PDA

View Full Version : [3.P] Is the Metamagic System Fundamentally Flawed?



Endarire
2010-08-12, 08:02 PM
Intro
Metamagic is meant to allow casters to perform 'tricks' with their spells. In general, (*spell* + *metamagic*) is more powerful than (*spell*).

Metamagic feats were tacked on in third edition. WotC tried to apply linear benefit (metamagic feats) to an exponential system (spell slot value). Most metamagic feats aren't like a Fighter feat that's always on (Improved Initiative) or a feat that's easily activated (Power Attack). There's always an additional cost.

Extra Costs
In general, metamagicked spells come too late to be useful. If you could Extend mage armor from level 1 (making it last 2 hours) or ray of enfeeblement (making it last 2 rounds), then it would be a serious candidate as a level 1 feat.

As it is, you probably don't need the duration boost once you could legally apply Extend Spell, and Extend is considered one of the more useful core metamagics.

Alternatively, let's say you took the feat Empower Spell. It has no feat, skill, or stat prereqs, and some Wizard may have even taken it at level 1.

If you're a prepared caster, you must declare you're using it by using a spell slot 2 levels higher than normal. If you're a spontaneous caster, you're almost always using a small number of spells known and must use a longer time to cast the spell. (I know there are ways to avoid the extra time, or turn prepared casters into spontaneous casters, but those are resource trades or further resource investments.)

Excluding fast progression casting classes, the soonest you can use it is level 3 to Empower a cantrip. Even blasters realize that an Empowered acid splash is only (d3 * 1.5) while a scorching ray is 4d6.

In an 'optimal' case, a Wizard9 or Wizard10 can do (9d6 * 1.5) or (10d6 * 1.5) with a level 5 slot compared to a normal level 5 spell which would probably only deal 9d6 or 10d6 damage.

Metamagic Rods
Metamagic rods are core, and for good reason. The designers subtly said, "Oops!" and included a quick means to rectify their system.

My Experience
I've played 2 Wizards in epic (level 30+), one Wizard from level 1 to ~18, another Wizard at 21, and another Wizard under a variant spell point system who's level 10.

My level 18+ Wizards only used metamagic when it was spontaneously applicable or free. Among the 3 Wizards, I may have cast 10 metamagicked spells this way that weren't Auto-Quickened.

The only reason my level 10 Wizard uses metamagic is because I can spontaneously apply it, and I pay in spell points, not spell slots. Also, the DM lets me spend as many spell points as I have, meaning I could cast a level 5 spell with 10 metamagics if I had the feats and spell points. In sum, I can use my metamagic feats, and it's fun!

The Dilemma
We're stuck with a dilemma. What do we do about metamagic feats? Casters are already powerful, and giving 'free' metamagic would uberize casters even more.

Yet it does not seem fair to recommend or require a bunch of useless feats to anyone. My precious resource (feats) had better get me something worth the investment. It also isn't like Fighters can only Power Attack with their secondary attacks, which metamagic feats seem to do to spellcasters.

Questions I never had answered to my satisfaction: Which spells are we meant to metamagic? How powerful are these meant to be overall?

Alternative Systems
For those displeased with the current system and in the DM's chair, consider these options.

1: At cast time, allow a skill check to reduce the metamagic's cost. Similar to a 3.5 Incantatrix, this allows those blessed with epic Spellcraft (or a skill of the DM's choice) to, y'know, use their metamagic in a friendly fashion. Passing the check means the metamagic is free (woohoo!) or cast at a reduced cost (yay).

If using the reduced cost option, also consider option 2.

2: Force casters to give up a spell level equal to the metamagic slot increase. Adding Empower Spell (+2 slot levels) to a spell would require you expend a level 2 spell slot as well as the spell you were originally casting. Adding Extend (+1 slot level) and Maximize (+3 slot levels) would require losing a level 1 slot and a level 3 slot.

Alternatively, you could spend a number of slot levels equal to the total cost. Adding Quicken (+4 slot levels) would require spending 4 levels worth of spells, such as 1 level 2 and 2 level 1s.

3: Nix metamagic feats and make metamagic 'rod only'. Many players already avoid metamagic feats. Now, this would officially apply to everyone.

Since many metamagic feats lack an equivalent rod, you would need to determine such an item's price.

4: Allow metamagic feats to give a certain number of free daily applications. For example, taking Extend Spell gets you 1 free daily application for any spell you know.

Perhaps you could retake Extend Spell, getting 2 more free daily applications each time.

