Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Spatzimaus" data-source="post: 1161174" data-attributes="member: 3051">Nice solution.  Although, once you get close to level 20 you might see a Wizard with an INT of 30 or so, which still takes you back to the tons-of-metamagic-on-one-spell situation, but it's definitely better than leaving it uncapped.  A similar suggestion from one of our players was saying that a 1st-level spell could only take +1 in metamagic, a second limited to +2, and so on until you could put 9 levels on a 9th-level spell.Maybe, have it depend on a specific stat instead of always using the primary stat.  For example, set the cap to 1+(CHA mod, min 0).  Doesn't matter if you're a Wizard or a Cleric, it's CHA-based.  First off, this makes Sorcerers the masters of metamagic again, and second, it removes a dump stat from the game.  If you want to Empower something, you need a CHA of 12.  Quicken needs CHA 16.  With CHA-enhancing items this isn't too difficult, and it prevents you from sticking tons of large metamagics on one spell.Maybe have it be some other type of penalty.  For example, say that each metamagic applied to a spell beyond the first gives a reduction in effectiveness (-1 DC, -2 caster level, and -1 to any attack rolls).  That'd definitely keep people from putting tons of metamagics on one spell.Maybe you don't want to go that far.  How about we make it simpler and say that you can only put one metamagic on any spell, period?  And then have one of the Feats (say, the one that gives you more uses per day) also relax this limit by 1?I'm not saying that my players would immediately start min-maxxing within the new ruleset, but I, as DM would be sorely tempted.  I've got a bad guy (let's say he's a Dragon) with several metamagics.  He's supposed to be an extremely intelligent, crafty opponent who's lived hundreds of years.  Do I pull punches by casting suboptimal spells?  Do I refrain from stacking lots of metamagics on my spells solely because the players have agreed to do the same?  If I know that I can kill half the party in the surprise round, the system isn't balanced even if I don't choose to do that.In a perfect world, the game system should be designed so that these sorts of abuses aren't possible.  We're not in a perfect world, but would adding something along the lines of Kerrick's suggested limitation really hurt your players?  If it mostly removes one of the gross abuses of the game system without penalizing the people who wouldn't have used the abuse anyway, how is it bad?</blockquote>

Verification