D&D 5E metamagic feats

[the Jester]

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?

Is there any reason why, in starting the first thread on a Ro3 article bound to generate much discussion over here, you didn't provide a link to said Rule of Three?

Please, folks, this has become increasingly common- and increasingly irritating. It takes one ctrl-C and one ctrl-V to copy the address and paste it into your post. Please provide links to these things.

 

[Jeff Carlsen]

I really like the idea of metamagic options being embedded into individual spells. Sure, it makes individual spells more complex, but it also reduces the number of spells you need.

Doing it this way also makes it easier to balance spells. Instead of having a slew of metamagic feats affecting all spells, individual spell enhancements can be built according to the needs to the spell and then priced accordingly.

 

[DEFCON 1]

Right now they're doing exactly what they should be doing.

They take the stuff they've come up with... and seeing how far they can go with it. At some point they'll reach a point of diminishing returns and they'll pull back. But they won't know what that point is until they put it out there for people to test.

That's what they're doing with Expertise Dice.

They made them for Fighters, people mostly seemed to like them, they wondered if they could be an effective "martial" system, they trotted them out for Rogues, now they go even further by trotting them out for Monks. Now what will happen is that when they receive feedback... they'll either find out that most players really like the mechanic for the Rogue and Monk too (and thus pretty soon we'll see a packet that uses ED for the paladin, ranger, and barbarian)... or they'll be told in no uncertain terms that the ED are now less interesting and watered-down because they don't fit the Monk and/or Rogue (and thus another packet down the line will revert them back to Fighter-only).

But you can't find any of this out UNTIL you actually offer it up to people... and give them a chance to actually see the rule before coming to the conclusion that it's a P.O.S.

All we can do as playtesters is be honest and frank in the surveys and feedback... and hope that what we see is similar to most of the other players out there.

 

[Szatany]

I really like the idea of metamagic options being embedded into individual spells. Sure, it makes individual spells more complex, but it also reduces the number of spells you need.

Doing it this way also makes it easier to balance spells. Instead of having a slew of metamagic feats affecting all spells, individual spell enhancements can be built according to the needs to the spell and then priced accordingly.

Can't xp you so I'll quote you instead.
+1, I've been proposing this for months now.

 

[ZombieRoboNinja]

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 generally agree.

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.

They've already said that limited maneuvers will probably be available as feats, my guess is something like the current feats that give you low-level cleric and wizard spells.

[MENTION=7006]DEFCON 1[/MENTION] - Mearls mentioned somewhere (I think his twitter?) that they only brought the monk out so soon because it uses maneuvers, while rangers and paladins are more reliant on class abilities (in the current iteration).

 

[Klaus]

I really like the idea of metamagic options being embedded into individual spells. Sure, it makes individual spells more complex, but it also reduces the number of spells you need.

Doing it this way also makes it easier to balance spells. Instead of having a slew of metamagic feats affecting all spells, individual spell enhancements can be built according to the needs to the spell and then priced accordingly.

Very much this.

Give several spells an "augmentable" entry, saying that if you prepare this spell in a level X slot, it does these other cool things.

But Metamagic Feats ("ooh, I know Still Spell!"), as they were in 3.x? No, please!

 

[ZombieRoboNinja]

Very much this.

Give several spells an "augmentable" entry, saying that if you prepare this spell in a level X slot, it does these other cool things.

But Metamagic Feats ("ooh, I know Still Spell!"), as they were in 3.x? No, please!

I agree for the basic "make spells more powerful" metamagics, like Heighten and Maximize - those can easily be worked into the spell descriptions. But some metamagic effects (particularly still spell and silent spell) make more sense to me as daily-use feats that can be applied to any prepared spell without increasing its level.

 

[Jeff Carlsen]

I agree for the basic "make spells more powerful" metamagics, like Heighten and Maximize - those can easily be worked into the spell descriptions. But some metamagic effects (particularly still spell and silent spell) make more sense to me as daily-use feats that can be applied to any prepared spell without increasing its level.

To be honest, I don't think we need still spell, silent spell, or eschew materials at all. I'd rather we have a few spells designed to help bound or gagged wizards escape such a situation, or to nullify silence spells.

 

[ZombieRoboNinja]

To be honest, I don't think we need still spell, silent spell, or eschew materials at all. I'd rather we have a few spells designed to help bound or gagged wizards escape such a situation, or to nullify silence spells.

I guess it depends on the tradeoff involved, which depends on exactly how many spell slots casters get.

 

[ren1999]

I like the maneuvers and I like the reaction and the extra standard action.
I don't like the expertise dice though as I think it adds unneeded complexity to the game. We also have to track the XD now and remember that we reacted so that we can't do a maneuver during an action.

Here is how we can keep the maneuvers and reaction and dump the XD.

Everybody starts with one main action, one off-hand action, and one reaction out of turn.

Don't let the reaction negate extra actions. Therefore you just need to track the number of reactions you take out of turn.

At 5th level, you get another main action.
At 10th level, another off-hand action.
At 15th level, another reaction.
At 20th level,(for the sake of argument, let's say it ends here.)
At 25th level,
At 30th level,

A maneuver counts as a standard action and is toHit or toSave rolled and does full damage.

I think that XD would work if we gave it a chance.

What about spells that have a /Per Encounter, other spells that have a Recharge, other spells that are XD, and spells that are point system. Mix and match them?