Divine Metamagic Feat

[rushlight]

True, but you've missed my point: In order to do this thing you think is broken, you must have all three feats. Hence: high cost.

And you've missed my point: a player might buy Maximize Spell to use as-is. Later, if he desires, he can purchase Divine Metamagic, to convert turning attempts to Maximizes. That's one feat.

Moreover, you've avoided the other point: Using Persistant Spell feat to show that Divine Metamagic is broken is .....not particularly convincing.

True. That's why I used another feat. One that is convincing.

Errr? Sure you can.....or not. It's possible for that Cha to be higher still....or lower than that too. Again, we're no longer talking about the feat, are we? We're talking about a particular PC.....perhaps built starting at about 10th level? He didn't have to survive through levels 1 thru 9 to get there.

You cannot judge the effectiveness or balance of a power in a vacuum. It must be tested under a variety of circumstances. Starting with the average or most likely set of conditions is a good place to start. If under average conditions the feat is broken, when a player gets ahold of it... well, things can get REALLY out of whack.

As you say: it isn't. Surely there are better examples of abuse? Try some spell other than Flame Strike. How about Quickened Righteous Might? Either way, the cleric is paying for the additional flexibility by losing turning attempts....seems like those shadows might be a shade tougher without a cleric to turn them......

Your problem with the feat seems to be centered on allowing clerics to metamagic to spell levels they normally can't cast: rather than throwing the baby out with the bath water, impose a spell level limit. Simply done, and it follows other examples! It's sooooooo easy: why won't you do it?

Only if you allow it to be so......and then, that's true for much of the game.

Read my post several pages up. Converting turning attempts to Maximized spells (of any level) is broken. Turning wasn't designed to do that. That's why you get tons of them, and feats to get more. They were meant to be used against undead. You can't claim that taking an ability that was previously very limited in use (and abundant) and turning it into a very useful and powerful ability is just fine. Why not make a feat that lets a Ranger trade his spells for bonus to attack at a +5 per spell level spent? Would you allow a feat to do that? I wouldn't. Ranger spells weren't designed to increase his attacks in that manor. Turning attempts weren't designed to improve spellcasting in such a dramatic way.

Broken is broken. A significant bonus requires a significant sacrifice to maintain balance. A significant bonus gained with very little loss is not balanced. It's plain and simple.

 

[(Psi)SeveredHead]

True, but you've missed my point: In order to do this thing you think is broken, you must have all three feats. Hence: high cost./quote]

Three feats is a very small cost for being able to break your metacap.

Errr? Sure you can.....or not. It's possible for that Cha to be higher still....or lower than that too. Again, we're no longer talking about the feat, are we? We're talking about a particular PC.....perhaps built starting at about 10th level? He didn't have to survive through levels 1 thru 9 to get there.

When designing feats, PrCs, and so forth, you have to look at who can abuse it the most. In this case, a cleric with Quicken Spell or Maximize Spell (core feats) using just core spells can seriously abuse this feat.

As you say: it isn't. Surely there are better examples of abuse? Try some spell other than Flame Strike. How about Quickened Righteous Might?

That's a nasty one as well. Nice to see you're noticing the imbalance potential.

Either way, the cleric is paying for the additional flexibility by losing turning attempts....seems like those shadows might be a shade tougher without a cleric to turn them......

The cleric is paying next to nothing... and there are dozens of other ways of killing Shadows.

But I don't think this is a good argument anyway.

Encounter 1) Cleric, 9th-level, casts slay living and kills someone.
Encounter 2) Cleric, 9th-level, can't cast slay living so he can't kill anyone that way. By these criteria, slay living must be pathetically weak since you won't always have it when you want it.

Your problem with the feat seems to be centered on allowing clerics to metamagic to spell levels they normally can't cast: rather than throwing the baby out with the bath water, impose a spell level limit. Simply done, and it follows other examples! It's sooooooo easy: why won't you do it?

WotC has had literally seven times to try to get this right and they've failed every time. Seems to me the game designers are the ones who aren't getting it.

Furthermore this is just one of many, many broken things in Complete Divine. I don't believe the game designers were paying any attention to game balance while writing this product.

 

[glass]

I don't have my books handy, but from memory, doesn't flamestrike on its own already break the cap?

glass.

 

[(Psi)SeveredHead]

I don't have my books handy, but from memory, doesn't flamestrike on its own already break the cap?

glass.

Metamagic has a bad history of breaking spells that exceed those dice caps. The caps are suggestions and not a hard rule, but I think WotC should take them a bit more seriously when it comes to metamagic (and feats that abuse metamagic).

