Why are metamagic feats split apart?

[Barstro]

More detailed question;
Why are there separate metamagic feats? Since using a metamagic feat (barring other ways to alter things) has its own inherent cost depending on the perceived power of the feat (+1 to +4 spell levels), why is there also an initial cost to even obtain the ability to do it in the first place?

Would it really be game breaking to grant "metamagic" as a single feat? Or 1) Metagmagic (pick two metamagics for your character to know), 2) Greater Metamagic (pick four additional), 3) Grand Metamagic (your character now knows all metamagics)?

I certainly don't want to increase the disparity between casters and mundanes, but I've never really understood the reason for having to choose just one per feat.

[Uncle Pine]

Why are there separate metamagic feats?
Because they can already tear in half the universe and the rules of the game as ~150 separate entities. I'd rather not give anyone such versatility at the cost of a single feat.

[Grod_The_Giant]

More detailed question;
Why are there separate metamagic feats? Since using a metamagic feat (barring other ways to alter things) has its own inherent cost depending on the perceived power of the feat (+1 to +4 spell levels),
Uh-uh. It's not that the level adjustment is the cost of the feat, it's that the adjusted spell is that much stronger. If you researched a version of Mage Armor that lasts for 2 hours/CL instead of 1, that would be roughly equal to a 2nd level spell in power-- thus, Extended Mage Armor. Each metamagic feat you take roughly doubles your spells known, splitting them into the normal versions and the altered version, and letting you use either one when the situation arises.

[Particle_Man]

Which would be more game-breaking, giving all casters every metamagic feat for the cost of one feat, or giving all fighters every fighter bonus feat automatically, as soon as they are otherwise eligible for them (so every 4th level fighter gets weapon specialization in every weapon, for example)?

[Zanos]

I didn't think most people actually bothered with metamagic feats unless they were abusing cost reduction or replacers. So giving more metamagic feats for less is probably fine as long as you ban all the typical abuse associated with removing the spell level adjustments.

Extend is only useful in that it lets you hit some thresholds earlier.

[Barstro]

I didn't think most people actually bothered with metamagic feats unless they were abusing cost reduction or replacers.

Extend is only useful in that it lets you hit some thresholds earlier.

That's my view on it as well, but my gameplay is rather limited.

I've played a few casters and picked up metamagic feats. I rarely used the feats because; 1) I had better things to do with the higher spell slot, 2) Didn't want to waste a full round action (if sorcerer), 3) Could just use a relatively cheap wand instead.

I'm not denying that metamagic is useful. I'm not saying that casters should get better things (my history of posts generally requests the opposite). But I think that with all the other options available (rods, magic items, already available spells of the appropriate level) and the limited amount of actually useful feats, that I just don't understand how it's game breaking to just give them all to casters for three feats.

Granted, that above opinion does not take into account other shenanigans of reducing metamagic costs. Frankly, I'm generally opposed to such things.

[Barstro]

Which would be more game-breaking, giving all casters every metamagic feat for the cost of one feat, or giving all fighters every fighter bonus feat automatically, as soon as they are otherwise eligible for them (so every 4th level fighter gets weapon specialization in every weapon, for example)?

Well...
Normal fighter can attack twice per round.
Enhanced fighter can attack twice per round and apply 30 feats to said attacks.

Normal caster can cast a level-4 spell
Enhanced caster can cast a level-1 spell with three +1 metamagic feats.

The fighter does a lot more damage with those feats.
The wizard casts a spell with about the same result, but with a saving throw based on level-1 instead of level-4.

[Zanos]

Well, banning metamagic cost reducers is probably a good move anyway.

I'm sure there are edge cases where a metamagic feat on a certain spell is better than most things available naturally at that level, and Quicken becomes very valuable at higher levels because of action economy.

