How much of a boost is it if a sorcerer knew all their metamagic?

[PhoenixPhyre]

As title. Basically, instead of picking 2 at low level and eventually getting like 1 more...what if you just knew all of them up front?

-----------

Also, what small metamagic changes do you think would take an often disregarded metamagic and make it useful/worth the cost without being a Must Use?

Would changing Heightened Spell to affecting all saves (not just the first one) do it, for example?

[Zhorn]

I've no issue with Sorcerers picking up more Metamagics over time and eventually having them all when they're in tier 4 gameplay, but it should not be frontloaded.
Frontloading classes sacrifices the identity of a long term investment and makes them more of a 2-3 level dip.

[PhoenixPhyre]

I've no issue with Sorcerers picking up more Metamagics over time and eventually having them all when they're in tier 4 gameplay, but it should not be frontloaded.
Frontloading classes sacrifices the identity of a long term investment and makes them more of a 1-2 level dip.

I'll say this is in a context that eliminates dips entirely. It's a substantial rework that, among other things, removes multiclassing as a level be by level thing.

So that's not an issue here.

[Hytheter]

I agree that an accelerated rate is better than dumping the whole lot on them at once. Gives you something to look forward to.

[Zhorn]

I'll say this is in a context that eliminates dips entirely. It's a substantial rework that, among other things, removes multiclassing as a level be by level thing.

So that's not an issue here.
To that'd I'd then just say do whatever you want.
You need playtesters at that point.
Asking for advice when you're already homebrewing to remove the common frame of reference means us as outsiders will not be able to give advice that is accurate in application for you.
Any opinions we give on any one specific change are only of value when talking about them in a known changes context.

Here's hoping it works for you :smallsmile:

[TaiLiu]

It'd be a good boost. I think it would make the sorcerer feel much more like a font of magic than it is currently, and it may even justify their limited spells known. Fifteen spells—but you can do so much with them!

I don't think it'd be game-breaking or too much of a boost. They're limited by their sorcery points and spell slots, and many metamagics are niche. So you'd still have to specialize in buffing or blasting or whatnot.

The biggest problem may be possible decision paralysis. The Wizard deals with decision paralysis at the end of each long rest. This boosted sorcerer will have to deal with decision paralysis every time they cast a spell.

It may also be overwhelming for new players—I agree that it might be best to spread them out. Sorcerers don't get new features at levels 7, 9, 11, 13, and 15. Those are good places to slot more metamagics.

As for minor changes... For Careful Spell, replace "a chosen creature automatically succeeds on its saving throw against the spell" with "a chosen creature is unaffected by the spell." Right now, Careful Spell is mostly useful for hypnotic pattern. I'd prefer that it be more generally useful.

I think that the whole metamagic system should be reworked, though. They have all kinds of terrible restrictions on them. It's a pain and just doesn't feel thematically right.

[animorte]

I honestly think the concept for school of magic should be much more defined. This should remove the extreme caster versatility, providing more specialization. Unfortunately the current school system won't allow for reasonable functionality, but I digress.

All access to meta-magic would be excellent, particularly for a themed caster. I like to think of it as their versatility in spell-casting comes from modifying the spells they know as opposed to preparing a new list every day.

[Amnestic]

As title. Basically, instead of picking 2 at low level and eventually getting like 1 more...what if you just knew all of them up front?

-----------

Also, what small metamagic changes do you think would take an often disregarded metamagic and make it useful/worth the cost without being a Must Use?

Would changing Heightened Spell to affecting all saves (not just the first one) do it, for example?

I think it'd certainly help.

With regards to changes:
Careful could have the "no damage if they would normally take half" clause that Sculpt Spells has.
I would change Empowered to "use the higher rolls". Spending a sorcery point and then losing damage? Kinda sucks!
There's an argument to making Extended Spell increase the duration to the next 'tier'. 1 minute->10 minutes->1 hour->8 hours->24 hours, but there's almost certainly a sorcerer spell that's a concern if you did that. I didn't check.
Seeking could be 1 point instead of 2.
Subtle's fine.
Transmuted's fine.
Not touching Twinned with a 10ft pole.

[Mastikator]

I like the 1dnd option of allowing sorcerer's to change their metamagic after a long rest. I would however add one at 7 and 13, so you end up with 5 metamagics prepared.

I would also buff Heightened and Seeking.
I think heightened would be worth it if it costed 2 sorcery points AND applied to all saves for a spell.
I think seeking should cost 1 sorcery point and give advantage on all spell attack rolls for a spell, rather than let you reroll a miss. (because KISS)

[Dork_Forge]

Somewhat of a boost but nothing major unless you're also tweaking SP amounts. SP remain constricted enough at the levels you don't have many Metamagic that having more options doesnt really make that much of a difference.

[RSP]

Here’s my thoughts on current metamagic:

Careful Spell. Auto succeed on Sv and take zero damage.

Empowered Spell. Is fine

Extended Spell. Let it either be you can spend multiple SPs to continually double the duration (so you could spend 3 SPs to turn a 1 hour duration into 8 hours: some already read it this way), OR you can use it on any spell with any duration. So you could double the duration of Shield or Absorb Elements, etc. I would not suggest allowing both of these changes but one of them should be a nice buff to a little used Metamagic.


Heightened Spell. Either reduce SP cost to 2, or apply it to Cha Mod (or Prof Bonus) enemies per use at 3 SP per use.

Quickened Spell. Fine as is.

Seeking Spell. Haven’t used this but my gut says reduce its cost to 1 SP: not sure there’s an abundance of attack roll spells for the Sorc to make it worthwhile to spend the equivalent of a 1st or 2nd level spell on a reroll.

Subtle Spell. Fine as is.

Transmuted Spell. Fine as is.

Twinned Spell. Fine as is.

[5eNeedsDarksun]

With the low limit on Sorcery Points and Spell Slots at low level, I don't really think it'd be much of an issue. I'd still be temped to speed progression rather than giving everything, particularly adding for free some of the less used ones up front though.

[Kane0]

Itll be about the same scale of boost as swapping to spell points. You arent giving them anything new, but you are greatly expanding their breadth of capabilities available. Versatility is a measure of power n its own right

[Amechra]

I'm honestly pretty unsure of how much of a boost this would be, given how niche a lot of metamagic actually is and how few spells Sorcerers actually get. You could probably hand out a pretty good subset of the list as permanent boosts to every Sorcerer spell that the Sorcerer ever casts without it feeling too extreme.