5: Provide a scaling benefit based on the spell slot adjustment. This works better with feats which work on a percentage basis. Empower Spell at +1 slot level could give +25%, work as normal at +2, and give +100% at +3.

What I Would Do
I believe metamagic feats are meant to make your lower-level spells comparable in power to your max level spells.

1: Nix Heighten Spell and remove it as a prerequisite. Instead, a spell cast from a slot level is treated in all ways as a spell of that spell level. Normally, an Extended acid arrow requires a level 3 slot but is treated as a level 2 spell. Now, it's considered a level 3 spell in all regards.

The existence of Heighten Spell creates unintended synergies by the rules as written. Shadowcraft Mages and early entry tricks attest to how this feat is typically used.

2: Allow free metamagic applications to lower level spells. Let's assume you're a Wizard9 with Extend (+1 slot level), Empower (+2 slot levels), Maximize (+3 slot levels), and Quicken Spell (+4 slot levels). You can freely apply Maximize Spell to your level 0-2 spells, since they don't require a spell slot of a level you lack. You can Empower and Extend a mirror image as it would normally be a level 5 spell. Likewise, you can Quicken a shield.

Best of all, these spells don't require higher level slots!

If they did, we'd be back to the core rules with spells that cost more (feat + spell slot) but do less.

3: Rebalance existing metamagic feats. Persistent Spell (+6 slot levels) is a joke. A level 13 Wizard who can plane shift and who may have already taken over the world isn't paying using a level 7 slot to make his shield last all day.

Metamagic feats were a sly way to pad book length. It looks like it has potential, but it ain't worth it by the time you get there.

The 'Big' Metamagics: Extend, Persistent, and Quicken Spell
People take these to save actions. Really. If I want something to happen now, I would have Persisted it to make it last 24 hours, or would Quicken it so I can take the rest of my turn.

Extend Spell is Persistent's little brother. Extend is rarely worth a feat on its own, but Extend + Persist = buff joy.

Rarely have any other metamagic feats been generally recommended. Blasters may take Empower and Maximize, crowd controllers may take Sculpt, and buffers may take Ocular and Chain. Regardless, Incantatrix or Divine Metamagic are usually involved.

Persistent Spell - Reconcilable?
Persistent Spell is in an awkward position. For players and DMs, it means you know a buff will be active for a day unless it's dispelled or an antimagic field envelops the target. Persisted buffs are usually uber because they change potent spells from a fight or few (fire shield, divine power) into something that's on all day.

Many have tried to price Persistent Spell based on the original spell's duration. A round/level spell would cost more than a 10 minute/level spell. I understand why you'd do this, but it just feels wrong to me.

This dilemma exposes another problem with the system: A round/level buff requiring a standard action to cast is almost never worth casting in combat. By using such a buff, you probably put your allies in greater danger because you did nothing to directly hamper the enemy this round.

Such short duration spells expose something about player attitudes, at least in my experience. Every round, players want to use their action offensively. Casting haste in combat on a physical-heavy party is like shaking up a can of soda in a rocket-powered paint mixer. Conversely, casting displacement in combat is asking the enemy to pound on your allies instead, perhaps in a disproportionate manner.

Andion Isurand
2010-08-12, 08:06 PM
I propose that Persistant Spell could instead change the units of duration for a fewer number of slots.

durations measured in rounds are now measured in minutes
durations measured in minutes are measured in 10 minute units
durations measured in 10 minute units are now measured in hours
durations measured in hours are now measured in days
durations measured in days are measured in weeks ...or tendays (FR)
weeks to months
months to years
etc etc

TooManyBadgers
2010-08-12, 08:40 PM
How would a Sudden Metamagic system sound, if uses/day increased with HD?

Endarire
2010-08-12, 10:24 PM
Too: It sounds a lot like what I did in my most recent campaign. It made casters more predictable while still letting them do spell tricks.

Wonton
2010-08-13, 01:00 AM
I agree with everything you said about Persist. By the time the Wizard can cast level 7 spells, a +4 Shield bonus to AC is hardly game-breaking.

So why is Persistent Spell often considered powerful, or cheese even? Metamagic cost reductions and free metamagic application. Notice that your two examples of spells to be used with Persist are Fire Shield and Divine Power. Both of those are 4th-level spells. In a game without DMM, Incantatrix, and Arcane Thesis, there'd only be a handful of ways to even cast such a spell pre-epic.

So, it seems that the problem with metamagic is such: On its own, it's almost always sub-par. With MM reduction, it quickly becomes overpowered. Here are the fixes that I think need to be implemented:

1) Get rid of all blanket MM cost reducers (Incantatrix, Arcane Thesis, hell, even Metamagic School Focus). If you want MM reduction, it's going to have to be specific to a single metamagic feat (in the style of Practical Metamagic).

