Sacred Geomety.


Homebrew and House Rules


I recently noticed a thread about a feat chain I had never noticed, and I really want to try it in a new campaign my group will be starting in the next couple weeks.

http://paizo.com/threads/rzs2rb6y?Sacred-Geometry (new here so I don't know how to link things all fancy-like)

http://www.d20pfsrd.com/feats/general-feats/sacred-geometry

Now if you read that thread, you will notice the consensus is that this feat/feat chain is completely broken. So I want to come to the table, solution in hand for when the DM comes to the same conclusion as the rest of the community.

I have an idea to start with, but some input would be greatly appreciated.

feat reads:

Quote:
Refer to the Prime Constants table to determine the prime constants that can be used to cast a spell of the desired effective spell level. Then roll a number of d6s equal to the number of ranks you possess in Knowledge (engineering).

I feel that if it was slightly reworded to be:

Refer to the Prime Constants table to determine the prime constants that can be used to cast a spell of the desired effective spell level. Then roll a number of d6s equal to the number of ranks you possess in Knowledge (engineering) minus the effective spell level of the spell being cast.

while leaving every other part of the feat the same.

example: a level 9 wizard can cast up to 5th level spells. If the PC chooses to cast a 3rd level spell and metamagic it up to an effective 5th level spell; he would be rolling 4d6 (assuming max ranks in knowledge engineering) and attempting to get 43, 47, 53. While if he applied the same metamagic to a level 1 spell; resulting in an effective 3rd level spell. He would be rolling 6d6 and attempting to get 19, 23, 29.

Effectively making it so that if a player attempts to max out the potential of the feat, his chances to succeed exponentially decrease, by both giving the player a harder number to achieve, and less dice to accomplish his goal with.

If any one has any other ideas about how to make this feat work, I would greatly appreciate some input. thank you, and sorry about the long read.


Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

Why Sacred Geometry is Broken:
Relevant Thread

Program Results

The worst roll you could possibly get is all 1s. While that is nearly impossible, let's say that someone does get this result. At Level 14, this means you've rolled 14 1s.

(1+1+1)*(1+1+1)*(1+1+1)*(1+1+1)+1+1 = 83
(1+1+1)*(1+1+1)*(1+1+1)*(1+1+1+1)-1 = 107

Even with all 1s, you can hit every prime constant with as few as 14 ranks every time. This means, beginning at Level 14, you can always apply any metamagic you have to any spell without raising the spell level as a full-round action (or a Standard if you apply Quicken, but that's really a waste of 4 levels' worth of metamagic).

This is already incredibly powerful before you realize taking this feat gives you 2 metamagic feats for free. Take it a few times and you've become Schrodinger's Metamagic Wizard.

So, what can be done about this? In my opinion, the biggest problems are the following:

Sacred Geometry Issues:
1. One feat grants you two metamagic feats for free in addition to other bonuses.
2. By Level 10, you can reasonably expect to pass the check almost every time.
3. The feat allows you to apply any number of metamagic feats, both those known and those chosen with Sacred Geometry, without raising the spell level. By comparison, Spell Perfection is a 4-feat chain that allows you to apply a single metamagic feat to a single spell without raising the spell slot used and comes online at Level 15.
4. There are no limits to the number of times you can do this each day.

With that in mind, I propose the following:

Sacred Geometry Fixes:
1. Sacred Geometry lets you choose one metamagic feat that you currently possess each time you take the feat. No more abuse of Sacred Geometry to gain multiple feats for free.
2. Here are the new chances to pass at each skill rank using the OP's suggestion. Compared to the original, these are much more reasonable.
3. Only metamagic feats that you have chosen with Sacred Geometry may be added for free. This means gaining the same benefit as the original Sacred Geometry feat now costs 4 feats.

I'm considering the viability of adding a daily limit. On one hand, this is absurdly powerful and a daily limit would help mitigate that. On the other hand, this combination would require so many feats that adding a daily limit might make people consider it unusable.

Thoughts?


I also thought about reducing dice rolled by only the amount of spell levels the effective spell level is over the base spell.

