Metamagics.

[Unreliable]

4 SP Burning Hands.
29 SP Burning Hands Maximized.

Am I the only who sees the unreasonability in the above two statements?

[pjw]

4 SP Burning Hands.
29 SP Burning Hands Maximized.

No, I think everyone has commented on the mess with metamagics.

I'll probably give this update the miss and wait for the next one, when the balancing pass is balanced...

[Synthetic]

If you're a blasting arcane you spend your AP on Improved Maximize so it will be 16 then you get some items to make it 12 if you're a wizard you get the capstone to make it 11. At 16 points it's very reasonable to use all the time.

Plus it's free when you use your SLA.

Cheers

[lppmor]

4 SP Burning Hands.
29 SP Burning Hands Maximized.

Am I the only who sees the unreasonability in the above two statements?

Welcome to our world.

[sigtrent]

Its problematic.

Technically, you get the same extra damage for the same mana you always got, its just the opportunity cost has changed significantly.

I know they are looking into making it so you can pick metas on a spell by spell basis. Ultimately that's what I'd like most, but I'd also say the meta costs need some adjustment downward for a number of reasons.

[Simplesimon1979]

it'll still be cheaper then it was before. Now you just have to decide if you want to kill the stuff of real quick or take a bit long and consurve the SP. Everyone is always saying it's about managering resources. For trash you may just be going with no Maximis and Empower or maybe just empower but for the end fight you turn it all on to bring him down asap. Like others have said the SLAs get free Max/Empower for the Archmages.

[ImFour20]

I know they are looking into making it so you can pick metas on a spell by spell basis. Ultimately that's what I'd like most, but I'd also say the meta costs need some adjustment downward for a number of reasons.

Was this talked about recently on Lammania? I've heard this one time before, but after I think about it, I'm not really sure how it will/could be implemented.

I imagine the easiest(besides making a new tab completely) would be on the Spells page, having a button, switch or toggle under/above/near each of the spell icons. Then you could go by and enable/disable spells on the fly pretty quickly.

I dunno, just seems like an odd interface to create.

[WielderofGigantus]

Am I the only who sees the unreasonability in the above two statements?

Yep!

Maximize and Empower aren't for efficient casting. They're for killing things dead in a short span of time. Unfortunately, as you get into the highest levels, it takes so long to kill things with efficient casting that most nukers just turn on maximize and empower and leave them on so that they can kill things faster than the meleers.

[knightgf]

Yep!

Maximize and Empower aren't for efficient casting. They're for killing things dead in a short span of time. Unfortunately, as you get into the highest levels, it takes so long to kill things with efficient casting that most nukers just turn on maximize and empower and leave them on so that they can kill things faster than the meleers.

Besides, at higher levels, you WILL at least break even if you use 1 metamagic, depending on the spell point cost. The best way to find out whether or not you break even, save SP or waste SP is to use these fallowing formulas for a few, but not all metamagics:

Maximize = Base spell cost - other metamagic costs - (Base maximize cost - metamagic discount)

Empower = (Base spell cost - 1/2 that cost) - other metamagic costs - (Base empower cost - metamagic discount)

Empower healing = (Base spell cost - 1/2 that cost[25% if you have the appropriate radiant servant PrE]) - other metamagic costs - (Base empower healing cost - metamagic discount)

Heighten Spell = Base spell cost at heightened spell level - other metamagic costs

Extend = Base spell cost - other metamagic costs - (Base extend cost - metamagic discount)

Enlarge = Base spell cost - other metamagic costs - (Base enlarge cost - metamagic discount) + HP and negative elements saved. For every HP saved, add 0.25 SP to the formula, and for every negative element(Can be neg levels, holds, instant death effects, exc.) add 2 SP per negative element..

Quicken = (Your concentration skill + 1) - (10 + spell level + monsters max hit)

If <0(Or optionally, if the monster trips or stops you from casting in any way), use formula:

Base spell cost + other metamagic costs - (Base quicken cost - metamagic discount)

Unless otherwise stated, if the number you get when doing your formula is:

• >0: That's great! Your saving mana in one way or more by enhancing your spells! Recommend you use the spell with your current metamagic configuration if possible!
• =0: You break even! While you may not save spell points, you don't waste any either. It's up to you really.
• <0: Your not saving mana! It is recommended you look at your metamagic configuration to see what you can do to reduce the cost. It's still up to you whether or not you wanna cast.