That said... I wonder if you'd be better off just scrapping the current list of metamagic and working on a different way to express intuitive use of magic/extra oomph​.

[Psyren]

To that'd I'd then just say do whatever you want.
You need playtesters at that point.
Asking for advice when you're already homebrewing to remove the common frame of reference means us as outsiders will not be able to give advice that is accurate in application for you.
Any opinions we give on any one specific change are only of value when talking about them in a known changes context.

Here's hoping it works for you :smallsmile:

I agree with this - but even if you were keeping level-by-level multiclassing, having all the options at once isn't a big deal. The big limiter to metamagic isn't the options available - it's sorcery points, and dipping sorcerer to get every metamagic doesn't mean much if you can't fuel them.

[Aimeryan]

Itll be about the same scale of boost as swapping to spell points. You arent giving them anything new, but you are greatly expanding their breadth of capabilities available. Versatility is a measure of power n its own right

Agree with Kane0 that it increases breadth; it enables the highly situational Metamagics to see some play, which is of course a boost in the particular circumstance where that comes up. However, since this consumes Sorcery Points, you are losing out somewhere else (presuming they would all be used up before a Long Rest). It is difficult to see the future, so who knows if it was necessarily more efficient?

Other commenters have mentioned that getting them all at once would give less to look forward to, however, I don't really look forward to most of them because of how highly situational they are and that the Sorcery Point limitation is still in play. Furthermore, I pick the ones I really want first, so each gain afterwards is highly diminishing just by the nature of picking from a shrinking pool of less desirable options. I don't really see much difference here in accelerated vs all-at-once, except you'll get less uses out of the highly sitatuational ones in your campaign with the former.

[Zhorn]

I agree with this - but even if you were keeping level-by-level multiclassing, having all the options at once isn't a big deal. The big limiter to metamagic isn't the options available - it's sorcery points, and dipping sorcerer to get every metamagic doesn't mean much if you can't fuel them.

So just to clarify; my initial concern was primarily to do with class identity, not power. Power was already gated behind level, and being this was a homebrew ruling concerns of power were barely even secondary to my mind.

But this Sorcery Point limit isn't as restricting as some on this thread are making it out to be.
Metamagic comes online at level 3
Sorcery Points come online at level 2 through Font of Magic
What also comes online at level 2 through Font of Magic is Flexible casting.

Any caster that is dipping into Sorcerer for Metamagics and getting all of them would by that stage also be getting Flexible Casting and as such can be refuelling their Sorcery Points as a bonus action (very easy on a turn you're not Quickening).
Sure if they bail out and don't go any further than 3 levels into Sorcerer just for Metamagic, that is a hard cap of 3 sorcery points at a singe time, but the only thing off limits to them from then on is Twinning spells of 4th level and higher, but otherwise they have the entire Sorcerer base class. Go one more level for the ASI and there's the 4th level spells too allowing for the mighty Polymorph or Banishment Twinning. And unless you NEED to be burning a heap in a single round, you're not likely to actually need more than that on any given round (and if you did, dropping an ASI on Metamagic Adept for an additional +2 sorcery points while levelling your main class nets the benefit without slowing down the progressing of the primary non-Sorcerer class).
The base class doesn't have much in the way of features beyond Metamagic. The majority of the classed identity is boiled down to just this first few levels with this change, and doesn't take much to navigate around the 'limited' Sorcery Points with any other caster supplying spell slots.

Now PhoenixPhyre has assured they've already removed the multiclassing issue through some form of "substantial rework" so this very well could be a non-issue for their table. That's for them to decide.

[Aimeryan]

But this Sorcery Point limit isn't as restricting as some on this thread are making it out to be.
Metamagic comes online at level 3
Sorcery Points come online at level 2 through Font of Magic
What also comes online at level 2 through Font of Magic is Flexible casting.

Any caster that is dipping into Sorcerer for Metamagics and getting all of them would by that stage also be getting Flexible Casting and as such can be refuelling their Sorcery Points as a bonus action (very easy on a turn you're not Quickening).

This presumes that consuming Spell Slots to fuel Metamagics is preferable to casting Spells with them, which I generally do not agree with - although there are exceptions at times. Furthermore, it would have to be the case with the Metamagics that you otherwise would not have chosen when limited on choice, which are likely the weaker/more situational Metamagics.

[Zhorn]

This presumes that consuming Spell Slots to fuel Metamagics is preferable to casting Spells with them, which I generally do not agree with - although there are exceptions at times.
Horses for courses, but this sounds more like an argument against using Metamagics as a whole. If 3 Sorcery Points are more valuable as a 2nd level spell slot than as fuel for Metamagic, then the answer would always use Flexible Casting to make the spell slot and never use the Metamagic options.
Of course we know that such a broad sweeping generalization is nonsense; so applying the same reasoning in the opposite direction is equally unhelpful. We'll leave that for the optimizers to debate though.

The point was to just highlight the limit being insisted on as holding the Metamagic availability in check isn't really the case since Flexible Casting comes online before Metamagic, and even if the 'know all Metamagics' was ruled to come online before level 3, Sorcerers don't get Sorcery Points till level 2 which is when Font of Magic comes into play granting Flexible Casting.

[KorvinStarmast]

I'll say this is in a context that eliminates dips entirely. It's a substantial rework that, among other things, removes multiclassing as a level be by level thing.

So that's not an issue here. I like the "change them on a long rest" idea from the D&Done UA, and add one more at level 7. (Which I have advocated for quite some time). That would suffice. But adding one at 13 for higher tier play would not be bad.

[Mastikator]

This presumes that consuming Spell Slots to fuel Metamagics is preferable to casting Spells with them, which I generally do not agree with - although there are exceptions at times. Furthermore, it would have to be the case with the Metamagics that you otherwise would not have chosen when limited on choice, which are likely the weaker/more situational Metamagics.

Generally you're mostly right. However with twinned it's easily better to convert and then twin, since you are basically converting a bonus action into casting the same spell twice on the same round.

[Hytheter]

Horses for courses, but this sounds more like an argument against using Metamagics as a whole. If 3 Sorcery Points are more valuable as a 2nd level spell slot than as fuel for Metamagic, then the answer would always use Flexible Casting to make the spell slot and never use the Metamagic options.

