Balanced Metamagic (as feats) and more options (PEACH)

[Kryx]

Hi,

I'm looking to balance out the few metamagic options that exist and make them available to all classes as feats. (Sorcerer is being reworked for my game and it will no longer be the core niche of the class)

http://homebrewery.naturalcrit.com/share/Hy-vX84M_

I'm particularly interested in feedback on the following:

Suggestions for how to increase the usefulness of Distant Spell
Suggestions for how to increase the usefulness of Extended Spell
Points to give to each feat. 3 seems good as it allows the 1 pointers to be used a few times and the big benefits to be used once per long rest.
Points to give Metamagic Power. 4 is what I have currently. It should be slightly more than a Metamagic option + points. 3+4 = 7 which allows for 7 1 pointers, or 3 2 pointers or 2 3 pointers.
Balance of Reverberating Spell. It is the only added one that I'd be worried about balance-wise. I've made it cost 3 points as you could effectively have 2 fireballs for the price of 3 points, but the fact that it's constrained to the same area and cast at the base level of the spell should help.


Reference for some of the options (Invisible, Overchannel, Precise): Metamagic Options (PEACH) (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?474296-Metamagic-Options-(PEACH))

Thanks guys!

[Final Hyena]

Suggestions for how to increase the usefulness of Distant Spell
I think for the most part increasing the value of distant is more to do with the campaign than the metamagic. It's pretty much an artillery ability as such you need to facilitate that. You can try to incorporate (air)ships or grand battles allowing extra turns of bombardment. Another idea would be creatures that have very good senses and movement (maybe they can phase into another plane). However they have incredibly low HP. Every so often during travel a player might see one and if they have distant then they will be able to kill it and gather the valuable resources.


Suggestions for how to increase the usefulness of Extended Spell
A fresh new marketing campaign, "Extend the beast within!"
To be serious this is a hard one, so rarely will it ever be useful. How about if that spell fails (say due to duration ending or concentrating breaking) you may spend the appropriate slot to cast it again as a reaction?


Points to give to each feat. 3 seems good as it allows the 1 pointers to be used a few times and the big benefits to be used once per long rest.

Points to give Metamagic Power. 4 is what I have currently. It should be slightly more than a Metamagic option + points. 3+4 = 7 which allows for 7 1 pointers, or 3 2 pointers or 2 3 pointers.
Currently you seem to be valuing 1 metamagic point against 2 metamagic options, do you think an equivalent of 8 metamagic options for one feat is fair?


Balance of Reverberating Spell. It is the only added one that I'd be worried about balance-wise. I've made it cost 3 points as you could effectively have 2 fireballs for the price of 3 points, but the fact that it's constrained to the same area and cast at the base level of the spell should help.
I think if you added in some text to the affect that "the area is ominously glowing" would also aid the balance.

Aside from that one thing that jumped at me is Invisible spell, If you cast an invisible fireball wouldn't you expect it to be a harder save?
I understand mechanically it's supposed to be more of a subtle thing for being mischievous, but I can't honestly wrap my head around throwing an invisible attack and it being no harder to stop.

[Kryx]

Thanks for the feedback!


Like you, I'm afraid there isn't much to be done about distant spell. I considered combining it with Enlarge, but it's different.

I like your Extended Spell idea! This is what I wrote: "If you lose concentration on an extended spell you can use 1 metamagic point and your reaction to cast the spell again."

Reverberating Spell I added "The area glows in a color chosen by the GM and creatures can determine what will happen with an Intelligence (Arcana) check." That should help. I also changed the cost to be equal to the spell's level - similar to Twinned Spell.



Currently you seem to be valuing 1 metamagic point against 2 metamagic options, do you think an equivalent of 8 metamagic options for one feat is fair?
Hmmm I'm not sure this is the correct way to view the balance. Compare to Martial Adept. Martial adept gives you two maneuvers and a dice to use them. It is generally considered one of the poorer feats in the game due to its intermittent usage.

