[3.5E] New Revision Spotlight - Mummy and Mummy Lord

[seankreynolds]

To clarify, I did mean "bard and sorcerer" above. And yes, the bard and sorcerer "pay" more that wiz and cleric because it takes longer for them to cast metamagicked spells (yes they gain the versatility, but the cost-of-use cost is still higher compared to those who don't have to long-cast). And they can't even use one of the feats (Quicken Spell).

I've seen metamagic used quite successfuly in my current game. From reading story hours I don't think this is an isolated case. Given my wizard-players ability to wring every ounce of power from his spellbook I don't think he wouldn't be maximizing his fireballs or extending his buffs if he were being "over charged".
Many powerful and useful feats don't work without some other preperation. I'm not sure why memorizing a spell as a higher level is somehow different from the constraints applied to other classes.

If you have access to a spell slot, either that access means a lot or it doesn't.
If it means a lot, then an ability that forces you to spend that higher slot had better be a powerful ability, because that's a big cost.
If it doesn't mean a lot, then classes like the Mystic Theurge are way overbalanced, as the justification for that class is that a multiclassed spellcaster is hurt too much by losing those higher-level spell slots.

Weapon focus/Finesse/Specialization requires the character to use a specific weapon. Not the same but without that preperation the feat does nothing for the character. Fighting with two weapons causes a combatant to forgo the ac bonus of a shield, or else take additional feats to compensate.

Yes, but the weapon feats let you use them *over and over again* every round and gain the full benefit of the feat at a minimal cost: using the weapon you want to use anyway. If you use a metamagic feat, by definition you are nerfing yourself because you can't use your most effective spells, or are even limited to using your worst-by-comparison spells ("Woohoo, I'm 6th-level, I'll take Empower Spell ... and empower my magic missile ... wow, that's equal to a normal fireball....")

Feats, especially good feats, don't usually just give out free once-a-day powers with no special strings attached.

Sure they do, if you consider the prereqs "strings." There are many feats that expand your ability to do something and give it an X per day interval (Extra Turning and Stunning Fist are perfect examples). It's not bad game design to do so, you just have to justify/explain the cost (in the case of this system, it's Con-based, so obviously you're drawing on your own energy or channeling power through yourself in an unusual to power the effect).

This was the metamagic system previewed (by Andy Collins) in the house rules section of dragon a few months ago?

Yes.

I thought it was interesting, and might be a lot of fun. However it didn't seem like a "better version of metamagic" but a "different way to do metamagic if you want arcane casters to be more spontanous".

It's better in that it's not as weak as the present system, and might encourage more people to try metamagic. Better like how Skill Focus is better than feat called "Skill Casual Study" that gives you +1 to one skill. It's balanced (IMO), and something that (1) is balanced and (2) encourages a barely-used part of the game system to be used more often is better, and is good game design.

 

[Dr_Rictus]

Hmmm, where is the mummy getting the extra slam damage from...?

It's getting 1.5 times its Strength bonus because it only has a single natural weapon.

Previously: Str 17 -> +3 Str bonus -> +4 damage.
Now: Str 24 -> +7 Str bonus -> +10 damage.

 

[jasamcarl]

To clarify, I did mean "bard and sorcerer" above. And yes, the bard and sorcerer "pay" more that wiz and cleric because it takes longer for them to cast metamagicked spells (yes they gain the versatility, but the cost-of-use cost is still higher compared to those who don't have to long-cast). And they can't even use one of the feats (Quicken Spell).





If you have access to a spell slot, either that access means a lot or it doesn't.
If it means a lot, then an ability that forces you to spend that higher slot had better be a powerful ability, because that's a big cost.
If it doesn't mean a lot, then classes like the Mystic Theurge are way overbalanced, as the justification for that class is that a multiclassed spellcaster is hurt too much by losing those higher-level spell slots.



Yes, but the weapon feats let you use them *over and over again* every round and gain the full benefit of the feat at a minimal cost: using the weapon you want to use anyway. If you use a metamagic feat, by definition you are nerfing yourself because you can't use your most effective spells, or are even limited to using your worst-by-comparison spells ("Woohoo, I'm 6th-level, I'll take Empower Spell ... and empower my magic missile ... wow, that's equal to a normal fireball....")