So take a level 1 spell and increase by 2 spell levels because of metamagic, then the PC would roll 2 less d6.

A slightly less destructive homebrew version.


LuniasM wrote:
Stuff

I completely agree with your fixes. They seem to limit the feat without ruining the whole point of it. Too many of the fixes i was seeing were just people boiling it down to 1d20+X checks. which while mechanically simple and effective, ruins the uniqueness of the feat, while not tackling some of the major issues.

How would you calculate the times per day, if implemented? I was thinking 1/2 caster level minimum 3 times/day. That way the uses are not so limiting as to make it useless; but will keep a caster from spam casting an acid splash that has been metamagic'd into oblivion. I would want to refrain from making the number too low (I don't want this be a useless feat).

And if I end up doing the times per day (probably going to happen) I personally think taking this feat multiple times should also add to uses/day. like every subsequent time you take the feat it adds 1 use/day.


LuniasM wrote:
The worst roll you could possibly get is all 1s. While that is nearly impossible, let's say that someone does get this result. At Level 14, this means you've rolled 14 1s.

Actually, the worst roll you could possibly get is all even numbers. That's an autofail.

Edit: Whoops, I'm wrong. I forgot about division. Still, I'm not convinced all 1s is the worst roll. Not that it makes much difference; the worst roll is still pretty good.


Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
CHEEPENBULKY wrote:
LuniasM wrote:
Stuff

I completely agree with your fixes. They seem to limit the feat without ruining the whole point of it. Too many of the fixes i was seeing were just people boiling it down to 1d20+X checks. which while mechanically simple and effective, ruins the uniqueness of the feat, while not tackling some of the major issues.

How would you calculate the times per day, if implemented? I was thinking 1/2 caster level minimum 3 times/day. That way the uses are not so limiting as to make it useless; but will keep a caster from spam casting an acid splash that has been metamagic'd into oblivion. I would want to refrain from making the number too low (I don't want this be a useless feat).

And if I end up doing the times per day (probably going to happen) I personally think taking this feat multiple times should also add to uses/day. like every subsequent time you take the feat it adds 1 use/day.

The way I see it, Sacred Geometry is meant to be taken as early as Level 2 and scales with level. It's clearly intended to be the basis of a character build, which makes me want to either make it an unlimited uses or a large enough number to make the character memorable.

I would've suggested adding a feat along the lines of "Extra Sacred Geometry", but that's mostly reserved for class features and it forces a little too many feat taxes to make it useful. I agree that taking it multiple times should increase the number of times you can use it each day.

Sovereign Court

Limiting the number of dice might actually do a decent job of cutting down on the craziness, since the other thread discovered that large numbers of dice are really a good thing.

It's easy to get rid of dice you don't need (using the Zero trick), but it can be tricky to get to a constant with insufficient dice.

This would have to be tested.


LuniasM wrote:
CHEEPENBULKY wrote:
LuniasM wrote:
Stuff

I completely agree with your fixes. They seem to limit the feat without ruining the whole point of it. Too many of the fixes i was seeing were just people boiling it down to 1d20+X checks. which while mechanically simple and effective, ruins the uniqueness of the feat, while not tackling some of the major issues.

How would you calculate the times per day, if implemented? I was thinking 1/2 caster level minimum 3 times/day. That way the uses are not so limiting as to make it useless; but will keep a caster from spam casting an acid splash that has been metamagic'd into oblivion. I would want to refrain from making the number too low (I don't want this be a useless feat).

And if I end up doing the times per day (probably going to happen) I personally think taking this feat multiple times should also add to uses/day. like every subsequent time you take the feat it adds 1 use/day.

The way I see it, Sacred Geometry is meant to be taken as early as Level 2 and scales with level. It's clearly intended to be the basis of a character build, which makes me want to either make it an unlimited uses or a large enough number to make the character memorable.

I would've suggested adding a feat along the lines of "Extra Sacred Geometry", but that's mostly reserved for class features and it forces a little too many feat taxes to make it useful. I agree that taking it multiple times should increase the number of times you can use it each day.

