Post/Author/DateTime	Post
Tenzhi 07-06-05, 02:49 AM	Instead of preparing spells at a higher slot for Metamagic, or taking a full round to use it, Metamagic requires a Caster Level check versus a DC of 10 + (2x Spell Level) + Metamagic Modifier. Specialist wizards get a +4 bonus on this roll for spells in their Specialist school. As a general rule of thumb, the Metamagic Modifier is equal to twice the spell slot modifier (for instance, Quicken Spell uses up a spell slot four levels higher, so it would have a Metamagic Modifier of +8). Heighten Spell doesn't have a Metamagic Modifier, instead increasing the effective spell level (which gets multipied by 2 and added to 10 to determine the DC). Eschew Materials has a base modifier of +1, with a further +1/100gp of material components normally required for the spell. Combining several Metamagic effects increases the DC - a Quickened, Silent, Still Magic Missile would have a DC of 24 (10 + 2 (Spell Level) + 8 (Quicken) + 2 (Silent) + 2 (Still) = 24). Failing the Caster Level check while attempting Silent Spell, Still Spell, or Eschew Materials (or any combination of Metamagic that includes them) means the spell does not successfully get cast (and the spell slot isn't used). Failing while attempting Quicken Spell (or any combination of Metamagic that includes it) means the spell still takes a standard action to cast. Failing while attempting other metamagic generally means the spell gets cast but only has its normal effect. Optionally, one could give further penalties for failure (or a roll of 1). For instance, a failed Maximize effect might cause minimum damage instead, or a failed Heighten attempt might cause the spell to act as a 0-level spell.
Silmarien Aldalome 07-06-05, 03:49 AM	Well, well, ruff ruff, you might well expect me to be very happy with these variations on metamagic. And, you'd be right if you were. However, I suspect there'll be people who will dispute the very sensible method you've developed. I support the position you've taken, noting that Metamagic is expesive to purchase and overbalanced. The burning of spellslots is an overbalancer, IMO. The commitment to spellslots on purchase of a metamagicked spell sacrifices versatility of altered spells. What ends up happening is that you cast your modified spells in normal melee, and the contingencies where you need a, say, silenced magical spell are truly limited situations; excepting Quicken (which grants you a guaranteed *powerful* benefit, every melee) (Silent, Still, Heightened, Empowered, Maximised, Extended spells give you some benefit, but expensively purchased); technically, I see no reason why more powerful versions of spells can't be researched anyway, where, say a second level version of Magic Missile is researched that does not have Somatic components. No big deal to do this, after all, several spells already don't have all three components anyway; metamagic specialisation in PrCs typically arouse great ire in the posting community (the Incantatrix is a very controversial PrC), but while such products look good on paper, in practice, a Metamagic specialist is such a narrow focus (and narrowing is itself a Game Balancer) that substantial versatility is sacrificed in your PrC; metamagic can be mimicked by a number of magic Items. Metamagic Rods grant free metamagic daily; A non-metamagic specialist (compared to a metamagic PrC without many Item Creation Feats) gets a further benefit from being able to increase the number of their spell slots, by creating cool items like Rings of Wizardry, Pearls of Power and a number of other Magic Items. A metamagic specialist has a double-disadvantage against such a Wizard. As controversial as it is to say it, metamagic is underpowered (noting the divided views of this area). stav
Tenzhi 07-06-05, 04:03 AM	I forgot to give special mention to Sorcerors. I have divided thoughts on Sorcerors. I don't think Metamagic should take a full round for them, as I mentioned initially, but in regards to balancing that: 1. Sorcerors are slightly weak compared to wizards from a balance perspective. And from a flavour POV their natural affinity for magic allows them to freely shape it easier. Thus Sorcerors receive a +4 bonus to the Caster Level check on all Metamagic attempts. OR 2. Sorcerors' ability to spontaneously cast spells gives them a leg up on wizards. Also, their lack of training makes it more difficult for them to shape the magic to their will. Thus Sorcerors receive a -4 penalty on all Metamagic rolls. OR 3. Sorcerors will be fine with no penalty or bonus. They're balanced as is even without the full-round Metamagic.
