Metamagic Rods and Pearls of Power: What happens if they go away.


Homebrew and House Rules

51 to 100 of 128 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>

I thought about it a bit, and realized that Pearls don't remove the limit of prepared spells at all. They just push how long you can go with your spells farther away. They also add another choice for prepared casters to make: Which spell do I use the pearl on?

I do think they could have chosen something other than pearls(maybe something a bit heavier so the caster has to worry about carrying capacity).

No opinion of the metamagics rods other than what I previously posted.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I sort of yearn for the days when adding one or two new spells to your spellbooks was a priceless treasure for the wizard -- I'd sort of like to see scrolls-for-purchase go away, and also see free spells added to your spellbook every level go away, and have a scenario in which the wizard's effectiveness is limited by the non-ubiquity of spells. Then a rod or pearl would be no big deal.

In other words, yeah, those tools add to the wizard's power, but they're not the primary reason for it -- they're just icing on an already too-rich cake. So there are other areas I'd focus on.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Rulebook, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Azten wrote:
First, the 15 minute adventuring day is half a myth. 15 minutes at the table does not mean it was only 15 minutes in-game. Kingmaker alone can have hours of in-game travel, for instance.

It's not a myth. That it doesn't happen for every type of encounter doesn't dispel the fact that party will run out of resources after a while and if a party is entering three or four occupied rooms in a dungeon, that takes probably even less than 15 minutes of actual time to elapse, if you discount the process of looting.

Kingmaker also is a horrible counterexample, because its design for the first half of the AP is "one encounter per day" for most of what happens there. And that design has its own fallacies.

Liberty's Edge

Kirth Gersen wrote:

I sort of yearn for the days when adding one or two new spells to your spellbooks was a priceless treasure for the wizard -- I'd sort of like to see scrolls-for-purchase go away, and also see free spells added to your spellbook every level go away, and have a scenario in which the wizard's effectiveness is limited by the non-ubiquity of spells. Then a rod or pearl would be no big deal.

In other words, yeah, those tools add to the wizard's power, but they're not the primary reason for it -- they're just icing on an already too-rich cake. So there are other areas I'd focus on.

And I'm kind of in the other camp of being fine if a wizard wants to invest money in having the knowledge of all of these different spells, so long as there a limit to the access to all of these different spells at a given time.

Functionally, that is what Clerics and Druids have by default, so I don't see the problem being Wizard "can" have too many spells. I see the problem being the removal of the question "Do" they have to many spells.

At this point, the bonded item gives you access to all of your spells once a day if you go that way. I don't like that with a pearl you basically can cast any spell three times a day. At that point preparation becomes a weak limiting factor relative to spontaneous casting.

Even without the bonded item, the need to memorize something twice because you might need it more than once is part of the reason they get the spells a level early. At this point, leaving empty slots is becoming standard for a class that gets a bonus of early access because they are supposed to be relatively starved for spells.

Anything that completely negates the preparation can be problematic. The Pearl seem like basically a handwave to the choice of using or saving a spell for when you may need it later. And I think that is a problem.

Liberty's Edge

magnuskn wrote:
Azten wrote:
First, the 15 minute adventuring day is half a myth. 15 minutes at the table does not mean it was only 15 minutes in-game. Kingmaker alone can have hours of in-game travel, for instance.

It's not a myth. That it doesn't happen for every type of encounter doesn't dispel the fact that party will run out of resources after a while and if a party is entering three or four occupied rooms in a dungeon, that takes probably even less than 15 minutes of actual time to elapse, if you discount the process of looting.

Kingmaker also is a horrible counterexample, because its design for the first half of the AP is "one encounter per day" for most of what happens there. And that design has its own fallacies.

The 15 minute adventure day has nothing to do with actual time. It is about knowing that the encounter in front of you is your entire adventure day, so you can feel free to burn your best spells knowing you will be able to rest before you need any more spells.

Kingmaker is the poster child for this problem, as without GM intervention many of the quests are very short one offs, often just a single encounter.

If the party knows they are only fighting one thing today, the prepared caster will always be king and things like pearls are moot.


ciretose wrote:
And I'm kind of in the other camp of being fine if a wizard wants to invest money in having the knowledge of all of these different spells, so long as there a limit to the access to all of these different spells at a given time.

