What's wrong with metamagic?

[beaver1024]

I think it ought to be hammered home that the belief that having less than bulging spellbooks (full of many spells beyond the base ones gained for levelling) is "not right" or "crippling" IMX goes very often with the "sorceror is weak/crippled" judgements.

On the contrary side of things, my experience in campaigns where bulging spellbooks were not the norm and where the time and money issues for spellbooks mattered and where loss/destruction of spellbooks was a reality just like it was for other items, the sorcerer and wizard played out fairly evenly.

Wow I'd love to play a wizard in a campaign where the PC's spellbooks are destroyed.

 

[beaver1024]

First off, I don't cripple or severely restrict spell acquisition however it is done in a fashion rational for the game world. A fireball spell is on par with rocket launcher; why wouldn't a lawful society have some basic guidelines, ethical if not legal, for their transfer? The only mage in a city of sufficient level to cast Legend Lore/Analyze Dwoemer (their main source of income) is not going to hand a potential competitor the keys to the cashbox.

In general, society-helping spells are available without much effort unless I have a plot-based reason for them not to be. (like the diviner monopolist) Charms, compulsions, and damage dealing spells (particularly area effect spells) are "licensed" spells in the lawful societies; someone has to vouch for you or face some form of repurcussion, be it social or legal. Being in a noble's good books, joining a mage's society, the thieves' guild, getting it through a temple, etc all provide ways for a mage to lay hands on spells.

Or you can venture to one of the less lawful regions to risk being attacked in the streets, sold into slavery and used as a fondue seasoning so you can buy whatever spells you want. Hey, these people are selling mind-control and stuff to blow up houses; they'll eat all kinds of stuff in a fondue.

So what happens if the sorcerer gains Fireball or Analyse Dweomer without going through your roleplaying restrictions? Do you restrict the sale of weapons and equipment to your martial characters due to also lawful society limitations?

I could construct a campaign that makes it such that mages who cast spells which are not Widened instantly put to death. That doesn't make Widen Spell metamagic any less crap. It just means that I've artificially inflated the value of Widen Spell by introducing a house rule.

 

[beaver1024]

Restricting spell availability isn't crippling a spellcaster, it's thought provoking. It's making the player think, oh my character can cast 4 5th level spells now, what am I going to do with that. Spell research in down time is one solution, metamagic feats is another, go adventuring in search of more spells is another...

It actually isn't crippling for any spellcaster apart from the wizard.

 

[ruleslawyer]

Back to topic, perhaps?

The fact that each and every single alternative metamagic ruleset I've played with (metamagic components, the UA limited-times-per-day rules, the MiniHB Sudden feats, and especially, ESPECIALLY the Arcana Unearthed feats) works better than the core rules makes me think that core metamagic is pretty messed up. IMHO, the problems with core metamagic are as follows:

1) They create a book-keeping pain in the tuckus for prep casters;
2) They're too specialized in application, meaning that casters have to burn a LOT of feats to get real versatility through metamagic; and
3) They use a poor metric for comparison: Namely, higher-level spells. Spell levels don't really scale linearly, whereas metamagic feats seem to do so. This is partly because a higher-level spell can have a number of advantages built into it simultaneously, whereas adding those same advantages through MM feats tends to take you into a stratosphere where the base effect is simply useless, no matter how you modify it. For instance, to take an extreme example, a maximized, widened fireball (9th-level spell) inflicts 60 hp damage against double the number of foes. An equivalent 9th-level spell could inflict more damage, target a HUGE number of foes, and have various effects other than dealing plain ol' fire damage, while getting the free benefit of Heighten +6 levels. Note that this variation exists even with respect to core spells; meteor swarm, for instance (a relatively weak 9th-level spell, in the opinion of many) is far better than a fireball with any number of effects applied.

Thus, I tend to think that a better rules philosophy for metamagic is the expenditure of more spell slots rather than higher-level ones. This matches the concept of taking a lower-level effect and giving it a bit of a boost; by expending great effort, the skilled caster can add some "sauce" to his fireball, even though he can't match the versatility and sheer power of a higher-level caster wielding that caster's mightiest spells. IMHO, the AU rules are the definitively superior alternative.

 

[swrushing]

Wow I'd love to play a wizard in a campaign where the PC's spellbooks are destroyed.

glad to hear it. i know my last playe to run a wizard loved the game, lost/destroyed spellbooks and all. he even considered the spell mastery feat worth considering... i think he did indeed take it once, for four "key" spells iirc.

i reckon there would be some who would prefer to play in an "iviolate spellbook" game where this issue was never a risk, but then, i bet there are plenty of fighter players who woyld never want to be deprived of swords or armor, never have to sleep out of plate mail, and so forth too.

Juat not the type of games i prefer.

 

[Elder-Basilisk]

See my errors 3 and 4. Metamgic isn't for every spell. And it's not for the same spells at all levels. But your conclusions are seriously mistaken.

