FungiMuncher
First Post
Take a look at this quote from Sean Reynolds' site:
http://www.seankreynolds.com/rpgfiles/misc/PH_opinions_feats.html
Others in my group have complained about these feats in a similar way since 3e came out. One of the GMs came up with this idea:
When a character first takes a matamagic feat, he gains a number of "metamagic points" per day equal to his caster level. To use the feat, it costs a number of points equal to the spell level of the spell being modified. Zero level spells count as half a point. Taking another metamagic feat adds two points to his total.
Does that sound reasonable? Are there any other possible solutions to the issue?
FM
http://www.seankreynolds.com/rpgfiles/misc/PH_opinions_feats.html
Empower Spell: This and all metamagic feats should simply work differently because they're usually not worth the cost of the feat, especially as you have to pay twice to use the feats (you pay once by selecting the feat, and you pay again in terms of spell levels to use the feat). There are other feats that have a double-pay (namely Expertise and Power Attack), but the reward-for-cost exchange for those feats is higher than those of a metamagic feat (basically, it's a more linear relationship between attack rolls and damage or AC, whereas it's a more logarithmic relationship between spell levels).
Maybe you get one of metamagic per day "for free," maybe these feats shouldn't exist and these are just abilities that all spellcasters learn. I dunno.
Others in my group have complained about these feats in a similar way since 3e came out. One of the GMs came up with this idea:
When a character first takes a matamagic feat, he gains a number of "metamagic points" per day equal to his caster level. To use the feat, it costs a number of points equal to the spell level of the spell being modified. Zero level spells count as half a point. Taking another metamagic feat adds two points to his total.
Does that sound reasonable? Are there any other possible solutions to the issue?
FM