2) Now that the MM reduction abuse is hopefully gone, we can begin increasing the power of metamagic feats, making them a good investment.

Endarire
2010-08-13, 01:13 AM
My main problem with metamagic is that I'm paying a valuable resource for something which, by the time I can use it, is typically not wanted nor needed.

Maybe I'm alone, but I want to be able to use my tricks on my best spells, not need to overpay to boost my weaker spells to a level that's usually worse than my best.

Peregrine
2010-08-13, 01:29 AM
So why is Persistent Spell often considered powerful, or cheese even? Metamagic cost reductions and free metamagic application.

Also the occasional too-good spell, like wraithstrike. Even without metamagic cost reductions, an eighth-level slot can make all attacks touch attacks for 24 hours.

Kalirren
2010-08-13, 01:34 AM
The way I've heard the metamagic system explained, it was primarily balanced for blasting under a spell-preparation system. The real comparison in those circumstances is not spell vs. spell + metamagic: it's metamagicked low-level spell vs. unmetamagicked-high level spell.

Suppose you're 10th-level, and can throw a 10d6 fireball. You would also be able to cast a 10d6 cone of cold. Either way, that's 35 average damage. But if you empower the fireball, you're expecting an increase of about 18, kicking you to 53 average damage, which is basically what you'd expect from a 15d6 Cone of Cold - but that would require your caster level to be boosted to 15. So in comparison, the Empowered spell with the lower dice cap is actually really nice. The only downside (and IMO an unreasonable one) is the fact that the save DCs are lowered for the metamagicked spell. I think you're right that Heighten Spell should be automatic and inherent to the use of a higher level spell slot. There's no mechanistic downside to this.

That said, nearly all of the more interesting and broken effects of metamagic are the ones that -aren't- blasting, so one would expect that the metamagic system would be fundamentally flawed for those applications.

Wonton
2010-08-13, 01:39 AM
My main problem with metamagic is that I'm paying a valuable resource for something which, by the time I can use it, is typically not wanted nor needed.

Maybe I'm alone, but I want to be able to use my tricks on my best spells, not need to overpay to boost my weaker spells to a level that's usually worse than my best.

That's why I think the Sudden Metamagic line was actually a better idea than standard Metamagics. Sure, 1/day is garbage, and sure, Sudden Quicken is hilariously over-hyped (look at all those prequisites!), but the idea appeals to me more than the standard concept of a metamagic feat. If there was a balanced way to increase daily usages, I would consider eliminating MM and replacing it with Sudden MM.

Edit:

Also the occasional too-good spell, like wraithstrike. Even without metamagic cost reductions, an eighth-level slot can make all attacks touch attacks for 24 hours.

To be perfectly honest, I don't see why any character that took 15 levels in Wizard would care if all his attacks became touch attacks. If you have 15 levels in Wizard and you're hitting things with a sword...

Oslecamo
2010-08-13, 03:33 AM
My main problem with metamagic is that I'm paying a valuable resource for something which, by the time I can use it, is typically not wanted nor needed.

Only for you maybe. Quicken spell is always powerfull, allowing you to sling two spells per turn. Persist spell is the basis of many of the stronger caster builds. Extended is actually quite popular last time I checked. Chain spell is wonderfull for buffers.



Maybe I'm alone, but I want to be able to use my tricks on my best spells, not need to overpay to boost my weaker spells to a level that's usually worse than my best.

Because the "best" spells are already damn powerfull. If you make them even stronger it's simply overpowered if not broken. That's why the incantrix is considered the most broken wizard Prc. When you replace the basic metamagic cost by skill checks you get wizards slinging two max level maximized empowered spells per turn while backed up by 24 hours buffs. Casters don't need that extra help in any way.

Simply put, magic doesn't need buffs as it is. Metamagic was intended to give some extra versatility to spells, not increase their power level by ten by making it easily (ab)useable. Altough even then there's plenty of metamagic reducers out there.

EDIT: And no, players do use short combat buffs. Spot the enemy first, remain hidden (invisibility anyone?), buff yourself with several short duration stuff, go to town. Or when you're about to enter a dark cave you know it's filled with enemies in ambush.

faceroll
2010-08-13, 03:45 AM
Assuming no metamagic reducers, there are still metamagic feats that are totally worth taking. Split Ray & Maximize Spell are both very good for turning a spell into a 1 in 6 chance of incapacitating an enemy to a 100% chance. At high levels, quicken is awesome for unloading stuff like true strike and an enervation. Chain spell can be super efficient at passing around buffs like greater magic weapon or magic vestment. Extend spell on some spells pushes them to last long enough such that you can go to sleep and wake up and have time to adventure with them still on! Extended creeping cold is an awesome damage spell.