The way I've set up metamagic feats is to mirror that: You get 2 options to use and the power to use them *once*. Once meaning use the biggest option once and use the current point balance to use the lesser options more often.

Do you think the current way is unbalanced? I don't think less than 3 is really an option. Is 4 on the pure points feat too low?


Aside from that one thing that jumped at me is Invisible spell, If you cast an invisible fireball wouldn't you expect it to be a harder save?
I understand mechanically it's supposed to be more of a subtle thing for being mischievous, but I can't honestly wrap my head around throwing an invisible attack and it being no harder to stop.
Logically, sure, but mechanically no. Heighten spell already exists for that purpose. Invisible is meant for subtlety.

[Final Hyena]

I think if you're creative you can make distant valuable, it's just that the standard 5E campaign of a dungeon with areas that rarely get beyond 50x50 feet areas doesn't suit it. What about a lock on? you ignore cover with all distant spells. You could perhaps extend that so that if you hit with a distant spell subsequent distant spells can shoot round corners ignoring normal line of sight.

One feat gives you 4 points another gives you 3 points and 2 new options, it's really hard not to boil that down and compare 1 point against 2 options. It might just be me and maybe others will be different, I personally will always get those 2 new options over 1 point, at least for the first 2 feats.

With regard to invisible spell being subtle, doesn't subtle spell already fit that niche?

[Kryx]

What about a lock on? you ignore cover with all distant spells. You could perhaps extend that so that if you hit with a distant spell subsequent distant spells can shoot round corners ignoring normal line of sight.
Hmmm reducing cover fills pretty much the same niche as Precise spell. Probably best to not double up on niches.


One feat gives you 4 points another gives you 3 points and 2 new options, it's really hard not to boil that down and compare 1 point against 2 options. It might just be me and maybe others will be different, I personally will always get those 2 new options over 1 point, at least for the first 2 feats.
There is also the limit of metamagic points equal to character level. I think 5 on the pure points feat is ok. I don't use full sized feats (I use half sizes), but not sure what I will do in that regard.


With regard to invisible spell being subtle, doesn't subtle spell already fit that niche?
It does, the there is a slight difference: With subtle you make no signs of spellcasting. With invisible the effects are not discernable. Though I'm not really sure there is enough niche for invisible spell to exist.
Invisible Crown of Madness for example could be way too strong. I'm going to remove Invisible Spell.

[Final Hyena]

On first glance they both fill a similar affect of increasing your chance to hit however they fit different niches, ignoring cover is a more specific anti fortification effect that I feel fits the current long range artillery affect of distant whereas precise is a general all purpose attack bonus.

What do you mean about half sized feats?

I do like "subtle" and "invisible" spells (I am using the concept in my current project), however I think invisible is undoubtedly something that needs to be tied into specific spells rather than a general add on.

[Kryx]

I'm not a huge fan of ignoring cover (ala Sharpshooter). I could see it working for others though.

My houserules on feats: http://homebrewery.naturalcrit.com/edit/SylqRUky4 But we should avoid discussing those here.

Do you think 2 metamagic + 3 points is a good balance point for full feats? 5 on the pure points feat?

[Final Hyena]

They're probably fine.

I mean, I don't know why you've left out the classic monster munch spell, but hey everyone has their own tastes I guess.

[Kryx]

I don't know why you've left out the classic monster munch spell
Monster munch? What did I leave out?

[Final Hyena]

It was a brilliant thing, anytime you killed a creature hit by Monster Munch Spell they became so delicious that eating them caused you to go into a trance like state so strong that mind affecting spells had no affect. Either that or they caused you to have a heart attack.

