"Is this really worth 'x'" discussion thread

[Getsugaru]

In the game, there are metamagic's that are very much useless without reducing the cost (Persistent Spell). Others are quite good for their cost (Invisible Spell). There are even some that just don't work (Energy Admixture). They all raise questions, but the big one that comes up often is "Why does it cost that?"

As the name implies, this thread is to discuss adjustment costs for not only metamagic, but anything else that has some form of level adjustment. Feel free to post your own LA-based questions. I think I'll start with one of my own: Energy Admixture. It requires Energy Substitution of the same type as the version of the feat you want and has a cost of +4. As all it does is add on the same damage again only of a different element (i.e. an acid Fireball that would deal normally 6d6 fire, would deal 6d6 fire and 6d6 acid), and it only can add one energy type per time you take each feat (meaning that to get all four as possible add-on's, you have to use up 9 feats, 8 for all the sub's and admix's, and one for a metamagic to fulfill the sub's prerequisites), I don't believe it is worth a +4 adjustment; I think it should be +3 at most. What are you thoughts on this?

[tyckspoon]

Hmm. The fact that a spell level is a really big unit of measurement is working against this here; Admixture is better than Maximize (a 10d6 Fireball, Maximized, does 60 damage. An admixed one, throwing effectively 20d6, is an average of 70 that is less likely to have to deal with resistances. The difference increases with spells that use bigger dice/have higher caps.) But is it a full spell level better, especially considering the prereq feat? Probably not.. although if we're going to consider it against the broader ecosystem of 3.5 optimization, erring on the side of caution is probably better- you don't want to make it too easy to mitigate the cost.

(Semi-related note: Maximize is arguably over-costed as well, as it is less efficient than Empower for the majority of spells. Maximize at +2 and Admixture at +3 would likely be fair in a vacuum, and overpowered in a context of Incantatrix and Arcane Thesis.)

[IdleMuse]

Adding on the same amount of dice again is roughly equivalent to maxing all the dice, as per Maximise Spell, which is a +3 metamagic. Since Admixture also lets you play around resistances and suchlike, apparently it had to bemore expensive than maximise spell, hence +4 (Wizards don't really consider feat tax a cost, per se). Though I suppose you could stack maximise and admixture if you're playing a blaster with some metamagic reducer.

EDIT: Ninja'd, with some maths more in depth than just 'roughly the same' :D though I agree with the sentiment above that metamagic as written is either unusably bad or brokenly good, depending on whether you can reduce it loads or not.

[kardar233]

Admixture works out to dealing 1 point of damage more than Maximize per die of the original spell. It's a bit less versatile, as it applies to fewer things (such as not including gems like Enervation).

[Zeta Kai]

I'll just come out & say it: Racial Hit Die should NOT add to one's Level Adjustment. It's a bad rule, end of story. It just adds to an already painful system of restrictions that make it less fun to play anything but Ze Proper Racez. RHD are just dead levels, & we all know how much fun those are. It always seems like the designers were double-dipping on the penalties with those, & it let them of the hook for bad monster design by simply making it undesirable for anyone to play as monster. LA sucks, but RHD suck much harder.

[Lateral]

LA sucks, but RHD suck much harder.

...How, exactly? They both cost you levels, they both prevent you from playing a character from level one, and RHD actually provide you character levels, HP, and BAB. Compare a Wizard 16/LA +4 and a Wizard 16/ Monstrous Humanoid RHD 4 (probably the most common type for a character to be playing), and I guarantee you the second one will have a strictly better chassis. Barring LA buyoff, RHD aren't nearly as bad as LA, and especially for noncaster classes it can be okay sometimes.

Both on top of each other is stupid, yeah, but LA is way worse than RHD.

[absolmorph]

I'll just come out & say it: Racial Hit Die should NOT add to one's Level Adjustment. It's a bad rule, end of story. It just adds to an already painful system of restrictions that make it less fun to play anything but Ze Proper Racez. RHD are just dead levels, & we all know how much fun those are. It always seems like the designers were double-dipping on the penalties with those, & it let them of the hook for bad monster design by simply making it undesirable for anyone to play as monster. LA sucks, but RHD suck much harder.
Uh... Don't RHD give you more than LA?
Yes, there are rules for LA buy-off, but still.

