This thread is not meant to discuss Sacred Geometry as-written. There's another thread for that. This thread is to discuss ways to make a relatively usable version of it for use in home-games.
So far, I've come up with this:
1.) Rule 0 is in full effect if anyone tries to get cheeky with specific combinations.
2.) It's got 'Sacred' right in the name, so should it be Divine casters only? Wizards and Sorcerers in particular already have access to so many free magic feats that adding SG on top seems insane. Maybe denying those two classes use of it, but allowing other arcane casters could work, but I'm not sure.
3.) When using SG to apply Metamagic to a spell, no other ability or effect apart from feats with the Metamagic tag may modify the casting in any way. Exceptions to this have to meet GM approval. For instance, things that boost Concentration would be fine in my book, but the Wayang exploit would not be allowed to stack with SG.
4.) No spell may have its effective level raised above 5 during the use of SG. This allows Quicken + 1 metamagic feat that adds +1 level, but not any of the more ridiculous stacking. I don't see much harm in allowing some of the other effects to stack (still, bouncing, reach, etc.), so long as the casting duration is increased as intended. If the enemies can't interrupt a 2 round cast time, you've got bigger issues than a wonky feat. (exceptions exist, of course; see #1)
5.) Forgo all of the math pertaining to prime constants. Instead, roll a d% (or d20, if you prefer going that route) on a pre-built table to determine whether the feat is successful. Here is an example table I built, that is open to critique and adjustments (note that the top table assumes the cleric/druid/witch/wizard spell advancement while the bottom assumes the oracle/sorcerer; adjustments would have to be made for other classes):
Sacred Geometry Table
Thoughts? Suggestions? Mockery? =]
I am horribly biased, and thus completely fine with restricting this to divine casters.
Any further input on this, or shall I roll with it as-is in my home-games?
I'm also considering another feature to add to the feat:
6.) 1/2 of your Knowledge: Nature skill ranks may be used instead of (not in addition to) Knowledge: Engineering for the purposes of applying metamagic to any spell appearing on the Druid spell-list. Furthermore, 1/2 of your Knowledge: Religion skill ranks may be used in the same way for any spell appearing on the Cleric spell-list. For example, if you were a level 10 Druid and had 2 ranks of Kn: Eng and 10 ranks of Kn: Nat, you would have an effective rank of 5 for the purposes of the feat. Getting Kn: Eng maxed would be more effective, but you'd be able to get at least some benefit even if you stuck with your main skills. This would be a concession for classes with very few skill ranks per level, that probably can't spare them.
I'd keep the 2 rank Kn: Eng requirement for taking the feat in the first place.
There is no zero in Sacred Geometry.
Not sure what it does.
If you're talking about my image of a d% table, the 0% means that if you only have the skill rank listed above, you cannot use SG to increase a spell's effective level to that point. For example, using the top table: Making a Toppling Magic Missile would result in a level 2 spell, so you would have a 0% chance of success (auto-fail) if you only had 2 skill ranks in Knowledge: Geometry. If you had 3 skill ranks in it, you'd have a 40% chance of succeeding, and so on.
If, on the other hand, you're talking about the Spell Level 0 row, that's referring to the possibility of applying Merciful to a damage-dealing cantrip. Merciful doesn't increase the spell level, so the effective spell level remains 0, resulting in a 100% success rate.
If you're referring to point #1 in my first post, that's a reference to a common rule discussed among role-players. Rule 0 is that the GM has the final say on any other rule. It's to prevent disputes and in-fighting at a table. Coming to decisions by vote is all well and good up to a point, but sometimes the GM needs to say something is a certain way, and that's that, no debate.
|
The primary reason I would want to take this feat as a player is for the ludicrous ability to play up a crazy wizard that does math problems in the middle of battle (during other players' turns) and then shouts that I've solved the formula on my turn and cast a magicked up spell.
Honestly, the key to making this feat playable is an agreement between player and GM not to abuse it, and working on dice rolling/math before your turn comes up.
The primary reason I would want to take this feat as a player is for the ludicrous ability to play up a crazy wizard that does math problems in the middle of battle (during other players' turns) and then shouts that I've solved the formula on my turn and cast a magicked up spell.
Honestly, the key to making this feat playable is an agreement between player and GM not to abuse it, and working on dice rolling/math before your turn comes up.
This.
I would just tell the player that wants to use this feat (that looks freaking awesome) that if s/he abuses it, becomes a crutch for the other players, or begins to trivialize encounters regularly, that I will impose a drawback on the feat's use. Large Int/Wis/Cha damage or something, no save.
If you set that kind of stuff up prior to including the feat, you shouldn't have a problem.
Even as a player, if I don't understand it, it won't fly.
As a GM, I would say,"I don't know how a foe would use it, so you can't have it yet."