But Aimeryan isn't talking about converting SP to spell slots, they're talking about burning slots for SP. It's not about whether 3SP is worth more as a second level slot but whether existing second level slot is worth more than the 2SP you would get for cashing it in - these are not equivalent situations.

[MoiMagnus]

To that'd I'd then just say do whatever you want.
You need playtesters at that point.
Asking for advice when you're already homebrewing to remove the common frame of reference means us as outsiders will not be able to give advice that is accurate in application for you.
Any opinions we give on any one specific change are only of value when talking about them in a known changes context.

Here's hoping it works for you :smallsmile:

I think advise can still be relevant.

Multiclassing is already an option in base 5e that even tables playing RAW might not include.
And given that the question is "how much of a boost is it", I'd say any answer for "RAW 5e without the multiclassing option" is still something that would inform him on how much this specific part needs to be playtested.

Additionally, there is the underlying issue of "if you want to change something, first try to understand why it is currently like that". So the implicit question here is "outside of compatibility with multiclassing, is there some other major reason why giving all the metamagic at once would be a bad idea".

[Psyren]

Horses for courses, but this sounds more like an argument against using Metamagics as a whole. If 3 Sorcery Points are more valuable as a 2nd level spell slot than as fuel for Metamagic, then the answer would always use Flexible Casting to make the spell slot and never use the Metamagic options.

The thing though is that pure sorcerers get both; you get a whole day's worth of spell slots and sorcery points before you have to consider trading one for more of the other. Even if another caster dips for flexible casting, they have to start going in on their daily resources to use it, and that's before considering they've also delayed their spell acquisition by at least one rank. In short, while I can accept PP's continual aversion to level-by-level multiclassing and dipping, I do find the tradeoffs to be material and thus designed well enough.

[Zhorn]

The thing though is that pure sorcerers get both; you get a whole day's worth of spell slots and sorcery points before you have to consider trading one for more of the other.
Again, I'm concerned about class identity. Saying pure Sorcerers are doing Sorcerer things is entirely moot.
The issue lies in a multiclass getting functionally ALL of the Sorcerer's features with a relatively shallow investment.
This isn't some 'right' or 'wrong' debate; it's just expressing the opinion of 'I dislike the ideal of a whole classes core identity being sold off so cheaply in multiclassing'.

PhoenixPhyre has other unknown things in the background that 'solve' the multiclassing thing to their liking.
I don't see the point in belabouring over any effect in the power scale; a pure Sorcerer is already limited by level with availably spell slots, and if multiclassing is off the table then we needn't be concerned about mix'n'match synergies with different classes toolkits.
So I'd leave that for the table that knows all the other changes as they'll have a better overview of what will be possible.


But Aimeryan isn't talking about converting SP to spell slots, they're talking about burning slots for SP. It's not about whether 3SP is worth more as a second level slot but whether existing second level slot is worth more than the 2SP you would get for cashing it in - these are not equivalent situations.
They are equivalent.
Flexible Casting allows you to convert a 2nd level spell slot into 3 Sorcery points just as easily as converting 3 Sorcery Points into a 2nd level spell slot.
Or vice versa with 1st level slots equating to 2 Sorcery Points each.
(We could go higher listing the rest, but since Metamagic comes online at level 3, we can only be sure of a capped 3 Sorcery Points at any one time)

I was just responding to Aimeryan's opinion about not thinking spell slots are generally not worth converting for spell slot fuel. I'm just playfully following that reasoning since it implies value wise "2nd level spell slot" > "3 Sorcery Points" means Flexible Casting is better spent converting those baseline 3 Sorcery Points into another 2nd level spell slot and never bother with Metamagic. I tried to make it obvious I was being facetious by pointing out the statement as nonsense. My apologies for not using coloured text to make it more blatant.

The actual point is just bringing up the 'limited Sorcery Points' handwave used earlier in the thread is not as limited as it was being made out to be because of Flexible Casting; which up up until that point was not in the discussion as Metamagic as a feature was being talked about in a vacuum.

A 3 level dip into Sorcerer isn't just 3 Sorcery Points, it's 3 Sorcery Points plus the potential Sorcery Points from the available spell slots that can be converted with Flexible Casting. Depending on exactly how many levels in Sorcerer are taken it might be inefficient to convert anything higher than a 2nd level spell slot, but that doesn't mean the option isn't there. A high level caster (at least level 10) with only 3 of those levels in Sorcerer could inefficiently still draw on as many as 44 Sorcery Points through Flexible Casting (they would be worth 23 more, but this is limited to only being able to have a maximum of 3 Sorcery Points at any one time).

[Psyren]

Again, I'm concerned about class identity. Saying pure Sorcerers are doing Sorcerer things is entirely moot.
The issue lies in a multiclass getting functionally ALL of the Sorcerer's features with a relatively shallow investment.

What I'm trying to tell you is that the ammunition for those features does matter, and multiclassing doesn't grant that.

[Zhorn]

What I'm trying to tell you is that the ammunition for those features does matter, and multiclassing doesn't grant that.
Any multiclassing into anything that grants spell slots does; the entire purpose of Flexible Casting is built around supplying that magic ammunition via conversion.
This has been covered.

[Hytheter]

They are equivalent.
Flexible Casting allows you to convert a 2nd level spell slot into 3 Sorcery points just as easily as converting 3 Sorcery Points into a 2nd level spell slot.
Or vice versa with 1st level slots equating to 2 Sorcery Points each.

No. You are wrong. You do NOT get 3SP when you burn a second level slot. The 2/3/5/6/7 table is only for creating spell slots, but when you go the other way:


Converting a Spell Slot to Sorcery Points.

As a bonus action on your turn, you can expend one spell slot and gain a number of sorcery points equal to the slot's level.

So when you burn a 2nd level slot, you only get 2SP, NOT 3. You always get less for selling a slot than it would cost to buy one. Hence:



I was just responding to Aimeryan's opinion about not thinking spell slots are generally not worth converting for spell slot fuel. I'm just playfully following that reasoning since it implies value wise "2nd level spell slot" > "3 Sorcery Points" means Flexible Casting is better spent converting those baseline 3 Sorcery Points into another 2nd level spell slot and never bother with Metamagic

All of this is wrong too. It does not follow that you should spend your base 3SP to create a second level slot, because if you burnt the slot for SP instead you would only get 2! The value comparison is different depending on which way you're going.

