How useful does a metamagic need, to be...useful

[Stalker0]

I greatly enjoy making metamagic feats, but I've found a fundamental problem. I've made feats that work really well with a few spells, others that only slightly enhance a great number of spells. So what in your opinion does a metamagic feat need to do to be a good one?

If a spellcaster only used a metamagic feat for a couple of spells... but a whole lot.. is that good enough.. or should the feat be applicable to a great number of spells. Should it do both before its useful enough?

 

[Chacal]

I greatly enjoy making metamagic feats, but I've found a fundamental problem. I've made feats that work really well with a few spells, others that only slightly enhance a great number of spells. So what in your opinion does a metamagic feat need to do to be a good one?

If a spellcaster only used a metamagic feat for a couple of spells... but a whole lot.. is that good enough.. or should the feat be applicable to a great number of spells. Should it do both before its useful enough?

Did you show them to players ?
As long as they're interested in taking them, they're good

If you think some of them are too specific, either group them into a single feat (like the tactical feats from the complete warrior), or use them as a basis for a PrC (provided they share some flavor).



Chacal

 

[Horrendos]

Did you show them to players ?
As long as they're interested in taking them, they're good
Chacal

In this case its also important to hold the balance in the game. Players (maybe only in my group ) always take something which sounds good without thinking about the Game-Balance. If i would design a Feat where u get +4 at all ATtributes than all players would take it but is it really good? For the Players yes for the Game absolutely BAD!

 

[Kemrain]

I greatly enjoy making metamagic feats, but I've found a fundamental problem. I've made feats that work really well with a few spells, others that only slightly enhance a great number of spells. So what in your opinion does a metamagic feat need to do to be a good one?

If a spellcaster only used a metamagic feat for a couple of spells... but a whole lot.. is that good enough.. or should the feat be applicable to a great number of spells. Should it do both before its useful enough?

Care to post them? I, for one, would like to see what you've come up with.

- Kemrain the Thie.. I mean, Interested.. Yes.. Interested...

 

[Li Shenron]

I greatly enjoy making metamagic feats, but I've found a fundamental problem. I've made feats that work really well with a few spells, others that only slightly enhance a great number of spells. So what in your opinion does a metamagic feat need to do to be a good one?

If a spellcaster only used a metamagic feat for a couple of spells... but a whole lot.. is that good enough.. or should the feat be applicable to a great number of spells. Should it do both before its useful enough?

To my own experience, the core metamagic feats themselves get used only on a couple of spells. Not only because of the cost in increased slot, but even more because of the preparation issue. Non-spontaneous casters tend to just use a single metamagic feat on one or two spells at most, the ones they found out they receive a good enough improvement by it.

Sorcerers are of course in much a better position, and in fact I have myself taken metamagic feats only when playing a Sorcerer. (Bards have harder limitations on spell levels, but maybe at high level they would be much better).

Therefore IMHO if you make a MM feat which is very useul only to a bunch of spells, it should not be very less attractive to the players!

 

[Tilla the Hun (work)]

I've noticed (in our low-mid games) that the core metamagic feats are looked at with mild disdain. The +0 to +1 spell levels almost always get taken, while the +4 stuff is scorned.

That said, the next game I run, all metamagic feats will be at spell level + 0 or + 1 (0 for the current 0-2 stuff, 1 for the 4 stuff). I suspect this will lead to a much greater variety of metamagic feats.

Not only that, by I also plan to make available specific spells that have the benefit of the given feat, but are increased in level as according to the feat. The first the players will know of it is when they find the research lab of the arcan cultists to find a quickened, maximized fireball that is only a 5th level spell - on a scroll.

My players will go nuts over the nifty arcane potential - then groan when they discover their opponents are the ones researching it

It's 50/50 if they'll research or pillage. Lovely.


What I'm getting at is this: watch your players. If they take the feat enthusiastically, and apply it to only two or three spells - it's a) not broad enough of a feat, and b) those spells should be researched for that specific effect. If they take the feat only while wrestling with taking other feats and juggling their character around, then apply the feat to a lot of spells (about 50/50 enhanced by -a- metamagic feat vs not) then it's a really good feat, and I'd even like to see it posted

 

[Chacal]

In this case its also important to hold the balance in the game. Players (maybe only in my group ) always take something which sounds good without thinking about the Game-Balance. If i would design a Feat where u get +4 at all ATtributes than all players would take it but is it really good? For the Players yes for the Game absolutely BAD!

It's only in your group

I would never try the "let player estimate" method outside the "estimating presumably underpowered feats" context.
Or I'd state it differently : "wouldn't it be cool for a NPC to have these feats ?"



Chacal

 

[Stalker0]

Did you show them to players ?
As long as they're interested in taking them, they're good

If you think some of them are too specific, either group them into a single feat (like the tactical feats from the complete warrior), or use them as a basis for a PrC (provided they share some flavor).



Chacal

While this is important for my game, I like to post my feats... meaning I like to have a "more scientific" approach to determining a good feat. While playtesting always helps, its nice to have a feel for the goal I should be reaching.

 

[Stalker0]

Did you show them to players ?
As long as they're interested in taking them, they're good

If you think some of them are too specific, either group them into a single feat (like the tactical feats from the complete warrior), or use them as a basis for a PrC (provided they share some flavor).



Chacal

While this is important for my game, I like to post my feats... meaning I like to have a "more scientific" approach to determining a good feat. While playtesting always helps, its nice to have a feel for the goal I should be reaching.

 

[Stalker0]

Did you show them to players ?
As long as they're interested in taking them, they're good

If you think some of them are too specific, either group them into a single feat (like the tactical feats from the complete warrior), or use them as a basis for a PrC (provided they share some flavor).



Chacal

While this is important for my game, I like to post my feats... meaning I like to have a "more scientific" approach to determining a good feat. While playtesting always helps, its nice to have a feel for the goal I should be reaching.