What would this metamagic feat look like?

[unseenmage]

Imagine a Living Spell metamagic feat that turned applicable spells into summoned living spells.

What would the metamagic cost be?

Would the feat even be useful?

Would you ban it if it were official content?

[emulord]

I think you have to compare it to a normal summon spell, and then deliberately make it weaker than a summoning spell of that level, because of the extra utility and rider effects a living spell could have.

Summon monster 1: CR 1/3
Summon monster 2: CR 1
Summon monster 3: CR 2
Summon monster 4: CR 3
Summon monster 5: CR 5
Summon monster 6: CR 7
Summon monster 7: CR 8
Summon monster 8: CR 9
Summon monster 9: CR 10

Living spell of
level 1 + caster level 1 = CR 1 (Needs +1 to = SM)
level 2 + caster level 3 = CR 3 (Needs +2 to = SM)
level 3 + caster level 5 = CR 5 (Needs +2 to = SM)
level 4 + caster level 7 = CR 7 (Needs +2 to = SM)
level 5 + caster level 9 = CR 9 (Needs +3 to = SM)
level 6 + caster level 11 = CR 11 (Needs +3 to = SM)
level 7 + CL 13 = 13 (Epic)
level 8 + CL 15 = 15 (Epic)
level 9 + CL 17 = 17 (Epic)

So, based on this chart, and also that CL can be boosted to make a even more powerful one, Id say metamagic cost should be +4 levels at minimum, or perhaps some scaling cost.
Casting a level 1+4 metamagic spell at caster level 9 = CR 5 summon, equivalent to a SM 3, weaker than normal.
Casting a level 5+4 metamagic spell at CL 17 = CR 13, overpowered compared to regular summon monster

[Beni-Kujaku]

Considering SM is notoriously bad at higher level and that +3 matches with the level of power of SM, to the point that it becomes epic (7+3=10) exactly when the CR of the summoned "monster" goes beyond what SM9 can do, makes me think +3 is a pretty good cost for this metamagic. If you're worried about the power, you could reduce the range to simply "adjacent free square". The duration should obviously be 1 round/level, not the duration of the original spell.

Considering the already very restrictive nature of the template, I don't think there could be much abuse with it. The feat would be really cool, but I don't think I would play it as is, except for niche uses.


I vote for Animate Spell as the name of the feat.

[Eurus]

There's a PC in a game I'm running who has the Spell Sovereign class, so speaking from experience, I can say that living spells are not very impressive in an offensive capacity. Their attack bonus and engulf DCs are just so low. They can take a beneficial spell and spread it around, but since you can't apply Living Spell to a single-target spell anyway, having a living spell of Bless run around tapping people is usually slower and more cumbersome than just casting Bless normally and getting everyone at once, unless the living spell has a very long duration.

Anyway, my point is that if the hypothetical Animate Spell only creates a living spell for 1 round per CL, I don't think you'd break anything by making it a +2 metamagic. +1 is tempting but might be pushing it, but +2 is probably fine.

[emulord]

I forgot about CL/round duration, I for some reason was thinking a Permanent duration or original spell duration. Changing my answer to +3
Animate spell is a great name.

Its not about the damage, its utility is turning a Web (awesome spell but immobile) into a sticky CC machine.

[MaxiDuRaritry]

Something like this, maybe?

Animate Spell [Metamagic]: This metamagic feat applies the living spell template to a spell you cast. The resulting effect is identical to a summon monster spell of the same level as the spell used to create the living spell, and any feats or effects that may be applied to a summon monster effect may be applied to the animated spell effect. All non-instantaneous spell effects produced by the living spells summoned by this effect end when the summon monster effect does. The spell affected by this feat uses a spell slot 3 higher than normal.

Alternatively:

Animate Power [Metapsionic]: Expend focus and +4 pp to apply the living spell template to a psionic power you manifest. The resulting effect is identical to a summon monster spell of the same level as the power used to create the living spell, and any feats or effects that may be applied to a summon monster effect may be applied to the animated spell effect. All non-instantaneous power effects produced by the living spells summoned by this effect end when the summon monster effect does.

[Beni-Kujaku]

Something like this, maybe?

Animate Spell [Metamagic]: This metamagic feat applies the living spell template to a spell you cast. The resulting effect is identical to a summon monster spell of the same level as the spell used to create the living spell, and any feats or effects that may be applied to a summon monster effect may be applied to the animated spell effect. All non-instantaneous spell effects produced by the living spells summoned by this effect end when the summon monster effect does. The spell affected by this feat uses a spell slot 3 higher than normal.

