PDA

View Full Version : 3.5 Metamagic - Manycast



Malapterus
2017-12-13, 11:09 AM
They say a level 9 spell slot is worth more than 9 level 1 spell slots, and so I winder how balanced thus idea is;

Feat - Manycast (metamagic)

You may use a spell slot to cast a lower-level spell multiple times in one turn. The number of times cast X the lower spell's level cannot exceed the level if the slot used.

I.E. you could use a 4th level slot to cast a 2nd level spell twice, a 7th level slot to cast a 3rd level spell twice, a 9th level slot to cast a 1st level.spell nine times, etc.

A Level 0 spell counts as 1/2. Spells wuth a casting time greater than one standard action cannot be used with this feat. Each casting is resolved separatly.

--------------

So with this, I could blow a level 9 slot on Magic Missile for 45d4+45 damage spread as I please, or use Fireball for 30d6. I feel that this is not overpowered but is still useful enough to take. It's also a nice flashy use of magical power & lends a lot of flexibility to a Wizard.

What do you guys think? As a DM, would you allow it? As a player, would you take it?

JNAProductions
2017-12-13, 01:11 PM
They say a level 9 spell slot is worth more than 9 level 1 spell slots, and so I winder how balanced thus idea is;

Feat - Manycast (metamagic)

You may use a spell slot to cast a lower-level spell multiple times in one turn. The number of times cast X the lower spell's level cannot exceed the level if the slot used.

I.E. you could use a 4th level slot to cast a 2nd level spell twice, a 7th level slot to cast a 3rd level spell twice, a 9th level slot to cast a 1st level.spell nine times, etc.

A Level 0 spell counts as 1/2. Spells wuth a casting time greater than one standard action cannot be used with this feat. Each casting is resolved separatly.

--------------

So with this, I could blow a level 9 slot on Magic Missile for 45d4+45 damage spread as I please, or use Fireball for 30d6. I feel that this is not overpowered but is still useful enough to take. It's also a nice flashy use of magical power & lends a lot of flexibility to a Wizard.

What do you guys think? As a DM, would you allow it? As a player, would you take it?

It doesn't seem overpowered, I think. It allows for massive burst damage, obviously, but damage isn't really what's breaking the game. I think you should get better 3.5 eyes on this, but for me? I think I'd allow it, and I'd probably take it later on.

One thing, though-some things allow you to bypass metamagic level increases, such as Incantatrix. I would say that you should add a clause like this:


If you somehow manage to use this metamagic without cost, you may only cast a spell up to twice.

So that way, Sudden Metamagic doesn't let you cast 90218432 Magic Missiles from a 1st level slot.

XionUnborn01
2017-12-13, 01:58 PM
It doesn't seem overpowered, I think. It allows for massive burst damage, obviously, but damage isn't really what's breaking the game. I think you should get better 3.5 eyes on this, but for me? I think I'd allow it, and I'd probably take it later on.

One thing, though-some things allow you to bypass metamagic level increases, such as Incantatrix. I would say that you should add a clause like this:



So that way, Sudden Metamagic doesn't let you cast 90218432 Magic Missiles from a 1st level slot.

This metamagic doesn't have a cost though because it doesn't change the spell level. Realistically this doesn't even have to be metamagic, it just lets you trade your spell slots for different spell level slots basically.

Xzoltar
2017-12-14, 10:01 PM
Thank you I love it and this was had to the BBEG of this week-end. Player Group rarely all stack so beeing able to throw Dispel Magic at 2-3 place at the same time is really beneficial for the bad guys and many more options for both offense, defense and utility

ayvango
2017-12-14, 10:16 PM
That looks not like a metamagic but like a generic caster feat. You could prepare number of low level spells in high level slot if their total slot levels does not exceed the higher slot. 0th level is 1/2. But it again makes spell caster more powerful giving them unprecedented flexibility.

Malapterus
2017-12-15, 12:50 PM
Thank you I love it and this was had to the BBEG of this week-end. Player Group rarely all stack so beeing able to throw Dispel Magic at 2-3 place at the same time is really beneficial for the bad guys and many more options for both offense, defense and utility

Thanks for the play-test!