Sure they do, if you consider the prereqs "strings." There are many feats that expand your ability to do something and give it an X per day interval (Extra Turning and Stunning Fist are perfect examples). It's not bad game design to do so, you just have to justify/explain the cost (in the case of this system, it's Con-based, so obviously you're drawing on your own energy or channeling power through yourself in an unusual to power the effect).




Yes.



It's better in that it's not as weak as the present system, and might encourage more people to try metamagic. Better like how Skill Focus is better than feat called "Skill Casual Study" that gives you +1 to one skill. It's balanced (IMO), and something that (1) is balanced and (2) encourages a barely-used part of the game system to be used more often is better, and is good game design.

I think the IMO is key, because obviously those on the design team who actually have a stake in the system's creation disagreed or atleast had some cause to doubt that this system was balanced. IMO of course.

 

[jasamcarl]

Well, I _was_ still working at WotC in March 2002 when the PH was getting wrapped up and the MM was just getting started....



::sigh::

Oh so you do know. Or perhaps not given the question I posed was one of relative time between development of the MM and PHB and by your own admission you just were there only during the beginning stages of the later.

 

[Graf]

This was the metamagic system previewed (by Andy Collins) in the house rules section of dragon a few months ago?

Yes.

Good to know. Thanks.

snip(2) encourages a barely-used part of the game system to be used more often snip.

You've alluded to or suggested this several times. As I indicated above I don't have this impression.

It seems to be used about as frequently, if not more frequently, than the magic item creation feats (for example). Why do you beleive the metamagic system is 'barely used'?

 

[ElMorte]

Re: Further thoughts on Mummy Lord Inconsistencies

Armour Class: Why is it getting a +1 Dex modifier when it's wearing half plate (Max Dex modifier +0)?


Half-Plate: +7 armor bonus, +0 Max Dex; -7 check penalty.

+2 Half-Plate: +8 armor bonus, +0 Max Dex; -6 check penalty.

Wouldn't that make an armor bonus of +9?

So, possibly:
+2 Half-Plate: +8 armor bonus, +2 Max Dex; -5 check penalty.

That'd make sense with the Mummy Lord's statistics.

Any comments, guys?

Cheers!

Perhaps you can/have to divide your magic bonus between armor bonus, dex bonus and check penalty.
That would ecxplain why the +2 half-plate has only an amorbonus of +8 (not +9).

My .002€

 

[seankreynolds]

You've alluded to or suggested this several times. As I indicated above I don't have this impression.

It seems to be used about as frequently, if not more frequently, than the magic item creation feats (for example). Why do you beleive the metamagic system is 'barely used'?

I had the impression (based on conversations I've had and discussion on my boards) that metamagic was little-used. In Monte's campaign, between the two groups, one character (a sorcerer) had a metafeat (he actually had two), but three had item creation feats.

 

[Brown Jenkin]

I had the impression (based on conversations I've had and discussion on my boards) that metamagic was little-used. In Monte's campaign, between the two groups, one character (a sorcerer) had a metafeat (he actually had two), but three had item creation feats.

In our group over three campaigns only one metamagic feat has been taken and that was by a paranoid wizard who took silent spell in order to have an silent D-Door always ready for escape. On the other hand we have taken plenty of Item Creation feats as we have enough down time for them to be very useful.

 

[Voadam]

My current 10th level ranger wizard harper mage took extend spell, persistent spell, and an item creation feat, the rest combat or background ones.

I took persistent spell so I could (eventually) have detect secret doors going all day. Extend spell has been useful with the level 1 24 hours 5 points of elemental resistance spells.

I'm looking forward to extends on the fly though.

Metamagics are generally more useful for on the fly application, but careful planning can make them useful as is. Having both options would be great.

 

[Voadam]

I did agonize at 9th level between persistent spell and lace spell holy, though I went with persistent under the misunderstanding we were using 3 level FR persistent, not 4 level T&B.