Dunno; seems like scrolls are so cheap -- especially with the free scribing feat -- that there's no reason not to have a gajillion of them on hand anyway. Add in staves as well, and we're pretty much already where you don't want us to be -- before rods or pearls even enter the picture.


Marthian wrote:
Just for the record, spontaneous casters have the runestones (or whatever) for more slots.

At twice the price, which is insane. Frankly, if Pearls of Power aren't houseruled to grant a spontaneous caster extra daily slots, they should probably be houseruled out of the game. It's totally unfair.


ciretose wrote:
Caineach wrote:
ciretose wrote:

But the flanking rogue and fighter are also against a single target while they are in melee, meaning at risk of attack.

You can still get the metamagic stuff, you just need to take the feat.

As to magic items arcane casters want (Because Divine want the same armor and weapons as everyone else.) off the top of my head: Staves, Cloaks, Bracers, Handy Haversacks, Bags of Holding, Robes, Boots, Goggles, Headbands, Belts (they need Con and Dex...), Amulets...

I don't see casters not having things to buy as a real problem. For every armor they can't buy there is a robe they can. For every weapon they don't wield, there is a stave they could. And they need the belts more than a melee class needs the headbands.

Staves (Too high money for most games), Cloaks (the one item I said), Bracers (AC item, irrelevant), Handy Haversacks (everyone wants one), Bags of Holding (everyone wants one), Robes (only good ones are too expensive), Boots (these are cheap, everyone wants the same striding and sprinting), Goggles (why?), Headbands & Belts (they need Con and Dex...) (they don't need dex, and they are less MAD than anyone else), Amulets (They don't need ANA, the big one)...

Basicly, the caster gets to pick up utility items because they have tons of spare cash from their lack of things they need to buy.

First, AC isn't irrelevant for casters. They don't need to be as high as a melee class, but they only have d6 hit points, so they do need AC.

Tell that to the dozens of casters I have seen with below 20 ACs at level 10. Mage Armor + Shield will get them through low levels, and miss chance spells like displacement or mirror image are more effective in terms of damage mittigaction and cost. Sure they will take free AC boosting items that get found as loot, but the casters don't actually care about them. And my point is that you need gear the casters care about.

Quote:


2nd, you can't say "Those are to expensive" then point to item that have the same costs and say "This is what they buy!"

So what item did I recomend that costs 75K - because that is the first robe that is worth buying. By the time they can afford a Robe of the Archmagi. Their stat items will all be maxed out before they even look to buying a robe, so what exists for characters in the 3-13 range, where they wont have the money to invest in one?

Or are you refering to Staves? The cheapest staff in the CRB is Charming, and for almost all the money a level 7 character has you get to cast 2 spells you could already cast anyway. The Staff of Fire is no better. Sure, these would allow you to nova, but by the time you can afford buying one you have better class abilities. I have never seen a caster care about getting a staff unless they were low enough level that it was greater than 75% of their wealth. If they find one as loot, they will usually keep it, but generally for them to care about it they need to be lower level than it would normally be appropriate wealth for.

Meanwhile, at level 1 you can give a pearl of power and it wont break the bank. At level 4 the lesser rods become relevant, level appropriate loot. In the level 7 to 10 range they make a huge chunk of the gear rewards relevant to casters.

Quote:


So they don't want weapons or armor, but they do want cloaks, robes, staves, and bracers.

I covered the others, so now I will mention bracers. Besides just adding to AC, they are irrelevant because of mage armor. Until you hit level 8, Mage Armor provides better protection than any bracer you will likely be able to purchase, and it will last almost the entire adventuring day, for the low cost of a 1st level spell. After level 8, the caster has free spell slots for better protection spells like displacement.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Rulebook, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
ciretose wrote:

The 15 minute adventure day has nothing to do with actual time. It is about knowing that the encounter in front of you is your entire adventure day, so you can feel free to burn your best spells knowing you will be able to rest before you need any more spells.

Kingmaker is the poster child for this problem, as without GM intervention many of the quests are very short one offs, often just a single encounter.

If the party knows they are only fighting one thing today, the prepared caster will always be king and things like pearls are moot.

Er, no. You are conflating two different things.

There's the actual 15 minute adventuring day with multiple encounters, where resources get whittled down in a relatively short time, to the point where the party needs to rest to be able again to deal with any sort of hard encounter.
And then there are the kind of encounters of which you know it will probably be your only encounter that day and you can alpha strike the opponent with the best stuff you got with impunity.