Jormengand
2017-12-17, 01:49 AM
For a start, ninth-level spells are considered better than 9 1st-level slots partly becuase it costs nine actions to cast nine first-level spells. Just looking at damage, it makes direct damage spells OP for direct damage spells (for example, manycast chill touch entitles me to 153 attacks each of which does d6 damage and possibly 1 strength damage, and because it's duration instantaneous, they all happen at once. Even less RAW-silly spells like shocking grasp deal 45d6, which is no joke at level 17, and 15d6 is even less of a joke at level 5. No-one wants a mage siccing 36d6 fire damage on them out of three scorching rays at level 11 either). Healing spells become OP for healing spells, because 4 CLWs is just better than CSW. You get energy drain a level early, for whatever that's worth. It doesn't make summoning spells OP for summoning spells, though.

I'm somewhat worried that people will use this to stack their low-level save-or-lose spells, though. How many will saves against being my friend can you pass? Two, three, four? Not likely. Granted, it eventually becomes easier just to use irresistible spell, but if you can't spare the feats (it has a prerequisite) manycast will work nearly as well and it's not like "Less broken than irresistible spell" is a high accolade.

If nothing else, fell drain manycast (8) ray of frost is a nice way to stick 8 negative levels on someone with no save out of a level 6 slot, and I've officially given up trying to work out whether it's meant to combine that way with other metamagics.

ayvango
2017-12-17, 04:00 AM
I share Jormengand concerns. This feet seems too powerful. I'd like to propose splitting the feat into stack.

Feat sustainable caster
require: Int 13, ability to cast 1st level spell
You could use single slot to prepare several lower level spells provided their total slot level (adjusted with metamagic costs) are not greater than expended slot level. You casts prepared spells independently as if they were prepared in different slots. 0th level slots are considered 1/2 for calculating total level.

Feat manycast
require: Int 15, ability to cast 2nd level spell, sustainable caster
If you use sustainable caster feat to prepare two spells in a single slot you could cast them simultaneously. Casting them in such way consumes the greatest casting time of all spells.

Feat greater manycast
require: Int 17, ability to cast 5th level spell, manycast
the same as manycast, but you could cast 3 spells at once.

Feat superior manycast
require: Int 19, ability to cast 8th level spell, greater manycast
the same as manycast, but you could cast 4 spells at once.

All feats are not a metamagic. They are flexible and powerful to some limit. And caster should pay quite a price for the entire feat stack. Besides, there are already spells Spell Matrix and Arcane Fusion that heads in the same direction. So feats could be replaced with spells.

Morphic tide
2017-12-17, 05:43 AM
Okay, a problem with having a multiple preparations feat is that it doesn't work for spontaneous casters. For the sake of making spontaneous casters have a use for it, I'd have it be giving the ability to merge spells into simultaneously prepared versions. Kinda like how War Spells work, it's a template for spells requiring a feat to cast. Then have it give you an automatically known instance of such a spell, with a need of one spell merged into it being already known to you.

Thus it functions as a funky Extra Spell when used by Sorcerers, while also letting them learn more such merged spells later on. So a Sorcerer can learn any number of spells with total level 9th instead of a 9th level spell, at the cost of needing to devote a 9th level slot to that selection of spells. And sacrificing a 9th level spell known. More practically, having two Fireballs per 6th level slot in place of a 6th level spell is going to get them some nice bonuses.

Then have Manycast be a metamagic for this type that lets you cast the full slot simultaneously and add more copies of spells already in it, at a cost of one spell level per spell in the final product. Other metamagic applies to the entire merged slot in all cases, much like how Metapower with Linked Power might work, so another advantage to Sorcerers would be getting some pretty high-power metamagic reduction for specific sets of spells that Wizards pay bundles of GP to make.

ayvango
2017-12-18, 01:52 AM
Okay, a problem with having a multiple preparations feat is that it doesn't work for spontaneous casters.
It is a common thing. Wizards has rary's mnemonic enhancer and sorcerers uses arcane fusion. It is perfectly normal to have two different systems for prepared and spontaneous casters. It puts emphasis on diversity.



Then have Manycast be a metamagic

But it opens road to metamagic shenanigans. Select some 0th level spell as a core, change metamagic cost for it and all other spells would have reduced metamagic cost.

I believe that manycast should be more like a manyshot. Not a metamagic feat, but magic using feat like the versatile caster.

Morphic tide
2017-12-18, 09:52 AM
It is a common thing. Wizards has rary's mnemonic enhancer and sorcerers uses arcane fusion. It is perfectly normal to have two different systems for prepared and spontaneous casters. It puts emphasis on diversity.
The big problem with that is that it adds a bundle of mechanical complexity because you need to concoct a mechanic that functions for Spontaneous Casters which does not combine with the mechanic for prepared casters in a problematic fashion and, preferably, does not function for prepared casters at all. Ultimate Magus exists, after all.


