph, solid fog, enervation, or even celerity. It might increase your power a bit more by having more feats to spend, but your versatility has been reduced.

Eclipse
2010-03-19, 09:15 AM
The system you've outlined might possibly be reasonable for a sorcerer, who has a hard cap on spells known. For any class that has no cap on spells known, it's absolutely, ridiculously broken. You would basically eliminate the need to ever take a metamagic feat for any caster that has no spell cap. I would never allow this in a game I ran. I would probably avoid playing in a game that allows it too.

If you perhaps wanted to add another two spell levels on top of the emulated metamagic feat spell cost, it might be allowable. Of course, at that point, you may as well learn the better spells that many spell levels higher, though there are possibly times it could be useful for utility spells in this fashion.

Sliver
2010-03-19, 09:20 AM
Adding 2 spell levels in addition is worse then saying you can't have it, because you are pretending to allow it, when actually making sure it's not worth it. Even classes without a hard cap, you will be using your free spells to obtain that, so you delay your gaining actual spells and not just metamagic'ed ones, as well as you basically hope to come across the scrolls (or wizards with the spell in their book) you want, and it's up to the DM..

Riffington
2010-03-19, 09:41 AM
It's obviously broken if the only cost is "cost of spell known". It should cost more than that to do research. Of course, you may be able to recoup some of this (or more) by then selling it to envious wizards.

new spells should be balanced for spells of their level. Balanced to average spells, not to already-broken spells.

It is true that metamagic feats are often worse (for a wizard) than a too-extensive spellbook. Nobody should have such a spellbook though.

Sliver
2010-03-19, 09:45 AM
But what exactly is broken in such a thing? Even if it was just a spell known (note, it's not. Look at the original post, there is a question of what would you add if you considered such a request from a player) what is exactly broken in sacrificing a spell to get a more powerful version of a spell you already know without extending your versatility?

jiriku
2010-03-19, 10:03 AM
Your change is reasonable to the degree in which the cost paid matches the benefit gained. For a sorcerer, if the cost is gold, time, and a known spell, that's a fair trade. For a wizard, the same holds true only if wizards don't have ready access to new spells. If scrolls are rare and hard to find, other wizards don't permit copying of their spells, and capturing an enemy spellbook almost never happens, then the cost of a known spell (in addition to the gold and time) is a balancing factor. However, if the wizard has ready access to any type of 'Magic Mart' or a collection of friendly NPC wizards who will grant him copying privileges, then the cost of a known spell isn't an effective balancing factor.

Edit: your balance point should be the costs paid to create a new spell entirely from scratch. The cost of putting a metamagicked spell into your spellbook or spells known should be appromixately equal to the cost of creating a new spell.

Cyrion
2010-03-19, 10:22 AM
Another thing you might want to couple to this for wizards would be reimposing some kind of spell book limit for wizards a la 1E and 2E. This would add a little utility cost to the stronger spell.

absolmorph
2010-03-19, 10:29 AM
The system you've outlined might possibly be reasonable for a sorcerer, who has a hard cap on spells known. For any class that has no cap on spells known, it's absolutely, ridiculously broken. You would basically eliminate the need to ever take a metamagic feat for any caster that has no spell cap. I would never allow this in a game I ran. I would probably avoid playing in a game that allows it too.

If you perhaps wanted to add another two spell levels on top of the emulated metamagic feat spell cost, it might be allowable. Of course, at that point, you may as well learn the better spells that many spell levels higher, though there are possibly times it could be useful for utility spells in this fashion.
Metamagic reducers are still relevant.

Eclipse
2010-03-19, 10:31 AM
Adding 2 spell levels in addition is worse then saying you can't have it, because you are pretending to allow it, when actually making sure it's not worth it. Even classes without a hard cap, you will be using your free spells to obtain that, so you delay your gaining actual spells and not just metamagic'ed ones, as well as you basically hope to come across the scrolls (or wizards with the spell in their book) you want, and it's up to the DM..

Probably. However, I've found it's always better to overkill the cost when homebrewing things. Leaving it at no spell level adjustment beyond the metamagic being applied renders the metamagic feat worthless to a wizard, cleric, or druid, which tells me you shouldn't do it that way. My first instinct was up it by one extra spell level, but knowing the way players can abuse stuff like this, I upped it by one more to be safe.