Alternatively:

Animate Power [Metapsionic]: Expend focus and +4 pp to apply the living spell template to a psionic power you manifest. The resulting effect is identical to a summon monster spell of the same level as the power used to create the living spell, and any feats or effects that may be applied to a summon monster effect may be applied to the animated spell effect. All non-instantaneous power effects produced by the living spells summoned by this effect end when the summon monster effect does.


Seems legit. I like the fact that you can improve the spell with effect that improve SM. However, the psionic form is way weirder. A psionic power creating an effect identical to a spell is not unseen, but basing it on Astral Construct manifested with a ML equal to your ML would be more accurate in my opinion. Then point out that the base power can be augmented as normal, and that the CL of the living spell created is equal to the final number of PP spent (or just your ML, which is maybe better, but say something) and their spell level is equal to the power's level. And I'm not sure why you made it cost only +4 PP? Isn't the usual cost for metapsionic reproducing +3 metamagic +6 PP? (like maximized power)

Edit: Also point out that only spells with a casting time of less than one round can be animated.


There's a PC in a game I'm running who has the Spell Sovereign class, so speaking from experience, I can say that living spells are not very impressive in an offensive capacity. Their attack bonus and engulf DCs are just so low. They can take a beneficial spell and spread it around, but since you can't apply Living Spell to a single-target spell anyway, having a living spell of Bless run around tapping people is usually slower and more cumbersome than just casting Bless normally and getting everyone at once, unless the living spell has a very long duration.

The point is to have zone Save-or-Loses in your living spell, to make the enemy make a save per round instead of only one (or just to Vrock's dance something 5 times in a row. Not much can take 2d20 several times). Also allows you to affect creatures that should normally not be subject to a spell, since the living spell doesn't check for type of target.

[MaxiDuRaritry]

Seems legit. I like the fact that you can improve the spell with effect that improve SM. However, the psionic form is way weirder. A psionic power creating an effect identical to a spell is not unseen, but basing it on Astral Construct manifested with a ML equal to your ML would be more accurate in my opinion. Then point out that the base power can be augmented as normal, and that the CL of the living spell created is equal to the final number of PP spent (or just your ML, which is maybe better, but say something) and their spell level is equal to the power's level.Astral construct has quite a bit of weirdness that makes emulating it just off, so I kept it mainly the same, except for the cost. Remember that psionics does have a few summoning powers, such as ectoplasmic swarm, elemental steward, and larval flayers.


And I'm not sure why you made it cost only +4 PP? Isn't the usual cost for metapsionic reproducing +3 metamagic +6 PP? (like maximized power)Well, do remember that you have to pay for focus (which is a pain), and augmentation, which most spells get for free, so you'd get a lot less value out of the increase, since the powers you're emulating would be weaker than the equivalent spell. And the amount of support that summoning powers get is nigh nonexistent, meaning they'll be weaker due to that, too. That was my thought process, anyway.

[Beni-Kujaku]

Astral construct has quite a bit of weirdness that makes emulating it just off, so I kept it mainly the same, except for the cost. Remember that psionics does have a few summoning powers, such as ectoplasmic swarm, elemental steward, and larval flayers.

Well, do remember that you have to pay for focus (which is a pain), and augmentation, which most spells get for free, so you'd get a lot less value out of the increase, since the powers you're emulating would be weaker than the equivalent spell. And the amount of support that summoning powers get is nigh nonexistent, meaning they'll be weaker due to that, too. That was my thought process, anyway.

What problem is there with Astral Construct? It's not like you emulate the augmentation possibilities or the creature itself, and at least it gives a "school" to the power. Ectoplasmic Swarm doesn't last 1 round/level, Elemental Steward and Larval Flayers are clearly not the right fluff, and are summoning more than creation. Also, Astral Construct is more well-known than all the others.

I understand that you have to expend your focus, but it's the same for every metapsionic. The equivalent for magic is extending the casting time, or having to prepare the spell in a higher level. I don't think you should reduce the cost for that. And WotC definitely didn't (once again, maximize power is a good example). Also, you're probably not going to use a lot of augmentations, since a lot of them increase range, area of effect, or DC, while a living power doesn't have a range or area, and its DC is fixed by the power's level.