Shape spell is another really cool spell. Shaped whirling blade for 4 10' cubes of blade-y death? Turn 1 glitterdust into 4? Hell yeah!

Heighten spell is absolutely required for sorcerers, imo, and even though they take longer to cast, metamagic makes spells more useful and relevant longer.

Granted, prepping metamagic'd spells requires a bit of foresight/preparation as to what you will be combating, since a lot of the combos that metamagic lets you pull off requires rather specific knowledge.

Morph Bark
2010-08-13, 03:54 AM
...wait, one quick question: is this made in mind with the idea of boosting or nerfing casters?

Kobold-Bard
2010-08-13, 04:00 AM
...
Edit:


To be perfectly honest, I don't see why any character that took 15 levels in Wizard would care if all his attacks became touch attacks. If you have 15 levels in Wizard and you're hitting things with a sword...

True, but the melée character in the party will certainly appreciate it, and everyone will appreciate his ability to hack everything to pieces much easier. This is a prime example of the Wizard being a team player rather than a God of All Things.

potatocubed
2010-08-13, 04:02 AM
In Mage (and some other games) there's a system whereby you can casually generate effects that are x-many-levels lower than your ability. Perhaps a similar system, allowing you free levels of metamagic depending on your casting prowess, might help?

For example:


Spells of your maximum spell level down to (max - 2) are cast and metamagicked normally.
Spells of (max - 3) down to (max - 5) get a 'free' level of metamagic. You can apply a +1 effect without increasing the spell level, provided you have the appropriate feat.
Spells of (max - 6) and lower get two free levels of metamagic.


I don't know if this is a workable system or not, but there's your basic idea: bringing your lower-level spells up to the power of your higher-level spells without having to sacrifice your higher-level spells.

Or, if everyone in the party is playing full casters and/or you don't even remotely care about balance:


All spells are cast as if they're the highest-level spell you're capable of casting. Apply free metamagic to lower-level spells to bring them up to the appropriate level.

I imagine that would get very stupid, very fast.

lord_khaine
2010-08-13, 04:05 AM
In an 'optimal' case, a Wizard9 or Wizard10 can do (9d6 * 1.5) or (10d6 * 1.5) with a level 5 slot compared to a normal level 5 spell which would probably only deal 9d6 or 10d6 damage.


A more optimal case staying within core rules would be scorching ray at level 7, going from 8d6 to 12d6, where the lower save dc wont matter.

That aside, magic is allready powerfull enough, and i do think metamagic is allready good enough as it is.
It might even need a nerf regarding metamagic rods.

chaos_redefined
2010-08-13, 04:41 AM
Some metamagic is good enough. I won't deny this. Extend and Quicken are the only ones I will argue, but still.

As a demonstration, I told someone that one of the problems with druids are that there are X many good feats, and everything else isn't worth taking. Amongst my list was extend and quicken. He said that those could be skipped on a druid focusing on melee. I said "So, no quickened or extended buffs? What are you taking instead?"

faceroll
2010-08-13, 04:44 AM
True, but the melée character in the party will certainly appreciate it, and everyone will appreciate his ability to hack everything to pieces much easier. This is a prime example of the Wizard being a team player rather than a God of All Things.

Wraithstrike is a target: self spell.

What persist is really useful for are gish builds (wraithstrike) or arcane sniper builds (hunter's eye et al).

Andion Isurand
2010-08-13, 04:51 AM
General questions of my own.

1) What do you all think of the non-epic Transcendant Spell feat (Warcraft d20) that removes the cap for any spell effects based on caster level for +7 slots?

2) Should Heighten Spell be able to heighten spells above 9th level without requiring an additional epic feat?

3) Should Intensify Spell really be an epic feat... given that existing reducers take longer to bring it down than a combination of Maximize and Empower spell?

WinWin
2010-08-13, 05:26 AM
I think the number of spells available is more of a problem than metamagic. Swift action and immediate action spells exacerbate the problem somewhat.

I would suggest increasing the caster time of some spells, making them more like rituals, but then noone would take them except to persist buffs. A scaling system might be appropriate, as could further restrictions on what metamagics can apply to certain spells. Without a complete revision of spell lists, I don't see how any meaningful changes can be made to the system though.