I tried to tackle the "extra sacred geometry" by making any subsequent taking of the feat add to uses/day. but as im looking at it, my version of uses/day does seem a little limiting. how about 1/2 caster level +3 (instead of minimum 3), and every extra time you get the feat u recieve 2 extra uses instead of 1.

if we go by the completely nerfed version as thought of so far (taking my new thoughts into account) as a lvl 9 wizard (nice middle ground level in my opinion) you we would get:

a character can apply 2 metamagics (assuming he took the feat twice as I would probably have done by ths level) using this feat 9 times per day.
(4 for caster lvl, +3 +2 for second time he took the feat).

That could easily be 2 encounters of balls to the walls casting. which seems decent.

RPG Superstar Season 9 Top 16

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I would personally make the following changes to this feat:

1. You have to choose a metamagic feat you already have.

2. It significantly increases the casting time rather than merely makes you cast it like a spontaneous caster. Perhaps it doubles the casting time? Swift/Immediate become standard actions. Standard actions become 1 round.

3. You must succeed at a Knowledge (engineering) check for the spell to trigger. No forcing everyone at the table to wait 10 minutes for you to do math in the middle of combat.

So in other words, you can apply a metamagic for free at the cost of casting time and a skill check.


Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
CHEEPENBULKY wrote:
LuniasM wrote:
CHEEPENBULKY wrote:
LuniasM wrote:
Stuff

I completely agree with your fixes. They seem to limit the feat without ruining the whole point of it. Too many of the fixes i was seeing were just people boiling it down to 1d20+X checks. which while mechanically simple and effective, ruins the uniqueness of the feat, while not tackling some of the major issues.

How would you calculate the times per day, if implemented? I was thinking 1/2 caster level minimum 3 times/day. That way the uses are not so limiting as to make it useless; but will keep a caster from spam casting an acid splash that has been metamagic'd into oblivion. I would want to refrain from making the number too low (I don't want this be a useless feat).

And if I end up doing the times per day (probably going to happen) I personally think taking this feat multiple times should also add to uses/day. like every subsequent time you take the feat it adds 1 use/day.

The way I see it, Sacred Geometry is meant to be taken as early as Level 2 and scales with level. It's clearly intended to be the basis of a character build, which makes me want to either make it an unlimited uses or a large enough number to make the character memorable.

I would've suggested adding a feat along the lines of "Extra Sacred Geometry", but that's mostly reserved for class features and it forces a little too many feat taxes to make it useful. I agree that taking it multiple times should increase the number of times you can use it each day.

I tried to tackle the "extra sacred geometry" by making any subsequent taking of the feat add to uses/day. but as im looking at it, my version of uses/day does seem a little limiting. how about 1/2 caster level +3 (instead of minimum 3), and every extra time you get the feat u recieve 2 extra uses instead of 1.

if we go by the completely nerfed version as thought of so far (taking my new thoughts into account) as a lvl 9 wizard (nice middle ground level in my opinion) you...

Hm. With this fix, that 9th-level wizard will almost always succeed on casting metamagic'd spells of levels 0-2 as long as the modified level would be Level 3 or lower, and at that level the wizard has much better things to do than metamagic a low-level spell. This is without taking any level-reducing traits like Magical Lineage into account.

I'll run my pal Sparky through it at level 9.

Sparky's Close Call...?:
At level 9, Sparky has maxed out his ranks in Knowledge (engineering). Sparky's preferred school is Evocation, and his favorite blast is Fireball - he has taken the Magical Lineage trait to reduce its effective level when metamagic'd. While Sparky is out and about, he sees a horde of goblins coming his way! Knowing his only hope is to "distract" them with a large blast, Sparky attempts to use Sacred Geometry to cast an Empowered Fireball (Level 3 + 2 metamagic - 1 trait = Level 4). Sparky has about a 50% chance of passing this check.

Sacred Geometry: 9d6 ⇒ (3, 3, 1, 4, 4, 1, 2, 5, 2) = 25
((4+5+1)*4)+1+((2-2)*1*3*3)=41

Sparky watches as his Empowered Fireball shoots off into the distance, setting those pesky goblins aflame and burning their - "Wait a minute," Sparky thinks, "goblins don't have pale skin... oops."