[Barstro]

Uh-uh. It's not that the level adjustment is the cost of the feat, it's that the adjusted spell is that much stronger. If you researched a version of Mage Armor that lasts for 2 hours/CL instead of 1, that would be roughly equal to a 2nd level spell in power-- thus, Extended Mage Armor. Each metamagic feat you take roughly doubles your spells known, splitting them into the normal versions and the altered version, and letting you use either one when the situation arises.

It's interesting that we say the same thing but come to different conclusions.

Wizard 1 (no metamagic)
Casts Mage Armor (level 1)
Later that day, casts Mage Armor (level 1)

Wizard 2 (uses metamagic
Casts Mage Armor (level 2)

Wizard 2 has two more level-1 spells each day (when compared exclusively to Wizard 1).

Wizard 1 has one more level-2 spell each day (when compared exclusively to Wizard 2).

The only difference is whether a caster would rather have two extra level-1 spells or one extra level-2 spells.

However, Wizard 1 also has an extra feat he can use because he didn't bother with metamagic. Maybe he can craft items (not sure why those are separate, but that's a different topic), or he has an improved familiar, etc.

[Barstro]

Quicken becomes very valuable at higher levels because of action economy.

Absolutely.

Maybe part of my view is skewed by the fact that I try to play the helpful character. Being able to haste and quicken-enlarge doesn't break my games, it just helps the fighters be all they can be.

[Knight Magenta]

Metamagic feats range from bonkers (quicken) to meh (extend) so its important to look at them in context.

Quicken lets you cast 2 spells per turn. I feel that this is easily worth a feat. On the other hand, extend is not very useful outside of a few edge cases. There is also the middle ground of solid metamagics, like empower.

Empower, and its big brother, maximize fall into the same sort of niche as (pathfinder) power attack. Since spell damage scales pretty much only with caster level, empower straight-up gives you more damage and is definately worth a feat.

Long story short, you could easily roll crappy metamagics into one feat. Something like this:

Meta Mage
prerequisites: Caster level 1.
You gain the following metamagic feats:
Still spell
Silent spell
Extend spell
Widen spell
Enlarge spell
Heighten Spell

[Eldariel]

I didn't think most people actually bothered with metamagic feats unless they were abusing cost reduction or replacers. So giving more metamagic feats for less is probably fine as long as you ban all the typical abuse associated with removing the spell level adjustments.

Extend is only useful in that it lets you hit some thresholds earlier.

Well, there are metamagicks and metamagicks. Also depends on the character levels. Persistent Spell is pretty darn nice on characters casting level 7+ spells if they have the slots to burn (thus e.g. spontaneous casters) just to spare the actions. Extend Spell also enables the bidaily castings though admittedly it's generally more efficient to just use a Rod in conjunction with hardcast Persist since you can make do with a Lesser Rod that's practically free (and then there's the Rope Tricks and stuff). Quicken, I get it on combat Clerics by level 9 since Quickened Divine Favor for +3/+3 is actually really nice. Similarly, arcane Gishes with Quickened True Strike + e.g. Spirited Charge and full Power Attack actually get a fair bit of mileage out of the feat.

Then we have the more interesting ones like Repeating Spell, Twin Spell, etc. which have some rather unique effects with spells such as Celerity, Lucubration, etc. And of course, Fell Drain can be worth its cost as is and Sorcerers can generally get their money's worth out of Heighten Spell even raw. Empower Spell also has some uses raw - higher mental stats out of Awaken or more Temp HP out of False Life for instance. Sometimes you might even Empower a Summon-spell to get 1d4*1.5+1 whatevers if you really want a lot of some lower level thingy.

And of course, Split Ray is very efficient; double Enervation out of a 6th level slot is actually really good. 2d4 negative levels as a touch attack. Then we have free stuff like Born of Three Thunders, Black Lore of Moil, and obviously useful stuff like Sculpt Spell, Searing Spell, Sanctum Spell, etc. My probably favourite metamagic overall has to be Sculpt Spell; small adjustment, great utility for many, many BFC spells (and even others).

[Zancloufer]

You could always "condense" metamagic feats, combining similar or low OP ones together. Though not to say each metamagic is the same, just some feats provide 2-3 different options.