Lofwyr4 07-06-05, 08:46 AM	Id just go down the middle there, you really answered your own question. Sorcerers have a natural ability to manipulate magic intrinsically which allows them modify the magics theyve discovered within themselves. Thus they get a +2 bonus on the check, as if the spell were one level lower, when applying metamagic to spells they know. However, because they have no formal training as wizards do, and because they must work within the moment to craft their magic spontaneously, such metamagic modifications take more work effort to apply than they would for a wizard. Thus sorcerers take a full round action to apply metamagic. However, they can rush the process and try to force the spontaneous process to happen quicker. Trying this applies a -6 penalty (ie, net mod of +4 or half of quicken), but success allows them to cast the metamagic modified spell in the normal casting time rather than as a full round. However trying to force spontineity is very difficult, failing this attempt ruins the casting.
Valoy_Muniz 07-06-05, 10:18 AM	I like it but I do not think it will work. With this system I see a few problems. 1) You can put alot of meta on spells that would put you over the spell level so at fitst level you can try to maxmiz a level one spell for a DC 16 at first you would have at least a +4 (ranks) and then a +1 or more from int. 2)You can do this unlimited. With your system a level 1 wiz that spec evc with a 18 int would get a +12 to his roll and a empowered MM is dc would be 14 and a quicken would be 16. This part can be corrected by DC of 10 + (2x Spell Level) + Metamagic Modifier of the day. So the first time you try a empower mm it would be dc14 (10+(2x1)+2) The second time is dc16 (10+(2x1)+2+2) After that if you quicken it the dc 20 (10+2x1+2+2+4). For the soc I like the idea of giving them a bounes (+2 is nice but I think it should be +4) for the full round casting and taking a -6 if they want to do it in less time. Eschew Materials has a base modifier of +1, with a further +1/100gp of material components normally required for the spell. This should not be there as it is not even counted as a meta magic feat anymore in 3.5.
Lofwyr4 07-06-05, 11:11 AM	Initially Id considered 4 as well. However +4 is the same as a specialist wizard, and while a sorc is maybe more familiar with their spells than a typical wizard they shouldnt be as familiar with them as the best specialists +2 is a 10% shift in a d20 roll, which seemed more appropriate given the smaller dc scale you point out the inital posts used +4 would virtually outweigh the -6 modifier for going faster; while it could be argued to just up that check to -8, thats the same as quicken and this is less powerful than quicken That said, there is another alternative. Since RAW a spontaneous caster cannot use quicken metamagic (the base feat) at all because of the full round casting, this essentially opens up a whole new level of power for them. Where as before a sorc couldnt quicken anything via the feat ever, now they could. Considering that point, it may be fair to change the sorc modifiers to +4 base, -8 to avoid full round, then a second -8 to quicken should they choose too. Essentially this would mean they are very able to modify their base spells using full round actions, which befits their flavor and RAW. However, trying to do so without their disadvantages is very difficult (net -4 or -12 respectivly, where a wizard would only get -0 or -8). IMO that could balance out since while its more difficult, its possible where before it was not. And any chance > no chance. If the base scale is modified to be a little larger in terms of dc range, and perhaps a feat or two introduced to add +2 or something to these checks similar to the other spell enchancing feats, I would indeed use this larger modified scale. And perhaps tune the wiz values a little as well. (example new feat, 'gifted spellcrafter feat, add +2 to metamagic craft checks', etc).