[SharkForce]

subtle spell: as i had mentioned in PM previously, i think subtle spell should still require that you have the material component on your person, but you don't need to handle it for the spell to work. this would even work for expensive material components, so it isn't a straight nerf relative to your current version.

distant spell: ok, this is a bit crazy, (and in hindsight long-winded) but one of my favourite metapsionic techniques from 3.x was burrowing power. it allowed you to manifest a power through a physical object (LOS would still be required, but if you are standing behind a glass window - or, more worrisome imo, a wall of force - you could manifest at targets on the other side). now, this is a ridiculously strong ability for anyone who wants to exploit it, so it *definitely* cannot cost a flat 1 point. what are your thoughts on different costs for different effects given to specific metamagic techniques? because it is so powerful, i'm leaning towards a fairly high cost... perhaps 1 point per inch of thickness (wall of force should count as at least 5, if you allow it at all, because this gets proportionally more powerful the harder it is to break through the material), or maybe more even. extraplanar barriers should block it as normal, as the idea is that you're basically passing it through a different plane (it should probably also be good at hitting targets that are not on the same plane, such as phase spiders or someone using a blink spell, but that's probably tacking on too many things into one technique). probably you'd need to change the name though... something like "teleporting spell" or "extraplanar spell" would be a closer description. oh, and also... i'd make the minimum distance increase 30 feet either way. if you can add 30 feet to a touch spell, a spell with a 10 foot range should gain at least the same amount.

as a general concern, when i see a feat that gives any 2 techniques and 3 points to use them with, i can't help but feel that this is such a good feat that i almost couldn't see any caster not wanting it for at least some of the techniques (although without the ability to refresh metamagic points throughout the day, i do think the 1 point options are by far the strongest competitor for anyone who isn't a sorcerer). now, the 3 points probably has to stick around (or the heighten option would need to cost less, which i don't think is a good idea), so that leaves taking away a metamagic option. even that is pretty strong. probably still very worthwhile for any caster, imo.

this also addresses a second point... i couldn't see myself being remotely tempted by the raw points of the metamagic power feat against 2 metamagic techniques. even with 1 technique, i would feel pretty tempted to usually take the extra technique over 2 points.

i don't think you need a level cap on metamagic points. it's going to be extremely hard to break anyways, it has a drawback (your casting attribute will be lower as a result), and it's confusing to have 2 different maximums stated; do you get your level in points by default and the feats just add to the maximum, or are the feats the only way to get the points at all and have a largely pointless cap that will almost never come up anyways (for anyone who isn't a variant human, you only get a feat every 4 levels... you'd be investing very heavily into points without options for this to come up, and i have a hard time imagining not wanting at least 2 or 3 options if you're investing into that many points.

[Kryx]

Subtle Spell: what you suggest would actually be a buff to the current version except in cases where a caster doesn't have the component pouch (very rare). hmmm I think that could work fine as I looked through all of the spells with a material cost and it wouldn't change the power to have them not held in the hand.

Distant Spell: That sounds like an entirely different metamagic option. It seems very niche if it requires LOS. It would only work for the glass case and being the only way to bypass Wall of Force. Based on the niche usage and bypassing wall of force eh... not such a fan..

Feats: Compare the feat to Martial Adept. Martial Adept gives 2 options and 1 dice. This feat effectively does the same. It gives 2 options and 1 usage of the big options (3 pointers). It maintains the balance between 1,2, and 3 pointers by allowing those less powerful options to be cast multiple times. Metamagic definitely have some more powerful options. By limiting it to only 1 option you're basically forcing users to pick only those powerful options. Giving more options makes that less likely, though likely still a problem. I think the balance which is based on Martial Adept is pretty good. Martial Adept is considered a really bad feat. Metamagic would be stronger, but would still be rather limited in uses. I'm also totally fine with it being a good option for Casters. As it stands they have very very few options beyond bumping their ability score to 20 and investing in resilient to avoid concentration saves. This at least offers an alternative. A very limited alternative.

