Hey everyone,
Our latest Genius Guide, this one focused on Feats of Metamagic to now up and ready for sale!
Metamagic is a kind of give-and-take system for spells that allows spellcasters to gain benefits for spells in exchange for using higher-level spell slots to cast them. This gives a spellcaster considerably more flexibility, especially spontaneous spellcasters, who have a limited number of spells known but can add metamagic to spell slots on the fly. While most of the obvious spell enhancements (increasing some numeric value of spell game mechanics or removing some component to make casting easier) are covered in the Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Core Rulebook, those basic functions merely scratch the surface of what metamagic is capable of doing. The Genius Guide to Feats of Metamagic aims to expand the options into new areas, creating feats that changing how spells affect different targets, affect how a character uses all metamagic, and even weakening spells to lower their effective level.
New feats for spellcasters should mean more metamagic feats, to allow powers and classes (especially prestige classes) that depend on metamagic to gain new options and to increase the variety of builds for metamagic-using spellcasters. Just as monks, fighters, and rogues can use feats to adjust how they use their weapons, bards, clerics, druids, sorcerers, and wizards should have a wide range of options that let them modify how they use their spells. Spellcasters may wish to apply metamagic to focus their use of elemental spells (such as with Exchanged Spell), use metamagic to combine several commonly used combat spells into a single spellcasting action (with Cascade Spell), or explore a new kind of metamagic that allows them to cast a spell with a lesser spell slot by limiting some of its usual parameters (such as Weaken Spell). While there are a few feats that modify the use of all metamagic (such as a Metamagic Focus), the aim of this product is to help broaden the range of strategies spellcasters have for executing their spells so that is commensurate with the many ways nonspellcasters have to use combat maneuvers.
As always you can pick it up for the low, low price of $1.99 here: The Genius Guide to Feats of Metamagic
Hyrum.
Very nice.
I have one question, one pickyness and one hesitation.
As written Countering Spell is useless for a spontaneous caster. (Readied action / Full round meta magic) Is that intended?
Picky: Fleeting spell example doesn't meet the duration prereq.
I'm not sure letting a caster lob fireballs from their level 1 and 2 slots in exchange for a +3 to the saves against it is a good fit.
But, very nice little product.
|
Very nice.
I have one question, one pickyness and one hesitation.
We're glad you like and, and we love feedback! (Picky or otherwise.)
As written Countering Spell is useless for a spontaneous caster. (Readied action / Full round meta magic) Is that intended?
While I realize Quicken Spell was made spontaneous friendly in pathfinder, adding that same extra rule to Countering Spell seemed slightly overpowered. Instead, we added Flexible Spell, which does different things for preparation vs spontaneous casters. for spont casters, it removes the extra time of metamagic. So if a spontaneous caster wants Countering Spell, he should just take Flexible Spell first.
Picky: Fleeting spell example doesn't meet the duration prereq.
D'oh. Davor is an actual playtest character. He happens to have the Lasting Spell feat from Feats of Spellcasting, which means at 9th level his hold person does meet the prerequisite for Fleeting Spell. But since I didn't include that information, I have created a bad example. Pretend I said he was 10th level, and I'll see if I can get a fix in.
I'm not sure letting a caster lob fireballs from their level 1 and 2 slots in exchange for a +3 to the saves against it is a good fit.
But, very nice little product.
There are two potential questions about Languid Spell. the first is, does it match how you view magic working? If no, then there's nothing I can suggest without know how you view magic and why this seems off. (There are lots of great ways to run magic in a given campaign, and some just won't work well with "negamagic" feats in general). The second potential question is, does a 1st level fireball at -3 save DC overpower a campaign. My playtesting says no, but play style can affect that as well.
My playtesting also revealed that those minus-spell-level feats are most attractive to spontaneous casters, since it gives them more things to do with lower-level spell slots, when spell selection may have left them without appropriate spells at every level. Which is neither good nor bad, but was interesting and helped tip the scales toward including them.
I have a question about the chain spell feat.
"Only spells with an area or
defined number of targets (including one
creature), a range greater than touch, and a
saving throw (for half damage, or to negate
the full effect of the spell) may be cast as
chain spells"
Does that mean partial save spells are not permitted for chain spell? Sound burst for instance, it includes a save, but not for half damage or full negation of the spell. What about (assuming you had access to 10th level slots or had something the reduced the metamagic cost) disintegrate?
This is a matter of opinion but I think the cost of combat spell is too high. 2 levels? I think it should probably be free (in terms of spell level) since you are almost certainly making it much harder to succeed. Most spells with attack rolls affect touch AC. CMD with very few exceptions will be significantly higher. Just Caster level + primary stat will not easily beat CMD's for many opponents past low levels. I just think this is someone no one would take or use because of that.