[Mystic Muse]

...How, exactly? They both cost you levels, they both prevent you from playing a character from level one, and RHD actually provide you character levels, HP, and BAB. Compare a Wizard 16/LA +4 and a Wizard 16/ Monstrous Humanoid RHD 4 (probably the most common type for a character to be playing), and I guarantee you the second one will have a strictly better chassis. Barring LA buyoff, RHD aren't nearly as bad as LA, and especially for noncaster classes it can be okay sometimes.

Both on top of each other is stupid, yeah, but LA is way worse than RHD.


I'll just come out & say it: Racial Hit Die should NOT add to one's Level Adjustment. It's a bad rule, end of story. It just adds to an already painful system of restrictions that make it less fun to play anything but Ze Proper Racez. RHD are just dead levels, & we all know how much fun those are. It always seems like the designers were double-dipping on the penalties with those, & it let them of the hook for bad monster design by simply making it undesirable for anyone to play as monster. LA sucks, but RHD suck much harder.

This is why people have been trying to make good Homebrew Monster classes.

[Mando Knight]

...How, exactly? They both cost you levels, they both prevent you from playing a character from level one, and RHD actually provide you character levels, HP, and BAB. Compare a Wizard 16/LA +4 and a Wizard 16/ Monstrous Humanoid RHD 4 (probably the most common type for a character to be playing), and I guarantee you the second one will have a strictly better chassis. Barring LA buyoff, RHD aren't nearly as bad as LA, and especially for noncaster classes it can be okay sometimes.

And there are some fairly decent RHD out there. Dragon and Outsider come to mind... sure, they're not as good as caster levels, but with their skills, saves, full BAB, and hit die, they're better than odd-numbered Fighter levels.

[Lans]

Ideally racial HD should be taken into account with the other abilities to determine the LA. So abilities that normally would mean +4 LA would only give +2 with 4 racial HD.

Or what ever LA 17 wizard casting levels, +18 intelligence and other stuff only being +4 LA instead of what ever it should be

[candycorn]

Some RHD are arguably worth it. For example, outsiders have D8 HD, 3 good saves, full BAB, 8+ skills, proficiency with martial weapons, and Darkvision.

That's arguably better than several PC classes (coughmonkcough).

[navar100]

I'll just come out & say it: Racial Hit Die should NOT add to one's Level Adjustment. It's a bad rule, end of story. It just adds to an already painful system of restrictions that make it less fun to play anything but Ze Proper Racez. RHD are just dead levels, & we all know how much fun those are. It always seems like the designers were double-dipping on the penalties with those, & it let them of the hook for bad monster design by simply making it undesirable for anyone to play as monster. LA sucks, but RHD suck much harder.

Agreed. Your HD should just be based on your class. Play a 1st level minotaur paladin of 10 + CON modifier hit points like a human would. At 2nd level gain 1d10 plus CON modifier hit points, again at 3rd level, and so on. As a classed PC, you're already different than the norm for your race.

Inherent racial abilities might still warrant a level adjustment, but only racial abilities are taken into account - immunities, spell resistance, spell-like abilities, etc. You don't get the feat slots that come with the HD, which you aren't getting anyway. You are getting feats like every other character. You could choose the feats as listed in the monster manual entry, or you could pick something else.

[Greenish]

Who in WotC hates goblins, I've often wondered. Maybe one of them just likes slapping LA on them for gits and shiggles. See, for example, Blue from EPH or Arctic Goblin from Frostburn.

[JackRackham]

I'll throw the TWF feat chain, archery as an archetype and sneak attack as a class feature out there. All three require an awful lot of planning out-of-game to be worthwhile - usually serious multiclassing, obscure feats and skill uses and expensive/obscure equipment - and in the end are just SOOO easy to neutralize. This is my biggest overall beef with 3.5 (which I love). Certain character archetypes are just borderline unplayable (at least in-combat) unless a DM goes out of his/her way to make it so.