Silent and Still can be on feat. They both let you do the same thing, but it's pretty niche in how often it is useful.

Widen and Enlarge should be the same feat as well. Both are rarely used and just let you hit enemies you couldn't before.

Making Empowered and Maximized the same feat doesn't hurt much either as they are almost always used on the same spells and it's a toss up which one is better.

Extend and Persist being one feat isn't too bad. While both are NICE, you would almost never use them at the same time and at the time you start using Persist (without DMM/cost reducing cheese) it around the time that you wouldn't extend some spells as they now last long enough.

Also should probably nerf cost reducers. Anything that reduces a number below 1 should become 0.5 instead and you can never go negative would probably fix 90% of the cheese outside of DMM.

[Jay R]

I certainly don't want to increase the disparity between casters and mundanes, but I've never really understood the reason for having to choose just one per feat.

The primary reason is not to increase the disparity between casters and mundanes. It really is.

Secondly, feats are supposed to be something not everybody has. They are specialized abilities to differentiate your PC from others of the same class. If everyone can get all the metamagic feats, then they have failed.

You don't get all the abilities. Pick the ones you want most.


Which would be more game-breaking, giving all casters every metamagic feat for the cost of one feat, or giving all fighters every fighter bonus feat automatically, as soon as they are otherwise eligible for them (so every 4th level fighter gets weapon specialization in every weapon, for example)?

Don't call those fighter bonus feats. You've changed them to class features. A feature is an aspect of the class, that all members of the class share. A feat is a tool for making your PC different from another PC of the same class and race.

Similarly, if everybody would buy the metamagic multi-feat, it's just a class feature for casters who now have, in effect, meta-magic as a class feature and one fewer feat.

Your Fighter and your Wizard are not supposed to be able to do anything any Fighter or Wizard can do. The goal is customization.

Is your goal to make PCs generally more powerful than the monsters, or are you going to increase all the monsters by just as much power?

[Grod_The_Giant]

Which would be more game-breaking, giving all casters every metamagic feat for the cost of one feat, or giving all fighters every fighter bonus feat automatically, as soon as they are otherwise eligible for them (so every 4th level fighter gets weapon specialization in every weapon, for example)?
Oh, definitely the second, by about a mile and change. Severely, even cripplingly so, in the most literal sense of the phrase: the game would break, in that fighters would become borderline- to utterly-unplayable. Every time you leveled up, you'd have to spend literally hours pouring through dozens of books to figure out what you now qualified for, and in-game you'd have to spend literally hours pouring through your dozens of pages of character sheet to try to figure out just what the heck modifiers are applying to this one specific action you're trying to do-- never mind the dozens of new options added by assorted feats.

I mean, put it like this: I spend way too much time on D&D forums, I post in optimization threads, I've written or rewritten entire two gaming systems, I literally wrote a handbook on feats, and I would not feel comfortable running a character like that.

[Kantolin]

Maybe part of my view is skewed by the fact that I try to play the helpful character. Being able to haste and quicken-enlarge doesn't break my games, it just helps the fighters be all they can be.

That's among the (if not actually the) most powerful options available to a wizard. Starting the combat by more or less 'doubling the fighter' is essentially like you brought a second fighter to the field. That is, in fact, the basis of most of the wizard guides that you see around (Batman wizard, God wizard, yadda). The damage you essentially deal via haste, for example, will generally surpass the damage you'd deal with fireball (let alone the AC boost, speed boost, jump boost...)

(This becomes additionally true if you include some battlefield control, which may be something up your alley. Put up a wall of force/stone/fire or something to make it so your frontliners only have to deal with one ogre right now and can deal with the other two in a moment. Good times).

Anywho, most of my group didn't originally use much metamagic except the occasional extend. I was ironically the first person who decided 'Eh let me actually try metamagics out', and made it a point that most of my spell slots were metamagic'd. It was alarmingly effective (kinda like when in the game before we had a 'fog mage' who used solid fog once).