[KorvinStarmast]

No. You are wrong. You do NOT get 3SP when you burn a second level slot. The 2/3/5/6/7 table is only for creating spell slots, but when you go the other way:



So when you burn a 2nd level slot, you only get 2SP, NOT 3. You always get less for selling a slot than it would cost to buy one. Hence:



All of this is wrong too. It does not follow that you should spend your base 3SP to create a second level slot, because if you burnt the slot for SP instead you would only get 2! The value comparison is different depending on which way you're going. Yep, that's how it works. Our sorcerer just "grokked that" at about level 11 a few months ago.

[Hytheter]

Our sorcerer just "grokked that" at about level 11 a few months ago.

You mean he just then, for the first time since the start of the edition, read all the way to the end of the feature? :smallbiggrin:

[Frogreaver]

My bottom line is that a 3 level caster dip for every metamagic and 3 sorcery points is basically never worth the dip and the proof is in the pudding as they say - sorcerer 3 is not a very desirable multiclass and going from the 2 best metamagics to the rest isn't going to change that. A 3 level dip is just a bridge to far. Warlocks and Paladin multiclass with Sorcerer are possibly notable exceptions. So no concerns for me around multiclassing.

In terms of overall power boost for a single class sorcerer, it's small and much more quality of life enhancing. Current 5e has the sorcerer pick 2 metamagics and the choices most likely only affect a small number of his already small list of spells know - or have fairly niche use cases (example: subtle spell).

[Kane0]

Honestly i hated the resource bleed from the first time i read it, and have used spell points for sorcerers ever since

[Hytheter]

Honestly i hated the resource bleed from the first time i read it, and have used spell points for sorcerers ever since

Personally I just hate that you have to consult this irregular table for spell slot creation (and also spells with spell points). It would be a lot cleaner to design around slot=SP, though it would probably require some recalibration of metamagics.

[RazorChain]

As title. Basically, instead of picking 2 at low level and eventually getting like 1 more...what if you just knew all of them up front?

-----------

Also, what small metamagic changes do you think would take an often disregarded metamagic and make it useful/worth the cost without being a Must Use?

Would changing Heightened Spell to affecting all saves (not just the first one) do it, for example?


I'm playing an Aberrant mind sorcerer/Pact of the Genie warlock and I've found out that Silvery Barbs makes Heightened Spell almost irrelevant. Why spend 3 sorcery points when you can do it better with Silvery Barbs? And it only costs 2 sorcery points to get another lvl 1 spell slot.

The only downside is that you use your reaction. OP as hell, establish telepathic link with the target, use subtle spell to cast suggestion so you can just command them mentally so no one knows what you have done or counterspell you. If they save then use silvery barbs.

[Hytheter]

I'm playing an Aberrant mind sorcerer/Pact of the Genie warlock and I've found out that Silvery Barbs makes Heightened Spell almost irrelevant. Why spend 3 sorcery points when you can do it better with Silvery Barbs? And it only costs 2 sorcery points to get another lvl 1 spell slot.

Silvery Barbs qualifies for Psionic Spells, too (since it is enchantment) so if you take Aberrant Mind to level 6 it only costs a single SP to cast.

Heightened Spell should apply to all of the spell's targets, if you ask me. As it stands its not so much heightened as targeted.

[Zhorn]

No. You are wrong. You do NOT get 3SP when you burn a second level slot. The 2/3/5/6/7 table is only for creating spell slots, but when you go the other way:

Converting a Spell Slot to Sorcery Points.

As a bonus action on your turn, you can expend one spell slot and gain a number of sorcery points equal to the slot's level.
My mistake, cheers.
Though if you included that reference the first time rather than just a singular bolded number I wouldn't have mistook it for a honest typo, and we'd both have saved a bunch of time in getting on the same page.

Setting aside the stuff which I have iterated twice now as nonsense, the underlying point I'm actually getting at still stands, for as inefficient as it is for a dipped Sorcerer to do; they still have access to a lot more Sorcery Points than the prior handwaving limit is suggesting. Only it's 37 instead of 44.

[Psyren]

Any multiclassing into anything that grants spell slots does; the entire purpose of Flexible Casting is built around supplying that magic ammunition via conversion.
This has been covered.

At the expense of your magic ammunition for magic. You know, the thing slots are actually for?

[Hytheter]

My mistake, cheers.
Though if you included that reference the first time rather than just a singular bolded number I wouldn't have mistook it for a honest typo, and we'd both have saved a bunch of time in getting on the same page.

I just assumed you knew the rule and were mistaken about the premise of the argument. Meanwhile you assumed that I made a typo even though I bolded it for emphasis, and even though the whole message would be incoherent otherwise...


Setting aside the stuff which I have iterated twice now as nonsense, the underlying point I'm actually getting at still stands, for as inefficient as it is for a dipped Sorcerer to do; they still have access to a lot more Sorcery Points than the prior handwaving limit is suggesting. Only it's 37 instead of 44.

The point being made back at you is that turning spell slots into sorcery points is just not that good a deal to begin with. Flexible casting is great when you need it but generally speaking it's better to use your spell slots on spells than on metamagic.

[PhoenixPhyre]

Honestly i hated the resource bleed from the first time i read it, and have used spell points for sorcerers ever since

One thing that won't matter is converting back and forth between slots and spell points. Because I'm also going to a unified resource for "sorcerers".


One of the significant changes I'm making overall is moving everyone to something closer to the spell point system[1]...and doing away with spell levels as a defined concept. Sure, there are "brackets" of spell costs. But they're fuzzier. And the limit is "how much overall power can you expend on a single thing". Which includes metamagic, upcasting (designed to be a bigger thing), and a bunch of other stuff. For example, the cleric-esque class will get to add riders on their spells by expending extra "spell points"; the sorcerer-esque[2] class will get metamagic that will also do things like let them change the shape of the effect, warlocks are moving more toward the 3e "EB + blast shapes + effects" (the latter two cost "spell points", the base doesn't) model--they won't have their own spell list at all and will instead use invocations (which they'll get more of) to steal spells from everyone else's list. And everyone can use "spell points" to do things like gain bonuses on INT/WIS/CHA checks and saves.

Similarly, non-spell things (for everyone) will mostly run off of Stamina, basically SR-recharge "spell points". With similar "universal" uses.

As for multiclassing...that's going away entirely. I haven't figured out exactly how you can emulate mixes yet, but it won't be level-by-level multiclassing.