But it opens road to metamagic shenanigans. Select some 0th level spell as a core, change metamagic cost for it and all other spells would have reduced metamagic cost.
It's +1 SL per spell involved, including the minimum starting two, on top of the combined spell level of added spells, not applying it multiple times, so it's one large modifier. Which tends to be harder to discount. And the type of spell it's applied to is an automatically mixed slot, requiring two spells to be selected at a minimum. You start with at least a 1st level slot.

You save on metamagic costs for a locked in set of spells if you can afford it in the first place. The literal minimum is a 3rd level slot for two simultaneous 0th level spells. Two 3rd level spells would take up an 8th level slot, with only two SLs of metamagic adjustment. Removing the ability to add more spells spontaneously makes it so that you have to aqcuire the set you're using, one way or another. And Wizards would generally be burning gold on making the mix of spells, unless the GM is full Magic Mary mode. Which can still be made more expensive by using spell template rules.

JNAProductions
2017-12-18, 12:35 PM
The big problem with that is that it adds a bundle of mechanical complexity because you need to concoct a mechanic that functions for Spontaneous Casters which does not combine with the mechanic for prepared casters in a problematic fashion and, preferably, does not function for prepared casters at all. Ultimate Magus exists, after all.


It's +1 SL per spell involved, including the minimum starting two, on top of the combined spell level of added spells, not applying it multiple times, so it's one large modifier. Which tends to be harder to discount. And the type of spell it's applied to is an automatically mixed slot, requiring two spells to be selected at a minimum. You start with at least a 1st level slot.

You save on metamagic costs for a locked in set of spells if you can afford it in the first place. The literal minimum is a 3rd level slot for two simultaneous 0th level spells. Two 3rd level spells would take up an 8th level slot, with only two SLs of metamagic adjustment. Removing the ability to add more spells spontaneously makes it so that you have to aqcuire the set you're using, one way or another. And Wizards would generally be burning gold on making the mix of spells, unless the GM is full Magic Mary mode. Which can still be made more expensive by using spell template rules.

Are we looking at the same post? Because according to the OP (and I don't believe they've mad subsequent posts adjusting it) casting two 0th level spells would take only a 1st level slot.

Malapterus
2017-12-18, 12:51 PM
I looked up irresistible spell and it listed some spells that cause a problem, and some of them may cause a problem with my Manycast. Spam-blasting someone with Glitterdust, for example.

Death effects are also a problem.

paddyfool
2017-12-18, 01:35 PM
Along the lines of Ayvango's post: how about just limiting it to casting a single spell twice for now? This would put it on a similar level to existing options like Twin or Splitting, which is probably quite potent enough. Does that sound reasonable?

Malapterus
2017-12-18, 01:41 PM
Along the lines of Ayvango's post: how about just limiting it to casting a single spell twice for now? This would put it on a similar level to existing options like Twin or Splitting, which is probably quite potent enough. Does that sound reasonable?

I don't really see how it would differ from Twin at that point

Morphic tide
2017-12-18, 03:09 PM
Are we looking at the same post? Because according to the OP (and I don't believe they've mad subsequent posts adjusting it) casting two 0th level spells would take only a 1st level slot.

It was responding to a response to one of my posts which was partially a response to their previous post. I should have quoted, but I've been having problems with selecting blocks of text on every electronic devise I have at the moment.

Due to the setup I was thinking of, with the Manycast mechanic being gated behind a spell template, like War Spells, that is responsible for the multiple spells in one slot that has a metamagic adjustment equal to the total number of spells in the slot being shifted to simultaneous casting, the minimum becomes a 3rd level spell. SL 1 from 2 0th level spells, then +2 SL from the metamagic adjustment for simultaneous casting.

The reason for wanting to do this is that Manycast would normally mostly invalidate Quicken Spell and Twinned Spell as you can replicate the use cases pretty reliably, becoming more absurd in combination with the two and decent metamagic reduction or metamagic rods. 36 1st level spells in one round should never happen. Even if it eats a charge from a Quicken Spell Metamagic Rod and two from a Twinned Spell Metamagic Rod.