Tenzhi 07-06-05, 01:00 PM	I like it but I do not think it will work. With this system I see a few problems. The problems you see don't actually exist. You seem to think the roll involved is a skill roll of some sort, when it is in fact a Caster Level check. There are neither ranks nor ability modifiers involved. Ergo the maximum bonus to the roll a level 1 caster could have is +5 in his Specialty school and +1 in every other school. This should not be there as it is not even counted as a meta magic feat anymore in 3.5. Perhaps not, but I wanted it there and am considering it a MetaMagic feat (which it should be anyway - as much as Still or Silent Spell) for the purposes of this variant.
Valoy_Muniz 07-06-05, 01:13 PM	I am sorry about the cheak. For some reason I though it was based off spellcraft not a caster cheak.
Tenzhi 07-06-05, 01:26 PM	I am sorry about the cheak. For some reason I though it was based off spellcraft not a caster cheak. Not at all. I actually initially thought about making it either a Spellcraft or Concentration check - but then I ran into the problems you mentioned and decided a Caster Level check was better overall. ;) I did miss that Eschew Materials was a General feat now, however. I had just assumed given its nature that it was Metamagic. I wanted to make it potentially more useful, too, which is why I'll keep it as Metamagic for this variant.
Valoy_Muniz 07-06-05, 02:43 PM	Not at all. I actually initially thought about making it either a Spellcraft or Concentration check - but then I ran into the problems you mentioned and decided a Caster Level check was better overall. ;) I did miss that Eschew Materials was a General feat now, however. I had just assumed given its nature that it was Metamagic. I wanted to make it potentially more useful, too, which is why I'll keep it as Metamagic for this variant. What you should do then is make it base +0 and the +/x gold.
Valoy_Muniz 07-06-05, 02:51 PM	Another way to write your formula is 10+2*(spell level after mod). This way classes and feat that lower the spell slots are also easy to take into acount.
Silmarien Aldalome 07-07-05, 06:27 AM	What about Casting Defensively? Here's another method (using Concentration Checks): Retain the level preclusion criterion (i.e. you can't Quicken anything until you're fifth level, and never anything (over) than your fifth level spells. for example, and at ninth, only first level spells. Then upwardly modify the DC check by the Metamagic modifier. So - normal casting for MM at fifth level = 10+1+4 - defensive casting for MM at fifrth level = 15+1+4 Technically, you could, I suppose within this method, Still everything one level lower, for example, if you stacked your Spellcraft right, which creates some game-balancing problems, I think. So, risk would need to be created for the Spellcaster, in order to balance an approach like this. Perhaps, risk of loss of an upper level spell slot (of the level equal to the modified spell level). Another method Alternatively, set your Check thresholds as follows: 75% (1 through 15 on a d20) chance of success for one level of metamagic (e.g. Still, Silent) for your top-end spells, and increasing that by 5% (+1 on a d20) for each lower level spell slot you have available and that you metamagic. Note a '1' always fails, as per melee rules. 50% chance of success for two levels of metamagic, for top-end spells, with 5% increments for each lower level spell slot you metamagic. 25% chance of success for three levels of metamagic, for top-end spells, with 5% increments for each lower level spell slot you metamagic. 0% chance of success for four levels of metamagic, for top-end spells, with 5% increments for each lower level spell slot you metamagic. This method requires a new Casting Check table, set in increments of 5 units. I'm not sure how you'd allow upward mods to such a table. Example At 5th level, Mialee (good god, I never thought I'd be using that name) decides to Silence her Fireball on the first round and her Web on the second round. She has a 75% chance of success for the Fireball and 80% chance of success for the Web. When she reaches 10th level, she reaches the 95% threshold for success for Stilling all 3rd level spells.
Ilium 07-07-05, 09:00 AM	Tenzhi: I like this idea. I use caster level checks for a couple of purposes and I think they work much better than skill checks for the reasons already cited. I was going to suggest you not allow the caster to exceed their normal max spell level. But after writing a long post with an example, I think I've talked myself out of it. For example, a 3rd-level wizard casting maximized scorching rays could have a modifier of, at most, +7 (right?). The DC is 20 so he'd have to roll a 13 on the dice (40% chance). That seems about right. At 4th level the chance would improve to 45%. One thing you could do is say that if the caster is exceeding his normal level limits he's "overcasting." I use this for a system some of my casters use. If the caster fails the check when overcasting, bad things can happen.