It still works, but this setup cost Sparky 2 feats and a trait and he still had to rely on luck to make it work. For most players, a 9th-level wizard has better things to do during combat than throw out a low-level spell with metamagic or risk their turn trying something more flashy.

I really think this should've been a full-fledged archetype, because it's still pretty powerful for a feat (though much more reasonable now).


Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
Cyrad wrote:

I would personally make the following changes to this feat:

1. You have to choose a metamagic feat you already have.

2. It significantly increases the casting time rather than merely makes you cast it like a spontaneous caster. Perhaps it doubles the casting time? Swift/Immediate become standard actions. Standard actions become 1 round.

3. You must succeed at a Knowledge (engineering) check for the spell to trigger. No forcing everyone at the table to wait 10 minutes for you to do math in the middle of combat.

So in other words, you can apply a metamagic for free at the cost of casting time and a skill check.

While I agree with your first point (see my post above), I can't agree with the other two.

First, "doubling" the casting time doesn't make much sense - there are no numerical values associated with Immediate, Swift, and Standard actions. Assuming that Immediate is 1, Swift is 2, Standard is 3, Full Round is 4, 1 Round is 5, and 2 Rounds is 6, this feat becomes practically worthless for any wizard in combat until they can grab Quicken Spell, and even then it takes a few more levels before you can actually use it as intended. The current casting time of a full-round action is fair enough with the previous limits we've discussed.

Switching the check to a Knowledge (engineering) roll is a bad idea for multiple reasons. This would unbalance the feat even more by allowing the Wizard, Witch, and Magi's casting stat to apply to the check (not to mention the issues a Bard would raise) and penalize spontaneous casters like the Sorcerer and (non-Lore) Oracle even more. In addition, it is ridiculously simple to boost a skill to levels where any check you make would be trivial. On the other hand, limiting it to skill ranks gives everyone the same chance and makes it easier to control the feat's power.


Cyrad wrote:
2. It significantly increases the casting time rather than merely makes you cast it like a spontaneous caster. Perhaps it doubles the casting time? Swift/Immediate become standard actions. Standard actions become 1 round.

Casting time becomes however long it takes the player to roll the dice and do the math, without using any electronic device. Quicken Spell has no effect on this extra time.


Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
JoeJ wrote:
Cyrad wrote:
2. It significantly increases the casting time rather than merely makes you cast it like a spontaneous caster. Perhaps it doubles the casting time? Swift/Immediate become standard actions. Standard actions become 1 round.

Casting time becomes however long it takes the player to roll the dice and do the math, without using any electronic device. Quicken Spell has no effect on this extra time.

But that makes the feat worse as you level up :/

If anything, you'd have to give the player somewhere between 5 and 10 seconds per rank in Knowledge (Engineering) and you can only start the timer after the player has finished rolling his dice. If they can't do it in that much time, they really shouldn't have the feat in the first place.


LuniasM wrote:
JoeJ wrote:
Cyrad wrote:
2. It significantly increases the casting time rather than merely makes you cast it like a spontaneous caster. Perhaps it doubles the casting time? Swift/Immediate become standard actions. Standard actions become 1 round.

Casting time becomes however long it takes the player to roll the dice and do the math, without using any electronic device. Quicken Spell has no effect on this extra time.

But that makes the feat worse as you level up :/

You noticed that, did you?

RPG Superstar Season 9 Top 16

LuniasM wrote:
First, "doubling" the casting time doesn't make much sense - there are no numerical values associated with Immediate, Swift, and Standard actions. Assuming that Immediate is 1, Swift is 2, Standard is 3, Full Round is 4, 1 Round is 5, and 2 Rounds is 6, this feat becomes practically worthless for any wizard in combat until they can grab Quicken Spell, and even then it takes a few more levels before you can actually use it as intended. The current casting time of a full-round action is fair enough with the previous limits we've discussed.