It tends to come up most when 4th level spell slots are on the table, as we are a very low-op table and don't use metamagic reducers. 3rd level spells are glorious and thus when they're top shelf it's hard to want to put other things there, but it's above that that I'm happy to extend or whatever.

And then quicken is the best thing.

Of course, metamagic reduction is incredibly strong, so anyone who nudges into that will be more powerful still. But hey... as a sorceror, how often do you /really/ need to move more than a 5ft step? How about next turn? If there's an enemy in your face, will taking a move action really help you get away (Are you medium and they small or a dwarf or something)? Would a 5ft step and an empowered scorching ray or a quickened battlefield control or something be a better idea?

(Also, separately, unless you're emptying out all of your spells every day it's better to have a few very strong spells rather than a bunch of very weak spells.)

(...also, I just realized I'm lying. We totally use metamagic rods in our group, and other items of quicken and stuff, so I guess we /do/ use metamagic reducers in addition to regular metamagic.)

[Krazzman]

I think many metamagic feats are overvalued unless you got the right spells for it.

They are used in 2 sort of groups from what I ecperieced so far. The first are low op groups because "they are the wizardry feats!" Which are then used inefficiently. The other are high op groups where wizards perform at least at tier 3 most often bordering on T1.

If a fighter would get every feat in the PHB when he gets to a certain level then he most certainly can only bring 4-5 feats per swing (in most cases weapon focus. PA. Weapon Specialisation. Cleave and maybe some sort of maneuver)

There isn't a lot of things that would make it broken to give a fighter all combat feats when he meets the prerequisites... metamagic on the other hand can lead to some serious powerspikes.

Metamagic is sometimes outright needed to stay viable as for example a fire focused blaster without searing spell is most likely useless quite often and even then he will most likely perform only around T4.

In Pathfinder my blasting supporter sorcerer used intensified spells to let snowball and some other spells scale a bit further but I had metamagic reducer in my traits...

[Barstro]

Metamagic feats range from bonkers (quicken) to meh (extend) so its important to look at them in context.

That's an explanation for why quicken is a four-level adjustment. Not a reason for it to be a separate feat.

My personal limited experience is that I would rarely find a reason to prepare a metamagic version of a spell for prepared casters and similarly have no reason to turn a standard action into a full round action for my spontaneous caster. I can understand using metamagic for buffing, but I'm much more likely to use a rod than a higher slot.

Thank you all for the insight. My conclusion is that I just don't generally play casters the way other do that would allow metamagic to be more gamebreaking.

[Jay R]

I think many metamagic feats are overvalued unless you got the right spells for it.

Of course. All feats are overvalued unless you have the right build for it. That's how feats work. The purpose of feats is to allow your character to develop a little differently from anybody else, and to let you try to find a combination of abilities and feats that work well together.

[Knight Magenta]

That's an explanation for why quicken is a four-level adjustment. Not a reason for it to be a separate feat.

Alright, then compare empower (+2 levels +50% damage) vs silent + still (+2 levels). One is a stape of every blaster wizard guide. I doubt I would every apply silent+still to spells even if I had them for free.

[Zanos]

I don't think many blasters actually use empower unless they're shaving the cost down or off completely. Damage spells tend to have a dice cap that you have to use actual higher level spells to get past, and save DCs tend to be somewhat important, and you lose out on those too.

[Quertus]

Which would be more game-breaking, giving all casters every metamagic feat for the cost of one feat, or giving all fighters every fighter bonus feat automatically, as soon as they are otherwise eligible for them (so every 4th level fighter gets weapon specialization in every weapon, for example)?

I love giving martial characters nice things, but... well, I'd love to play with someone who could successfully run that character.


The other are high op groups where wizards perform at least at tier 3 most often bordering on T1.


You have to be in a high-op group for wizard to perform at tier 3? :smallconfused:


Of course. All feats are overvalued unless you have the right build for it. That's how feats work. The purpose of feats is to allow your character to develop a little differently from anybody else, and to let you try to find a combination of abilities and feats that work well together.