Both things are not good in their way, IMO. Paizo seems to heavily favor the first approach, though, since the vast majority of their own classes ( APG and forward ) are limited resource classes, which need to rest often to remain effective.

Sovereign Court

I kinda like the pearls of power, particularly because of the sharply escalating cost. PoP1 is nicely cheap, but by the time you can afford many of them, level 1 spells are basically household chore material anyway. PoP2 becomes affordable at some point, but never entirely trivial. PoP3 is just plain expensive.

I like the idea of a fighter buying a PoP for the wizard in order to receive a daily buff from the wizard. PoP enables that sort of dealmaking, which is nice.

I dislike the Page of Spell Knowledge, because I think it violates the principle of the limited spell list. On the other hand, I would let a sorcerer regain a spell slot with a PoP, that seems like a fair trade. After all, the flipside to limites spell lists is more freedom and more juice per day.

Metamagic rods I don't like. For one, they feel like something newfangled, and they make many of the real metamagic feats look painfully bad. "Don't take Silent Spell, take a Rod instead." Like someone wrote, they come across as some 3PP thing that Should Not Be.

I'd rather use metamagic potions: consumable metamagic feats. It's a way of boosting Brew Potion, but it also puts more of a price on metamagic. The potion of Silent Casting looks pretty nice as an emergency "break glass in case of Silence spell" kind of thing.

---

TL;DR - keep the pearl of power but let the sorcerer use them too. Ditch the metamagic rods, optionally implement metamagic potions.


The notion that pearls of power don't benefit non-casters belies how they're usually recommended.

Joe fighter (or ranger or barbarian or monk...) wants to put special qualities on his weapon (or AMF or is an unarmed strike build that wants an ANA) so he buys a third level pearl of power and maybe a 1/3 share in the party lesser extend rod and hands it to the cleric and asks him or her to buff him at the start of the adventuring day. Magic Vestment is a worse deal because armor enhancement is cheaper than weapon enhancement, but it's still not a bad one.

Monks and first level pearls for mage armor are another use I've seen recommended.

I've actually seen the "1st level pearl rosary so the front liners can be enlarged every fight" trick happen in actual play.

An unarmed or natural attack using PC with a druid in the party would want to do the same with second level pearls for barkskin to compensate for the amulet slot collision.

Any low level hours/level targeted buff that has benefits useful to martial characters is a strong use case for a pearl of power and in some cases a lesser extend rod. On the other hand the only time I've seen pearls suggested as important caster equipment and not as a benefit for martials is on the magus to spam shocking grasp.

So I'm going to say that if pearls of power were removed weapon enhancements other than straight +x would become even less useful. And casters, except possibly clerics who would like to magic vestment both their armor and shield, wouldn't much care.

Assistant Software Developer

I removed a post and some replies to it. If you do not wish to participate in a thread, then don't.

Liberty's Edge

Kirth Gersen wrote:
ciretose wrote:
And I'm kind of in the other camp of being fine if a wizard wants to invest money in having the knowledge of all of these different spells, so long as there a limit to the access to all of these different spells at a given time.
Dunno; seems like scrolls are so cheap -- especially with the free scribing feat -- that there's no reason not to have a gajillion of them on hand anyway. Add in staves as well, and we're pretty much already where you don't want us to be -- before rods or pearls even enter the picture.

I can see you point, but scrolls are still fragile, have to be pulled out, etc...

And of course, they are both consumables.


ciretose wrote:

I am on record as not being a fan of either of these items.

Metamagic Rods are functionally purchased feats. Only better since you don't have to prep the spell in advance. Items should not obsolete feats, IMHO>

Pearls of Power overcome a class limitation...why? To what end? The whole reason Sorcerers lag in spell progression is because of the advantage of being able to recast the same spell...which is overcome by this item.

So what would be the problem if they were removed from the game, as I want to check in before I officially house rule them out to see if there is any reason to leave them in.

What would happen I think is that the game would be ohhhh, about 7% less fun.

The Exchange

It is kinda rediculous these items even exist. Making powerful choices more powerful is silly.

Casters don't need the help:
Casters do not run out of spells. Cantrips are unlimited and they have class abilities.

Wizards also get the scribe scroll feat for free

Divine casters have access to every spell known

spell effects mimic and exceede feats in power: scaling, chaingeable daily, open slots, meta magic, free meta magic, caster level boosts, rediculous effects. Spells should be weaker since you get more spells than feats and low level spells retain their use throughout all 20'lvls.