Pure Point Feat: 5 points is significantly more than 3. We'd be comparing 4 metamagic + 6 points vs 2 metamagic and 8 points.
6 points = 6x 1 pointers or 3x 2 pointers or 2x 3 pointers
8 points = 8x 1 pointers or 4x 2 pointers or 2x 3 pointers.
For someone who doesn't care to pick up more metamagic options 5 is definitely the better choice. 6 feels like too many.

Maximum: there is only 1 maximum listed that I can see: "You can have a maximum number metamagic points equal to your character level. You regain their use on a long rest." Have I missed another?
There is no mention of getting metamagic points any other way than taking a feat.

Fighters get 7 feats, Rogues gets 6 feats, everyone else gets 5. So all classes could get 23 if they wanted. Seems fine to remove the maximum.

[SharkForce]

distant spell: it's a combo effect. you use it when, for example, you have tremorsense 50 feet and there's a person taking full cover behind a wooden wall. or when you have a wizard eye that went through the door and noticed there's a bunch of demons waiting to ambush you on the other side. or while taking full cover and aiming your spells around the corner by using a standing mirror (perhaps carried by an unseen servant).

and it's simply a different flavour of how you're making the spell reach farther... this version reflects that you're basically not actually travelling across all the points in between point A and point B, thus the spell subjectively (to its own perception, if it had any) travelled 30 feet but objectively (from the perspective of everyone standing on the prime material) travelled 60. the pass through objects part simply denotes you choosing a few specific points that the spell doesn't pass through along the line of travel.

essentially, you're making the spell flicker in and out of a shadow walk type effect.

===========================

martial adept is a pretty bad feat because it gives you a non-scaling single use worse version of a battlemaster ability. metamagic scales all by itself because you can use it on better spells, and can also be up to 3 uses of really good abilities, and is a full-strength version of the ability.

also, casters don't need feats to have options. they have spells for options. a lack of compelling feats isn't a compelling problem for a wizard or a druid because the way they differentiate themselves from other wizards and druids is by choosing which part of their large set of options they're going to use.

[Kryx]

essentially, you're making the spell flicker in and out of a shadow walk type effect.
Which is very different from "you shoot at a longer range". I'm more comfortable with Distant being a subpar option than to add stonesense to spells. The current LOS rules work for me.


martial adept is a pretty bad feat because it gives you a non-scaling single use worse version of a battlemaster ability. metamagic scales all by itself because you can use it on better spells, and can also be up to 3 uses of really good abilities, and is a full-strength version of the ability.
By that definition of scaling Martial Adept is scaling as well. Tripping a creature leads to more and more damage as you go up in levels. Superiority dice aren't really for the damage, but more for the effect. Riposte (the other amazing maneuver choice) doesn't scale as well though.

Many metamagics don't scale. Perhaps the solution to this though is to create two tiers of metamagic and the caster has to select 1 from each.
Lower tier: Careful, Distant, Elemental, Empowered, Extended, Precise, Subtle
Higher Tier: Enlarged, Heightened, Quickened, Reverberating, Twinned


also, casters don't need feats to have options. they have spells for options. a lack of compelling feats isn't a compelling problem for a wizard or a druid because the way they differentiate themselves from other wizards and druids is by choosing which part of their large set of options they're going to use.
Casters should have options for their feats other than ability score increase and resilient. They can differentiate in other ways, but the lack of Caster feats is undesirable for my group. At the current pricing they would be at least competitive with bumping an ability score.

[SharkForce]

they do have other feat options.

magic initiate gives some extra cantrip options (including from other lists) and an extra level 1 spell slot which can also increase their spells known if they choose from their own list.

warcaster gives them the ability to handle themselves in melee much better.

for many casters, armour proficiency is a totally viable option. it isn't great for the no-armour casters, but for any caster that has light armour, moderately armoured is actually a pretty good feat.

spell sniper (whether you like it or not) provides an option. mobile is perfectly fine for casters as well, and there are plenty of useful feats that don't apply to either casting spells or using weapons.

they have some feat support. they don't need a huge amount of feat support to feel unique or to have options, because their default class abilities give them that.

and tripping a creature scales pretty poorly. the higher level you get, the more likely a shove is to be more likely to succeed as compared to a trip maneuver, and the portion of your damage lost to shoving decreases.