[1] "aether". Everyone will get it; casters just get more and a higher per-action limit. At the cost of getting less stamina and fewer uses for it. I'm working on smoothing out the progression, but spells and other things are just directly listed with aether costs. And anything that used to care about "spell level" now cares about total aether cost, including any modifications. Overall, everyone will get less aether but have more ways to use it than just casting spells.

[2] the arcanist, which is also eating the wizard. "Wizards" are just going to be a subclass--one that trades off a slightly shallower aether pool for the ability to have more spells learned[3] at once.

[3] everyone's going to the "full list" model like clerics/druids/paladins--I'm dropping the prepared/learned distinction. Everyone gets to reshuffle their "hand" of prepared/learned spells every day. On the flip side, there will be a lot fewer spells, both because upcasting is going to eat a lot of the "lower spell, but bigger numbers or area" types and because ~100 or so of the utility effects have been moved out of the spell system entirely. Oh, and spells only go up to 5th level equivalent on lists. Everything higher is going to be special access, rather than just "pick from big bland list". Much more like Mystic Arcana than regular spells.

"Wizards" (probably won't be called that) will get to scribe some spells and have them always prepared as long as they have their book in hand. They can't change those out nearly as easily, but they don't count against the limits. Which will be more like the sorcerer's "spells known" than the wizard or cleric's count.

[Zhorn]

The point being made back at you is that turning spell slots into sorcery points is just not that good a deal to begin with. Flexible casting is great when you need it but generally speaking it's better to use your spell slots on spells than on metamagic.
I know it's not great; I have been openly calling it inefficient.
But it is available. Not optimal; but available.
Which is why the handwavy comment about Sorcery Point being some low limit is misleading. The multiclass character will have enough Sorcery Points to do the things they want to do and the refueling opportunities to have them available when they want to do them. Optimization is a separate discussion.
This is not a "don't do this because of [x]" , it's just a rebuttal to that singular excuse.
If you want to get into the weeds on optimized Sorcery Points usage, channel that energy back to PhoenixPhyre's primary topic; it's more valuable spending the energy there.

[5eNeedsDarksun]

I know it's not great; I have been openly calling it inefficient.
But it is available. Not optimal; but available.
Which is why the handwavy comment about Sorcery Point being some low limit is misleading. The multiclass character will have enough Sorcery Points to do the things they want to do and the refueling opportunities to have them available when they want to do them. Optimization is a separate discussion.
This is not a "don't do this because of [x]" , it's just a rebuttal to that singular excuse.
If you want to get into the weeds on optimized Sorcery Points usage, channel that energy back to PhoenixPhyre's primary topic; it's more valuable spending the energy there.

I'm not sure how 'The multiclass character will have enough Sorcery Points to do the things they want to do'. Exceptions are tables with short adventuring days and higher level play (probably somewhat into tier 3). Single class Sorcerers at our table do not have the SP to do what they want until roughly that point, and a character that has to convert spell slots into SP has to manage resources even more carefully.

[Kane0]

One thing that won't matter is converting back and forth between slots and spell points. Because I'm also going to a unified resource for "sorcerers".


One of the significant changes I'm making overall is moving everyone to something closer to the spell point system[1]...and doing away with spell levels as a defined concept. Sure, there are "brackets" of spell costs. But they're fuzzier. And the limit is "how much overall power can you expend on a single thing". Which includes metamagic, upcasting (designed to be a bigger thing), and a bunch of other stuff. For example, the cleric-esque class will get to add riders on their spells by expending extra "spell points"; the sorcerer-esque[2] class will get metamagic that will also do things like let them change the shape of the effect, warlocks are moving more toward the 3e "EB + blast shapes + effects" (the latter two cost "spell points", the base doesn't) model--they won't have their own spell list at all and will instead use invocations (which they'll get more of) to steal spells from everyone else's list. And everyone can use "spell points" to do things like gain bonuses on INT/WIS/CHA checks and saves.

Similarly, non-spell things (for everyone) will mostly run off of Stamina, basically SR-recharge "spell points". With similar "universal" uses.

As for multiclassing...that's going away entirely. I haven't figured out exactly how you can emulate mixes yet, but it won't be level-by-level multiclassing.

[1] "aether". Everyone will get it; casters just get more and a higher per-action limit. At the cost of getting less stamina and fewer uses for it. I'm working on smoothing out the progression, but spells and other things are just directly listed with aether costs. And anything that used to care about "spell level" now cares about total aether cost, including any modifications. Overall, everyone will get less aether but have more ways to use it than just casting spells.

[2] the arcanist, which is also eating the wizard. "Wizards" are just going to be a subclass--one that trades off a slightly shallower aether pool for the ability to have more spells learned[3] at once.

[3] everyone's going to the "full list" model like clerics/druids/paladins--I'm dropping the prepared/learned distinction. Everyone gets to reshuffle their "hand" of prepared/learned spells every day. On the flip side, there will be a lot fewer spells, both because upcasting is going to eat a lot of the "lower spell, but bigger numbers or area" types and because ~100 or so of the utility effects have been moved out of the spell system entirely. Oh, and spells only go up to 5th level equivalent on lists. Everything higher is going to be special access, rather than just "pick from big bland list". Much more like Mystic Arcana than regular spells.

"Wizards" (probably won't be called that) will get to scribe some spells and have them always prepared as long as they have their book in hand. They can't change those out nearly as easily, but they don't count against the limits. Which will be more like the sorcerer's "spells known" than the wizard or cleric's count.


Best of luck, looking forward to seeing where this goes

[KorvinStarmast]

You mean he just then, for the first time since the start of the edition, read all the way to the end of the feature? :smallbiggrin: He only began trying to convert in the other direction in late level 10, and hadn't picked up the book on that for some time. So I had to remind him to go back and review it.

Personally I just hate that you have to consult this irregular table for spell slot creation (and also spells with spell points). It would be a lot cleaner to design around slot=SP, though it would probably require some recalibration of metamagics. And getting all of that adjusted without creating loopholes takes a bit of play testing ...

Because I'm also going to a unified resource for "sorcerers".


One of the significant changes I'm making overall is moving everyone to something closer to the spell point system[1]...and doing away with spell levels as a defined concept. Sure, there are "brackets" of spell costs. But they're fuzzier. And the limit is "how much overall power can you expend on a single thing". Which includes metamagic, upcasting (designed to be a bigger thing), and a bunch of other stuff. For example, the cleric-esque class will get to add riders on their spells by expending extra "spell points"; the sorcerer-esque[2] class will get metamagic that will also do things like let them change the shape of the effect, warlocks are moving more toward the 3e "EB + blast shapes + effects" (the latter two cost "spell points", the base doesn't) model--they won't have their own spell list at all and will instead use invocations (which they'll get more of) to steal spells from everyone else's list. And everyone can use "spell points" to do things like gain bonuses on INT/WIS/CHA checks and saves.

