Discussion:Is Divine Metamagic broken?

From D&D Wiki

Jump to: navigation, search

Divine Metamagic[edit]

Cronocke 16:50, 28 April 2008 (MDT)[edit]

It is my firm belief that the feat Divine Metamagic is not in and of itself broken or unbalanced. Consider - all it does is allow you to expend turning attempts into a single metamagic effect... a single effect. You have to take Divine Metamagic individually for every metamagic feat you want it to apply to. This by itself is not broken, no more than the feat Extra Turning is by itself, or the items called Nightsticks from the Libris Mortis. Where I have issue is with the Cleric itself - it can apply this metamagic effect to one of its spells, and it is these spells which are broken. Just look at Righteous Might and Divine Power - no sane DM would make spells of that calibur at that level, and yet they're both in the core rulebooks!


Pwsnafu 20:16, 30 April 2008 (MDT)[edit]

Discuss what? You're just saying ban the magic and not the feat. It stops Divine Metamagic Persistent divine power either way, so it doesn't change anything. Oh, and the only DMM people actually take is Persistent (via Planning domain), so the "single effect" argument is moot.

is not in and of itself broken or unbalanced
Cronocke, 16:50, 28 April 2008 (MDT)

That I have to reply to. You can never argue such-and-such is not unbalancing in itself. These things do not exist in a vacuum, and their (relative) power is dependent on their (potential) combinations. You must analyze with respect to other options which players have access to, because the players definitely will.

Cronocke 04:08, 1 May 2008 (MDT)[edit]

You're just saying ban the magic and not the feat.
Pwsnafu, 20:16, 30 April 2008 (MDT)

Yes, I believe I am. Or, alternately, ban the class, or use antimagic fields, or any other number of tricks to keep an uppity Cleric in check.

the "single effect" argument is moot.
Pwsnafu, 20:16, 30 April 2008 (MDT)

Uh, not really. See, if DMM allowed you to apply any metamagic feat you knew without changing the spell's level, then I'd agree with you. I'd also agree if DMM allowed you to apply a single metamagic feat that you DON'T already know. But it's very constrained in its use, and for that, I accept it.

You can never argue such-and-such is not unbalancing in itself.
Pwsnafu, 20:16, 30 April 2008 (MDT)

And just why not? This is patently ridiculous - if a single item in a list should be held accountable for the makeup of the list, then let's blame prestidigitation for why Wizards are so much more powerful than Fighters at high levels. It's a Wizard spell, after all, and the Wizard can use it to conjure up items - something the Fighter can't dream of accomplishing.

The problem is not that DMM is an exploit - it simply isn't. The problem is that the Cleric, like the Druid, is designed to be broken regardless of what supplements you allow or ban. DMM is a fairly weak trick. All it does is let the Cleric's already broken spells last that much longer. If a Cleric used DMM to make light persistent, you and I would have no problem. It is the Cleric's powerful spells, that are accessible at such an early level, and that grow exponentially more powerful as she levels, that are broken. I can understand wanting to ban DMM, but it should be made clear that it is the straw that broke the camel's back - the one little thing that made the already-broken Cleric simply unpalatable for the DM.

Pwsnafu 21:56, 6 May 2008 (MDT)[edit]

Please, don't bring the druid into this. The druid is too powerful, but this has nothing to do with the fact that its a full caster.

ban the class
Cronocke, 04:08, 1 May 2008 (MDT)

A bit too hardcore for my liking. Not to say that Planar Shepard, Iot7V and Spelldancer shouldn't be banned. But a core base class is a bit much for me :( As an aside, Spelldancer is stupid with DMM(Persistent).

if a single item in a list should be held accountable for the makeup of the list, then let's blame prestidigitation for why Wizards are so much more powerful than Fighters at high levels. It's a Wizard spell, after all, and the Wizard can use it to conjure up items - something the Fighter can't dream of accomplishing.
Cronocke, 04:08, 1 May 2008 (MDT)

I don't think I understand your argument properly, but am I to believe your trying to use a reductio ad absurdum argument to argue that...well...there are no spell combos? For a start, presti is weak because it was written with clauses that prevent combos ("cannot be used as tools, weapons, or spell components" etc). The spell you want is probably fabricate, which doesn't have this clause. It does however have a casting time limitation, so its best out of combat. This doesn't compete with Fighters who don't need out of combat item creation. That's not what the class is all about. In this sense, fabricating a cannon for your fortress is not too bad, fabricating 100 cannons in the middle of combat in one turn is (via Archmage SLA: remember all SLAs are 1 standard action and trade XP for expensive materials). So the spell fabricate is completely different whether the wizard in question has it as a SLA or not. This is my argument: neither WotC nor a DM can foresee the combos that arise. DMM(Persistent) buffs really is a problem, and rather than evaluating each spell individually, you can just ban DMM and save yourself a lot of work.