Eschew materials is not included, as if you don't have the material components to cast that spell, your not saving mana in the slightest at all. Enlarge and Quicken were difficult formulas to use because they were, in a way, situational spells. Enlarge is great if you want to attack a mob from a sniping distance and save yourself HP as well as negative elements, while quicken is a great way to have your spell cast if you are afraid you will fail a concentration check. Of course, those are not the only uses for them, thus being situational spells. Heighten was also a tricky spell to formalize as it only increases the DC in a strange way, so it was a bit tricky, and I definitely don't guarantee its right.

Other things to consider is that heighten spell does not guarantee anything...apart from the fact that it raises the DC. It doesn't always mean mean the monster will fail its dc on anything but a natural 20. In addition, it is purely up to you to decide if the spellpoint cost is worth it for you; this just looks at spellpoint costs in a technical perspective, not a personal perspective. For example, even though you can cast hold person on someone with the extend metamagic on and save SP by doubling the duration of that spell, most people do not believe it is efficient because the monster is usually killed in such a short span of time that extending the spell is not needed at its current duration.

[Velexia]

4 SP Burning Hands.
29 SP Burning Hands Maximized.

Am I the only who sees the unreasonableness in the above two statements?

If you were a Dev you'd be the only one apparently. As for (most of...) the rest of us, we are equally confused as to why it is (still) like this.

[Matuse]

You can cast it once for double damage if you need to wipe stuff out RIGHT NOW.

Or you can cast it 7 times for regular damage if you want to be point efficient.

Choice is yours.

The choice is also yours to not take Maximize at such a low level. You eat your SP bar too fast. It's a much more sensible feat to use at higher levels.

The larger problem than the cost of Maximize is how impractical it is to turn it on and off when you need to. The devs have indicated that they are looking into a system which will allow you to customize your metamagics a bit better. I'm hoping it will be soon.

[GotSomeQuestions]

You can now cast Burning Hands twice for less sp than it used to cost to cast once. So just do that when you need your double damage. Throw Burning Hands everywhere, you don't need to kill everything in one shot because you can keep casting it like 50+ times after each shrine. Just grab your Superior Inferno I pot and flame on!

But yes, trying to toggle metamagics back and forth is a pain. I try to get Heighten off when I drop Cloudkill (because it's just for concealment, I don't need +4 DC when the boss is poison immune anyway), but then I have to pause to turn it back on and it's barely worth the 20 sp savings.

[pjw]

If you're a blasting arcane you spend your AP on Improved Maximize...

This argument is fine for level 20 characters, but both Empower and Maximize are now massively more expensive for people who are levelling. Yes the spells are cheaper, but the feats themselves *should* be useful without spending 10AP to make them acceptable for low level spells.

Given that every other spell has been 'balanced' for similar damage, I'm not sure why Empower & Maximize are not proportional. Given that you spend a feat to get them, I'd suggest:

Empower: +25% SP
Maximize: +50% SP


But, if that is too generous, then make them cost the apprioriate proportion based on the enhancement:

Empower: +50% SP
Maximize: +100% SP

The way it is, it just makes spell pass look like a job half done.

[TheKaige]

Yeah, what some other guys have said; the metamagics really should be percentage based.

Problem is, this works rather well with metamagics like extend and quicken; not so much with empower and maximize

Say that Maximize was +150% SP cost (Since these two metamagics aren't meant to be efficient, they just let you pump out more power in a short amount of time)

Once you get enough enhancements that your damage spells deal say 200% of the spell damage for only 100% of the cost, dealing 300% of the spell damage for 250% of the cost seems borderline ********.

And of course, if you make the Maximize say +50% SP cost so it's balanced for a fully decked out character, well then it becomes an absolute gamechanging must have easy button for a low level caster.