NOTE: uncanny dodge was the last straw for me with regards to sneak attack. It's bad enough that a feat-starved class has to pay an exorbitant feat tax to keep their primary offensive feature relevant (by going TWF), and multiclass, and take a hanful of ACFs, and skill tricks, if they want to use it frequently and on a broad swath of creature types. But then, they give a bunch of classes (rogues, barbarians, warblades, a bunch of PrCs, scouts?) An ability that out-and-out negates it? BS. And that ACF that let's you do 1/2 SA on anything? Restricted to flanking. If the melee type is already engaged, your sneak attack is generally too late. Oh, and a rogue can't sneak attack in darkness? Wtf?

[Zeta Kai]

Yes, RHD are sometimes quite good, depending on the creature's type (dragons & outsiders make out the best, followed by constructs, depending on who you ask), but most of the time, it's just a dead level. And it's fairly obvious from looking at the LA numbers of any monster that those stats were written without any regard for RHD. It's like whoever came up with those numbers had already accounted for the RHD, & assumed that they would not stack, & then later someone else came along & said that yes, they do stack.

At my table, RHD is cut in half (rounded down), & I will allow most monsters (but not all), as long as somebody will throw me a bone & play something kinda normal. It's worked fairly well so far, with harpies, minotaurs, & sahuagin being the favorites. Vampires, ogre mages, & genies are still all but worthless.

[PlzBreakMyCmpAn]

Zeta Kai has just won this thread.

BTW have you seen my Balanced ECL Variant rul

[Mystic Muse]

Zeta Kai has just won this thread.

BTW have you seen my Balanced ECL Variant rul

No. It would be easier to find it if you'd simply link it.

[Endarire]

Alignment. Too many arguments and wonky interactions.

[Tyndmyr]

Adding on the same amount of dice again is roughly equivalent to maxing all the dice, as per Maximise Spell, which is a +3 metamagic. Since Admixture also lets you play around resistances and suchlike, apparently it had to bemore expensive than maximise spell, hence +4 (Wizards don't really consider feat tax a cost, per se). Though I suppose you could stack maximise and admixture if you're playing a blaster with some metamagic reducer.

EDIT: Ninja'd, with some maths more in depth than just 'roughly the same' :D though I agree with the sentiment above that metamagic as written is either unusably bad or brokenly good, depending on whether you can reduce it loads or not.

Technically, the average roll on a die is 3.5. So, maximize is adding 2.5 damage per die, while admixture is adding 3.5. It's notably better. That said, the feat tax makes it a bit rough unless you already are playing around with energy substitution(IE, you're abusing Arcane Thesis).

That said, metamagic in general is mostly not worth it without reducers. A maximized whatever is probably inferior to just casting the higher level spell. You've got a couple of notable exceptions like Fell Drain, the swift metamagics and invisible spell, but mostly, they range from "can be made usable with reducers" to "you will never take this". Hell, core has half the ones that are good/can be made useable, too.

[molten_dragon]

It was brought up briefly in the OP, but persist spell has some serious issues. Without a way to reduce the metamagic cost, it is nearly useless (though there are a few good uses of it cough wraithstrike cough) due to being too expensive. And the awesome things that you can do with it, while still nice, aren't game-breaking by the level that they're available. And in some cases it just doesn't make any sense at all. A 12th level caster could cast a persisted hour/level buff to get it to last all day, and it would pay a +6 spell slot penalty. Or he could just extend the buff to get the exact same effect for only a +1 spell slot penalty.

Persist would make a lot more sense if if the spell slot adjustment was based on the normal duration of the spell it's being applied to. The full +6 is probably balanced for round/level spells, maybe +4 for minute/level, +2 for 10 minute/level, and +1 for hour/level.

[Tyndmyr]

It was brought up briefly in the OP, but persist spell has some serious issues. Without a way to reduce the metamagic cost, it is nearly useless (though there are a few good uses of it cough wraithstrike cough) due to being too expensive. And the awesome things that you can do with it, while still nice, aren't game-breaking by the level that they're available. And in some cases it just doesn't make any sense at all. A 12th level caster could cast a persisted hour/level buff to get it to last all day, and it would pay a +6 spell slot penalty. Or he could just extend the buff to get the exact same effect for only a +1 spell slot penalty.

