Time for Improved Extend?

[Lithic]

Since the revamp of metamagics is coming, I thought it would be time to implement this.

As extend only costs 10 sp per spell now (same as empower), I don't think it would be unreasonable to let us cut that down by 2/4/6sp just as the empower metamagic enhancements do.

Or alternatively, make it add 20/40/60% longer duration.

Comments?

[Hence]

I agree, it is silly to have more advantages with the other meta-magics and not have the same rules for Extend. I would take the enhancements with my cleric.

[negative]

With the new rules, I could see this being reasonable, as Extend is no longer mana efficient 100% of the time as it was before.

[MysticTheurge]

I agree.

[Tavok]

Since the revamp of metamagics is coming, I thought it would be time to implement this.

As extend only costs 10 sp per spell now (same as empower), I don't think it would be unreasonable to let us cut that down by 2/4/6sp just as the empower metamagic enhancements do.

Or alternatively, make it add 20/40/60% longer duration.

Comments?

I've been fighting for this since I played my first caster. Its lame that Damage spells, CC spells, and various others recieve major enhancement benefits for their respectful metamagics. But yet, the only spell that changes the duration of spells, gets no enhancements? Kinda lame if you want to be a main buffer (i.e. Bards, Battlemages) and not a DPS or CC guy.

[Mad_Bombardier]

As extend only costs 10 sp per spell now (same as empower), I don't think it would be unreasonable to let us cut that down by 2/4/6sp just as the empower metamagic enhancements do.

A couple of clarifications. Extend costs +10, Empower costs +15. Improved Empower reduces 2/4/6, whereas Improved Enlarge (same +10 cost as Extend) reduces 1/2/3.

I think the better solution is to look at changing the original amount of SP increase for Extend, Enlarge, and Empower Healing (previously +50%). They could be +8 SP. Which would again make them a minor savings for level 1 spells (1.8x cost for 2x effect versus proposed 2x cost for 2x effect) and equal the other metamagics in cost comparison.

Alternatively, as posted by Pharaz, they could introduce Improved Extend enhancement which would:

Extend Spell Reduction Enhancement
Cost: 2 AP
Benefit: Extend Spell Feat decreases the cost of Extending 1st level spells to +5 sp and Extending 2nd level spells to +8 sp.

Personally, I'm torn between the two ideas. Reduced cost for all spells saves more on high level spells, enhancement discount helps low level spells more but costs AP.

[MysticTheurge]

A couple of clarifications. Extend costs +10, Empower costs +15. Improved Empower reduces 2/4/6, whereas Improved Enlarge (same +10 cost as Extend) reduces 1/2/3.

I think the better solution is to look at changing the original amount of SP increase for Extend, Enlarge, and Empower Healing (previously +50%). They could be +8 SP. Which would again make them a minor savings for level 1 spells (1.8x cost for 2x effect versus proposed 2x cost for 2x effect) and equal the other metamagics in cost comparison.

Alternatively, as posted by Pharaz, they could introduce Improved Extend enhancement which would:

Extend Spell Reduction Enhancement
Cost: 2 AP
Benefit: Extend Spell Feat decreases the cost of Extending 1st level spells to +5 sp and Extending 2nd level spells to +8 sp.

Personally, I'm torn between the two ideas. Reduced cost for all spells saves more on high level spells, enhancement discount helps low level spells more but costs AP.

Why not just introduce a standard improved extend that reduces the cost for all extended spells by 1/2/3 points? With the enhancements you're still saving SPs when you extend even first level spells.

[Vinos]

Before the new system adding an improved extend wasn't necessary becuase it was already the best bang for your buck but now I can certainly see it being useful. Would need to be 1/2/3 though. 2/4/6 would be too powerful.

[pastor_dex]

If house P buffs last 30 minutes, even entering a new instance or through rest shrines, I would hope at high lvl they will give us a similar abillity.

[narizue]

/signed.

Improved extend would be fair and would rock.

[Mad_Bombardier]

Why not just introduce a standard improved extend that reduces the cost for all extended spells by 1/2/3 points? With the enhancements you're still saving SPs when you extend even first level spells.

Because I don't have 6 APs to spare for something I got before for free.

And it's really only the level 1 and 2 spells that are affected. Moving the base cost down from +10 to +8 gives the discount to the high level spells and brings low level spells in line with other metamagics.

[MysticTheurge]

...and brings low level spells in line with other metamagics.

I'm not sure I follow. The other metamagics aren't SP-efficient for low level spells either.

[Mad_Bombardier]

I'm not sure I follow. The other metamagics aren't SP-efficient for low level spells either.

No, but their break points are level 2, not level 3 as with Extend. Brb, lemme go quote the original thread.

Here's a few charts summarizing the old and new costs of various metamagiced spells at each level. The format of each line will be (spell level, base sp cost, current metamagiced sp, new metamagiced sp). The crossover line (at which old and new costs are about the same) is bolded.