Thelon Fairblade 07-07-05, 02:00 PM	Just to clarify, would the caster sitll have to select the metamagic feat normally in order to have the option? I.e. Still spell is now a caster level check, but you must take the Still Spell feat to get the option of Stilled Spells?
Valoy_Muniz 07-07-05, 02:02 PM	yes.
Tenzhi 07-08-05, 12:49 AM	As Valoy said: Yes, the feats are still necessary. Though I could see making certain Metamagic abilities available to all spellcasters at a penalty (say, -4 and it's cumulative) without the feats, with the feats simply getting rid of the penalty. This would bring it more in line with various combat maneuvers.
Valoy_Muniz 07-08-05, 08:57 AM	The way I am going to put this in my game is as follow. All metamagic feats can be used the normal way as in the books. The person with the feat though can also use it the new way presented below. When casting a spell you have a can apply a meta (or more then one) to a spell without increasing the time or level of the spell. To do so roll a caster level check. The dc is 2x (5+the new spell level of the spell). So a empower fireball dc would be 2x (5+5(level 3 spell +2 metalevels) =20. If the check succeeded, you cast the spell with the meta effect. If the check fails, it is just the regular spell. A roll of a 20 always succeeds. A roll of a 1 is always a mishap that the DM determines, (Maybe the fireball heals instead of hurt ECT.) Mods. Domain spells +2 A specialty caster special school +6 Spontaneous caster +4 Signature Spell (to that spell and stacks with Spell Mastery) +2 Spontaneous caster casting quicken -8 Spell Mastery +1 I decided to leave in the old system just incase my players do not like this new one.
Me, Myself, & 101 others 07-08-05, 10:30 AM	The way I am going to put this in my game is as follow. All metamagic feats can be used the normal way as in the books. The person with the feat though can also use it the new way presented below. This is what I'm going to do, as well. I'm going to play with the numbers a bit to see how they work and maybe change a couple modifiers, then let the players know about the change. I'll have to decide what, if any, changes to make to the metapsionic feats, though. I've got a player who is playing a psion/wizard, so the question is going to come up.
Silmarien Aldalome 07-08-05, 11:38 PM	@Valoy_Muniz That's quite an interesting variation. :) @Me, Myself, & 101 Others Psionic systems have some general similarities to spell systems, and they're also distinct. The Power Point system more or less replicated Sorcery, in many ways. I like how psionics lets you spend more power points as you go up in levels to do things to a spell - which is quite a good system I think. It's essentially 'meta-magic' in many ways, I think. @all I do like the Caster Level options - but I also don't think Concentration Checking is a false premise to approach this with, even if there are some mechanical issues. Casting Defensively and, indeed, many spell-like abilities are reliant on the Spellcraft system, and I think that's good justification for adapting Spellcraft variations to Metamagic. stav
Me, Myself, & 101 others 07-09-05, 01:38 PM	I was playing around with this, and came up with/added the following: Over Channeling: Casting a spell with metamagic feats can cause you to Over Channel. Over Channeling occurs when you cast a spell with a metamagic modifier equal to or greater than the level of the highest level spell of that type that you know. When you Over Channel a spell, you take one point of damage per level of the spell’s modifier. Example:A 5th level Wizard wishes to cast a Maximized Fireball. Maximize spell modifies the spell with a +3 adjustment, so the wizard would be Over Channeling. So, when he casts the spell, he would take 3 hit points of damage. This should help keep characters from going crazy with metamagic, especially chaining two or more metamagic feats to the same spell. I'm also implementing the 20 = autosuccess and 1 = botch variation. I'm doing it like this: "A roll of 20 always succeeds, and a roll of 1 indicates a mishaps with various results (such as miss-aimed spells, spells backlashing, spell not functions, or other nasty side effects.)" I'm writing up the variations and I'm going to send them to my players, and I'll see how it works out and what, if any, further changes need to be made for my game. EDIT: Oh yeah... I also made Natural Spell a metamagic feat, which applies to polymorph and the like as well as wild shape, with a +1 level adjustment.