You mean I can't just post at the feats I qualify for on a dart board, throw blindly, and assume my character is equal to everyone else's? That's bad game design!

[eggynack]

I love giving martial characters nice things, but... well, I'd love to play with someone who could successfully run that character.
If this were an actual thing, and not just a crazy thought experiment, I'd almost be inclined to start producing, perhaps communally, the fighting flow chart that would likely be necessary for this character's use. Sounds like that usual mix of tedious and interesting.

On the main topic, metamagic feats are pretty good. No one's even mentioned invisible spell yet. That thing is ridiculous. There's tons of great stuff beyond that too. Ocular spell, for example. I agree with you that metamagic feats fall a bit low in my pick order, but just having them in a free fashion means a bunch of utility.

[ryu]

If this were an actual thing, and not just a crazy thought experiment, I'd almost be inclined to start producing, perhaps communally, the fighting flow chart that would likely be necessary for this character's use. Sounds like that usual mix of tedious and interesting.

On the main topic, metamagic feats are pretty good. No one's even mentioned invisible spell yet. That thing is ridiculous. There's tons of great stuff beyond that too. Ocular spell, for example. I agree with you that metamagic feats fall a bit low in my pick order, but just having them in a free fashion means a bunch of utility.

Ah the fun of invisible illusions. Why invisible illusions? To screw with people who use true seeing. We can also use invisible everything else to make all other spells way more annoying to understand and counter.

[Barstro]

Alright, then compare empower (+2 levels +50% damage) vs silent + still (+2 levels). One is a stape of every blaster wizard guide. I doubt I would every apply silent+still to spells even if I had them for free.

I'm afraid I do not understand the point you are trying to make.

My character would use silent and still if silenced and bound (a reasonable precaution for a captor to make). This can be very vital for a sorcerer and really unlikely for a wizard to have predicted. Either way, I would expect it to be used once in an entire campaign.

That being the case, why not have it grouped in with all other feats? Or, as I suggested as somewhat reasonable, part of a three-feat tree?

Again, the actual spell level cost is a different matter than the opportunity cost of a feat selection.

[OldTrees1]

Metamagic feats are separate feats because the designers had already written Power Attack. If you want Metamagic feats to be 1 feat, then collapse all the other meta-X feats into single feats (starting with the meta-attack feats).

[SirNibbles]

I don't think it'd be unreasonable to bundle all Metamagic feats based on their adjustment. One feat for all +1s, one feat for all +2s, and so on, with each being a prereq for the next.

[Krazzman]

Of course. All feats are overvalued unless you have the right build for it. That's how feats work. The purpose of feats is to allow your character to develop a little differently from anybody else, and to let you try to find a combination of abilities and feats that work well together.

Yes. But even if you have "suitable" spells for it normally you have to use it for something specific. If you have Intensify Spell and not use it on Shocking Grasp/Snowball but instead use it on Magic Missile (+2 missiles afaik) or Scorching Ray for 1 extra ray.
Another way to look at it is that unless you got the specific books for the spells that make the metamagic really good then the metamagic is overvalued for your character.

I still think that unless you got enough experience playing casters then metamagic either makes you less good at using magic or doesn't affect you that much, especially on things like Clerics or Wizards.


You have to be in a high-op group for wizard to perform at tier 3? :smallconfused:

At least, without ever performing under it.
Or better said from my standpoint. We have something along low to mid op builds, our casters often perform wildly different somewhere between t4 to t3. My intend with the quoted line was that the casters have to perform near their maximium Tier possible (between 2 and 1) often enough.

[Der_DWSage]

I'll throw the Game Design standpoint in here-it's less for balance (Because let's face it, WotC and Paizo both enjoyed making magic grossly overpowered) and more so they can keep releasing metamagic without it becoming a paralysis of choice.

