Divine Metamagic Feat

[Falling Icicle]

Really? I don't think so. The "permanent Death Ward" ability alone is easily worth as much as a good amount of the new abilities together.

It was nice, but compared to the new class abilities, I don't really miss it.

Cooperative metamagic is nice, the other two (metamagic effect and the wand ability) seem to be almost useless so far. The takeover abilities at higher levels... can't really say how those turn out to be, but seem rather limited as well.

Now that I have to really disagree with. I use Metamagic Effect alot. Because of it I am able to Extend almost of of the spells I cast - for free. I also use it to extend other spells we need that run out, and my party loves me for it. You can also make good use of it if you use long duration combat spells, like Wall of Fire and Cloudkill. Applying Empower and/or Maximize spell on them after they have been cast can be very powerful. Of course, 90% of my uses of it are Extend Spells, so i guess if you don't have that metamagic it would seem alot less useful.

The bonus feats are great, of course, altho as a wizard that's not too much gained, as they lose their own bonus feats.

Yeah, they get more bonues feats than a Wizard does for those ten levels. That really bothers me. This is on top of all the other abilities they get, which are very useful and powerful. Getting a prestige class is supposed to be a tradeoff, not a no-brainer.

You havn't seen many of those, have you? Like the Dweomerkeeper or Ur-Priest, just to name two very prominent examples of broken-ness. The Incantatrix pales in comparison (not the 3.0 version, with all 3.0 stuff, especially stacking +1 level empowers, tho).

I do not know what the "Ur-Priest" is. I am not familiar enough with the Dweomerkeeper to comment.

Free? I can only guess, that you have items that boost Spellcraft checks plus maybe feats, as I found these checks pretty tough so far even with maxed Spellcraft.

Skill Focus (Spellcraft) helps alot with these checks. My Wizard has a Spellcraft of +28, so he doesn't fail these checks very often.

Bah. I've got better things to do that to fix all the broken crap WoTC keeps shoveling. I'm running a living world, with depth and history. If WoTC wants my money, they need to quit pandering uber abilities to the toybabies and put out something that is usable in an established campaign without 20 hours of houseruling. They are on the course to disaster, just like Skills and Powers from 2e. Trust me, I was there in the trenches during that horrible time. Those who do not learn from history are destined to repeat it.

Do not misinterpret what I was saying. I do not believe these things are broken. I simply said that if you are not comfortable with it, you can feel free to change it, and that is a better alternative, IMO, compared to banning it altogether. I think you are being too harsh in your attitude toward the developers. For one thing, they have to make a game that will work the best for the most people as possible. They can't tailor make the game to suit every persons playing style and campaigns. That's what the DM is there to do. It sounds to me like you have alot of specific preferences, and if you shouldn't expect Wizards to make their game around your specific desires. So if you want a custom game, then it only makes sense that you must customise it yourself. It's a bit of work, but all I can say is welcome to the world of roleplaying, not to mention DMing.

I think that most of the work they have done for the 3rd edition has been very well done, especially compared to the previous editions (I was "in the trenches" back then too). Yeah, there has been some broken stuff, nobody is perfect. But I don't think that the attitude that everything they are "shoveling" lately is "broken crap" is warranted. And I don't think it's at all fair to say they are pandering to the "toybabies" either. I think you are focusing too much on a few small negative things that are easily fixable for your game, without giving credit to 90+% of their work which is very well done.

 

[Old Gumphrey]

I have to fully agree with those last 2 paragraphs. What do you do if a player asks to use something like Augment Healing (+2 HP healed per die per spell)? Do you say "Hell no, that's in Complete(ly twinky) Divine?" I sure hope not.

 

[(Psi)SeveredHead]

Wow. You sound fun to play with. I'm not talking about players insisting they be allowed to use what's in a book they buy. I'm talking about a DM who doesn't like something and then unilaterally bans an entire book. Somehow I truly doubt you've gone to the trouble of playtesting everything in a book that you've banned, yet you're ready to throw it out entirely.