Similarly, non-spell things (for everyone) will mostly run off of Stamina, basically SR-recharge "spell points". With similar "universal" uses.

As for multiclassing...that's going away entirely. I haven't figured out exactly how you can emulate mixes yet, but it won't be level-by-level multiclassing.

[1] "aether". Everyone will get it; casters just get more and a higher per-action limit. At the cost of getting less stamina and fewer uses for it. I'm working on smoothing out the progression, but spells and other things are just directly listed with aether costs. And anything that used to care about "spell level" now cares about total aether cost, including any modifications. Overall, everyone will get less aether but have more ways to use it than just casting spells.

[2] the arcanist, which is also eating the wizard. "Wizards" are just going to be a subclass--one that trades off a slightly shallower aether pool for the ability to have more spells learned[3] at once.

[3] everyone's going to the "full list" model like clerics/druids/paladins--I'm dropping the prepared/learned distinction. Everyone gets to reshuffle their "hand" of prepared/learned spells every day. On the flip side, there will be a lot fewer spells, both because upcasting is going to eat a lot of the "lower spell, but bigger numbers or area" types and because ~100 or so of the utility effects have been moved out of the spell system entirely. Oh, and spells only go up to 5th level equivalent on lists. Everything higher is going to be special access, rather than just "pick from big bland list". Much more like Mystic Arcana than regular spells.

"Wizards" (probably won't be called that) will get to scribe some spells and have them always prepared as long as they have their book in hand. They can't change those out nearly as easily, but they don't count against the limits. Which will be more like the sorcerer's "spells known" than the wizard or cleric's count.
This looks interesting, and TBH I think that the Mystic Arcanum approach to high level magic (and rituals?) is a way to dampen the LFQW thing that's been with the game since about Greyhawk Supplement, when spell levels above six were introduced. (I'd suggest capping at level 6, not 5, but that's based on my experience in earlier editions).

[stoutstien]

I've been letting sorcerer PCs have all the metamagic options right off the bat. generally MC isn't an issue because if they do have a concept that isn't covered it's pretty easy to make it.
It's a noticable power jump but worth the quality of play increase IMO. The low spell known and the inability to swap them out keeps them well within the range im comfortable with.

[KorvinStarmast]

I've been letting sorcerer PCs have all the metamagic options right off the bat. generally MC isn't an issue because if they do have a concept that isn't covered it's pretty easy to make it.
It's a noticable power jump but worth the quality of play increase IMO. The low spell known and the inability to swap them out keeps them well within the range im comfortable with. How nice. At the table experience, not just a white room discussion. +5. :smallsmile:

[Amechra]

Personally I just hate that you have to consult this irregular table for spell slot creation (and also spells with spell points). It would be a lot cleaner to design around slot=SP, though it would probably require some recalibration of metamagics.

The table isn't actually irregular — the cost is spell level + the tier when a full-caster first gets access to that spell level (so a 3rd level spell is worth 3+2=5 points). It also resolves a bunch of little issues with going slot=SP, like how that'd make 1st level spells too cheap or how that system doesn't really acknowledge that there's a power jump between 2nd and 3rd level spells (and 5th/6th and 8th/9th, if you're using spell points more generally).

Is it the best solution? I dunno!

[PhoenixPhyre]

The table isn't actually irregular — the cost is spell level + the tier when a full-caster first gets access to that spell level (so a 3rd level spell is worth 3+2=5 points). It also resolves a bunch of little issues with going slot=SP, like how that'd make 1st level spells too cheap or how that system doesn't really acknowledge that there's a power jump between 2nd and 3rd level spells (and 5th/6th and 8th/9th, if you're using spell points more generally).

Is it the best solution? I dunno!

I'm considering doing a modified Fibonaci sequence for my not-quite-spell-point values--spell level N+1 = (cost of N) + N. This is only an initial translation, because individual spells get moved up or down some if they're stronger/weaker than their fellows (since I can be more granular than fixed spell levels).

Level | Base cost
0 -> 0
1 -> 2
2 -> 3
3 -> 5
4 -> 8
5 -> 12
6+ -> <legendary>

This is absolutely more costly than spell points, but that's very much on purpose. It also lets me be fully linear and more granular in upcasting--things like cure wounds can increase output more efficiently with upcasting (say 1d8 per point) than something like hold person (+1 target for every 2 or even 3 points). It's way more things to tune than the very not-granular (but also too granular in some cases) spell levels.

5e spell points always felt awkward to me--you had to convert everything a couple of times because the underlying values were in spell levels. So you'd update your spell points...but then to use them you'd have to lookup (or have memorized) the conversion, create the slots, then cast the spells.

[5eNeedsDarksun]

The table isn't actually irregular — the cost is spell level + the tier when a full-caster first gets access to that spell level (so a 3rd level spell is worth 3+2=5 points). It also resolves a bunch of little issues with going slot=SP, like how that'd make 1st level spells too cheap or how that system doesn't really acknowledge that there's a power jump between 2nd and 3rd level spells (and 5th/6th and 8th/9th, if you're using spell points more generally).

Is it the best solution? I dunno!

Thanks for posting this; I realized it got pricier as you went up levels, but didn't realize the method to it. Under that lens I'd say the designers got that one right with a fairly simple system.

[Hytheter]

The table isn't actually irregular — the cost is spell level + the tier when a full-caster first gets access to that spell level (so a 3rd level spell is worth 3+2=5 points). It also resolves a bunch of little issues with going slot=SP, like how that'd make 1st level spells too cheap or how that system doesn't really acknowledge that there's a power jump between 2nd and 3rd level spells (and 5th/6th and 8th/9th, if you're using spell points more generally).

Personally I think lower spells being cheaper than higher ones is a good thing. I've heard the 2-3 power gap argument before but I don't find it compelling; 2:3 and 3:5 are very nearly the same thing.

[PhoenixPhyre]

Personally I think lower spells being cheaper than higher ones is a good thing. I've heard the 2-3 power gap argument before but I don't find it compelling; 2:3 and 3:5 are very nearly the same thing.