There is a typo in the Defensive spell feat. In the example, you list "Thus a defensive shield grants a +4 shield bonus to AC," I believe that should be +5 since shield normally grants a +4 bonus.
Other then that as usual I like the product. There are some interesting ideas in there. I know I am going to have to include an npc baddie that uses profane spell for sure. They are different from what we have seen before, and I dont think any of them are game breaking, just, different. Which I always like.
|
Very nice product. Just got a new playerfor my homebrew who is playing a wizard (only damn spellcaster in a party that include a Warmaster and a Dragonrider) who will be very happy with this.
Just pointing out I am particularly fond of Exchanged Spell, it is a less boring version fo energy substitution, great.
Just a quick question regarding Despoiled Spell. Is it intentional that it didn´t have a clause such as ¨creatures inmune to ability damage cannot use Despiled Spell¨or is it an oversight?
Also regarding Defensive Spell. On the example they give for a casting of Defensive Shield ths spell says to give the normal +4 bonus to AC.
Regarding the so called ¨negamagic¨, I can´t say how exactly they will affect the game, however I know that it will make vancian casters meld more easily with the psionics that I use in my games. And anything that helps do that is good on my book.
|
|
I have a question about the chain spell feat.
"Only spells with an area or
defined number of targets (including one
creature), a range greater than touch, and a
saving throw (for half damage, or to negate
the full effect of the spell) may be cast as
chain spells"Does that mean partial save spells are not permitted for chain spell? Sound burst for instance, it includes a save, but not for half damage or full negation of the spell.
You are correct, it would not be allowed. I needed a bright line in the sand on this one, and after some playtesting this came out safest. It may disallow a few spells that wouldn't be overpowered, but I feel it's more important to make sure we exclude spells that would be.
What about (assuming you had access to 10th level slots or had something the reduced the metamagic cost) disintegrate?
Nope. Again, I wrote that guideline as a hard rule, to ensure I would avoid some of the abuses developed during playtesting.
This is a matter of opinion but I think the cost of combat spell is too high. 2 levels? I think it should probably be free (in terms of spell level) since you are almost certainly making it much harder to succeed. Most spells with attack rolls affect touch AC. CMD with very few exceptions will be significantly higher. Just Caster level + primary stat will not easily beat CMD's for many opponents past low levels. I just think this is someone no one would take or use because of that.
Obviously not everyone is going to use that feat. However, watching a Charisma-maximized 12th level sorcerer repeatedly hammer 3 foes a round with sundering scorching rays (or tripping scorching rays, when there was a rogue nearby) in a playtest taught me it can't be a 1-level shift, nevermind a 0-level shift. While you can't use it against most end-bosses, it's great for massively screwing over multiple lower-level foes, especially for spontaneous spellcasters who suddenly have (effectively) 4 spells known for every make-an-attack spell they know.
There is a typo in the Defensive spell feat. In the example, you list "Thus a defensive shield grants a +4 shield bonus to AC," I believe that should be +5 since shield normally grants a +4 bonus.
Yep, that's a typo. My bad!
Other then that as usual I like the product. There are some interesting ideas in there. I know I am going to have to include an npc baddie that uses profane spell for sure. They are different from what we have seen before, and I dont think any of them are game breaking, just, different. Which I always like.
Thanks for the feedback, and we're glad you like the product!
|
|
Very nice product. Just got a new playerfor my homebrew who is playing a wizard (only damn spellcaster in a party that include a Warmaster and a Dragonrider) who will be very happy with this.
Just pointing out I am particularly fond of Exchanged Spell, it is a less boring version fo energy substitution, great.
Heh. You are right, of course, that does fill the ecological niche of Energy Substitution. Because I never want to just create new versions of old feats, I hadn't thought of it in those terms. But I'm not surprised I trod some of the same ground as earlier design. I'm just glad people seem to think it's useful, interesting, and different.
Just a quick question regarding Despoiled Spell. Is it intentional that it didn´t have a clause such as ¨creatures inmune to ability damage cannot use Despiled Spell¨or is it an oversight?
I'll confess, that's an out-and-out oversight on my part. And, actually, it's a pretty serious one. We will replace the benefit of that feat with something very close to the following:
A despoiled spell deals 2 points of Constitution damage to the caster when it is cast. (Creatures with no Constitution scores instead take 2 points of Charisma damage.) This ability score cannot be healed or recovered until the caster regains use of that spell slot for the day. If the ability damage is avoided or reduced by any means, the despoiled spell cannot be cast. A despoiled spell takes a spell slot one level lower than the spell's actual level.
Also regarding Defensive Spell. On the example they give for a casting of Defensive Shield ths spell says to give the normal +4 bonus to AC.
Yep. My fault. We'll fix it.