Morain wrote:
ciretose wrote:

I am on record as not being a fan of either of these items.

Metamagic Rods are functionally purchased feats. Only better since you don't have to prep the spell in advance. Items should not obsolete feats, IMHO>

Pearls of Power overcome a class limitation...why? To what end? The whole reason Sorcerers lag in spell progression is because of the advantage of being able to recast the same spell...which is overcome by this item.

So what would be the problem if they were removed from the game, as I want to check in before I officially house rule them out to see if there is any reason to leave them in.

What would happen I think is that the game would be ohhhh, about 7% less fun.

An explanation as to why you think that would be nice.


The game will still work fine, and the players will have less options. Pretty much the same thing that would happen if you removed the Keen enchantment, or Dervish Dance, or Rogues.

Liberty's Edge

Azten wrote:
Morain wrote:
ciretose wrote:

I am on record as not being a fan of either of these items.

Metamagic Rods are functionally purchased feats. Only better since you don't have to prep the spell in advance. Items should not obsolete feats, IMHO>

Pearls of Power overcome a class limitation...why? To what end? The whole reason Sorcerers lag in spell progression is because of the advantage of being able to recast the same spell...which is overcome by this item.

So what would be the problem if they were removed from the game, as I want to check in before I officially house rule them out to see if there is any reason to leave them in.

What would happen I think is that the game would be ohhhh, about 7% less fun.
An explanation as to why you think that would be nice.

Morain or me? If me, because when when one option is clearly superior (metamagic rods) or removes an intended challenge from the game (pearl of power) I don't agree is makes the game less fun or creates less options.

To the contrary, I think it makes the game less fun and narrows options by obsoleting existing choices.

If an option is overpowered (as I think metamagic rods are) that option can throw off game balance and either make encounters boring or force an arms race to add challenge. That isn't fun for me. This is my issue with metamagic rods.

In the case of pearls of power (and to a lesser extent the sorcerer equivalent mentioned up thread) I don't think having to pick specific spells at a given time is something that isn't fun. I think being challenged is fun, and I think rules that remove the basic challenges of the game make the game less fun.

If I am playing candyland with a d20 and everyone else is rolling a d6, I am generally going to win the game. And...so what? Does that make it more fun?


Azten wrote:
Morain wrote:
ciretose wrote:

I am on record as not being a fan of either of these items.

Metamagic Rods are functionally purchased feats. Only better since you don't have to prep the spell in advance. Items should not obsolete feats, IMHO>

Pearls of Power overcome a class limitation...why? To what end? The whole reason Sorcerers lag in spell progression is because of the advantage of being able to recast the same spell...which is overcome by this item.

So what would be the problem if they were removed from the game, as I want to check in before I officially house rule them out to see if there is any reason to leave them in.

What would happen I think is that the game would be ohhhh, about 7% less fun.
An explanation as to why you think that would be nice.

Because I think any initiative to balance the game only cheapens it. I don't like balance, it's boring.

So removing "cool toys" from the game can only make it less fun.

P.S. The number 7% was randomly chosen to make a point, not based on anything.


Hmm if you think metamagic rods and pearls of power are overpowered - wouldn't you think alot of other thinks are overpowered too?

I look at a magus build - and with all the money spend on AC, str int items I don't see the build getting enough spell to use one every round (as the class seems to be suppose to) until lvl 9 - pearls of power I is expensive at low level. Would you rather have a pearl of power than a cloak of res +1? - I'll take the cloak...
how about +1 AC? - well i get hit a lot - so armor.
So now your AC is better but you miss alot - fine i'll buy a +2 str item...
When pearls of power finally makes it to the list of thing i can afford a 1 lvl spell isn't really that big a deal.

Metamagic rods. Well if you figure an item is too powerfull if you HAVE to buy it - such as metamagic rod of extend (which most casters then too pick up soon or later) then you COULD band it. But then wouldn't some other item be the next thing you HAVE TO own. Cloak of res? Who doesn't buy/pick up a cloak of res at some point?

Liberty's Edge

Morain wrote:
Azten wrote:
Morain wrote:
ciretose wrote:

I am on record as not being a fan of either of these items.

