new feat: spell addition (metamagic)

[Scion]

Need a new name for it obviously, and anyone to tell me which parts they feel are broken/unclear

spell addition (metamagic)
prereqs: ?
Benefit: When preparing/useing a spell slot the caster may instead use two lower level spells in the slot instead. The slot needed is equal to the two spell levels put together plus one. So, if two third level spells were wanted to be used at the same time then it would take a seventh level slot.

All targets must be legal at the time of casting, the spells may go to completely different areas however. The casting time of the spell additioned spell is equal to the longest casting time of the spells prepared in this slot, or a minimum of one full round, whichever is longer.

In addition, extra spell slots may be used within the spell. These slots take up their actual slots, but cannot be cast seperately from the overall spell. These extra spells must be of the same level or lower than the highest spell placed into the spell addition above and the total of all the additional spells must be equal to or less than the overall slot being used minus one. Also, these extra spells may only be of personal, harmless, or willing target nature. No offensive spells.

So, for a big bang, as a 9th level spell a caster could place two fourth level spells, and up to 8 spell levels of non-offensive spells, none of which may be higher than level 4.


I know it might have some problems, especially with wording. I would appreciate however no comments like, 'this is just incredibly broken', please give examples as to how you feel it is so, that is much more constructive. Also, I dont care about epic levels at all, by the rules of the elh, so they do not matter for this feat either.

Mainly this has come about as a way to get off several defensive spells at once. With the incredibly shortened duration, and usefulness, of most buffs something is needed in order to have more than a single buff during any real battle. Casting more spells at once depletes the casters spell list very rapidily, and since the extra spells are effectively buff only that makes the offensive capabilities much less.

For the first part of the feat, two examples seem readily available to check for balance.

3rd level spell slot, 2 magic missiles vs fireball. This is very comparable, each has their own advantages and drawbacks. I think this is very even, especialy considering that it takes a feat to do it.

9th level spell slot, 2 enervations vs energy drain. both do 2d4 negative energy damage, the 2 have double the chance of one to break through SR which is nice, but they are both stopped by major globe and the like, which is painful.

Long post.. hopefully people will have good suggestions/ideas

oh, and there are no save or die spells in the campaign I am in either, in case that helps for balance purposes.

Edited to add in the casting time restriction.

 

[rkanodia]

I agree that being able to bring up buffs in a hurry is a noble goal, but this thing is way over the top. The first part of the feat seems reasonable at a glance (although I may be missing something - for instance, it's strictly better than Twin Spell for spell levels 1-3, but that might be a Good Thing anyway), but the second part is pretty much ridiculous. A caster with 5th-level spells could, say, launch a fireball, and still be able to raise Shield, Blur, and Mirror Image all in one round. No way would I allow that in my campaign.

 

[Scion]

I know what you are saying, but I dont really see a problem with it.

That caster just used a 5th level slot and 2 2nd level slots to get those benefits. Effectively they could have had the exact same spells going, and for cheaper slots, without needing them all to be cast at once, if they had just had a couple of rounds of prep time. So the difference in when you have the prep time is that you are behind, but when you dont have the prep time you still have a chance to put some buffs into place.

I'm just trying to figure out if there are any broken combos that would need to be addressed, or if there are any easily abuseable situations.

With the sheer cost of what is trying to be done it still seems like a not completely worth it way to go all of the time, but sometimes it is very nice. Like the example above, if you really need those buffs you have tied to it, but dont want to sling a fireball, you are sol.

 

[rkanodia]

That caster just used a 5th level slot and 2 2nd level slots to get those benefits. Effectively they could have had the exact same spells going, and for cheaper slots, without needing them all to be cast at once, if they had just had a couple of rounds of prep time. So the difference in when you have the prep time is that you are behind, but when you dont have the prep time you still have a chance to put some buffs into place.

The caster could get a level 4 spell, a level 0 spell, and two level 2 spells for a level 5 spell slot and two level 2 spell slots. There's only one 'wasted' level. I agree that Quicken is overcosted for buffing purposes, but your idea is just too many effects to be able to do all at once for not enough cost. Having prep time is supposed to give you an advantage. If you think the feat is fine, go ahead and use it. It's your game. But you asked for opinions, and mine is that the second part (about being able to 'tie' spell slots to the Spell Addition slot) is just horrendously broken.

 

[Scion]

0 level spells count as half level, as usual, so you cant get around it that way.

I understand you feel it is horribly broken, but I would like to know your reasoning as to why. Having a few rounds is still a big advantage (and in 3.5 it is 'too big' of an advantage, imo, with the short duration of most useful spells anyway. getting the jump on someone is always deadly, the sheer amount of deadly now is just too much).

Any sort of number crunching at all, or demonstration of horrible brokeness, is what I am after. I realize that it 'might' be over the top, but I need some solid evidence that it is. Just being able to save a round or two for buffing for the cost of a feat and a few spells slots seems fine.

I guess it could be made to require a full round action minimum, rather than minimum casting time of the longest one in the package. without allowing for a free action that round as well if necissary.

 

[rkanodia]

Just being able to save a round or two for buffing for the cost of a feat and a few spells slots seems fine.

Then use the feat. I think that it's too good, because I think being able to save a round or two for buffing for the cost of a feat and a few spell slots isn't fine at all. If you want those buffs (and why else would you be using spell addition on them?) then those slots aren't 'wasted'. I personally view Quicken as being overcosted for many applications, buffing included. But just do a quick comparison between Quicken and Spell Addition and I think you'll find the difference to be too much.

