PDA

View Full Version : Rich's Metamagic Feats article



dolphinling
2007-06-30, 05:40 AM
I read the Metamagic Feats (http://www.giantitp.com/articles/Vc8c0zrN3b8C17BVveU.html) article. I really like the idea of 0-level-increase metamagic feats and I also really like the feat ideas presented, but I think that, as presented the feats are too powerful.


For the Bane Spell feat, a sorcerer casting the spell chooses what creature type the spell works against at the time of casting, so there's no chance of getting it wrong. His cost is that casting the spell is a full round action, and what he gets in return is an extra 2d6 of damage—a first level sorcerer casting Magic Missile would have his average damage tripled by this! For a wizard, who has to guess what creature type he'll be facing in advance, there's no penalty for using this on some spells—if he uses Magic Missile it's a chance at an extra 2d6 with no decrease in casting time at all.

Lucky Spell I really like the stated premise of: "Your spells frequently have unusually fortuitous results.". However, as a 0-level-increase feat, there's no reason not to apply this to every single spell a wizard has! Compare this to Empower Spell (PHB 93) which raises damage slightly more than this and raises spell level by 2. Also, the mechanics of this feat don't really match the premise: really all it's doing is making the spell do more damage every time, whereas it sounds like it should be high damages are more common, but medium and low damages keep the same relative distribution. I'd recommend reworking the mechanics to match the premise (no mechanics spring to mind immediately, but I'm sure it can be done*) and making it increase the level of the spell by one.

Seeking Spell may or may not be okay. Once again, for a wizard there's no reason not to use it with every applicable spell, whereas sorcerers would have to be more judicious with their use, which seems a bit unfair. I like the nice, simple concept. The cost of taking the feat and increased casting time for sorcerers is probably enough; some tiny other thing for wizards would be good.


Suppressible Spell is my favorite! :) As it is, it suffers the same no-penalty-for-applying-it-to-every-spell fault that the others do but... what if it was suppressible by enemy casters as well?

I see it as follows: any enemy spellcaster who sees you casting a suppressible spell is automatically entitled to a spellcraft check (rolled secretly, obviously) [at what bonus/penalty?] to recognize it as suppressible. Once recognized as suppressible, the enemy spellcaster may make a [what kind of?] check* to suppress it**. Whether or not this succeeds, the original spellcaster is aware of it, and, starting next round, may make an opposed check (assuming the enemy is still attempting to keep it suppressed) [at what bonus?] to unsuppress it. The original spellcaster may also concentrate on keeping the spell unsuppressed in advance, so the enemy caster starts off with an opposed check. If three or more people are trying to suppress/unsuppress a spell at once, they all make opposed checks and the highest wins. All casters making opposed checks are aware of all the others (and the original spellcaster is aware of all others even if not making an opposed check). If a caster suspects but does not know that a spell is suppressible (e.g., saw someone pop in and out of invisibility several times, or was told by another caster) she can attempt to suppress it anyway—if it wasn't, the action is (obviously) wasted. Suppressing a spell is a full-round action in the case of opposed checks, and a [what?] action for the caster or a [what?] action for others in the case of non-opposed checks.

* at a [what?] penalty if they don't also know the spell?
** may also attempt to unsuppress it if currently suppressed, though I don't know why they'd want to.

All this makes what I think is worthy of a 0-level-increase feat: something that has an obvious benefit to the caster, but also has the potential to go wrong, and would not want to be applied indiscriminantly to every spell.

Unfortunately, it also makes a very long feat description :(


As a note, I haven't playtested any of these, so take them as ideas, not great truths. Also, while I've been around D&D for a long time, I've wanted to play far more than I've been able to, so chances are high they're not even good ideas. :P

Other than that, thanks for the article!

Dausuul
2007-06-30, 08:27 AM
Yeah, metamagic feats that have no associated penalties are a bit much. It's not like casters need a power boost.

My suggestion: With the exception of Vicious Spell, any spell modified by one of these feats has its casting time increased to 1 round (that's 1 round, like a summon monster spell, not just a full-round action).

