Widen Spell equal to Empower Spell?

[Abraham spalding]

Honestly I completely missed this. In 3.5 widen spell was only worth an increase of 1 spell level, and in pathfinder it is an increase of 3 spell levels. Why the huge increase? Widen spell hardly struck me as something that needed increased, especially when most people that posted during the play test complained more of metamagic feats general uselessness -- not how overpowered they were. Anyone else miss this change?

[Dennis da Ogre]

Abraham spalding wrote:

Honestly I completely missed this. In 3.5 widen spell was only worth an increase of 1 spell level, and in pathfinder it is an increase of 3 spell levels. Why the huge increase? Widen spell hardly struck me as something that needed increased, especially when most people that posted during the play test complained more of metamagic feats general uselessness -- not how overpowered they were. Anyone else miss this change?

Urm? Is d20SRD wrong then?

[Dennis da Ogre]

Also... considering area is a square function it's a huge increase in affected targets. 40' radius is huge compared to 20' radius.

[Abraham spalding]

Hold the phone, someone has gone and changed reality on me, and it wasn't me this time! I distinctly remember widen spell only costing 1 spell level. I do, it was in my book that way... the SRD read that way, and now everything I see says otherwise. You all have been brain washed... yeah that's it, someone has messed with my reality and that's not fair! It's my job to do that.

[Thazar]

Enlarge spell is a one level bump. I always get widen and enlarge mixed up. Those two feats could have been named better. I prefer Biggify Spell and Rangify Spell. LOL.

[Dennis da Ogre]

Thazar wrote:

Enlarge spell is a one level bump. I always get widen and enlarge mixed up. Those two feats could have been named better. I prefer Biggify Spell and Rangify Spell. LOL.

I agree. The difference between the two feats is vast but the verbiage is nearly identical. "Wait, Enlarge spell makes a spell... larger. Widen spell makes a spell Wider?"

Or wait...

IMO "Enlarge Spell" makes perfect sense for what widen spell actually does. What's wrong with "Increase Range" metamagic... not as 'catchy' as enlarge but would make a lot more sense.

[Abraham spalding]

Far spell would have worked...

[Dennis da Ogre]

Abraham spalding wrote:

Far spell would have worked...

Excellent!

(Ogre goes and crosses out enlarge and writes "Far"... leaves widen alone)

Far Spell is one of those metamagics almost no one took. I kind of think it should be a +.5 metamagic.... almost never worth a full level.

[kyrt-ryder]

Yeah, you guys aren't the only ones who feel its not really worth the feat. Hence, the following.

Spoiler:

Credits: I stole this idea from someone else on these boards but can't remember who. I may not be representing it as they did since I have a tendency to tweak things.

Modify Spell:

A caster with this metamagic feat may apply the following metamagic applications at the listed cost.

Enlarge Spell (+1 range category or double a fixed range), +1 LA
Widen Spell (Double the spell's area) +2 LA
Chain Spell (Make a single target spell strike a number of targets equal to caster level, max 20) +3 LA

[Dennis da Ogre]

kyrt-ryder wrote:

Yeah, you guys aren't the only ones who feel its not really worth the feat. Hence, the following.

So when you say 'double' the spells area do you mean double or quadrupal? Because widen quadrupals... or more I think with circles.

[kyrt-ryder]

Dennis da Ogre wrote:

kyrt-ryder wrote:

Yeah, you guys aren't the only ones who feel its not really worth the feat. Hence, the following.

So when you say 'double' the spells area do you mean double or quadrupal? Because widen quadrupals... or more I think with circles.

Right, thanks for helping me clear up the wording. "Doubles the defining aspect of a spells area, the radius, diameter, length of cone, however it's defined in the spell description."

[Dennis da Ogre]

I don't really think chain spell fits well into that.

[kyrt-ryder]

Part of it may have been a desire to make it match my other 3 in one metamagic (Eschew Materials, Still spell, and Silent Spell), but also, when you think about it Chain Spell has the rough effect of Widen, but for single target spells.

Even so, now that you bring it up I'll consider swapping Reach spell (houseruled down to +1, some will consider it unbalanced but it's only 30 foot reach so although it prevents melee full attacks it still leaves the caster very vulnerable) into Chain Spell's place in the feat.

[Dennis da Ogre]

Well the way I see chain spell it's much more powerful than widen spell. Where widen might affect 4 times the number of targets chain spell affects 10-20 times the number. Considering single target spells are considerably more powerful than their area effect counterparts thats a lot.

Also, how does chain spell affect spells like scorching ray? Would you get 33 rays (assume 11th level) that do 4d6 up to 3 rays per target?

I kind of think reach spell is a better fit for far spell and widen.

[kyrt-ryder]

I don't know the RAW ruling on Chained Scorching Ray, but I know the text says it effects 1 additional target, and that split ray only generates one free ray, not the full spell effect, so I would lean towards one target eats the normal number, and then up to 10 more rays if there were 10 more available targets.

[The Grandfather]

kyrt-ryder wrote:

Yeah, you guys aren't the only ones who feel its not really worth the feat. Hence, the following.

** spoiler omitted **

I had a similar feat in my campaign by the same name.

I originally got the inspiration from Monte Cook's "Arcana Unearthed".