I admire the effort, I will certainly pay attention to see if progress can be made. Just because I do not see a solution does not mean one does not exist lol.

faceroll
2010-08-13, 05:29 AM
General questions of my own.

1) What do you all think of the non-epic Transcendant Spell feat (Warcraft d20) that removes the cap for any spell effects based on caster level for +7 slots?

2) Should Heighten Spell be able to heighten spells above 9th level without requiring an additional epic feat?

3) Should Intensify Spell really be an epic feat... given that existing reducers take longer to bring it down than a combination of Maximize and Empower spell?

Intensify makes sense. It's basically letting you maximize a spell twice. An intensified fireball (CL 10) does 120 damage. A maximized, empowered fireball (CL10) does anywhere from 65 damage to 90 damage, average like 70 damage (formula is 10 * 6 + 0.5*10d6).

Psyx
2010-08-13, 05:50 AM
Generally, they ain't worth the feat slot, except for a certain number of exceptions, or if you have a way of not paying the real price.

I think they are basically poor in general terms, ranging to broken when combined with the right blag (DMM et cetera).

It's a shame that the Sudden Metamagic feats aren't better. Then it'd be worth using them.


Is anyone familiar with Impromptu Metamagic from Dragon? It's a sub-out for...Familiar, probably. Anyway; each day you pick a MM that you have, and you get to use it in a Sudden manner a number of times per day equal to 5-level of metamagic modifier (ie once for twin/quicken, 4 times for still).

If all sudden metamagics worked perhaps 5-MM level per day, I'd call that a reasonable fix.

Tyndmyr
2010-08-13, 11:14 AM
I propose that Persistant Spell could instead change the units of duration for a fewer number of slots.

durations measured in rounds are now measured in minutes
durations measured in minutes are measured in 10 minute units
durations measured in 10 minute units are now measured in hours
durations measured in hours are now measured in days
durations measured in days are measured in weeks ...or tendays (FR)
weeks to months
months to years
etc etc

Awesome. So a persisted extended heart of x spell would now last 2 weeks/tendays.

This makes it subtly MORE powerful, as you can run all 24 hr buffs. All the time, for a minimal spell slot cost. Much less than say, persisting shorter duration buffs every day would be.

The effective cap is a good thing.

Zaydos
2010-08-13, 11:29 AM
Extend Spell: good.
Quicken Spell: wonderful.
Persist Spell: needs the high modifier or it is totally abuseable.
Maximize Spell: Useful for blasters, but generally Empower is more efficient.
Empower Spell: Good for blasting.
Split Ray: Split Enervate (6th level) = Energy Drain (9th).
Arcane Thesis: Win.

No metamagic doesn't have to be made better. Some of it sucks and isn't worth taking, but some of it is really good.

Tyndmyr
2010-08-13, 11:35 AM
Empower and maximize are weak even for blasting without reducers. HP damage is better done by just using a bigger spell. The same is usually true for ability damage, unless spell access is rare in your campaign.

+0 MM are the only ones I bother to take without reducers. This occasionally includes sudden metamagics.

GameSpawn
2010-08-13, 02:37 PM
An idea I had that may or may not be good is the idea of risky metamagic. For example, make using metamagic feats easier, but you had to make a skill check or suffer something like the scroll mishaps. I don't really have a whole system for this planned out, but it might be an interesting way to make the metamagic system more usable (or at least differently usable).

Urpriest
2010-08-13, 03:54 PM
Really, the way to fix Metamagic is to fix a larger problem with 3.5, namely exponential spell power. If spells scaled linearly then metamagic could be easily designed and balanced. This would be a pretty huge change to the system, though, and probably beyond the scope of the goals here.

Telonius
2010-08-13, 04:02 PM
DMM's problem isn't so much that it's broken in and of itself. You do pay for the benefit, in the form of fewer Turn Attempts available. It's broken because it's so (potentially) easy to get more Turn Attempts (nightstick cheese etc). Under saner circumstances, you'd basically be using a feat to trade your ability to turn undead and a spell slot, for a single spell that's active all day.

Oslecamo
2010-08-13, 04:06 PM
Empower and maximize are weak even for blasting without reducers. HP damage is better done by just using a bigger spell. The same is usually true for ability damage, unless spell access is rare in your campaign.


Whot? Empowered ray of enfeeblement is a classic of debuffing. And like already pointed out empowered fireball deals more damage than a cone of cold altough with a lower DC. Empowered scorching ray is plain nasty. The math is clear, empower does allow you to scale damage faster.