As Grod said, having every metamagic feat ever just makes it hard to play. Do you remember all the +3 Metamagics off the top of your head? How about the +2? How long are you willing to let the Sorcerer delve through books when it's his turn to see if he wants to add a +1 Metamagic? Because there's a very good chance it's either too long (And thus subtracting from everyone else's enjoyment at the table) or too short. (Thus making this a needless rule.)

However, with Metamagics being feats rather than options, that narrows your view (You don't need to remember every Metamagic forever, just the three you know and the one you bought a rod for) and allows new ones to be added later. ("What do you mean, the newest book added 15 Metamagic options?")

I guess the other reason is that pure casters need something to do with their feats rather than Spell Focus(Everything) and Combat Casting.

Now all that said, I'd certainly like to see some trimming of the fat with Metamagics-maybe not 'Pick any two metamagics' as a single feat, but something like 'Subtle Metamagic-You can ignore Verbal or Somatic components of any spell, adding +1 to the spell level for each component ignored' or 'Powerful Metamagic - You can Intensify for +1 spell level or Empower for +2 Spell Levels or Maximize for +3 Spell Levels, or any combination of the 3.' And perhaps some additional feats that build off that. 'Overwhelming Force - When using Powerful Metamagic, your save DCs increase by 1+Spell Levels altered and you add 1 damage per spell level altered on each die rolled.' Package the thematically similar ones together, and then make some feat chains to go with them.

But then, I'm also salty that you can just cherry-pick the best spells of every school with few pre-requisites, so I'm sure it'll be more Sacred Geometry foolishness if Paizo ever did do something like that.

[Barstro]

How long are you willing to let the Sorcerer delve through books when it's his turn to see if he wants to add a +1 Metamagic? Because there's a very good chance it's either too long (And thus subtracting from everyone else's enjoyment at the table) or too short. (Thus making this a needless rule.)
Different play styles, I guess. With my sorcerer, I try to know exactly what I want to do at any given moment. But I can see how many players can be crippled by choice. IMO, the solution for prepared casters takes care of itself; they have to be prepared ahead of time. For spontaneous, it can be just as easy; a round is six seconds, the player has twice that to make a decision. My thought of consolidating metamagic is not to provide so many choices that people cannot act, it's to allow players to act when that singular moment in the entire campaign comes up when you really need that fireball spell to do electrical damage.



But then, I'm also salty that you can just cherry-pick the best spells of every school with few pre-requisites, so I'm sure it'll be more Sacred Geometry foolishness if Paizo ever did do something like that.
Yeah, Sacred Geometry was IMO a bad idea.

[Jay R]

I'll throw the Game Design standpoint in here-it's less for balance (Because let's face it, WotC and Paizo both enjoyed making magic grossly overpowered) and more so they can keep releasing metamagic without it becoming a paralysis of choice.

The only problem with this is that it isn't so. I don't have to remember every option. I have to come up with one really good option.


As Grod said, having every metamagic feat ever just makes it hard to play. Do you remember all the +3 Metamagics off the top of your head? How about the +2? How long are you willing to let the Sorcerer delve through books when it's his turn to see if he wants to add a +1 Metamagic? Because there's a very good chance it's either too long (And thus subtracting from everyone else's enjoyment at the table) or too short. (Thus making this a needless rule.)

I don't know what many of the buttons on my TV remote are for. That doesn't mean that I delve through the owner's manual to look them all up; it means I just turn it on, change the channel, and adjust the volume.

Similarly, a Sorceror with all the metamagic feats doesn't need to look up the rules for Extend Spell or Silent Spell before casting a Maximized Fireball.


However, with Metamagics being feats rather than options, that narrows your view (You don't need to remember every Metamagic forever, just the three you know and the one you bought a rod for) and allows new ones to be added later. ("What do you mean, the newest book added 15 Metamagic options?")

And if you had all of them, you'd still only need the three or four you like best.

I agree that it's a bad idea, because instead of having only the specific options that make her unique, a wizard would have all the options like every other wizard.

But that doesn't make it unplayable. It's not unplayable unless the player decides to make it so.