Level 2 -> level 3 is a huge power gap, but you're right that 2 sp -> 3 sp (1.5x) and 3 sp -> 5 sp (1.67x) aren't super far apart.

But the gap does get worse as you go up:

level 5 -> level 6 is a huge gap, and 5 sp -> 6 sp (1.2x) and 7 sp -> 9 sp (1.29x) are even closer.

Level 8 -> level 9 is an enormous gap, and 8 -> 9 (1.13x) and 11 -> 13 (1.18x) are super close.

So you're absolutely right that the slight non-linearity isn't enough to make the higher level slots relatively more expensive than the lower level ones by any significant amount. Effectively in a spell-point system (using the variant from 5e), high level slots are relatively cheaper than they are by stock rules. Which is...unwarranted IMO. And what requires the extra "you can only make one slot of each level >=6 each day rule".

That's why I'm going with the decidedly non-linear modified Fibonacci sequence. Or something similarly non-linear.

[Saelethil]

Level 2 -> level 3 is a huge power gap, but you're right that 2 sp -> 3 sp (1.5x) and 3 sp -> 5 sp (1.67x) aren't super far apart.

But the gap does get worse as you go up:

level 5 -> level 6 is a huge gap, and 5 sp -> 6 sp (1.2x) and 7 sp -> 9 sp (1.29x) are even closer.

Level 8 -> level 9 is an enormous gap, and 8 -> 9 (1.13x) and 11 -> 13 (1.18x) are super close.

So you're absolutely right that the slight non-linearity isn't enough to make the higher level slots relatively more expensive than the lower level ones by any significant amount. Effectively in a spell-point system (using the variant from 5e), high level slots are relatively cheaper than they are by stock rules. Which is...unwarranted IMO. And what requires the extra "you can only make one slot of each level >=6 each day rule".

That's why I'm going with the decidedly non-linear modified Fibonacci sequence. Or something similarly non-linear.

I ended up going with Fibonacci for the system I was brewing up a little while back. I had a couple friends that were working on their own systems at that time and the 3 of us independently came up with pretty similar mana systems.
Now, I’ve only done low level play test so far so I can’t say how well it works in practice.

[PhoenixPhyre]

I ended up going with Fibonacci for the system I was brewing up a little while back. I had a couple friends that were working on their own systems at that time and the 3 of us independently came up with pretty similar mana systems.
Now, I’ve only done low level play test so far so I can’t say how well it works in practice.

Fibonacci is a really nice, "natural" model for a lot of things. If you went more than 4-6 different "steps", it starts scaling really badly, but since I'm only doing 5 steps anyway...

[KorvinStarmast]

The table isn't actually irregular — the cost is spell level + the tier when a full-caster first gets access to that spell level (so a 3rd level spell is worth 3+2=5 points). It also resolves a bunch of little issues with going slot=SP, like how that'd make 1st level spells too cheap or how that system doesn't really acknowledge that there's a power jump between 2nd and 3rd level spells (and 5th/6th and 8th/9th, if you're using spell points more generally). For some reason I thought it was SP cost = 1.5 x spell level, round up.
But I just realized that at level 5 that stops working, as it ought to cost 8 points. 7th ought to cost 11. 8th ought to cost 12, 9th ought to cost 14 if that was the scheme. (And for my money, that works...)
=DMG

Spell Level Point Cost
1st 2
2nd 3
3rd 5
4th 6
5th 7
6th 9
7th 10
8th 11
9th 13
Your explanation works.

[Kane0]

2, 3, 5, 8, 12, 17 ?

[Amechra]

I feel like "higher level spells should be more expensive" is looking at it from the wrong direction — what's more important, in my opinion, is how many lower-level spells each new "spell slot" adds.

Using the normal 5e prices, adding the equivalent of a 5th level spell slot to your pool gives you enough oomph to cast a 1st level spell and a 3rd level spell. Under the Fibonacci prices, that jumps up to a 3rd level spell and a 4th level spell. This has a lot of knock-on effects when it comes to deciding how powerful spells need to be and how big the pool is. No matter how you cut it, you can't really get an equivalent of 5e's current spell point system with Fibonacci prices — either you end up with a set-up where high-level spells eat up a crazy portion of a spellcaster's overall pool, or you end up with a situation where you can effectively cast your lower level spells at will because they're so cheap in comparison to higher level spells.

Not to say that either of those results is necessarily bad, just that this is something that you have to keep in mind.

EDIT: Also, if you're scrapping spell levels anyway... just ignore spell levels and come up with your pricing from scratch. You'll get far better results.

[stoutstien]

Fibonacci is a really nice, "natural" model for a lot of things. If you went more than 4-6 different "steps", it starts scaling really badly, but since I'm only doing 5 steps anyway...

I've caught myself using it unintentionally a few times now. It is oddly intuitive and makes for pretty charts and tables.

*I'm using it for my barbarian rework where rage is a building mechanic that can be used for different things. They can become one of the deadliest things in my setting if you don't deal with them before they build up their fury. In this case I liked how it starts to scale in larger steps after a point.

[PhoenixPhyre]

I feel like "higher level spells should be more expensive" is looking at it from the wrong direction — what's more important, in my opinion, is how many lower-level spells each new "spell slot" adds.

Using the normal 5e prices, adding the equivalent of a 5th level spell slot to your pool gives you enough oomph to cast a 1st level spell and a 3rd level spell. Under the Fibonacci prices, that jumps up to a 3rd level spell and a 4th level spell. This has a lot of knock-on effects when it comes to deciding how powerful spells need to be and how big the pool is. No matter how you cut it, you can't really get an equivalent of 5e's current spell point system with Fibonacci prices — either you end up with a set-up where high-level spells eat up a crazy portion of a spellcaster's overall pool, or you end up with a situation where you can effectively cast your lower level spells at will because they're so cheap in comparison to higher level spells.

Not to say that either of those results is necessarily bad, just that this is something that you have to keep in mind.

EDIT: Also, if you're scrapping spell levels anyway... just ignore spell levels and come up with your pricing from scratch. You'll get far better results.

Oh, I'm absolutely making up the pricing from scratch...except I need a guideline as a starting point for converting existing 5e spells. That's where the Fibonnaci scale comes in. As a starting point from which to adjust.