A lot of DMs ban things from certain publishers or from certain series of books because they're unbalanced.

At least talk to your players and try to work out some sort of compromise. Remember, it's you players' game too (and I know a lot of DMs have trouble realizing that fact).

A lot of the fun of the game revolves around game balance. There should not be one solution to all problems. When you start to break the balance of the game, you start to reduce the number of "good" solutions and you reduce the amount of fun in the game.

 

[rushlight]

Do not misinterpret what I was saying. I do not believe these things are broken. I simply said that if you are not comfortable with it, you can feel free to change it, and that is a better alternative, IMO, compared to banning it altogether. I think you are being too harsh in your attitude toward the developers. For one thing, they have to make a game that will work the best for the most people as possible. They can't tailor make the game to suit every persons playing style and campaigns. That's what the DM is there to do. It sounds to me like you have alot of specific preferences, and if you shouldn't expect Wizards to make their game around your specific desires. So if you want a custom game, then it only makes sense that you must customise it yourself. It's a bit of work, but all I can say is welcome to the world of roleplaying, not to mention DMing.

I think that most of the work they have done for the 3rd edition has been very well done, especially compared to the previous editions (I was "in the trenches" back then too). Yeah, there has been some broken stuff, nobody is perfect. But I don't think that the attitude that everything they are "shoveling" lately is "broken crap" is warranted. And I don't think it's at all fair to say they are pandering to the "toybabies" either. I think you are focusing too much on a few small negative things that are easily fixable for your game, without giving credit to 90+% of their work which is very well done.

Here's the thing: WoTC isn't producing stuff to the common denominator. They are producing books that escalate the power levels of players. Players buy more books than DMs, and that's their target market. They aren't trying to keep the game balanced - that's the DM's job. They are trying to sell books, and they feel that to do that, you need to make the new book desirable. To them, "desirable" = "uber cool abilities". Balance isn't considered significant.

Not to mention that shovelling out more and more abilities doesn't, on it's own, improve the game any. My players (excluding the one who just had to have the newest, coolest toys) enjoy my game. They did before all these books came out. They will once they are all out. They will once WoTC converts to 4.0 and they issue a new set of splat books. The presence or absence of those books is irrelevent - so banning them outright to keep balance isn't hurting anyone.

While those books my appeal to someone, if you can't enjoy the game without having the coolest, newest, most powerful abilities then I feel you are doing something wrong. In other words, if you were to find a game with people you like, in a setting you like, with an exciting and engaging story but the only rule was "core books only" and that was too harsh for you, then IMHO, you are really missing the whole point of the game.

Last, I do not ban all books outright without examining them first. There are a number of books I use, some with modification, but only those books which I feel makes my world better - both for me and my players. But to allow all books, or to be forced to go through every new book and rewrite every overpowered feat, spell, and class is excessive. If they can't make a book that is mostly balanced, then I'm not going to buy it and it's not allowed in my game. So far the Complete series has been a waste of my time. Maybe they'll do better in 4th edition. Until then, my game will run along nice and smooth, and be just as fun as it always has. After all, my players are more concerned about the story and their characters - not the stats with which the game is played.

 

[rushlight]

I have to fully agree with those last 2 paragraphs. What do you do if a player asks to use something like Augment Healing (+2 HP healed per die per spell)? Do you say "Hell no, that's in Complete(ly twinky) Divine?" I sure hope not.

Actually, yes. The core books are good enough for all the NPCs, evil masterminds, armies of destruction, and terrible monsters that the PCs will face. Why shouldn't the core rules be good enough for the PCs too?

I am curious, do you DM a game?