I respect criticism, but did you actually read my post entirely? I said "standard action becomes 1 round and swift/immediate becomes a standard action?" I am also very curious how you managed to calculate "doubling 1 round" to 5 rounds. Applying Dazing to a fireball for free at the cost of making it a 1 round casting time still sounds like a good deal to me. In fact, I think it's perhaps too good. It's still basically a slightly weaker Spell Perfection with trivial prerequisites.

Thematically, I feel like Sacred Geometry shouldn't be combat useful, anyway. I know Pathfinder characters do very ridiculous things at times, but I see dissonance in solving mathematical equation in the middle of combat. Even if a standard action spell gets extended to at least 1 minute, the feat is still quite strong. It would be amazing for buff spells or instances where you lay down an ambush.

LuniasM wrote:
Switching the check to a Knowledge (engineering) roll is a bad idea for multiple reasons. This would unbalance the feat even more by allowing the Wizard, Witch, and Magi's casting stat to apply to the check (not to mention the issues a Bard would raise) and penalize spontaneous casters like the Sorcerer and (non-Lore) Oracle even more. In addition, it is ridiculously simple to boost a skill to levels where any check you make would be trivial. On the other hand, limiting it to skill ranks gives everyone the same chance and makes it easier to control the feat's power.

This is Pathfinder. We shouldn't be inventing or changing mechanics that fulfill the same exact purpose for already existing ones. You're using your Knowledge (engineering) skill to do something. If this action requires a check, it should be a Knowledge (engineering). An appropriate DC can be set based on the spell's level. In fact, one could have this scale off of the augmented spell's level as if it were affected by metamagic.


Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
Cyrad wrote:

I respect criticism, but did you actually read my post entirely? I said "standard action becomes 1 round and swift/immediate becomes a standard action?" I am also very curious how you managed to calculate "doubling 1 round" to 5 rounds. Applying Dazing to a fireball for free at the cost of making it a 1 round casting time still sounds like a good deal to me. In fact, I think it's perhaps too good. It's still basically a slightly weaker Spell Perfection with trivial prerequisites.

Thematically, I feel like Sacred Geometry shouldn't be combat useful, anyway. I know Pathfinder characters do very ridiculous things at times, but I see dissonance in solving mathematical equation in the middle of combat. Even if a standard action spell gets extended to at least 1 minute, the feat is still quite strong. It would be amazing for buff spells or instances where you lay down an ambush.

I suppose I wasn't clear enough on what I meant with the "Immediate is 1, Swift is 2, etc." part. I meant to say "If you assign a number to each, then you'll see that doubling an Immediate action makes it a Swift action (1*2=2) and doubling a Standard action makes it a 2-Round action (3*2=6)" (or at least that'd be a common interpretation).

Casting a spell that takes 1 round or longer would leave you open to attacks, and especially at higher levels you can bet your opponents won't let you finish your big spell. Besides, there's already a potential for failure built into the feat - penalizing it further isn't really necessary.

Furthermore, doing calculations in combat to power up a spell certainly makes more sense than sneezing flaming loogies or animating your hair to attack for you. This is a world where there are people dumb enough to run towards that big monster attacking the town, so someone doing a bit of math in their head to boost their own spellcasting capabilities is rather tame by comparison.

Cyrad wrote:
This is Pathfinder. We shouldn't be inventing or changing mechanics that fulfill the same exact purpose for already existing ones. You're using your Knowledge (engineering) skill to do something. If this action requires a check, it should be a Knowledge (engineering). An appropriate DC can be set based on the spell's level. In fact, one could have this scale off of the augmented spell's level as if it were affected by metamagic.

The problem that sparked this thread is one inherent to the feat - it is too easy to pass the check required with the amount of dice they give you. The first fix makes it so that any class that wants to try its hand at this has an equal chance of passing or failing, and manipulating those dice rolls is almost impossible (I can only think of one thing, the Legalistic Oracle Curse, that can). On the other hand, there are 3 feats (Skill Focus, Scholar, Breadth of Knowledge), a couple traits, class features (Bards would absolutely crush that DC whenever they need to, for instance), and even spells (Heroism) that would make any reasonable Knowledge-based DC we put forth look simple.