Higher level spells vs. metamagic spells:

At level 5: Vampiric Touch vs. Empowered Shocking Grasp: 2d6 (get temporary hit points)--avg damage: 7 vs. 5d6x1.5 (avg damage: 26). Advantage: Empowered Shocking Grasp.
At level 5: Ray of Exhaustion vs. Empowered Ray of Enfeeblement: 6 str, save for 2 vs. 1d6+2x1.5 (avg: -8 str, no save). Advantage: unclear since Ray of Exhaustion has important effects on dex and mobility... but they stack so why have them compete. At level 10, the empowered ray of enfeeblement averages about 12-13 points of strength and the save is easier for enemies to make so I think the advantage shifts to the empowered spell.
At level 7: Empowered Scorching Ray vs. Enervation: 1d4 negative levels vs. (effectively) 12d6 fire damage. Advantage (IMO) scorching ray
At level 7: Empowered scorching ray vs. energy orb spell (T&B or CA or mini HB): 7d6 plus minor effect (save to avoid) or 12d6. Advantage: Scorching Ray
At level 9: Empowered Fireball vs. Cone of Cold: (effectively) 13.5 d6 vs. 9d6 with a DC 2 points higher. Advantage: Empowered fireball...in almost all situations. (The best case for the cone of cold is probably a 10th level halfling rogue (+13 ref, and evasion which will negate the advantage of the extra damage on a successful save). Assuming an int of 20 and greater spell focus, the DCs for the fireball and cone of cold will be 20 and 22 respectively. Thus, the rogue will take an average of 14.175 from the fireball and 12.6 from the cone of cold. It only gets better for the empowered spell from there on out--against a foe like a 10th level cleric with a +4 reflex save, the empowered fireball does an average of 41.34 damage. The cone of cold does an average of 29.14 damage--a pretty dramatic difference). [My method for calculating average damage: odds of saving x damage on save + odds of failing the save x damage on a failed save]
At level 11: Maximized Scorching Ray vs. disintegrate: 72 points of damage vs. 77, save for 17.5. Advantage: Maximized scorching ray (and it's a level lower) unless you want to disintegrate a door or a wall of force.

And those are the spells that are easy to quantify. Other metamagic feats are harder because there are no directly comparable spells. Quicken Spell, for instance is a great feat IMO but doesn't have any really good comparison points because there are very few free action spells and none in the PHB. But, name me a fifth level spell that can be cast as a free action and deals 1d6+5 points of strength penalty to a single target with no save. Not as spiffy an effect as wall of force to be sure, but you can cast a quickened ray of enfeeblement during the same round as you cast a wall of force--a huge advantage. For an 11th level wizard using a quickened scorching ray, the ability to dish out an extra 42 points of damage (on average) for several rounds is very significant.

In short, metamagic spells worth casting are almost always better than normal spells of the same effective level (that's what makes them worth casting). They're either better because they do more of whatever they do (empower and maximize spell) or because there's no other way to do what they do (quicken spell).

For Wizards, it is rarely cost-effective to metamagic a spell. It is almost always more advantageous to simply memorize a higher level spell. There are some specific cases that can be planned for that this is not the case, but they seem to be the exception rather than the rule.

For sorcerers, without bonus feats with which to take metamagic feats and with the increased casting time, it just doesn't seem like a popular option. In my opinion, sorcerers should get 5th, 10th, 15th, and 20th level bonus feats for metamagic and should not increase the casting time. They're already weak as it is.

Wizards need a way to use metamagic feats without using up those high level slots. The main problem I see is that the only spells that are low enough level to metamagic are also the spells that seem most off-kilter on the resultant level. For instance, casting a maximized ice storm (7th level) for 30 points of damage to anything within a 40 ft. cylinder seems a bit weak. But compared to a maximized burning hands (4th level) at 20 points of damage to a 15' cone, it's powerful. And are you really going to give up one of your high level slots? Probably not. You're much more willing to waste a 4th level slot on a weak spell than a 7th level one, if only it weren't that much weaker and useless. There are too few spells and situations that are worthwhile. This problem is exacerbated by stacking metamagics (a quickened maximized magic missile would be nice to have, but not as an 8th level spell).

There are several different things that could be used to replace the spell level adjustment of metamagic. Casting time, expensive and specific material components, XP, etc. I think any of these would be more viable options than increased spell level.

But there is still the buy-in cost of getting a metamagic feat, though for wizards, this shouldn't be much of a problem.

In summary, it's because metamagic feats suck. They're a neat idea, but horribly balanced.

 

[Elder-Basilisk]

Back to topic, perhaps?

The fact that each and every single alternative metamagic ruleset I've played with (metamagic components, the UA limited-times-per-day rules, the MiniHB Sudden feats, and especially, ESPECIALLY the Arcana Unearthed feats) works better than the core rules makes me think that core metamagic is pretty messed up. IMHO, the problems with core metamagic are as follows:

1) They create a book-keeping pain in the tuckus for prep casters;

I don't see how it's any more complicated to prepare a metamagic spell than a normal spell. Could you elaborate a bit?

2) They're too specialized in application, meaning that casters have to burn a LOT of feats to get real versatility through metamagic; and

I don't see it this way. Some metamagic feats (Empower Spell, Maximize Spell, Quicken Spell) are about power--not versatility. An empowered damage spell does more damage than a different spell in that slot. (Not for all spells, of course, just for those worth empowering). Quicken Spell doesn't make a character more versatile in the sense you seem to be using--it just allows a character to concentrate his power more effectively within a short timespan.