Personally, best fix to me sounds like making Maximize and Empower inefficient SP wise (62.5% extra SP cost on Empower and 150% extra SP cost on Maximize sounds right to me; proportionally, empower is meant to be slightly more efficient) then making these metamagics add to the base damage of spell;

Of course then, caster DPS would sky rocket; but then again, isn't that part of what this update is supposed to aiming for anyways?

[pjw]

...Since these two metamagics aren't meant to be efficient, they just let you pump out more power in a short amount of time...

I disagree with this completely. But your views do seem to reflect the flawed thinking that has been applied here.

Each of these is a feat; feats are a major boost to characters and are supposed to give an advantage -- think Power Attack or any of the crit enhancers for melee types. How about 'Improved Crit' or Power Attack also slowed your attack rate by 50%? Feats grant advantages.

I hate to use PnP as an example, but Empower and Maximize used to simply increase the level of the spell (when spells were limited in numbers remembered). In DDO terms this would probably be +5 SP and +10SP.

Another reason for fixing metamagics is that the key distinction between sorcs and wizards is the metamagics they get. Already I am thinking of dropping extend and Empower, but the problem here is what will I replace them with to make my Wizard more powerful? +1 DC in one lesser used school? Think +1 Trip. Yay.

The metamagics need to remain powerful and useful at all levels.

And of course, if you make the Maximize say +50% SP cost so it's balanced for a fully decked out character, well then it becomes an absolute gamechanging must have easy button for a low level caster.

Where does this assertion come from? Have you actually played a caster?

Given that a lot of spells will be heightened, currently maximize *is* around +50%.

I agree +50% may be generous, but really, who cares if level 1-7 casters get a boost for the 2 days they level through them?

Personally, best fix to me sounds like making Maximize and Empower inefficient SP wise....

Only if they become free or cost 1 AP each. Not if they cost a feat.

Of course then, caster DPS would sky rocket; but then again, isn't that part of what this update is supposed to aiming for anyways?

No and no. I suspect caster DPS would be unchanged (at about half that of a barbarian), it's just that they would be able to sustain it for about 30% longer.

[TheKaige]

All that.

To be honest, I feel somewhat short-sighted now, having never compared metamagics to melee feats; I'll accept that metamagics probably should be efficient or at least **** near.

I'll still contend that the metamagics should add to base damage, and I'll still contend that if they added to base damage so that your enhancements and gear modified the new maximized/empowered spell damage, caster DPS would skyrocket; though I agree, as is, caster DPS needs the boost in comparison to Barbs/Ftrs/Rogues etc.

If the metamagics were made efficient at all levels of play however, I'd argue that Empower should become a prerequisite for Maximize.

[Simplesimon1979]

I disagree with this completely. But your views do seem to reflect the flawed thinking that has been applied here.

Each of these is a feat; feats are a major boost to characters and are supposed to give an advantage -- think Power Attack or any of the crit enhancers for melee types. How about 'Improved Crit' or Power Attack also slowed your attack rate by 50%? Feats grant advantages.

Actual power attack does give a disadvantage for every extra point of damage that gets added you loss one point to hit.

[Brennie]

I agree that the metamagics need to be tweaked, due to the new spell base costs. The fact that a Frost Lance heightened to level 8 costs significantly more than polar ray (Or multiple polar rays) should be an indicator that there is a problem.

The most common solution i see bandied about is a % cost to metamagics. This is all well-and-good for spells that had their base SP reduced, but for spells that remain the same or that went UP in cost (I'm looking at you Heal!) this would be incredibly punative.

In another thread i posted this proposition:

My proposed metamagic cost change:

(CM/5) x SP/(SL+1) = NMC

CM = Current Metamagic Cost (PreU9), SP = Spellpoint cost of base spell (Post U9), SL = Spell Level of base spell, NMC = New Metamagic Cost.

This change would leave the cost for spells that had no change to SP cost remain exactly the same, while cheaper/more expensive spells would scale accordingly. However, this is a linear change, which would make very cheap spells (like polar ray might end up being, at 15 spellpoints) remain very cheap even while metamagiced. The devs may wish metamagics to be a bit more weighted, by having a reduced cost for the now-cheaper spells, but not nearly as much as my linear proposition would entail.