A large advantage of the setup I'm thinking of is that it makes it fairly concise to have more uses of the multiple spells in one slot setup, while using the cost(s) of the spell template to make it so that it eats a significant amount of opportunity. Unlike War Spell and Living Spell, the setup can actually be part of spells that don't have a version outside of the template because the modifications to the base spells can be applied to an utterly new spell.

...And now I want to make a thread about spell templates because I have far too many ideas for playing with the setup. A key feature of them is that the templated spells are different spells from the original, so they count as a separate spell known and spell level adjustments aren't subject to metamagic reducers. The only thing stopping a Sorcerer from learning a Living Spell is the fact that the template turns them into creatures and lacks wording to allow Living Spells to be learned in spite of being creatures. What the sweet hell casting a Living Spell does is entirely unknown, because they're not meant to be castable. Because they're creatures, not spells.

Jormengand
2017-12-18, 05:26 PM
I don't really see how it would differ from Twin at that point

I mean, let's face it, this already isn't much different than twin except that it's just better if you're using spells of lower than 4th level and just worse if you're using spells of higher than 4th level (unless you're a 31st-level wizard who positively, definitely needs to cast 3 5th-level spells in one action). Really, Twin is designed to do the same thing that this is trying to do, only it's closer to balanced (it's relatively balanced in terms of twin fireball/delayed blast fireball, for example - you're trading the ability to delay your explosion for a better damage output at most levels). Manycast simply isn't balanced or okay, really; it's just handing spellcasters more stuff on a platinum platter.

Malapterus
2017-12-18, 11:11 PM
IManycast simply isn't balanced or okay

My problem is that I was balancing it against Evocation; easy numbers and simple effects to work with. I posted it here for you guys to pick apart, and you have done a good job of it. The idea of using it to hammer people with low level spells like Sleep till they roll a 1 on their save didn't occur to me, and also someone pointed out that it makes Cure/Inflict spells advance faster than without the feat.

So, alas, Manycast: not viable.

Maybe with some work, it could be something, but I think it would end up with a write-up rivaling Monkey Grip in atrocity, so I should probably forget about it.

Jormengand
2017-12-19, 12:02 AM
My problem is that I was balancing it against Evocation; easy numbers and simple effects to work with. I posted it here for you guys to pick apart, and you have done a good job of it. The idea of using it to hammer people with low level spells like Sleep till they roll a 1 on their save didn't occur to me, and also someone pointed out that it makes Cure/Inflict spells advance faster than without the feat.

So, alas, Manycast: not viable.

Maybe with some work, it could be something, but I think it would end up with a write-up rivaling Monkey Grip in atrocity, so I should probably forget about it.

To be quite frank, I don't think I mind that it doubles the level-based part of Cure Moderate Wounds, triples it for Cure Serious Wounds and quadruples it for Cure Critical Wounds, since they could stand some buffing. I mind more that it buffs some of the stronger (and usually non-evocation, of course) damage spells like Power Word: Pain and Chill Touch. In the second instance, though, three lots of 5d4 is just better than one lot of 5d6, and even if fireball's range and area are more favourable than burning hands', the extra damage is pretty good even with weak evocations. Third, twin spell already has a decently well-balanced version of this effect anyway.

Malapterus
2017-12-19, 10:32 AM
I think with evocation it balances out due to multiple reflex saves & multiple counts of overcoming SR & multiple applications of any resistance

Jormengand
2017-12-19, 03:43 PM
I think with evocation it balances out due to multiple reflex saves & multiple counts of overcoming SR & multiple applications of any resistance

But multiple reflex saves to resist 1/6 of a fireball are no better than a single one to resist half of it. In some cases, it's actually worse - if you have 70 hit points, and you just got struck with 130 damage, then it means you need to pass three saves or die rather than passing one.

And really, who uses fire damage on things with resistance to fire?

Morphic tide
2017-12-19, 04:39 PM
And really, who uses fire damage on things with resistance to fire?

People unaware of the fire resistance and Wizards who prepared poorly.

Jormengand
2017-12-19, 05:52 PM
People unaware of the fire resistance and Wizards who prepared poorly.

Well, yes, but "Silly people might use this suboptimally" doesn't really bear considering in a discussion about how the ability can be optimised a great deal.

ayvango
2017-12-19, 06:26 PM
I modelled my feats after two-weapon fighting but forget to put some penalties. -2 caster level, -1 save DC for the manycast, -4 caster level, -2 save DC for the greater version and -6 caster level, -3 save DC for the superior version.
Another option is to divide caster level equally (rounding up) between the casts. What would work better?