TK-Squared 01:29, 7 May 2008 (MDT)[edit]

Righteous Might and Divine Power aren't powerful for their level. There's probably a wizard spell in core that could destroy you somehow, save or suck/die, whatever, at Spell Level 4 and it's probably bigger and badder at Spell Level 5. Righteous Might and Divine Power are balanced because they have a duration of rounds/level, which when you first get one will be 7 rounds for Divine Power and 9 rounds for Righteous Might. The problem comes in when you mix them with Persistant Spell, 'cause then it just becomes an all day funfest. Persistant Spell is the problem; not the other feats.

If i had a cookie, i would give you one for that arguement, TK, although, an al day persistant righteous might isn't, by itself, broken, the ability to do it at level 9, now that's broken. --Ganre 04:08, 7 May 2008 (MDT)

Dmilewski 07:08, 7 May 2008 (MDT)[edit]

I did lots of work on Divine Metamatic. By itself, it is tolerable. Even mixed with some other abilities, it is tolerable. Where it gets out of line is with specific builds, spells, and feats.

  1. The cleric class gives spells that lets it act like another class.
  2. Turn Undead, due to its limitations, was priced fairly cheaply for more attempts.
  3. Persistent allows you to save valuable combat time by pre-buffing and remove a multiplication effect on Divine Metamagic's cost.

When you combine enough things, what you get is someone able to use a very cheap ability to power a spell that lets one class take on all the primary aspects of a different class without costing combat time.

If you take almost any other spell at those levels and persist them, you do not get the same payback.

The simplest solution is to just make "imitate another class spells" non-persistable. Sure the cleric can quicken it, but 3-4 quickens per day adds up. More preferable from my point of view is to simply remove the "substitute for another class" spells.

Pwsnafu 21:00, 8 May 2008 (MDT)[edit]

The next time someone talks about this-tactic-is-too-strong or bards-are-useless, keep the following in mind:

Magic also has a concept of "Timmy cards." These are cards that look cool, but aren't actually that great in the game. The purpose of such cards is to reward people for really mastering the game, and making players feel smart when they've figured out that one card is better than the other. While D&D doesn't exactly do that, it is true that certain game choices are deliberately better than others.

Toughness, for example, has its uses, but in most cases it's not the best choice of feat. If you can use martial weapons, a longsword is better than many other one-handed weapons. And so on -- there are many other, far more intricate examples. (Arguably, this kind of thing has always existed in D&D.

—Monte Cook's blog

Kinda depressing really. Riddles[edit]

Just a quickie, DMM-Persist can be easily countered by dispel magic and its brethren. a cleric focused on DMM won't have a boosted caster level.

DMM Quicken is as powerful and more flexible but requires more turning attempts - which as most people assume the cleric has an unlimited supply of through nightsticks, isn't a problem.

Clerics are one of those classes that have an inbuilt restraint - they are tied to their church. any "uppity" cleric can easily be sent on a near suicidal mission by the high priest of their church and there isn't a damn thing the player can do about it - they either do it or they lose their spellcasting abilities until they atone. unfortunately, it's down to DM discretion, and many DMs aren't experienced enough to deal with it.

TK-Squared 15:07, 1 March 2009 (MST)[edit]

Two of the three points above are wrong. Firstly; a Cleric doesn't have to be tied to a church. He can gain power from a "concept". This is what most Clericzilla's do if they're not going Radiant Servant. This is due to the flexibility it gives you with domains. And why would a Clericzilla not have an increased caster level? Pretty easy to get; Persist Consumptive Field and wham, kill a few dudes. Increase through Prayer Beads and various other things that increase your caster level. Not too hard for a cleric.

While DIspel Magic is a "counter", it's just not a definetly certain one.

Sam Kay 12:54, 3 March 2009 (MST)[edit]

Please tell me this is not going to be another most unbalanced class argument...

Back to Main PageMeta PagesDiscussions

Personal tools
Home of user-generated,
homebrew pages!
system reference documents
admin area
Terms and Conditions for Non-Human Visitors