Empower Spell Old +100%, new +15 (level 1 spells cost more, level 3+ is less)
1, 10, 20, 25
2, 15, 30, 30
3, 20, 40, 35
4, 25, 50, 40
5, 30, 60, 45
6, 35, 70, 50
7, 40, 80, 55

Empower+Maximize Spell Old +300%, new +40 (level 1 spells cost more, level 2+ is less)
1, 10, 40, 50
2, 15, 60, 55
3, 20, 80, 60
4, 25, 100, 65
5, 30, 120, 70
6, 35, 140, 75
7, 40, 160, 80

Extend Spell Old +50%, new +10 (level 1-2 spells cost more, level 4+ costs less)
1, 10, 15, 20
2, 15, 22, 25
3, 20, 30, 30
4, 25, 37, 35
5, 30, 45, 40
6, 35, 52, 45
7, 40, 60, 50

Maximize Spell Old +200%, new +25 (level 1 spells cost more, but level 2+ is less)
1. 10, 30, 35
2. 15, 45, 40
3. 20, 60, 45
4. 25, 75, 50
5. 30, 90, 55
6. 35, 105, 60
7. 40, 120, 65

Basically, I think that the new Metamagic costs are out of whack. Too many metamagics got lumped together at +10 SP. I suppose they didn't want to make Extending high level spells too inexpensive, but in so doing, totally screw Extend Rangers, Palys, (and Bards). Using their numbers, Eschew Materials should be +0SP, Empower Healing and Extend should be +5, Enlarge and Quicken +10, Empower +15, Maximize +25

[MysticTheurge]

No, but they're break points are level 2, not level 3 as with Extend. Brb, lemme go quote the original thread.

Gimpster's not comparing where they become SP efficient, but rather at what point the new system becomes less expensive than the old system.

Extending a second level spell is SP efficient under the new system (166% cost, 200% effect), it's just not as SP efficient as it was under the old system. And under the old system extend was the odd man out in that it was comparatively far cheaper than any of the other metamagics.

In terms of when it becomes SP efficient, it still happens far earlier than the other metamagics. Empower doesn't become SP-efficient until 6th level spells, maximize doesn't until 5th level spells.

[Mad_Bombardier]

Gimpster's not comparing where they become SP efficient, but rather at what point the new system becomes less expensive than the old system.

In terms of when it becomes SP efficient, it still happens far earlier than the other metamagics. Empower doesn't become SP-efficient until 6th level spells, maximize doesn't until 5th level spells.

That was kind of my point, even if it was poorly stated above. The new metamagic system makes high level spells cheaper to metamagic. While low level spells become more expensive than the previous system. It does not matter to a high level caster, who gains more benefit from the new system to offset losses. But, to a secondary caster (and low level caster), it's devastating.

I feel we do need to draw comparison between old and new systems. It is important that low spell level classes (Bards, Palys, Rangers) not be adversely affected by changes to the system. Since all they have is low level spells, they never see the average savings.

Case in point, a Ranger helps his party by casting 2 Resists (or 1 Resist and Jump) + Barkskin. It costs (10 + 10 + 15) * 6 party members = 210 SP. He can recast it, doubling the duration, for another + 210 = 420 SP. Now, if he chose to use a feat on Extend, he can cast once for (20 + 20 + 25) * 6 = 390 SP. A meager 30 SP savings for the cost of a feat! (The old cost was 318 SP for a justifiable 102 SP savings.) So, we go and respec out of our Extend Spell Metamagic feat.

An alternate case is for a 14 Ranger casting 1 Resist + Barkskin + FoM. (10 + 15 + 25)*6 = 300, recast for total of 600 SP. Extended, (20 + 25 + 35) * 6 = 480; a justifiable 120SP savings (with slightly higher 146 savings in the old system). But, a 14Ranger with FoM rarely has 480 SP to even attempt the above scenario.

The interesting thing is that this change effectively reinstates half caster level. All good primary casters have Extend, effectively doubling their caster level for durations. Secondary casters get their full caster level (as opposed to half in PnP), but laughable benefit from Extend, so they stay at caster level for duration. Everything is doubled, but you end up with the same 2:1 caster level ratio for durations.

[Lithic]

The more I think of it, the more I would rather have the improvements be +20/40/60% durations. I feel it makes sense that improving the feat would make your extend more effective, rather than cheaper to use.

[Tavok]

The more I think of it, the more I would rather have the improvements be +20/40/60% durations. I feel it makes sense that improving the feat would make your extend more effective, rather than cheaper to use.

Agreed.

[TechNoFear]

Not happy about the change to Extend.

Extend is not worth a feat for for my pal14 and bard10.

Least allow some benifit for the semi spell users who have already purchased Extend, even if we have to spend enhancement points on it.

[Plynx]

The more I think of it, the more I would rather have the improvements be +20/40/60% durations. I feel it makes sense that improving the feat would make your extend more effective, rather than cheaper to use.

Also agreed.

[7-day_Trial_Monkey]

Longer extend? Why? So you can spend more time standing around doing nothing without losing your buffs?

I don't have extend on my 14 sorc and it has never been an issue.