Regarding the so called ¨negamagic¨, I can´t say how exactly they will affect the game, however I know that it will make vancian casters meld more easily with the psionics that I use in my games. And anything that helps do that is good on my book.
It did seem like a natural thing to have, and I'm glad you'll find it useful in play!
You are correct, it would not be allowed. I needed a bright line in the sand on this one, and after some playtesting this came out safest. It may disallow a few spells that wouldn't be overpowered, but I feel it's more important to make sure we exclude spells that would be.
Nope. Again, I wrote that guideline as a hard rule, to ensure I would avoid some of the abuses developed during playtesting.
Understood, just wanted to check and make sure. It is an unconventional line in the sand, but probably a good one in the long run.
Obviously not everyone is going to use that feat. However, watching a Charisma-maximized 12th level sorcerer repeatedly hammer 3 foes a round with sundering scorching rays (or tripping scorching rays, when there was a rogue nearby) in a playtest taught me it can't be a 1-level shift, nevermind a 0-level shift. While you can't use it against most end-bosses, it's great for massively screwing over multiple lower-level foes, especially for spontaneous spellcasters who suddenly...
Like i said, its a matter of opinion, but i think the key is that there are very few multi-target attack roll spells. And I know that I undervalue combat manuevers personally. I tend to write off things mentally where the numbers dont keep relatively even. I just dont see many cases where a I'd rather fire off 3 scorching rays that have a chance to trip or whathave you then a 4th level spell.
|
|
Re: combat Spell. Obviously if it looks underpowered for your campaign and play style, I encourage you to lower the spell slot shift. One big factor on usefulness is going to be how often the GM uses 8 to 16 creatures of CR 6 to 8 levels below the party's, and how often he uses low-CMD foes. One buyer has already told me by email he'll be preparing "push/trip undead" as a 2nd level combat dispel undead, and use it to push liches off cliffs.
This sounds like a great pdf - when will your corrections be done? I figure I'll wait to get the finalized product afterwords, otherwise I'm liable to forget to look for the update later.
Thanks!
|
|
This sounds like a great pdf - when will your corrections be done? I figure I'll wait to get the finalized product afterwords, otherwise I'm liable to forget to look for the update later.
Thanks!
Depending on where you buy it, you may not need to remember. You may get a notice that it's been updated. We always want to make sure everyone has the most up-to-date versions of our work, and never penalize early adopters.
That said my production crew is at the GAMA Trade Show right now, so I doubt we can upload an updated file until after the weekend.
The second potential question is, does a 1st level fireball at -3 save DC overpower a campaign. My playtesting says no, but play style can affect that as well.
IMO burning hands is a decent spell.
For a 6th level caster:
Burning Hands: avg 12.5 damage with save for half
No save 1/2 damage fireball: 21 damage with save for half
Save DC for BH is 11 + Stat
Save DC for L1 meta fireball is 10 + Stat (only 1 lower)
BH is a 15 ft burst cone starting at the caster
L1 meta fireball is a 20' R spread up to 640 feet safely away
Again, very nice product. Picking on one feat is not remotely telling. I'd have my money's worth easily if that space had been a black blob. So no complaint.
But I can't see how this wouldn't be a no-brainer.
You can get a lot more targets and even if you just have one target the -1 to relative saves only makes a difference 1 in 20 times. That 5% of the time BH does 19% more damage to a single target. The other 95% of the time L1FB does 68% more damage.
|
|
Obviously I'm glad you like the product, and that you don't find having one feat not work for you ruins it.
So, here's what happened in playtesting.
First, the feat would be most useful to spontaneous spellcasters, since they could decide between the burning hands and the downscaled fireball at will. Except, since it is metamagic, it's a full action for the spontaneous spellcaster, which can become a tactical problem. Sometimes it makes sense, sometimes it doesn't, but it's not always the best choice.
For the wizard, a fireball isn't always as easy to use as burning hands exactly because it has a larger area (and you don't want to catch your friends in it). So the wizards sometimes prepped a 1st-level fireball, and sometimes didn't, and always wanted normal 1st level spells prepped as well.
In general of course you are right, a Languid Spell is often going to be better than a slightly higher DC spell of that level. Which is fine, because you paid a feat to have that option. Essentially, it lets a 5th level wizard have maybe-better 1st level spells. But they clearly aren't as good as his 2nd or 3rd level spells, and by the time he's 5th level, improved 1st level spells don't seem to unbalance the game.
Again, any time you're talking about balancing metamagic, you are firmly in the realm of playtest and guesswork, rather than hard math. Our playtest showed that we had this dialed in correctly, but that's a judgement call. A lot of things, including play style, can affect that. So, if this seems too juiced up to you, make it a -1 level shift instead of -2, or make the spell DC only 10+ ability score modifier, disallowing feats and magic items.