Metamagic Rods are functionally purchased feats. Only better since you don't have to prep the spell in advance. Items should not obsolete feats, IMHO>

Pearls of Power overcome a class limitation...why? To what end? The whole reason Sorcerers lag in spell progression is because of the advantage of being able to recast the same spell...which is overcome by this item.

So what would be the problem if they were removed from the game, as I want to check in before I officially house rule them out to see if there is any reason to leave them in.

What would happen I think is that the game would be ohhhh, about 7% less fun.
An explanation as to why you think that would be nice.

Because I think any initiative to balance the game only cheapens it. I don't like balance, it's boring.

So removing "cool toys" from the game can only make it less fun.

P.S. The number 7% was randomly chosen to make a point, not based on anything.

When they nerfed the S0S spells, did that make pathfinder less fun than 3.5?

When they removed any number of broken feats and combos from 3.5 to Pathfinder, did that make the game less fun?

You would still be able to do all of the metamagic things, you would just actually have to take the feats and then follow the restrictions of the feats. You could still cast all of the spells, you just would need to plan properly rather than carrying a magical reset button.

Liberty's Edge

Bigtuna wrote:

Hmm if you think metamagic rods and pearls of power are overpowered - wouldn't you think alot of other thinks are overpowered too?

I look at a magus build - and with all the money spend on AC, str int items I don't see the build getting enough spell to use one every round (as the class seems to be suppose to) until lvl 9 - pearls of power I is expensive at low level. Would you rather have a pearl of power than a cloak of res +1? - I'll take the cloak...
how about +1 AC? - well i get hit a lot - so armor.
So now your AC is better but you miss alot - fine i'll buy a +2 str item...
When pearls of power finally makes it to the list of thing i can afford a 1 lvl spell isn't really that big a deal.

Metamagic rods. Well if you figure an item is too powerfull if you HAVE to buy it - such as metamagic rod of extend (which most casters then too pick up soon or later) then you COULD band it. But then wouldn't some other item be the next thing you HAVE TO own. Cloak of res? Who doesn't buy/pick up a cloak of res at some point?

As I said earlier, if your response to is "But then what is next!" you aren't arguing against doing this, you are arguing against doing anything.

Which is fine, but make that argument.


ciretose wrote:

When they nerfed the S0S spells, did that make pathfinder less fun than 3.5?

When they removed any number of broken feats and combos from 3.5 to Pathfinder, did that make the game less fun?

Yes, by a lot.

To the second question. Yes again, but it depends specifically what you mean. I probably disagree that most of the things you call broker were broken at all.

Thankfully Pathfinder made up for it in other respects, so it's not really less fun overall than 3.5

Liberty's Edge

Morain wrote:
ciretose wrote:

When they nerfed the S0S spells, did that make pathfinder less fun than 3.5?

When they removed any number of broken feats and combos from 3.5 to Pathfinder, did that make the game less fun?

Yes, by a lot.

To the second question. Yes again, but it depends specifically what you mean. I probably disagree that most of the things you call broker were broken at all.

Thankfully Pathfinder made up for it in other respects, so it's not really less fun overall than 3.5

On on this we will have to agree to disagree. I think most people would say that the changes from 3.5 to Pathfinder regarding these things was a positive, and that 3.5 had become an arms race where core concepts lagged significantly.

YMMV.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Rulebook, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Morain wrote:
ciretose wrote:

When they nerfed the S0S spells, did that make pathfinder less fun than 3.5?

When they removed any number of broken feats and combos from 3.5 to Pathfinder, did that make the game less fun?

Yes, by a lot.

To the second question. Yes again, but it depends specifically what you mean. I probably disagree that most of the things you call broker were broken at all.

Thankfully Pathfinder made up for it in other respects, so it's not really less fun overall than 3.5

That's a power gamer perspective if I ever saw one. ^^ As a GM, I only can disagree in the fullest.


Bear in mind that Morain has always been very clear about his preference that Pathfinder be Ars Magica II, so that might add some perspective. He's not a powergamer, just a story-first guy whose personal story preferences are for awesome casters who massively overshadow the mere mortals around them.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder PF Special Edition, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Kirth Gersen wrote:
Bear in mind that Morain has always been very clear about his preference that Pathfinder be Ars Magica II, so that might add some perspective. He's not a powergamer, just a story-first guy whose personal story preferences are for awesome casters who massively overshadow the mere mortals around them.

Being an Ars Magica fan, I sympathise, but I'd never try to remake a wargame to a storyteller type game.