Examples (note that I'm using numbers stated by devs as "Subject to change").

• Incendiary cloud: 8nd level base cost = 45 SP. Empowered Costs 15 SP extra, Maximize costs 25 SP extra, heighten costs 5 SP extra per spell level raise. As you can see, no change in base cost = no change in meta cost.

• Polar Ray: 8th level base cost = 15 sp. Empower Costs 5 extra SP, maximize costs 8.3 (rounded as devs feel appropriate, though I'd vote for "round up") extra SP. Somehow this seems a little too cheap...

• Lightning Bolt: 3rd level base spell cost = 12. Empower costs 9 extra SP. Maximize costs 15 extra SP, and Heighten costs 3 extra SP per spell level raised. Note that while this is more expensive that polar ray, for a less expensive spell, this is intentional since polar ray is an 8th level spell, single target spell, while lightning bolt is 3rd level (theoretical) AoE.

• Burning Hands: 1st level base SP cost = 4. Empower costs 6 extra SP, Maximize costs 10 extra SP, and heighten costs 2 extra SP per spell level raised.

• Scorching Ray: 2nd level SP cost = 6. Empower costs 6 extra SP. Maximize costs 10 extra SP.

Ideally the Metamgaic costs would be uniform across similar spells, such as Scorching ray and Polar ray, or Burning hands and Cone of Cold. However, since the new SP figures seem to be arbitrary rather than formulaic, there doesn't seem to be a mathmatical way of achieving equality, outside of each and every spell having its own unique SP value for each metamagic.

Alternately, Metamagic costs could be fixed by spell "type". Single Target spells might be 2/6/10 for heighten/empower/maximize, while instant AoEs might be 3/9/15, and persistant AoEs might be 5/15/25 as per normal.

Authors note: I'm not a math guy. I accept the possibility that my numbers/formulas are wrong, or that my ideas are simply terrible.

Given what others have said, most would probably find these numbers to be much too cheap. There could instead be some kind of sliding scale to give metamagics reduced returns for the spells with the largest spellpoint reductions going into U9 (like polar ray, for example), and also a hard cap to keep metamagics from costing more than they currently do on live, such as 10sp for extend, 15sp for empower, 25sp for Maximize etc. (Mostly so that spells that had their SP prices increased, like Heal, won't get overtaxed on metas).

So while the numbers of this may need tweaking, the general idea is one i hope some people can agree with.

EDIT: Rereading, that last little bit after "Alternately" seems like the best idea to me. Static meta costs for based on how much the base spell costs were reduced would give some uniformity while keeping the spell-cheapening balance. Since single target damage spells got the biggest cost reduction, they should also get the biggest metamagic reduction (Thus the 2sp heighten/6sp empower/10sp maximize costs). Spells that got a medium reduction to their base cost might then cost 3/9/15 for heighten/empower/maximize, and spells with only a small reduction to their base cost might cost 4/12/20, while spells that stayed the same or increased in cost would keep the standard 5/15/25 that currently exists

[pjw]

Actual power attack does give a disadvantage for every extra point of damage that gets added you loss one point to hit.

Yes, but most Barbs have obscenely high to-hit, which means (as I understand it) most people leave it on most of the time.

I'm not saying Empower/Maximize should be cost-free, but they should be a cheap damage boost:

Empower: +25% SP
Maximize: +50% SP

...both seem pretty fair.

It's not like casters rule in the DPS stakes as it is; though IMO they *should* rule in DPS, if only for a short time.

[pjw]

[B][COLOR="Red"]This is all well-and-good for spells that had their base SP reduced, but for spells that remain the same or that went UP in cost (I'm looking at you Heal!) this would be incredibly punative.

+25% Empower, and
+50% Maximize

come close to being fair in the new system. Assuming heighten is active, most spells will be approaching 50SP...so empower would cost 13 and Max 25.

In reality these numbers are a bit rubbery because of the AP enhancements. But it's a pretty close ballpark.

Firewall went UP to 35SP I think; under this system Max/Emp would be slightly cheaper.

The key point here is that if you believe that the balancing step is accurate, then the damage boosters should be proportional. They should also be efficiency boosters because they are *feats* after all.