[Saintheart]

There's a PC in a game I'm running who has the Spell Sovereign class, so speaking from experience, I can say that living spells are not very impressive in an offensive capacity. Their attack bonus and engulf DCs are just so low. They can take a beneficial spell and spread it around, but since you can't apply Living Spell to a single-target spell anyway, having a living spell of Bless run around tapping people is usually slower and more cumbersome than just casting Bless normally and getting everyone at once, unless the living spell has a very long duration.

One thing he could try on:

- the Spell Sovereign can Awaken a living spell
- the Spell Sovereign can summon a Living Spell familiar.
- A Living Spell familiar is by RAW "a normal living spell" with special powers.
- An Awakened Living Spell cannot be a Living Spell familiar.

So: Spell Sovereign first summons a living spell as his familiar. Then he awakens it. The Awakened Living Spell cannot be a familiar, so the Spell Sovereign loses the familiar but has a living spell that is now friendly towards him. The Spell Sovereign can now go and summon another familiar. Rinse, repeat.


Also, living spells have Ooze traits; therefore the Dragon #304 spell Awaken Ooze applies to them, if it's of any assistance.

[icefractal]

I don't think you should reduce the cost for that. And WotC definitely didn't (once again, maximize power is a good example).Are we reading the same thing?

Enlarge Power = +0 PP
Empower Power = +2 PP
Maximize Power = +4 PP
Quicken Power = +6 PP

The formula is pretty clearly [metamagic adjustment] * 2 - 2.


On the proposed costing - I don't think I would take it at that price, especially not with the "all non-instantaneous effects" disappear disclaimer (although that is typical for Summon spells).

As Eurus mentions, you're taking a very significant penalty on any offensive spell with a saving throw - it's like casting it from a wand or scroll, and those methods suck. Using it for beneficial spells ahead of time is rendered moot by the short duration, and using it for that in combat is usually quite action-inefficient.

As a monster itself, it's defensively strong but offensively weak, which can be made up for by the spell effect if it's a suitable one, but still that's less offense than the better summon options.

Based on that chart, +2 is correct at more levels than +3 is. And IME, by the high levels, Summon Monster is only combat-effective for a character focused on it (a Druid with all the summon-boosting feats, for example). So personally, I'd put it at +2.

Even then, it's IMO somewhat of a niche effect, but cool, and could do good work when you need a meat-shield with the right type of attack.

[Beni-Kujaku]

Are we reading the same thing?

Enlarge Power = +0 PP
Empower Power = +2 PP
Maximize Power = +4 PP
Quicken Power = +6 PP

The formula is pretty clearly [metamagic adjustment] * 2 - 2.


No, you're right. I was in fact reading something else ^^ Namely, the 3.0 version of the Psionics Handbook, where Maximize was at +6, Quicken at +8 and Enlarge at +2.

[Psyren]

Imagine a Living Spell metamagic feat that turned applicable spells into summoned living spells.

What would the metamagic cost be?

Would the feat even be useful?

Would you ban it if it were official content?

For #1 and #2, there would be two strong benefits:

1) Another body/source of actions on the battlefield: You didn't specify whether the ooze would be controllable by the caster, but even if it isn't, the caster chooses where to drop it and oozes are mindless / attack whatever is closest, so it's easy to place it in such a way that would be an advantage for your team. In a pinch you could even use it defensively, dropping something that will heal or protect your party as it engulfs them.

2) Making various spell effects repeatable or even permanent: as living spells don't have a duration, you can get some spells to act more than once, or even many times when put in this form. Left unchecked for example, even something as simple as a Living Fireball can burn down a city. Even if you do apply a duration, presumably it would last more than one round, so if nothing else you're getting a Repeating or Echoing Spell out of it on top of a creature, and it should cost at least as much as those, likely more.

3) "Would I ban it" depends entirely on the cost of it, and also tightening up the restrictions on living spell a bit. For example I don't like that it applies to any "effect" spell as long as that effect is not a creature, meaning you can have living spells that leave Walls of Iron and other such incongruities in their wake whenever they hit something. Really it should only apply to spells that don't leave anything physical or tangible behind at all.

[MaxiDuRaritry]

Since you're applying it as metamagic or metapsionics to a spell or power, which is then turned into a living spell or power, additional meta- feats should alter the effect that the resulting ooze uses. For instance, an Extend'd Animate Spell'd lesser vigor effect would Extend both the summon monster effect and the lesser vigor effect that the living spell produces. Though caveats could prevent that.