Suppose you want Shield, Mirror Image, Resist Elements, and Magic Circle Against Evil. Here's the fastest way to get each of these going, and what it costs, trying to minimize the usage of high-level slots

No metamagic: 4 rounds (1 spell per round). 1 first level slot, 2 2nd level slot, 1 3rd level slot.
Quicken spell: 2 rounds (1 spell + 1 quick per round). 1 2nd level slot, 1 3rd level slot, 1 5th level slot, 1 6th level slot.
Spell addition: 1 round (two spells added, with two spells tied). 1 5th level slot, 2 2nd level slots.

I repeat my previous statement that either component of the feat has a high probability of being an acceptable feat. But allowing both at once is simply too much.

 

[Scion]

No metamagic: 4 rounds (1 spell per round). 1 first level slot, 2 2nd level slot, 1 3rd level slot.
Quicken spell: 2 rounds (1 spell + 1 quick per round). 1 2nd level slot, 1 3rd level slot, 1 5th level slot, 1 6th level slot.
Spell addition: 1 round (two spells added, with two spells tied). 1 5th level slot, 2 2nd level slots.

Sounds perfect, long amount of time to get the spells up, or a short amount of time by having to give up other options (namely feats and spell slots).

I think that quicken is way, way overpriced, probably by about 2 levels.

Also, with the first option and the quicken option both can be used for a bunch of offensive type spells. I think that moving the feat up to full round casting status will fix most of the problems that it might have.

So, in the above, it is possible for someone who was just jumped to actually have a chance. giving up a full round just to get some defensive spells into place. Otherwise they are sol pretty much completely. Good enough then, having to try to find ways to fix the system through feats is very unfortunate though ;/ ahh well.. maybe 4.0 will have some interesting ideas on how to work it.

 

[rkanodia]

If you mean 'full round' as in "I spend a full-round action to use my spell addition spells", I don't see how that really changes anything. If you mean 'full round' as in "This round I start casting the spell, and it will finish next round", then you're completely screwed. And again, the real 'cost' of using your feat is a single spell slot; or rather, the difference between using a spell slot and using one of the next higher level.

I still think this feat is too good for its cost. Yes, people who get ambushed without buffs are in trouble. But imagine how it will feel for you, as a player, when you catch the archlich with his pants down only to have the DM say, "Well, looks like he beat you on initiative. He starts to weave a spell, which your spellcraft recognizes as flame shield, stoneskin, displacement, blink, and mirror image."? I'd be pretty ticked off.

Maybe you should consider making a lesser contingency spell, with a 3rd-level cap. That might assuage some of your ambush fears without as much cheese.

If anyone else wants to chime in and explain why I'm wrong, go ahead. I don't want to look like a jerk here.

 

[Scion]

full round action is an actual casting time, the summon spells are all like that

As for your lich friend, it sounds pretty appropriate. As it is, in the current system, there is little to no way for a dm to get around the simple fact that spells durations are incredibly short. Sure there are a few longer ones, but effectively any caster gets to choose one buff spell for any given battle while on the defenseive, whereas those on the offense can have nearly any number up and running.

In 3.0 this was a pretty big problem, but not as much as it is in 3.5. With the huge amount of duration decrease and general utility decreas as well, something has to be done to give casters a chance.

Now I know that many have said casters are too strong, but many others have also said that the reverse is true. Taking away any broken/overpowered prcs (there are some for both sides), and going by at least the dmg recommended number of encounters per day, the caster types are almost always going to be in trouble, especially by the end of the day.

This feat is more for those who are around defensive and need a boost, or those who are in hostile waters and want to be ready at a moments notice. Notice that with this a caster could put up a couple of buffing spells on most of the party, but then they are done for the day. Trading power for versitility.

As for your example though, I have seen this sort of thing happen before actually. Both in real games and fake ones, it is just a way to make things more realistic than, 'he just happens to have these spells up for some reason'.

At least the lich had to give up that round to put those buffs up, and a single dispel magic can take them all down again for that matter. It is still party against one, which is pretty much bad news anyway, but at least now any defensive party can have a chance of getting some buffs up in time for them to matter. Having to spend those 4 other rounds is effectively not going to happen, even the two rounds you stated above is too much time. Even with this feat, as a full round action, it is probably too long, but that was the compromise I was trying to make with you to see if you would like it then. Even going that far invalidated a large part of it, but still made it useful in times of need, and possibly in times of planning. Both are good in my opinion

I realize that you are stating your opinion, and I am stating mine, I just would like to see if there are any actual brokeness to it. Cutting down on the amount of time it takes to buff up greatly is the main purpose of the feat, so saying that it is a bad thing that it accomplishes its goal just seems odd. Perhaps it does it too well, but if so, how? The lich example above is a good one, but while he does have some defensive spells up now he had to give up a feat to do it, give up a full round action, cast only a couple more spells than he could have anyway, and none of them were offensive to the party at all. Seems pretty perfect to me!

 

[rkanodia]

He could have traded fire shield and stoneskin for fireball and cone of cold, and still gotten displacement, blink, and mirror image.

As for brokenness, I posit that the purpose of giving buffing spells a limited duration is to reward those who expend the time and energy necessary to know when a fight will happen. If you see having buffs before going into combat as being an inherent part of class balance, then we're just going to talk past each other forever and I think we might as well discontinue the debate.