[Kryx]

In an effort to minimize discussion around the merits of offering casters feats I'm going to reference some external guides:

Treantmonk's guide to Wizards 5e (https://docs.google.com/document/d/1IeOXWvbkmQ3nEyM2P3lS8TU4rsK6QJP0oH7HE_v67QY/edit). In it he ranks Resilient and War Caster as good feats
Power Overwhelming: A Sorcerer Guide (http://www.enworld.org/forum/showthread.php?469126-GUIDE-Power-Overwhelming-A-Sorcerer-Guide) His good options include Alert (heavily overrated imo), Elemental Adept (for Dragon Sorcerers), Magic Initiate (also overrated), Resilient, Ritual Caster, and War Caster.

Magic initiate is likely only good for flavorful options like Shillelagh on a Cleric. EB isn't worth it without the Invocation and I can't think of a 1st level spell worth a feat to be used once a day.

Ritual caster is overrated imo. There are 32 ritual spells split across many classes. If you chose Wizard you'd get 18 rituals. Druid 15, Cleric 14, Bard 13, Ranger 11, Paladin 6, Sorcerer 4, Warlock 4. In most cases a party will have a ritual caster other than a Sorcerer or Warlock so this feat's value isn't so great.
Alarm: Ranger, Wizard
Animal Messenger: Bard, Druid, Ranger
Augury: Cleric
Beast Sense: Druid, Ranger
Commune: Cleric, Paladin
Commune with Nature: Druid, Paladin, Ranger
Comprehend Languages: Bard, Sorcerer, Warlock, Wizard
Contact Other Plane: Warlock, Wizard
Detect Magic: Bard, Cleric, Druid, Paladin, Ranger, Sorcerer, Wizard
Detect Poison and Disease: Cleric, Druid, Paladin, Ranger
Divination: Cleric, Druid
Drawmij's Instant Summons: Wizard
Feign Death: Bard, Cleric, Druid, Wizard
Find Familiar: Wizard
Forbiddance: Cleric
Gentle Repose: Cleric, Wizard
Identify: Bard, Cleric, Wizard
Illusory Script: Bard, Warlock, Wizard
Leomund's Tiny Hut: Bard, Wizard
Locate Animals or Plants: Bard, Druid, Ranger
Magic Mouth: Bard, Wizard
Meld into Stone: Cleric, Druid
Phantom Steed: Wizard
Purify Food and Drink: Cleric, Druid, Paladin
Rary's Telepathic Bond: Wizard
Silence: Bard, Cleric, Druid, Ranger
Skywrite: Bard, Druid, Wizard
Speak with Animals: Bard, Cleric, Druid, Paladin, Ranger
Tenser's Floating Disk: Wizard
Unseen Servant: Bard, Warlock, Wizard
Water Breathing: Druid, Ranger, Sorcerer, Wizard
Water Walk: Cleric, Druid, Ranger, Sorcerer

Druid would potentially want: Resilient, War Caster, maybe Lucky and much less likely Alert.
Wizard would potentially want: Resilient, War Caster, maybe Lucky and much less likely Alert.
Sorcerer would potentially want: War Caster, maybe Elemental Adept and Lucky and much less likely Alert.
Warlock would potentially want: Resilient, War Caster, maybe Lucky and much less likely Alert.

Overall there is plenty of room for more feat options for casters.

I'd prefer we stick to evaluating the current options instead of weighing the value of offering casters more feats.

Do you think the higher and lower tier for metamagic is a good idea? Definitely seems more balanced.

[SharkForce]

one higher + one lower (or two lower, if preferred i suppose) is better. i still have a hard time imagining a situation where 2 mmp is better than another 2 options for how to spend the mmp, unless you are literally out of good options, but i guess that's just me.

