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!
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!