With every new class or book that gets released, new features with unique mechanics need to be added. Otherwise the game would stagnate.

RPG Superstar Season 9 Top 16

LuniasM wrote:
I suppose I wasn't clear enough on what I meant with the "Immediate is 1, Swift is 2, etc." part. I meant to say "If you assign a number to each, then you'll see that doubling an Immediate action makes it a Swift action (1*2=2) and doubling a Standard action makes it a 2-Round action (3*2=6)" (or at least that'd be a common interpretation).

So you made a strawman argument? I can't think of any other reason why someone would see a person's idea, make their own version of that idea, say their version is terrible, and then use that logic to illustrate the other person's original idea is also terrible.

LuniasM wrote:
Casting a spell that takes 1 round or longer would leave you open to attacks, and especially at higher levels you can bet your opponents won't let you finish your big spell. Besides, there's already a potential for failure built into the feat - penalizing it further isn't really necessary.

As I pointed out, penalizing the feat is necessary because you're essentially getting Spell Perfection up to 12 levels early. Not only that, but also Sacred Geometry stacks with Spell Perfection, let's you take it multiple times, doesn't limit you to a single spell, and has trivial prerequisites. Even with increased casting time and a chance to lose the spell, that's a massive boon.

LuniasM wrote:
Furthermore, doing calculations in combat to power up a spell certainly makes more sense than sneezing flaming loogies or animating your hair to attack for you. This is a world where there are people dumb enough to run towards that big monster attacking the town, so someone doing a bit of math in their head to boost their own spellcasting capabilities is rather tame by comparison.

While that's a part of what I mean, that's not the entire issue I have with that regard. Those examples do precisely what one would expect from those abilities. They're also fun and flavorful. Not so much with Sacred Geometry. When I envision a spellcaster using geometry and doing mathematics, I envision a scholar, perhaps even a mad man, doing measurements and scribbling equations on a slate or something. That's very fun to imagine, but that's not what's happening here. The spellcaster just takes a couple of seconds to do math in his head. A feat that lets you do math in your head in the middle of combat is neither fun nor flavorful.

LuniasM wrote:
The problem that sparked this thread is one inherent to the feat - it is too easy to pass the check required with the amount of dice they give you. The first fix makes it so that any class that wants to try its hand at this has an equal chance of passing or failing, and manipulating those dice rolls is almost impossible (I can only think of one thing, the Legalistic Oracle Curse, that can). On the other hand, there are 3 feats (Skill Focus, Scholar, Breadth of Knowledge), a couple traits, class features (Bards would absolutely crush that DC whenever they need to, for instance), and even spells (Heroism) that would make any reasonable Knowledge-based DC we put forth look simple.

I honestly thought the ease of succeeding was the least of Sacred Geometry's problems. It's generally accepted that mid to high level characters will reliably succeed on skill checks they specialized in. Besides, action economy has larger value for spellcasters at later levels, so while this penalty lessens as the spellcaster levels up, the action economy penalty increases. This is one reason I suggested using the casting time as the major gating mechanism for this feat.

LuniasM wrote:
With every new class or book that gets released, new features with unique mechanics need to be added. Otherwise the game would stagnate.

A game designer should not make up new mechanics unless it adds something fun and interesting to game. As a game that requires ample rules knowledge, unifying mechanics under the same or similar rules helps aid players remembering rules. As a result, any new content should utilize existing mechanics whenever possible, especially if an existing mechanic already models that content. You cannot convince me that a Knowledge(engineering)-skill-check-that's-not-actually-a-skill-check adds anything fun, useful, or interesting to the game. Adding arbitrary new types of checks for its own sake doesn't stop the game from stagnating -- it makes the game worse by adding more bloat and burden of knowledge.


Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
Cyrad wrote:
So you made a strawman argument? I can't think of any other reason why someone would see a person's idea, make their own version of that idea, say their version is terrible, and then use that logic to illustrate the other person's original idea is also terrible.

I was trying to point out that using the term "double" when talking about spellcasting times is confusing when talking about actions. I'm not using that as a counterargument.