Jasdoif
2007-06-30, 01:39 PM
For the Bane Spell feat, a sorcerer casting the spell chooses what creature type the spell works against at the time of casting, so there's no chance of getting it wrong. His cost is that casting the spell is a full round action, and what he gets in return is an extra 2d6 of damage—a first level sorcerer casting Magic Missile would have his average damage tripled by this! For a wizard, who has to guess what creature type he'll be facing in advance, there's no penalty for using this on some spells—if he uses Magic Missile it's a chance at an extra 2d6 with no decrease in casting time at all.Your understanding on this one is a little off. You have a pick the particular creature type when you take the feat. And you aren't allowed to take the feat again, so it's no good to you if you're encountering other types of creatures.

Gavin Sage
2007-06-30, 03:20 PM
For the Bane Spell feat, a sorcerer casting the spell chooses what creature type the spell works against at the time of casting, so there's no chance of getting it wrong. His cost is that casting the spell is a full round action, and what he gets in return is an extra 2d6 of damage—a first level sorcerer casting Magic Missile would have his average damage tripled by this! For a wizard, who has to guess what creature type he'll be facing in advance, there's no penalty for using this on some spells—if he uses Magic Missile it's a chance at an extra 2d6 with no decrease in casting time at all.

You have one essential problem, the type of Bane is chosen when taking the feat. Thus while a Sorceror can avoid the penalty, he can still only use it on one sort of creature. And takes a full round action as always.


Lucky Spell I really like the stated premise of: "Your spells frequently have unusually fortuitous results.". However, as a 0-level-increase feat, there's no reason not to apply this to every single spell a wizard has! Compare this to Empower Spell (PHB 93) which raises damage slightly more than this and raises spell level by 2. Also, the mechanics of this feat don't really match the premise: really all it's doing is making the spell do more damage every time, whereas it sounds like it should be high damages are more common, but medium and low damages keep the same relative distribution. I'd recommend reworking the mechanics to match the premise (no mechanics spring to mind immediately, but I'm sure it can be done*) and making it increase the level of the spell by one.

Let's run some numbers:

Wizard 9 Magic Missile: 5d4+5
(1+3+3+4)+5= 16 Normal

(1+3+3+4)1.5+5= 21.5 Empowered

(4+3+3+4)+5 = 19 Lucky Max
(3+3+3+4)+5 = 18
(2+3+3+4)+5 = 17
(1+3+3+4)+5 = 16 Lucky Fail

Wizard 9 Fireball: 9d6
1+1+1+4+5+6+6+4+5 = 33 Normal

(1+1+1+4+5+6+6+4+5)1.5 = 49.5 Empowered

(6+6+6)+4+5+6+6+4+5 = 48 Lucky Max
(2+5+4)+4+5+6+6+4+5 = 41
(3+3+3)+4+5+6+6+4+5 = 39
(2+2+4)+4+5+6+6+4+5 = 38
(1+1+2)+4+5+6+6+4+5 = 34
(1+1+1)+4+5+6+6+4+5 = 33 Lucky Fail

Now I deliberately used some fairly extreme base numbers to apply the Lucky too. However Empower will always give a better bonus then the best application of the Lucky Spell for the same rolling. Generally speaking reliablible bonuses are better then chance ones. Sure while you can turn those 1 into 6s/8s/etc, but you have an equal chance of getting the lowest result all over again. More likely you are going to get a result somewhere in the middle. And I'm just basing off the 1s, if you roll something in the middle your chance of getting an increase drops.

And it accurately fufills its stated roll, since you would only want to use it on sub-par rolls thus it shores up bad rolls making you luckier. However given that it can't take a spell beyond normal, and is fairly limited on its dice, plus is only for damage spells and healing its not really broken even if used constantly. If I had to raise an objection it would be restructure the feat as a more general one to let Sorcerors use it too.


Seeking Spell may or may not be okay. Once again, for a wizard there's no reason not to use it with every applicable spell, whereas sorcerers would have to be more judicious with their use, which seems a bit unfair. I like the nice, simple concept. The cost of taking the feat and increased casting time for sorcerers is probably enough; some tiny other thing for wizards would be good.

Here you have a point as it Seeking Spell amounts to Precise Shot in one feat for rays and missiles. Sure Precise Shot is more generally applicable, but has a prereq and concealment is harder to beat as it is.