Valoy_Muniz 07-11-05, 01:37 PM	One of my players (a non-caster) was talking with me and thinks if they fail the spell should fail out right. I am thinking bout this as I am not sure what do you think. P.S. He has also dm before so I do value his oppenion even if we do not agree on a house rule.
Me, Myself, & 101 others 07-11-05, 02:04 PM	One of my players (a non-caster) was talking with me and thinks if they fail the spell should fail out right. I am thinking bout this as I am not sure what do you think. P.S. He has also dm before so I do value his oppenion even if we do not agree on a house rule. I just introduced the system to my players, with the 1 = botch variation, I've got at least 2-3 casters that'll be playing around with these options, and I'll see how it goes and let you guys know. If they try and maximize/empower/whatever every spell they cast, I think I'll throw in a downside to regular failures as well as botches. Might not make the spell fail altogether, but might reduce the overall effectiveness or maybe reverse the effects so that a failed attempt at maximizing will instead minimize... I don't want to make the cost of failure too high, though. I'm implementing this system because I want metamagic to be more useful, and used more often. If a failure is too extreme, they'll just go back to not using metamagic again.
Valoy_Muniz 07-11-05, 04:05 PM	I like the idea of reveres the meta if it is a reguler failer.
Silverwave 07-11-05, 05:41 PM	I like this system very much but it still need some work. I was wondering how non-spontaneous caster would use this system but I answered myself when writing the post. Non-spontaneous caster will do the Caster lvl check on casting of the spell and not on studying it unless you deceide that check failure means loose of the spell. I think failure of this check should do the opposite of the metamagic feat effect (widen = half the area of effect, maximised = minimised, etc) still what a silent or still spell would do ? Louder spell, Oversomatic spell (lol what's the point?)
Valoy_Muniz 07-12-05, 08:38 AM	I think failure of this check should do the opposite of the metamagic feat effect (widen = half the area of effect, maximised = minimised, etc) still what a silent or still spell would do ? Louder spell, Oversomatic spell (lol what's the point?) If they are doing still and silent then they are doing it for one of 3 reasons 1) thay can not use that componet (tied up, and or gaged) so the spell will fail. 2) they are trying to cast without detection in witch case make them auto detected. 3) They may use still spell to try to get around armor cheak peanaty.
Tenzhi 07-12-05, 10:16 PM	One of my players (a non-caster) was talking with me and thinks if they fail the spell should fail out right. I am thinking bout this as I am not sure what do you think. For castings that involve Still Spell, Silent Spell, or Eschew materials I agree and indeed already said that's the way it should work. These are effects that modify the basics of casting the spell. Other effects shape/modify the spell and not the casting and therefore shouldn't automatically cause the spell to fail.
Leewei 07-13-05, 04:41 PM	The system looks good. I like the idea of limiting the use of metamagic a bit to avoid powergaming. I'd suggest adding a limit of metamagic use to (spellcasting stat) times per day. Alternately, limit it to (half spellcaster level) times per day. A feat which increased the number of uses of metamagic by 2 per day (type: metamagic, requires two other metamagic feats) is an option for metamagic specialists. Some particularly powerful metamagic feats such as Quicken Spell might require two uses.
Silmarien Aldalome 02-13-06, 08:19 AM	:bump: Metamagic specialisation as a Wizard, with the new feats in Complete Arcane, I reckon, can create a powerful build, but one with a very narrow specialisation. I think that's balanced. Systems of metamagic that modify core rules are great ideas. There's a lot that could be done to make metamagic an entire discipline of 'magical thinking'. Stav