Liberty's Edge

Kirth Gersen wrote:
Bear in mind that Morain has always been very clear about his preference that Pathfinder be Ars Magica II, so that might add some perspective. He's not a powergamer, just a story-first guy whose personal story preferences are for awesome casters who massively overshadow the mere mortals around them.

Yup. I don't think his perspective is invalid, and it is nice to have someone honestly take that stance as opposed to people on here who talk about how overpowered X class is and then in the next breath act shocked anyone would limit things in any way.

I think that would be a fine game, I just don't think it is Pathfinder, or at least not the developers goal for pathfinder.

But Morain is more than entitled to respectfully disagree, since he is consistent.


I don't see the problem with Pearls of Power. They are pretty expensive, and only work once per day.

Metamagic Rods I haven't used yet.


I like pearls of power and generally allow them to work for spontaneous casters or put in a same function same price item for them.

I don't like rods because they are better than the feat they replicate. I still allow them, though I haven't seen a quicken rod higher than minor.

Wands pretty much cover low level spells better than pearls anyway.

Shadow Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
ciretose wrote:
Yup. I don't think his perspective is invalid, and it is nice to have someone honestly take that stance as opposed to people on here who talk about how overpowered X class is and then in the next breath act shocked anyone would limit things in any way.

Probably my second biggest pet peeve on these forums.

Liberty's Edge

Kthulhu wrote:
ciretose wrote:
Yup. I don't think his perspective is invalid, and it is nice to have someone honestly take that stance as opposed to people on here who talk about how overpowered X class is and then in the next breath act shocked anyone would limit things in any way.
Probably my second biggest pet peeve on these forums.

First?


Short answer, yes you could readily do away with them and outside of a slight reduction in spell caster power it would have minimal effect on the game overall.

Do I personally find them overpowered?
Metamagic Rods, no. Not only can I only use one at a time, but I have to be holding the Rod and maintain a free hand to cast. No holding a Staff or Dagger or whatever. Which means among other things I am likely to be considered unarmed with all that implies (like hello creature with Grab or Grapple attacks). What part do you find overpowered? Uses/day then make them 1/day or 1/week or whatever. If it's no level adjustment (probably what I find the most potent thing about them) then reinstate the level adjustment, or halve the adjustment (round up) or something along those lines.

Pearls, a bit trickier as I'd been already knocking down their power for a couple decades without initially knowing I was. Namely I've only used or allowed used one of each sort of pearl to function. No using 5 pearls of power 1st level by one character. Then again that can probably only get really out of whack when the campaign is not using WBL.


What I find the most abhorrent about the metamagic rods is how they break the limitations in the metamagic system.

"This does not change the spell slot of the altered spell."

Greater metamagic rods are the worst culprits, because they open the door to doing metamagic on spells that were never intended to be increased by metamagic. Quickening or Empowering 9th level spells feels like it pushes power levels into old 3.5e Epic Level territory.

At least we don't still treble-empower spells anymore (nod to 3.0).

.

If metamagic rods went, the only thing I'd like to see would be some low level items that helped give some utility metamagic back, such as silent, extend, reach, and maybe merciful effects.

Like a shriveled tentacle that sends a spectral limb out to allow touch spells to reach, in some limited fashion. Or a plush toy that allowed your spells to deal non-lethal damage (and not harm the environment), etc.

On a further upside, these would have the iconic feel of a magic item, instead of a generic vending machine style that the rods give.


I think metamagic rods are fine, but if I had created them they would actually reproduce the feat, meaning you'd use them when you prepared spells and the resulting spell would take an appropriate slot boost.

They would still be awesome items to have.


ciretose wrote:
Pearls of Power overcome a class limitation...why? To what end? The whole reason Sorcerers lag in spell progression is because of the advantage of being able to recast the same spell...which is overcome by this item.

So get rid of sorcerers. Pearls of power were in the game for twenty-five years before spontaneous casters were a thing. If the new element doesn't work with them, get rid of the new element.

Liberty's Edge

Adamantine Dragon wrote:

I think metamagic rods are fine, but if I had created them they would actually reproduce the feat, meaning you'd use them when you prepared spells and the resulting spell would take an appropriate slot boost.

They would still be awesome items to have.

This I could get behind as a reasonable adjustment.


ciretose wrote:
Adamantine Dragon wrote:

I think metamagic rods are fine, but if I had created them they would actually reproduce the feat, meaning you'd use them when you prepared spells and the resulting spell would take an appropriate slot boost.