The Sorceror thing is true for all metamagic though, and begs whether it is more the Wizard being overpowered or the Sorc being under. I favor the former myself.

On Suppressable I have no opinion since while fun I see relatively little game impact since most buff generally you want on all the time. So aside from a few spells and situational uses... I don't see much one way or the other.

dolphinling
2007-07-01, 03:34 AM
Your understanding on this one is a little off. You have a pick the particular creature type when you take the feat. And you aren't allowed to take the feat again, so it's no good to you if you're encountering other types of creatures.
Ah, thank you for clearing that up! Knowing that, I think the feat is perfect! The only change I would make is making it be titled Bane Spell (creature type) so other people don't make my mistake. :)


...Empower will always give a better bonus then the best application of the Lucky Spell for the same rolling.
Yes, this is true. The question is how much, and is it okay to raise the damage that much without raising the spell level.

I like exact numbers rather than just single example cases, so I wrote a little perl script to help me come up with some. I get the following: (all numbers are the average you'll get from that spell)


Wizard 1 Magic Missile:
Normal: 3.5
Empowered: 5.25
Lucky: 4

Wizard 5 Magic Missile:
Normal: 10.5
Empowered: 15.75
Lucky: 11.5

Wizard 9 Magic Missile:
Normal: 17.5
Empowered: 26.25
Lucky: 18.75

Verdict: Magic Missile, being a 1st level spell using d4, isn't helped nearly as much by Lucky as Empowered.


Wizard 3 Fireball:
Normal: 10.5
Empowered: 15.75
Lucky: 12.75

Wizard 6 Fireball:
Normal: 21
Empowered: 31.5
Lucky: 25.14

Wizard 9 Fireball:
Normal: 31.5
Empowered: 47.25
Lucky: 36.84

Verdict: Fireball is helped by 20% at some levels—not Empowered's 50, but still a lot. If a 50% increase makes the spell take up a slot TWO higher, a 20% increase shouldn't be FREE.


Meteor Swarm: (fire only)
Normal: 84
Empowered: 126 (note: impossible)
Lucky: 103.5

Lucky Spell makes Meteor Swarm do 20 extra damage—quite a lot when you consider that it's basically free and there's no other metamagic feat that can add to it since the spell is already 9th level.


Other spells, especially high-level ones with many d6, see similar increases around 20%. Pretty much the only one that doesn't is Magic Missile, since rerolling a single d4 can only add a maximum of 3. Also, in terms of randomness, Lucky Spell specifically makes the lowest-value rolls less likely (since you reroll all your 1s) and is thereby MORE reliable than Empowered at doing at least a certain amount of damage.


Given all that, I don't think the current Lucky Spell is acceptable. 20% extra is just too much damage. In fact, I don't think anything that increases damage (other than only in specific cases, like Bane Spell) is safe as a 0-level-increase feat.

Peregrine
2008-01-09, 06:01 AM
By bizarre coincidence, I was doing my own analysis of Lucky Spell just today. (Quite sure this isn't thread necromancy; this forum's a quiet one and this thread was still quite high on the first page.)

In the optimal case (i.e. you choose to reroll anything less than half the best roll -- you risk a lower result but have the best chance of a higher one), Lucky Spell will increase the mean result by half as much as Empower Spell. This suggests it should be a +1 level increase.

But consider these counter-arguments:
1. The cost is not precisely +2 levels vs +0 levels; it's a feat + 2 levels + use of metamagic (for spontaneous casters) vs a feat + 0 levels + use.
2. It keeps pace with Empower Spell, but Empower Spell falls behind Maximise Spell for dice larger than d4.
3. Getting the best mean result requires risking a worse result in specific cases -- it's a gamble.
4. Worse, Lucky Spell only applies to damage dice.

On that third one, do you think it would be fair to have it apply to other dice as well? I'd like to house-rule it so, make it handy for more than just damage spells...

Emperor Demonking
2008-01-11, 03:43 PM
I like them as normally I dislike metamagic feats.

Kyeudo
2008-01-11, 05:23 PM
Most of those look pretty decent. Lucky Spell should probably be a +1 level feat.

PirateMonk
2008-01-14, 05:23 PM
What makes Vicious Spell worth a one level increase?