Persist would make a lot more sense if if the spell slot adjustment was based on the normal duration of the spell it's being applied to. The full +6 is probably balanced for round/level spells, maybe +4 for minute/level, +2 for 10 minute/level, and +1 for hour/level.

If it merely boosted each spell to the next category, it would worth what...+2? +3 at the absolute most, but at +2, I'd consider it on par with Extend Spell, and since Extend is a prereq...it seems quite reasonable.

But yeah, without reducers, almost nobody is going to bother with persist. At that point, it's an obscure option for optimizers in very specific situations.

[navar100]

If it merely boosted each spell to the next category, it would worth what...+2? +3 at the absolute most, but at +2, I'd consider it on par with Extend Spell, and since Extend is a prereq...it seems quite reasonable.

But yeah, without reducers, almost nobody is going to bother with persist. At that point, it's an obscure option for optimizers in very specific situations.

The issue is Persistent Spell used to be only +4 levels, but then some people started to cry, complain, and yell about it so they made it +6.

[ericgrau]

I think I'll start with one of my own: Energy Admixture. It requires Energy Substitution of the same type as the version of the feat you want and has a cost of +4. As all it does is add on the same damage again only of a different element (i.e. an acid Fireball that would deal normally 6d6 fire, would deal 6d6 fire and 6d6 acid), and it only can add one energy type per time you take each feat (meaning that to get all four as possible add-on's, you have to use up 9 feats, 8 for all the sub's and admix's, and one for a metamagic to fulfill the sub's prerequisites), I don't believe it is worth a +4 adjustment; I think it should be +3 at most. What are you thoughts on this?
An acid fireball on top of your regular one is better than a quickened fire fireball, so yes it's very much worth +4 for any fireball tosser. It might be worth more than +4, except you need to build around it so I dunno.

I'm going to say widen spell and enlarge spell on the basis that if it was worth it people would use it. I know there are large scale mass combats where they would utterly dominate, and they might be on the strong side of +2 and +0 metamagic, but a feat that never gets used might as well not exist. If at +2 and +0 they're automatic choices for any large battlefield caster, that's ok because it's situational enough to justify the high power. And even then most casters won't grab them. Something that often good to use when someone is focusing on it but not all the time is the definition of balanced IMO.


The issue is Persistent Spell used to be only +4 levels, but then some people started to cry, complain, and yell about it so they made it +6.
And then it became OP anyway with cost mitigation. Yeah, things that are either worthless if you don't break the game or way OP if you do are problems. It's broken either way, just one is unusuable because it's too little the other because it's too much. I can see it being a problem with very high level play even without mitigation, but that still means is you have a feat that's hard to use 95% of the time making it bad design. Most non-epic campaigns end before it's even available on any meaningful spell. If the feat could scale somehow that would be better.

[Zeta Kai]

Zeta Kai has just won this thread.

Thank you. I may quote you on that. :smallbiggrin:


BTW have you seen my Balanced ECL Variant rul

No, I have not. Link?


Persist would make a lot more sense if if the spell slot adjustment was based on the normal duration of the spell it's being applied to. The full +6 is probably balanced for round/level spells, maybe +4 for minute/level, +2 for 10 minute/level, and +1 for hour/level.

I haven't worked the math, obviously, but at a glance, that's a rather good fix.

[Qwertystop]

Technically, the average roll on a die is 3.5. So, maximize is adding 2.5 damage per die, while admixture is adding 3.5. It's notably better. That said, the feat tax makes it a bit rough unless you already are playing around with energy substitution(IE, you're abusing Arcane Thesis).

That said, metamagic in general is mostly not worth it without reducers. A maximized whatever is probably inferior to just casting the higher level spell. You've got a couple of notable exceptions like Fell Drain, the swift metamagics and invisible spell, but mostly, they range from "can be made usable with reducers" to "you will never take this". Hell, core has half the ones that are good/can be made useable, too.

Which die is average 3.5?

[Volthawk]

Which die is average 3.5?

The d6 has an average of 3.5. Average of a normal fair die that doesn't skip numbers is half the die's top value + 0.5 (so d10s have 5.5 average, d20s have an average of 10.5, and so on).