And since I'm not actually trying to replicate the 5e spell point system or the same number of casts/level/day as 5e[1], I'm decoupling the two main factors:
- rate at which you gain "spell points" (aether): this will be a fixed constant x level[1].
- cost of "biggest guns" (aka aether limit, how much you can spend on any given effect): This is non-linear. So a high "power" spell will eat more of your budget (proportionally), but will give you access to effects not accessible at lower powers.

One of the core principles is that I want to make base cost depend on qualitative effect, not effect size. Increasing the size of an effect (ie adding more dice, more area, etc) is something you'll get by overcasting (aka upcasting, spending additional aether on a lower-base-cost effect) rather than casting a bigger base spell.

And there are going to be non-spell uses for aether--a number of the skill tricks and class features will consume it even if you're not a spellcaster.

[1] current thought is
- one subclass of arcanist (functionally sorcerers/wizards): 5/level.
- all other "full casters" (all other arcanists, priests, shamans): 4/level. That extra aether for the one subclass comes at the cost of a much reduced versatility (or rather lack of expanded versatility).
- half casters (oathbound, ranger, spellblade, warlock[2]): 2/level. They have slower aether limit growth as well, well, except for warlocks who are special.
- non-casters: 1/2 levels. They mostly use it for other effects, since they don't normally cast spells unless they pick them up via skill tricks.

[2] warlocks are going to be much closer to 3e "eb + modifications, with spells as a sideline" than 5e warlocks.

[Yakk]

Design wise, I'd be against this.

You want players to get a few options at a time, not a boatload of them.

My sorcerer variant kills flexible casting and grants 1 metamagic at level 2; then it makes sorcery points short rest resources.

Later features enhance your ability to spend sorcery points, like adding the ability to use 2 on one spell, discount the first time you use a given metamagic between rests, and eventually getting a "free" on metamagic.

But you still get a limited selection of metamagic that grows as you gain levels, not "any metamagic".

[Aimeryan]

You want players to get a few options at a time, not a boatload of them.

I agree and disagree. You would like a few improvements regularly, both to help understanding and experience of the new features before moving on and to keep something to look forward to.

However, there are multiple issues here:

The options are not equal, or even that near. This is particularly true when looking at any one build and playstyle. Since the pool does not expand, the result is that you are taking choices from an ever diminishing pool of weaker and weaker options, which does not result in the same usage or anticipation at every pick up.
The regularity is almost non-existent. You get two at 3rd, one at 10th, one at 17th.
The total number of pickups is really low compared to the number available in the pool, so you will not get to play with all the options eventually or even anything near that.

Having access to all of them at once therefore does not cause the loss that would be expected at first glance. Would it be preferable to get them all but spread out regularly? No, I still don't think that works well because of how the options are ever and ever getting weaker. I think the better option would actually be to get them at an increasing amount to compensate, something like:

Two at 3rd
Two at 7th
Three at 11th
Three at 15th

The benefit of this is that getting three of the weakest options may at least still be somewhat interesting as opposed to one (which also comes too late for most campaigns at 17th).

[Yakk]

Oh, I'm not against getting them all really, or getting them a bit faster.

My point is that giving all at level 3 is bad design -- you want new toys to show up at a speed a player can digest them.

For experienced players, they can also use this as an optimization game.

...

But, rather than "you get every option":

Learn 1 at level 2. Metamagic points refresh on a short rest. Usual max of 1 metamagic per spell.
Learn 2 at level 3.
Learn 1 at level 7. In addition, you have mastered 2 metamagics you know. For each, once per rest and no more than once per turn, you can use them at 0 cost as a perfected metamagic.
Learn 1 at level 11. For each perfected metamagic used on a spell, the slot level is considered 1 higher. The slot has to be sufficient to cast the base spell, however.
Pick 1 metamagic to master at level 13. You can use perfected metamagic alongside another metamagic on a spell.
Learn 1 metamagic at level 15. You can use each perfected metamagic twice between rests.
At level 17, and you can use 2 metamagic on every spell you cast, even if one isn't perfected, and you can use (up to) 2 different perfected metamagics on the same turn.
You master all metamagic you know at level 20. (so +3 mastery, or more if you have a metamagic feat).

That is 6 metamagic and 3 mastered by level 17 (and 6/6 at level 20). There are a total of 11 metamagic, so that is a bit more than half for each PC.

Each of them changes your relationship of spells with metamagic in interesting ways that interact with specific spell and metamagic mechanics, so should be effort to learn.

2: 1/0
3: 3/0 (+2/+0)
7: 4/2 (+1/+2)
11: 5/2 (+1/+0) & +slot level boost
13: 5/3 (+0/+1) & dual-metamagic
15: 6/3 (+1/+0) & 2x perfected/rest
17: 6/3 (+0/+0) & 2x metamagic & 2x perfected/turn
20: 6/6 (+0/+3)

I think none of these are disappointing steps.

While at level 20 you get your "worst 3" metamagic boosted, each comes with 2 /short rest +1 slot level increases of spells you cast, which is yummy.

You get access to 6/11 metamagics in the end, which means it isn't likely that every sorcerer will have the exact same subset (even if they might share the same best 3 ones). 11 choose 6 is 462 different metamagic loadouts (which is also maximal if you had 7 metamagics, there are only 330 different loadouts, for example).

[Aimeryan]

My point is that giving all at level 3 is bad design -- you want new toys to show up at a speed a player can digest them.

First, your progression plan looks interesting and I will have to take a look at it more when I have time.

The issue with choosing 1 or 2 when you first come across them is that in order to make an informed choice the player has to look through all of them, anyway. Its not like the player looks at just 1 or 2 because the character only gets 1 or 2. Actually, I would say getting only 1 or 2 makes it worse, since the player now has to make a decision rather than just playing around with them naturally on the character.

If we wanted to solve this issue you have to divide them before the choice is required. Level requirements, etc.

[PhoenixPhyre]

If we wanted to solve this issue you have to divide them before the choice is required. Level requirements, etc.

Yeah. Although that often causes a recursive problem--if you add level requirements, there's the strong temptation to make it an actual choice at each of those levels by adding more and more options...which then replicates the original problem in miniature.

So either "you know X from the whole list[1] and can switch them out every day" (which is what I'm going with for spells across the board, cleric style, but would also work for metamagic) or "you know all of them" are the simplest things. Depending on whether the total number is large or not. Thresholds for "large"...vary, however. And will need some fine tuning.

[1] of the ones you can actually cast, when talking about spells. Sure, you can prepare a spell you can't cast. Does you no good, however.