The metamagic feats that are about versatility--eschew materials, still spell, silent spell, sculpt spell (T&B/CA), heighten spell (rather indirectly), energy substitution--are all pretty good at what they do. The only question is whether a particular character has a need for what they do. Still, it only takes one or two feats to get a lot of versatility in how spells are cast or targetted. Sculpt Spell does that admirably. Energy Substitution is plenty useful enough. Still and Silent Spell combine to make a very sneaky spellcaster.

3) They use a poor metric for comparison: Namely, higher-level spells. Spell levels don't really scale linearly, whereas metamagic feats seem to do so. This is partly because a higher-level spell can have a number of advantages built into it simultaneously, whereas adding those same advantages through MM feats tends to take you into a stratosphere where the base effect is simply useless, no matter how you modify it. For instance, to take an extreme example, a maximized, widened fireball (9th-level spell) inflicts 60 hp damage against double the number of foes. An equivalent 9th-level spell could inflict more damage, target a HUGE number of foes, and have various effects other than dealing plain ol' fire damage, while getting the free benefit of Heighten +6 levels. Note that this variation exists even with respect to core spells; meteor swarm, for instance (a relatively weak 9th-level spell, in the opinion of many) is far better than a fireball with any number of effects applied.

Well, yes. . . if you insist on applying metamagic inefficiently and using lousy metamagic feats like widen spell, your modified spell will suck. But you set out to design a sucky spell so that shouldn't be surprising. On the other hand, if you want 9th level damage to a single target, a maximized, energy admixed scorching ray will do in the neighborhood of 114 points of damage (assuming that the second energy type is not maximized too--if it is, that's 144 points of damage). The meteor swarm only does an average of 84. Sure, the meteor swarm is an area affect, but that's not always advantageous. Similarly, an empowered delayed blast fireball will do an average of 105 points of damage to the meteor swarm's 84.

Thus, I tend to think that a better rules philosophy for metamagic is the expenditure of more spell slots rather than higher-level ones. This matches the concept of taking a lower-level effect and giving it a bit of a boost; by expending great effort, the skilled caster can add some "sauce" to his fireball, even though he can't match the versatility and sheer power of a higher-level caster wielding that caster's mightiest spells. IMHO, the AU rules are the definitively superior alternative.

The problem with this idea (and even more the sudden metamagic feats and Divine Metamagic for that matter) is that it allows characters with metamagic feats to sauce their spells up too much. Except for at the low levels of D&D, the challenge isn't how much firepower a character has, but rather how much firepower a character can bring to bear in a single round. By allowing characters to obtain the effects of metamagic earlier (empowered fireballs at 5th level, etc), such options increase the effectiveness of magic far too much.

 

[Zelligars Apprentice]

<snip>
The other reason I like metamagic is because there aren't many other good feats for Wizards. Sure, my Wizard has Spell Penetration/Greater Spell Penetration, as well as Focus/Greater Focus in a couple schools (well, only Greater in one school), but that's it. Just those and metamagic. Works great for me. I do think there are some that are worthless. Quicken Spell is completely stupid at a 4-level bump. But overall, I enjoy them.

Um...just curious, is there a reason you don't like magic item creation feats?

Sorry for the quick hijack, but this just seemed to be a wierd oversight.

Thanks!

 

[ptolemy18]

Um...just curious, is there a reason you don't like magic item creation feats?

I just came out of a 4-year-long D&D 3.0/3.5 campaign, and actually, no one ever used Item Creation feats! (Except a little Scribe Scroll.)

Atlas Games' book of Nyambe magic items, ANCESTRAL VAULT, makes the point that some Item Creation feats just don't give enough options to make them be worth taking. Scribe Scroll and Brew Potion are all right... Create Wand is all right... Create Magic Weapon and Create Magic Armor (whatever they're called) are okay...but creating Wands, Staffs, Rings and Wondrous Items is pretty annoying and tricky. It's hard to find yourself with the right combination of spells to create a good variety of items, and there simply aren't many items listed in the DUNGEON MASTER'S GUIDE for some of the existing categories (like Staffs and Rods).

So, in ANCESTRAL VAULT, they suggest replacing them with three feats: "Create Minor Magic Item", "Create Medium Magic Item" and "Create Major Magic Item."

It's pretty dull and flavorless that way, but I do see their point. Players creating more weird magic items is good.

Jason

 

[ptolemy18]

I'm looking at the tome and blood version and it too says that it only works on spells with a personal or fixed range. The difference with the 3.5 version is that in 3.5 it costs a spell slot six levels higher instead of four. That part does blow but I guess no-one was waiting for clerics running around with divine favor/power all day. The feat still gives powerful options IMO.

Six levels?!?!? Outrageous! :/ Clearly another cruel attempt to hamper the ass-kicking abilities of spellcasters in 3.5!

I assumed that "fixed range" meant anything aside from "unlimited range"... whoops.

Jason