They would still be awesome items to have.

This I could get behind as a reasonable adjustment.

second


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I suspect part of the reason metamagic rods exist is that a lot of metamagic is too expensive. Someone said "That looks cool, but nobody can use it because it's too expensive," and wrote a way to make it affordable. I suspect 3.5 divine metamagic came from the same idea. Some might be worth the slot increase if it didn't cost a feat or worth the feat if it increased the slot requirement less.

Rods for the weaker metamagics don't really do anything but make them worth using. The problem is that extend and reach rods somehow came to imply quicken and persistent rods. I'd be happy to see them go if metamagics were reconsidered.

I think I'd bundle empower, and maximize under one feat and mix intensify with heighten (+5 max dice per 2 levels heightened would match the dice cap progression for actual spells). I can think of two ways to handle still and silent: either give them no adjustment like eschew materials or make them keep the adjustment but not cost feats (or be bundled with the aforementioned eschew materials). All the other odd metamagics need reconsidering. I think widen is probably too expensive. Quicken is simultaneously too expensive and too cheap. I'm thinking an x2 multiplier or x2 +1. Otherwise it's too easy for full casters or too hard for half casters or at its current price possibly both.


see wrote:
ciretose wrote:
Pearls of Power overcome a class limitation...why? To what end? The whole reason Sorcerers lag in spell progression is because of the advantage of being able to recast the same spell...which is overcome by this item.
So get rid of sorcerers. Pearls of power were in the game for twenty-five years before spontaneous casters were a thing. If the new element doesn't work with them, get rid of the new element.

And then there are those of us who find the Sorcerer to be much more fun than wizard and would be very unhappy at the loss of such :P

EDIT: I will note that I agree with Atarlost regarding Widen Spell. There is simply NO WAY Widen is worth +3 levels. Hell, in 90% of cases it's not worth +2 levels. +1 is about right the majority of the time, in my experience.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I don't think that is it a bad thing that a preparation caster can spend money to help reduce a weakness of his class. Reducing weaknesses is one of the great things you can use magic items for.

The other is increasing your strengths, but that's the property of meta magic rods. (I could go either way on these, really)

Many "Utility" or niche items serve the purpose of helping to pad out the sore spots, and allow you to develop your character to be more prepared for a wider variety of threats. (eg. a fighter who gets boots of flying for more mobility & dealing with flying creatures.)

These boots would allow a melee fighter to do what he does best (his "Strength" as a class) more often. It doesn't make his attack bonus of damage higher, just reduces the number of fights he is using lesser options (or relying on someone else to remove the obstacle for him)

Pearls of power provide a similar role to a prepared spell caster. Often in most normal loot progressions, you're unlikely to get many Pearls of power, or any of your highest spell casting level. They give you a bit more wiggle room, but they don't remove the weakness (Unless you're rolling in the damn things, but again, that's why you keep party wealth in check.)

A character who has a few of these can prepare a wider variety of spells, and experiment more with their daily spell selection and can better react to surprising circumstances. I think this makes your character more fun to play, and still only covers one of the many weaknesses of primary spell caster (Especially a Wizard: almost anything besides magic is a weakness.)


kyrt-ryder wrote:
see wrote:
ciretose wrote:
Pearls of Power overcome a class limitation...why? To what end? The whole reason Sorcerers lag in spell progression is because of the advantage of being able to recast the same spell...which is overcome by this item.
So get rid of sorcerers. Pearls of power were in the game for twenty-five years before spontaneous casters were a thing. If the new element doesn't work with them, get rid of the new element.
And then there are those of us who find the Sorcerer to be much more fun than wizard and would be very unhappy at the loss of such :P

I'm not particularly serious in that specific suggestion. But, "Oh, woe, this item that's been in the game since Supplement II: Blackmoor makes wizards too good relative to sorcerers" is the sort of argument that, when let loose, winds up with designers making D&D 4e. If sorcerers were badly balanced against wizards when sorcerers were added to a game that already had pearls of power, the answer is fix sorcerers, not chop off bits of the game until the new addition fits.