Cyrad wrote:
As I pointed out, penalizing the feat is necessary because you're essentially getting Spell Perfection up to 12 levels early. Not only that, but also Sacred Geometry stacks with Spell Perfection, let's you take it multiple times, doesn't limit you to a single spell, and has trivial prerequisites. Even with increased casting time and a chance to lose the spell, that's a massive boon.

Of course penalizing the feat is necessary, but why penalize the casting time? It's the ease of passing the check, the 2 free metamagic feats, and the ability to add any metamagic for free that cause issues with Sacred Geometry. Changing the casting time would invalidate many concepts, whereas the changes discussed previously limit the feat's power without invalidating character concepts. Shouldn't that be taken into consideration?

To make myself clear, my stance is this - increased casting time penalizes combat casting too much and doesn't penalize out-of-combat casting enough.

Cyrad wrote:
I honestly thought the ease of succeeding was the least of Sacred Geometry's problems. It's generally accepted that mid to high level characters will reliably succeed on skill checks they specialized in. Besides, action economy has larger value for spellcasters at later levels, so while this penalty lessens as the spellcaster levels up, the action economy penalty increases. This is one reason I suggested using the casting time as the major gating mechanism for this feat.

If you look at the first chart showing your chances of succeeding, you'll see that even low-level casters as early as Level 6 have a 95% chance of passing every time, even when attempting to cast a spell with a modified level equal to the highest they can cast. That is hardly "mid to high level". I actually didn't notice that until just now.

The OP's version, on the other hand, will not reach that point until Level 18, and by that point I'd expect casters to be bending reality to their whim anyway so it's hardly game-changing.

As for your point with action economy, I do agree that there should be some penalty to balance the feat, I just think making the casting time longer than a full-round action is too much. Why not add a clause that prevents swift-action casting on rounds when you're using Sacred Geometry? That increases the action-economy penalty while allowing "Combat Geometry" builds to function.

Cyrad wrote:
A game designer should not make up new mechanics unless it adds something fun and interesting to game. As a game that requires ample rules knowledge, unifying mechanics under the same or similar rules helps aid players remembering rules. As a result, any new content should utilize existing mechanics whenever possible, especially if an existing mechanic already models that content. You cannot convince me that a Knowledge(engineering)-skill-check-that's-not-actually-a-skill-check adds anything fun, useful, or interesting to the game. Adding arbitrary new types of checks for its own sake doesn't stop the game from stagnating -- it makes the game worse by adding more bloat and burden of knowledge.

Hm. I can see your point - this feat is complex and it doesn't really need to be when simpler mechanics already exist. I personally enjoy math (at least math simpler than Calculus), though I might be the outlier here :/

Arguing against myself a bit, what about players who don't like math but still like the flavor? The current feat leaves them wanting. Perhaps a scaling DC could be added and the player could choose between the original method and rolling a skill check? That would allow both types of players to enjoy the feat.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber

Wow. Just recently discovered this feat. This feat is completely ridiculous, but not (only) for the reasons you guys are mentioning here.

I would never allow this feat because it requires me to stop game for several minutes so my wizard PC can do math. I can't imagine anything more boring for the other PCs. "Excuse me guys, we need to stop game while I try out a dozen combinations of a dozen numbers to see if I managed to cast that spell."

No. Bad feat. No biscuit.

Either that, or the wizard PC has an app for that, in which case it goes back to being broken for the above mentioned reasons. And as we learned from 3.5 Power Attack: No feat should require a computer program to use effectively.

But it does make me laugh that this feat is so obviously terribly designed, and the forum response is "this feat is broken because mathematically it's overpowered!" instead of "this feat is broken because it steals fun from everyone else while it resolves". :)


¿Por qué no los dos?


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber

Oh, it's obviously broken in both ways.

I just think it says something about hardcore Pathfinder players (and I count myself in this too) that we seem to care more about something being mechanically broken than about it being... I guess "socially broken" would be the term.


MaxAstro wrote:

Wow. Just recently discovered this feat. This feat is completely ridiculous, but not (only) for the reasons you guys are mentioning here.

