how on earth is this worth a +2 increase? are you honestly trying to place it on even terms with empower? most you're going to get out of it is an extra 14 points of damage, (18 with a meta magic rod and a 9th level spell) and it only works on fire and acid spells.
even at +1 it would be awful.
given the limited scope and miniscule effect, i'd be hesitant to take it as a +0. even then, the only way i'd consider it is if it was for flavor reasons (i.e. fire sorc).
|
most you're going to get out of it is an extra 14 points of damage per target, per round damaged
Corrected for ya.
Think of a Wall of Fire put up with 10 creatures within 20 feet. The next round, you've done an extra 10*4*2=80 points of damage. And it'll do that 80 points of damage for every round they stay within 20 feet. And it'll do that extra 80 damage again if they try to run through it.
I'm not a fan of Metamagic, but I'm just trying to point out that, used strategically, Burning Spell can do a whole bunch of damage. Much more than Empower in those situations. Now, is Empower going to be better more often? Probably, but that's not what I'm claiming here.
Also, as a corner case: what if you had only one Fireball left and were fighting Trolls? With Burning spell, you could eliminate their Regeneration for two rounds with a single spell. Like I said, a corner case, and situational, but worth thinking about :)
|
RPG Superstar 2008 Top 32, 2011 Top 16
|
Like Austin, I'm not saying this is a great feat, but another benefit it provides is continual damage, which makes any spellcaster need to make a concentration check to cast a spell. Something an empowered fireball won't do unless you ready it to when a target is casting, and even then, it won't get them next round with a concentration check.
To be fair, Empower will also do extra damage per target, per round damaged. Empower works better with spells that do a lot of damage once, e.g., Fireball. Burning Spell works better with spells that do a little bit of damage often, e.g., Acid Arrow.
Assuming you don't care about effects like turning off regeneration for multiple rounds or continuous damage, it does have to be very little damage. Even Flaming Sphere (3d6, second level spell) is better being Empowered (10.5/2=5.75) than Burning Spelled (2*2=4).
you can empower wall of fire as well, the results of which last the duration of the spell. granted, the damage at range won't be as much, but the damage for passing through is quite a bit more.
as for the subsequent concentration checks, the DC to avoid spell loss to a DoT is trivial.
as written, it's a terrible feat. situationally useful, sure, but nowhere near worth the +2. hell, given how infrequently it would be worth using, it most certainly is NOT worth the feat slot.
as written, it's a terrible feat.
Not terrible, just situational. If you just compare it to empower based on sheer damage spells, then of course it comes out as weak.
Take a Burning Acid Pit:
- It deal +8 extra damage, compared to +d6 of an empowered one.
- Damage on the subsequent turn, forces the creature to make an additional climb check at DC 30. Only few are able to make this, and if you are a non-flyer, then you are most likely stuck in the trap.
It is only one example, but it shows that for some purposes, Burning has a superior advantage to Empower.
It's situational and terrible. Using metamagic to enhance damage of spells is terrible anyway, unless you have rods, so... :)
I agree it's a terrible feat, and in bad need of a redesign.
Honestly, Paizo has whiffed on most of its new content meta-magic, I think they are afraid of empowering casters too much.
|
Then don't use it, or if you like the fluff of it rework it with your DM to find something that is suitable to your needs.What fluff? Have you actually read the feat?
** spoiler omitted **
There's no fluff here to like. Unless you think the name qualifies as fluff?I don't understand why so many think bad game design is OK, and that it's the consumer's responsibility to fix it.
And I don't understand why so many people think that the game system is unadaptable, and play in a world locked with RAW. The game is about imagination, and any one metamagic feat is supposed to be about on the same power level as any other. if you can't spend 2 minutes figuring out how to improve something for your own game, then that gives me the impression there are other games out there better suited to your play style.
|
RPG Superstar 2013 Top 32
|
Mechanically, yeah, its not very good. Especially for +2 levels. What it *IS* good for, though, is adding a little extra bite to spells that don't scale terribly well with Empower. Spells like wall of fire and fire shield, for example. Each of them deals a set number of damage DICE, increased linearly by caster level. Empower Spell only amplifies the variable numerics, not the static damage. So a 20th-level caster's wall of fire deals 2d6+20. If he Empowers it, it deals 3d6+20. Wow. How useless.
If the same caster drops a burning wall of fire, however, it now deals an additional 8 damage in the following round every time something touches it. 8 damage is vastly superior to 1d6. Look at spells like flame blade, fire shield, and heat metal for more enjoyment.
So yes, it is incredibly situational, and I agree with the notion that it should probably be reduced to +1 level instead of +2. But I don't think its totally useless.
I agree it's a terrible feat, and in bad need of a redesign.I think that's true for most of the metamagics. About the only ones I like are Quicken, Still and Silent. The rest simply have too few applications to warrant a feat slot.
I think most casters are taking Spell Penetration line and Spell Focus line over metamagics because of how terrible they are in general. There are so many better options out there.
I think still and silent are too situational (though I LOVE them as rods) but I think extend is great, and Heighten isn't all that bad for classes with few spells known (that may want to prepare/use lower-level spells in higher-level slots).