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
see wrote:
kyrt-ryder wrote:
see wrote:
ciretose wrote:
Pearls of Power overcome a class limitation...why? To what end? The whole reason Sorcerers lag in spell progression is because of the advantage of being able to recast the same spell...which is overcome by this item.
So get rid of sorcerers. Pearls of power were in the game for twenty-five years before spontaneous casters were a thing. If the new element doesn't work with them, get rid of the new element.
And then there are those of us who find the Sorcerer to be much more fun than wizard and would be very unhappy at the loss of such :P
I'm not particularly serious in that specific suggestion. But, "Oh, woe, this item that's been in the game since Supplement II: Blackmoor makes wizards too good relative to sorcerers" is the sort of argument that, when let loose, winds up with designers making D&D 4e. If sorcerers were badly balanced against wizards when sorcerers were added to a game that already had pearls of power, the answer is fix sorcerers, not chop off bits of the game until the new addition fits.

So was Thaco. And many other things that went away or were changed.

If the solution is to always move the power level up, you get creep.


Here's an idea: What if metamagic rods were left just as powerful as they already are, but you need to already have the feat to use them normally. Otherwise you have to make a difficult UMD check with a DC based on how many levels the metamagic feat would normally add to the spell.

It might not hurt to rule that it's impossible to create a spell that would be above 9th level, but that would require lowering the price of the more powerful rods.

Pearls of Power could be altered so you had to choose which spell they would restore ahead of time, thus keeping their primary function (restoring slots) without the additional benefit (spontaneity).
You could need prepare a spell in the pearl instead of using it to restore an expended slot, for example.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder PF Special Edition, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Mortuum wrote:

Here's an idea: What if metamagic rods were left just as powerful as they already are, but you need to already have the feat to use them normally. Otherwise you have to make a difficult UMD check wit ha DC based on how many levels the metamagic feat would normally add to the spell.

If you feel that you've got to complicate the game in such an unruly and illogical way to be comfortable with including an item in the game... it's better to simply get rid of the item.


In what way is that unruly or illogical? It seems quite similar to existing rules about UMD to me. There's nothing especially logical about anything to do with UMD or metamagic rods as it is.
They just happen because the game says they do, the principles on which they operate are never described and they could have worked any number of other ways.

Also that's really not much of a complication. Lots of other items and systems are way more complicated and come up way more often. All limits and modifications are inherently complications unless you can somehow cut a big chunk of the rules. There's not much to cut here, so any kind of fix will slightly increase complexity.
The reason that might not be a bad thing is it might lead to solving people's problems with the rods but also keeping them available in some form for those who like them, or who would like them were it not for their avoidance of the limits of metamagic.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Rulebook, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

Oh, and to answer the actual on-topic question, higher level Pearls of Power are expensive enough to be balanced. Metamagic rods are something I always felt ambivalent about, on the other hand.

Shadow Lodge

ciretose wrote:
Kthulhu wrote:
ciretose wrote:
Yup. I don't think his perspective is invalid, and it is nice to have someone honestly take that stance as opposed to people on here who talk about how overpowered X class is and then in the next breath act shocked anyone would limit things in any way.
Probably my second biggest pet peeve on these forums.
First?

People who bash 4e for not for the actual substance of its changes, but for the fact that it dared to make such substantial changes; without seeming to realize that 3e did exactly the same thing.

That and people who mindlessly bash pre-d20 editions while simultaneously showing that they have little, if any, knowledge of those editions.

So, essentially, hipocracy combined with ignorance.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

For me personally:

Metamagic feats are too expensive to both take and in application. You are essentially double penalized- once in a feat slot and then again in spell slots.

The rods basically alleviate this. They take something I won't use (the feat) and turn it into something I will use. (a held item).

"What if they did away with the MM rods". Then I'd go back to not using the feats.

IMO the feats are out of whack due to the double cost, so removing the rods is the same as simply deleting the feats out of existence. (for me personally).

I have no opinion on the pearls.. I'm not sure that I've ever had or used them.

-S


A possible houserule for you to try Ciretose: Instead of removing the metamagic rods, make possessing the metamagic feat a requirement to be able to use one of that type.

(i don't have a dog in the race on other side, i am all for house rules to enhance a particular group's preferences and playstyles.)

My group typically makes use of the lower level pearls of power (4th and below) and usually as a recall for an ailment removal that having one prepared of just wasn't enough that day. As the DM i have my own houserule, that a given PC can only benefit from a given pearl/level once a day.

51 to 100 of 128 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / Homebrew and House Rules / Metamagic Rods and Pearls of Power: What happens if they go away. All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.