I would never allow this feat because it requires me to stop game for several minutes so my wizard PC can do math. I can't imagine anything more boring for the other PCs. "Excuse me guys, we need to stop game while I try out a dozen combinations of a dozen numbers to see if I managed to cast that spell."

No. Bad feat. No biscuit.

Either that, or the wizard PC has an app for that, in which case it goes back to being broken for the above mentioned reasons. And as we learned from 3.5 Power Attack: No feat should require a computer program to use effectively.

But it does make me laugh that this feat is so obviously terribly designed, and the forum response is "this feat is broken because mathematically it's overpowered!" instead of "this feat is broken because it steals fun from everyone else while it resolves". :)

It has been pointed out in a couple other threads that this feat would bring a table to a dead halt anytime the wizard casts a spell. But this has been pretty much dis proven or negated by many people showing that it is just a simple act of arithmetic and shouldn't take you much longer than it takes you to write down the numbers.

Several dm's have also talked about adding a time limit to the feat (player has 20 seconds to come up with a right answer from the moment dice are rolled as an example) which in effect would add a type of mini-game feel to the feat; potentially making it more fun, as the whole table pitches in answers or cheers for success in time.


CHEEPENBULKY wrote:
MaxAstro wrote:

Wow. Just recently discovered this feat. This feat is completely ridiculous, but not (only) for the reasons you guys are mentioning here.

I would never allow this feat because it requires me to stop game for several minutes so my wizard PC can do math. I can't imagine anything more boring for the other PCs. "Excuse me guys, we need to stop game while I try out a dozen combinations of a dozen numbers to see if I managed to cast that spell."

No. Bad feat. No biscuit.

Either that, or the wizard PC has an app for that, in which case it goes back to being broken for the above mentioned reasons. And as we learned from 3.5 Power Attack: No feat should require a computer program to use effectively.

But it does make me laugh that this feat is so obviously terribly designed, and the forum response is "this feat is broken because mathematically it's overpowered!" instead of "this feat is broken because it steals fun from everyone else while it resolves". :)

It has been pointed out in a couple other threads that this feat would bring a table to a dead halt anytime the wizard casts a spell. But this has been pretty much dis proven or negated by many people showing that it is just a simple act of arithmetic and shouldn't take you much longer than it takes you to write down the numbers.

Several dm's have also talked about adding a time limit to the feat (player has 20 seconds to come up with a right answer from the moment dice are rolled as an example) which in effect would add a type of mini-game feel to the feat; potentially making it more fun, as the whole table pitches in answers or cheers for success in time.

Don't forget the time players will spend waiting for the GM to roll the dice and do the arithmetic each time an NPCs uses Sacred Geometry.


Cyrad wrote:

I would personally make the following changes to this feat:

1. You have to choose a metamagic feat you already have.

2. It significantly increases the casting time rather than merely makes you cast it like a spontaneous caster. Perhaps it doubles the casting time? Swift/Immediate become standard actions. Standard actions become 1 round.

3. You must succeed at a Knowledge (engineering) check for the spell to trigger. No forcing everyone at the table to wait 10 minutes for you to do math in the middle of combat.

So in other words, you can apply a metamagic for free at the cost of casting time and a skill check.

This is best fix I've seen, short of outright banning it.

If I really wanted to keep the feat in the game I'd go with that fix.

The problem is, free metamagic is still bad, and I'd likely ban it anyway based on the fixed version being too powerful.

The fact that the actual feat is vastly worse is laughable.


LuniasM wrote:
The problem that sparked this thread is one inherent to the feat[...]

The problem that sparked this thread is one inherent to Paizo material, in general: they don't think or don't care (and often don't playtest) beyond getting the material out to make money. It isn't limited to Paizo, mind you, but it is gradually getting worse.

JoeJ wrote:
Don't forget the time players will spend waiting for the GM to roll the dice and do the arithmetic each time an NPCs uses Sacred Geometry.

You say that as if a GM can't just decide it works or doesn't, based on his/her needs for the combat and or story at the time.

Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / Homebrew and House Rules / Sacred Geomety. All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.
Recent threads in Homebrew and House Rules