One thing I always find funny is how many folks on the boards will say something along the lines of "This Metamagic Feat is total crud and needs to be changes. I would never ever ever use it. But I do like it in a meta magic rod." (Not targeting anyone specific as I have seen this many times.) :)
So what they are saying is they like the feat... they just do not like casting it in a higher level slot. Perhaps situational metamagic feats are intended to be used in small situations with preparation or as a kicker with a rod.
This is like saying a spell is terrible and you would never memorize it other then getting it on a scroll for when you do need it.
When you need it you need it. You can have a rod or scroll with it handy for those times where it will work. OR you can camp for the night and get it ready for the big fight or whatever the next day.
Just my two bits, and yes this spell does not do very much for fireball... but wall of fire or acid fog would like it very much.
The +2 slot is ridiculous. UM is filled with stuff like that.
The thing that makes me really go nuts is that is for DAMAGE SPELLS.
WHY should one fear to make DAMAGE SPELLS OP?
And Adam Ormond: thank you for your sanity. I'm sick and tired to see crappy rules and hear people, and sometimes designers, say that "is for RP" or "I can fix it by myself".
I will do stuff in the future by myself. And I will stop buying crunch books.
Reaper Miniatures
|
I don't understand why so many think bad game design is OK, and that it's the consumer's responsibility to fix it.I don't understand why so many think that options are terrible, and that game companies should only produce product that is always useful and always optimal.Wait ... what?? Companies should produce products that are NOT useful? Now I'm not claiming the entirety of Ultimate Magic is not useful, but companies should not be in the practice of producing content that has no use. I'd posit that the goal should be to produce content that has the most use, while maintaining the usefulness of already existing products.
I'm not sure why you lumped useful and optimal together. I'd be happy with useful. Clearly anything not useful is also not optimal.
Sorry - I was unclear. I meant "always useful" as opposed to "Situationally Useful", not as opposed to "Never Useful". Likewise, I meant "Companies should produce product that is always useful, AND product that is always optimal"
I don't see any point in designing an RPG like a collectible trading card game, with sub-optimal and optimal choices. The goal should be to make all choices equal (that doesn't mean identical).
All choices should ALWAYS be equal? Heavens, no. Players should have the freedom to sacrifice usefulness or power or damage for whatever they'd rather have instead, or to maximize power or utility or damage if that's their style.
Style. That's what it boils down to. Some players have one style, some another, and it takes all kinds and all styles to keep the world spinning.
Options should never be equal. Diversity adds beauty and inspiration to the game.
Nevertheless, options should be meaningful. This is not.
One thing I always find funny is how many folks on the boards will say something along the lines of "This Metamagic Feat is total crud and needs to be changes. I would never ever ever use it. But I do like it in a meta magic rod." (Not targeting anyone specific as I have seen this many times.) :)
So what they are saying is they like the feat... they just do not like casting it in a higher level slot. Perhaps situational metamagic feats are intended to be used in small situations with preparation or as a kicker with a rod.
This is like saying a spell is terrible and you would never memorize it other then getting it on a scroll for when you do need it.
I don't think the spell level is the biggest issue, the feat cost is. It isn't like "jump is a too situational spell, I'd rarely prepare it with my wizard", it's "jump is a too situational spell, I'd not ever learn this with my sorcerer that won't play past level 5 and thus no relearning, I would probably get a scroll of it though".
I think still and silent are too situational (though I LOVE them as rods)
No such thing as a Rod of Metamagic, Still. (Having the rod in hand, in essence, *is* a somatic component).
|
|
I don't understand why so many think bad game design is OK, and that it's the consumer's responsibility to fix it.I don't understand why so many think that options are terrible, and that game companies should only produce product that is always useful and always optimal.
Power creep. For some people if the new feat isn't best than the previous "best feat ever" it is automatically terrible.
One thing I always find funny is how many folks on the boards will say something along the lines of "This Metamagic Feat is total crud and needs to be changes. I would never ever ever use it. But I do like it in a meta magic rod." (Not targeting anyone specific as I have seen this many times.) :)
So what they are saying is they like the feat... they just do not like casting it in a higher level slot. Perhaps situational metamagic feats are intended to be used in small situations with preparation or as a kicker with a rod.
This is like saying a spell is terrible and you would never memorize it other then getting it on a scroll for when you do need it.
When you need it you need it. You can have a rod or scroll with it handy for those times where it will work. OR you can camp for the night and get it ready for the big fight or whatever the next day.
Just my two bits, and yes this spell does not do very much for fireball... but wall of fire or acid fog would like it very much.
That's because metamagic rods are perhaps too good for what they do. Metamagic rods also don't use class specific resources. Feats do.
I would prefer almost any other metamagic rod to burning spell rod if I was forced to make a choice.
This feat has really no situational use and you are never gonna really need it, or want it unless it's for free - hence metamagic rods argument. Would you use a high level spell slot to enhance Wall of Fire with burning spell? I hope not. ;)
Power creep. For some people if the new feat isn't best than the previous "best feat ever" it is automatically terrible.I don't understand why so many think bad game design is OK, and that it's the consumer's responsibility to fix it.I don't understand why so many think that options are terrible, and that game companies should only produce product that is always useful and always optimal.
Oversemplification.
between stupid powerful new things and not relevant options there is a middle ground.
A feat burning a little bit more and slotting +1 could have been in that middle ground.