I ask because a player usually doesn't see the game from all sides - just from behind his character sheet. He doesn't realize that if a new, more powerful book is brought in for the PCs, then the DM either has to accept that the PCs are more powerful than all the NPCs and whatnot previously prepared, or the DM must go back and rework all of those NPCs and whatnot to account for the new powerlevel of the PCs. That's alot of work for someone with a rich and detailed world. Why WoTC can't release a book without racheting up the power levels, I don't know. But as long as that's their strategy, then there are 5 people (me and my players) who won't be buying.

In short, if regular healing is good enough for the BBEG, then it's good enough for the PCs.

 

[(Psi)SeveredHead]

That was great Rushlight. I hope you don't mind if I quote you in my sig.

 

[rushlight]

That was great Rushlight. I hope you don't mind if I quote you in my sig.

Ahh! Immortality!

I'm honored. Thank you very much!

 

[Nail]

Considering the feat cost and the limited number of times per day it can be used, I think Divine Metamagic is balanced.

Consider the aforemetioned Persistent Spell feat. To be able to cast it using Divine Metamagic, three things have to happen.

• The DM has to allow the Persistent Spell feat in the first place. What book is that in, again? Is it 3.5e compliant? Isn't this the "broken" feat?
• The cleric has to spend 3 feats: Extend Spell, Persistent Spell, and Divine Metamagic. That's 3 feats, and that's expensive. My cleric won't be getting it any time soon.
• The cleric can do that what, once per day? (5 turn attempts)...without buying yet another feat: Extra Turning.

And that Persistant spell is vulnerable to Dispelling....as well as making the party vulnerable to attacks from Undead.

Pssssst: (As usual when talking about cleric feats: The problem isn't the Divine Metamagic; it's the Persistant Spell feat.)

 

[rushlight]

Considering the feat cost and the limited number of times per day it can be used, I think Divine Metamagic is balanced.

Consider the aforemetioned Persistent Spell feat. To be able to cast it using Divine Metamagic, three things have to happen.

• The DM has to allow the Persistent Spell feat in the first place. What book is that in, again? Is it 3.5e compliant? Isn't this the "broken" feat?
• The cleric has to spend 3 feats: Extend Spell, Persistent Spell, and Divine Metamagic. That's 3 feats, and that's expensive. My cleric won't be getting it any time soon.
• The cleric can do that what, once per day? (5 turn attempts)...without buying yet another feat: Extra Turning.

And that Persistant spell is vulnerable to Dispelling....as well as making the party vulnerable to attacks from Undead.

Pssssst: (As usual when talking about cleric feats: The problem isn't the Divine Metamagic; it's the Persistant Spell feat.)

No, it doesn't take 3 feats. It takes one feat - the previous 2 feats have a function all their own.

Let's say you want to add a new radio to your car. When you are deciding what to do, you don't think to yourself, "Hmm, step one in getting a new radio is to buy a car..." That's because you already have the car, and you are already using it.

Also, persistant spell isn't the only feat that can be used with Divine Metamagic. At around 10th level (or even less!), you can be sure your cleric will easily have a CHA of 20 (Say, base 14 and a +6 item) or more. That's 8 turn attempts. That 10th level cleric can cast a Maximized Flame Strike for 60 points of damage! Twice! That might not sound like much, until you consider that for a normal cleric to do this he needs to be 16th level. So you don't consider a single feat that gives you 6 effective levels of spell casting to be unbalanced?!?!?! It gets even WORSE if you spend 2 feats and take Extra Turning - that's 12 turn attempts! You don't get 4 8th level spells until 20th level!!

So yes, Divine Metamagic is broken. Badly.

 

[Nail]

No, it doesn't take 3 feats. It takes one feat - the previous 2 feats have a function all their own.

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.

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

At around 10th level (or even less!), you can be sure your cleric will easily have a CHA of 20 (Say, base 14 and a +6 item) or more.

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.

That 10th level cleric can cast a Maximized Flame Strike for 60 points of damage! Twice! That might not sound like much, ....

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?

So yes, Divine Metamagic is broken. Badly.

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