D&D 5E metamagic feats

[VictorC]

In the most recent Rule of Three, someone suggested using a similar mechanic to expertise dice for spellcaster's metamagic feats.

Rodney... kind of said... no.

But, I don't know. I wouldn't suggest the (say) wizard class having the expertise dice built into the class as a feature. I recommend having a feat that creates your pool.

One feat gives you a d4 (for instance), other feats increase either the die type or the amount of the dice in your available pool...

I like the concept, but haven't been doing as much of the D&D play-testing as I'd like. Too much Edge of the Empire. So, what does others think?

 

[Falling Icicle]

I'm starting to wish they'd never thought of expertise dice to begin with.

 

[Tuft]

If you have a hammer, everything looks like nails, and so on...

Kind of like how some wanted to use Healing Surges as a cost for everything in 4E...

 

[steeldragons]

mmmmyyyeah...no.

I'd be just as happy to have metamagic feats go bye-byes now.

If ever there was something for a "module" that can go somewhere far far away in a "here's some fun complexity adding things in a splat book" down the road, it's metamagic.

 

[fjw70]

I'm starting to wish they'd never thought of expertise dice to begin with.

Expertise dice is the best part of DDN.

 

[Kinak]

Honestly, I really like their solution for this. Being able to prepare spells in higher level slots for added effects is great, but you don't need feats to make this happen.

Cheers!
Kinak

 

[Falling Icicle]

Expertise dice is the best part of DDN.

I disagree. It was cool to finally see fighters get something to call their own, but then they decided to use it for rogues and monks as well (and probably all other non-caster classes). In the process they ruined Sneak Attack and made the classes feel homogenous. And once again, the fighter is back to being the one class in the game that doesn't have anything unique.

I also dislike the implementation. By taking what were once feats and making them depend upon expertise dice, it deprives classes without expertise the chance to learn those things. Before, I could play a Cleric with Cleave. Now I can't.

 

[jrowland]

I also dislike the implementation. By taking what were once feats and making them depend upon expertise dice, it deprives classes without expertise the chance to learn those things. Before, I could play a Cleric with Cleave. Now I can't.

That has been part of the problem with fighter. You could play a cleric with Cleave but you couldn't play a fighter with Cure Light Wounds. Thus, fighters felt shortchanged...they were.

I think its too early in this Beta to say clerics won't have access to the cleave feat in the final product. I think they will. Its just not something that needs much testing.

In all likelihood, for non-ED classes, you will be able to grab a maneuver as a feat in some module or sidebar.

 

[fjw70]

I disagree. It was cool to finally see fighters get something to call their own, but then they decided to use it for rogues and monks as well (and probably all other non-caster classes). In the process they ruined Sneak Attack and made the classes feel homogenous. And once again, the fighter is back to being the one class in the game that doesn't have anything unique.

I also dislike the implementation. By taking what were once feats and making them depend upon expertise dice, it deprives classes without expertise the chance to learn those things. Before, I could play a Cleric with Cleave. Now I can't.

I love playing fighters but I really don't care if they have somethig to "call their own." I want them to be fun to play and be the best at weapon combat of all the PCs. The XD system does this very well.

I am fine with sneak attack being the way it is. Rogues should be weaker on the battlefield IMO. That isn't their streength.

 

[Szatany]

In all likelihood, for non-ED classes, you will be able to grab a maneuver as a feat in some module or sidebar.

Yes, they will call it multiclassing.