[Kryx]

Shark, I've made the following changes:

Split Greater/Lesser metamagic. You now choose either 2 lesser or 1 lesser and 1 greater when taking the feat
The feat now gives 5 points. It would take 4/5 of a character's feats to get as many points as a Sorcerer had, so it should be ok. This valuation allows for a fair amount of uses (outlined below).
Subtle spell now specifies "In addition material components do not need to be held in your hand."
Maximum metamagic points removed


So for valuation:

For 1 feat a Sorcerer could either have +1 DC and +1 to attack and several other effects from higher Charisma or it can heighten 1 spell to have the target have a 30.3% chance to succeed instead of a 55% chance to succeed. They would have 2 points left over for lesser options like subtle, careful, or empowered.
For 1 feat a Wizard could either have +1 DC and +1 to attack and several other effects from higher Intelligence or it can enlarge 1 spell, and empower 3 others.


Empower would result in ~10% more damage. Enlarge maybe an additional creature so 5 instead of 4, so 25% more damage. Seems like a fair cost for a feat.


Thoughts?

[zeek0]

For invisible spell-
There are two kinds of not being noticed. There is being invisible, and there is not being seen. You could elect to do the second for invisible spell. It would mean that unconscious actions (like saves) could still apply, but that you can't 'see' the effect or source of the effect. Think about perception filters, or Imp from Worm.

[Master Elodin]

In continuance with my post on the Sorc rework thread, I think I agree with your evaluation. It does seem like a fair trade considering how powerful and versatile a feat is meant to be in this edition. In that case, the only thing I would recommend is perhaps stating that the Metamagic Points stack, for dullards like me that aren't sure if that is intended :)

[Kryx]

Added "If you already have metamagic points, you gain 5 more." :)

[Cognomore]

Added "If you already have metamagic points, you gain 5 more." :)

Hi Kryx. Sorry for the thread necromancy.

In this thread you decided on 5 MM pts when this feat is taken, but it says 4 in the PDF:

http://homebrewery.naturalcrit.com/share/Hy-vX84M_

Which is more up to date?

Thanks!

[Kryx]

The sheet is more up to date, so 4.

Disclaimer: I don't use normally sized feats. I use a more modified system now that has half sized feats. In that system metamagic gives 3 points per long rest. So that would be 6/long rest at a normal sized feat. The document here does 4/short rest.

3/long rest is equivalent to 3 levels of Sorcerer. I'd probably change the normal sized metamagic feat to 6/long rest.

[Cognomore]

The sheet is more up to date, so 4.

Disclaimer: I don't use normally sized feats. I use a more modified system now that has half sized feats. In that system metamagic gives 3 points per long rest. So that would be 6/long rest at a normal sized feat. The document here does 4/short rest.

3/long rest is equivalent to 3 levels of Sorcerer. I'd probably change the normal sized metamagic feat to 6/long rest.


Thanks for the quick reply!

Thanks also for the added info! We're still using standard feats, so this is really important.

[Morphic tide]

I'd honestly have the split be in three, mostly for symmetry of point costs and somewhere to stick middling stuff. Mechanically sub-par utility options being Lesser that have to be taken when you grab mechanical powerhouses that can reliably swing the results of combat, with moderate being added for the generically useful, but not combat-shifting, stuff.

Importantly, all the "narrative" abilities that have little to no mechanical impact and are dependent on particular RP situations to have value, like Subtle Spell only really being useful when you need to get away with casting a spell in plain sight, would be "minor" metamagic.

[Kryx]

My current half feat gives either 1 greater or 2 lesser. Greater can have more impact, but they also have a higher cost.
EDIT: Changing this to 1 greater + 1 lesser or 3 lesser seems better.

All the lesser cost 1 except Precise which costs 2 to ensure you hit with a spell attack.

3 tiers feels unnecessary as there are generally great (and costly) metamagic and reliable or situational metamagic with little in between