The first things people complained about when Sudden Empower spell appeared were Scorching Ray and Disintegrate, which also exceed those caps.

 

[Psiblade]

Rushlight, the problem with not considering the total opportunity cost for divine metamagic in your arguements is that you fail to consider the value of other chains of feats. Let's take a comparison look at a couple of different chains.

To do 4 maximizes requires 16 turning attempts with divine metamagic. To get 16 turning requires at least two feats worth of extra turning, a 14 charisma, a cloak of chr +6, metamagic feat (maximize spell), and divine metamagic (maximize spell). This cleric is a one trick pony that hopes opponents are vulnerable to his spells. He is already four feats in and has not dealt with SR, Saves, or Immunities to his spells yet. The character has also done nothing to improve his saves or hit points either. This build would have trouble being effective in high level campaigns because most opponents will have all three defenses especially SR.

With the same amount of points, feats, & money, a cleric could have a 14 str, a cloak of resistance +5, create wondrous item feat, improved toughness feat, divine vigor feat, and power attack. This cleric could blast them if the opponent is vulnerable to his spells. Otherwise, just use Righteous Might & divine favor and beat the tar out of them.

A better cleric caster build would still have the cloak of resistance +5, put more points into con, but would have spell penetration, greater spell penetration, energy affinity(sonic), and quicken spell. The key is always flexibility and landing ability. If the characters' spells do not penetrate SR or Immunities, you do effectively do nothing for the round. There are better and more important chains than divine metamagic therefore the feat is not overpowered. Divine metamagic is a one trick pony that really limited in usefulness. Not to mention how weak a character would be on the way to acquiring it.

-Psiblade

 

[Nail]

Yup, Psiblade has my point.

Still, I'm familair enough with Munchkin builds to know that this feat needs a bit of tweaking. A cap of max adjusted spell level is reasonable and easily done. That adjustment alone takes care of most abuses, including the afore-mentioned maximized Flame Strike or quickened Righteous Might.

Again, a typical cleric (with the change above) will probably have 6 to 8 turning attempts by mid-level, which means *at most* one quickened first level spell per day. Is that really a big deal?

The comment "they had 7 times to get this right" intrigues me. Where else is this feat (Divine Metamagic) found? Seven other places? Wow.

 

[rushlight]

To do 4 maximizes requires 16 turning attempts with divine metamagic. To get 16 turning requires at least two feats worth of extra turning, a 14 charisma, a cloak of chr +6, metamagic feat (maximize spell), and divine metamagic (maximize spell). This cleric is a one trick pony that hopes opponents are vulnerable to his spells. He is already four feats in and has not dealt with SR, Saves, or Immunities to his spells yet. The character has also done nothing to improve his saves or hit points either. This build would have trouble being effective in high level campaigns because most opponents will have all three defenses especially SR.

Why choose 4 maximizes? Even one or two above the limit is too much, and that is attainable with just a decend CHA, a +6 item, and a feat. And the decent CHA with a +6 item has uses beyond the feat - so the claim that it's a one trick pony are erroneous.

Even houseruling that the spells can't exceed the normal metamagic cap doesn't address the issue. The issue is: turning undead is not the same as improving your spellcasting. Those powers are vastly seperated in strength. When you design a feat that uses a low-strength, abundant resource (turning) to replace a high-strength, rare resource (higher level spell used in metamagic) then you've designed a broken feat.

It's really quite simple - and no one has addressed this issue yet. It's like the ranger example I gave a few posts up, and the fighter example before that. I've said it before, and I'll say it again: A significant bonus requires a significant sacrifice to maintain balance. A significant bonus gained with very little loss is not balanced.

 

[Thanee]

A cap of max adjusted spell level is reasonable and easily done.

Indeed, however, that's not the case in the official version.

Bye
Thanee

 

[reverendkeith]

Why not make a feat that lets a Ranger trade his spells for bonus to attack at a +5 per spell level spent?

Woah! That sounds pretty darn cool! Now I'm thinking of archers who can channel their magical energy into archery. Sweet!

Ultimately, if it sounds cool... why not?

 

[Nail]

Indeed, however, that's not the case in the official version.

Hmmm. True.

I decided to play with this feat a bit...and I'm forced to admit that is does, in fact, look broken with the RAW. If I use it IMC, I'll have to impose two changes, I think:

• Can't use the feat to cast a modified spell of higher level than you can normally cast.
• Cost is the adusted spell level in turning attempts.

So, for example, to cast a maximized Flame Strike using this feat (an "8th" level spell), would require a 15th caster level minimum, and would cost 8 turning attempts.

Sounds balanced to me, given the flexibility (can decide to metamagic on the fly) and power level (can't do it often or to very high level spells).