Furthermore, learning spells is a minimal cost, so I don't put much stock in the idea that delaying spells in order to get metamagiced spells (or waiting to get the metamagiced spells, which is more likely), is a good balancing factor. As jiriku mentioned, this would probably be ok if wizards don't have ready access to buying or copying lots of spells. If magic marts are available, the party has multiple wizards, or spellbooks/scrolls are common loot, this is a bad idea. If wizards are stuck with their 40+int+all zero level spells for the entire game, it's far more balanced and ok since the spell known cost actually means something. This still doesn't address divine casters though, who know all spells on their spell lists already. There's still not a big cost to them to use this.

Edit: Incidentally, if it were me, I probably wouldn't allow it period. Too much finagling with rules for not enough return. However, I'm throwing out my thoughts on what to do if you are going to allow it, and things that I think need to be considered so it isn't overpowered.

absolmorph
2010-03-19, 10:47 AM
Probably. However, I've found it's always better to overkill the cost when homebrewing things. Leaving it at no spell level adjustment beyond the metamagic being applied renders the metamagic feat worthless to a wizard, cleric, or druid, which tells me you shouldn't do it that way. My first instinct was up it by one extra spell level, but knowing the way players can abuse stuff like this, I upped it by one more to be safe.

Furthermore, learning spells is a minimal cost, so I don't put much stock in the idea that delaying spells in order to get metamagiced spells (or waiting to get the metamagiced spells, which is more likely), is a good balancing factor. As jiriku mentioned, this would probably be ok if wizards don't have ready access to buying or copying lots of spells. If magic marts are available, the party has multiple wizards, or spellbooks/scrolls are common loot, this is a bad idea. If wizards are stuck with their 40+int+all zero level spells for the entire game, it's far more balanced and ok since the spell known cost actually means something. This still doesn't address divine casters though, who know all spells on their spell lists already. There's still not a big cost to them to use this.

Edit: Incidentally, if it were me, I probably wouldn't allow it period. Too much finagling with rules for not enough return. However, I'm throwing out my thoughts on what to do if you are going to allow it, and things that I think need to be considered so it isn't overpowered.
The reason to take metamagic anyways is so that A- you can apply it to other spells and B- you can use metamagic REDUCERS to allow you to apply more.

Lysander
2010-03-19, 11:03 AM
I think its fine as long as there's some additional cost to make up the benefit of not needing a feat. Maybe its a higher spell level, maybe a steep gp cost in powdered gems, an xp cost, lowered DC/damage, a save where none was originally provided...doesn't matter what as long as the spell isn't overpowered for what it costs you.

If you want a quick featless metamagic houserule that stings anybody but allows flexibility, what about ruling that a metamagic trick has to be cast as a separate spell. You have to discard two spell slots simultaneously to cast one spell. For example, you could let players learn the Silent Spell metaspell (to coin a term maybe?), which can be cast simultaneously with any spell one level lower or more to make it a silent spell.

Ernir
2010-03-19, 11:21 AM
Like most things... I'd allow it on a case-by-case basis. A Sorcerer who wants to burn a 6th-level known spell on Chained Lightning Bolt, I mean Chain Lightning (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/chainlightning.htm), fine.

The same Sorcerer wanting a Chained Split Rayed Enervation without spending feats... eh. Not sure.

Kylarra
2010-03-19, 11:31 AM
I don't generally see this as a problem as long as it's limited to a single instance of metamagic application per spell and contingent upon DM approval. The latter is my usual caveat to all custom things, but I just thought I'd explicitly say it since I'm sure there's some way that people more clever than I am can abuse this.

Evard
2010-03-19, 11:58 AM
So why not just give the sorcerer a chance to gain free feats as a class ability that must be a sudden metamagic feat (they don't boost the spell level but you can only do it 1/day)

lsfreak
2010-03-19, 12:23 PM
I'd say that if you allow it, don't allow it for wizards. They now have no reason to ever take metamagic feats, because they can learn the best versions and free up their feat slots for something else. Same with all prepared casters. For spontaneous casters, it fits more both fluff and power-wise, since it's eating up their precious spells known rather than their precious feats.

Eclipse
2010-03-19, 05:36 PM
The reason to take metamagic anyways is so that A- you can apply it to other spells and B- you can use metamagic REDUCERS to allow you to apply more.

In answer to point A, a wizard would never have a reason to do so, because they would learn metamagic versions of any spell they wanted a metamagic version of.

In answer to point B, metamagic reducers aren't available in core. While it's true some people use lots of crazy stuff outside core to become more powerful, I think a good point to look at if something is reasonable or not is if it makes someone more powerful than a core spellcaster. If it does, it's probably too powerful. In which case, this would be too powerful. Players should have to buy feats if they want the benefits those feats provide. Especially casters, who are already the most powerful classes in the game.