PDA

View Full Version : Time for Improved Extend?



Lithic
08-07-2007, 01:54 PM
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
08-07-2007, 03:08 PM
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
08-07-2007, 03:18 PM
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
08-07-2007, 04:04 PM
I agree.

Tavok
08-07-2007, 04:38 PM
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
08-07-2007, 05:16 PM
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
08-07-2007, 06:31 PM
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
08-07-2007, 06:38 PM
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
08-07-2007, 06:45 PM
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
08-07-2007, 06:49 PM
/signed.

Improved extend would be fair and would rock.

Mad_Bombardier
08-08-2007, 09:45 AM
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
08-08-2007, 09:50 AM
...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
08-08-2007, 09:56 AM
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
08-08-2007, 10:16 AM
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
08-08-2007, 10:56 AM
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
08-09-2007, 12:31 AM
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
08-09-2007, 12:41 AM
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
08-09-2007, 01:28 AM
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
08-09-2007, 03:46 AM
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
08-09-2007, 08:34 AM
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.

Lithic
08-09-2007, 09:11 AM
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.

Well I don't want to spend an hour typing all the reasons why an extend that gives you 260% spell duration is good, so here are the highlights.

2/3rds as many castings as haste

That right there would make it worth 10 enhancement points.

and monkey, if you don't carry extend, why would you care one way or the other? Go nuke a kobold or something :P

Dkmafia
08-09-2007, 12:56 PM
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?

Isnt extend only 50% cost for 100% time? How much more you want?

Laith
08-09-2007, 01:00 PM
Isnt extend only 50% cost for 100% time? How much more you want?they're talking about the mod5 changes... when it's +10SP for +100% duration. the % of saved SP varies on spell level.

with the mod5 system, extending a level1 spell costs the same as casting it twice.

7-day_Trial_Monkey
08-09-2007, 02:09 PM
Well I don't want to spend an hour typing all the reasons why an extend that gives you 260% spell duration is good, so here are the highlights.

2/3rds as many castings as haste

That right there would make it worth 10 enhancement points.

and monkey, if you don't carry extend, why would you care one way or the other? Go nuke a kobold or something :P

I'm not saying don't do it, I'm asking why anyone would find it necessary. I don't get it.

And realy, do fights ever last longer than 1.5 min? So what good is a 3 min haste anyway? It's a waste of sp. Cast it on the melees when they actualy start fighting and that's all that is realy needed. The extra sp used on an extend is better used nuking :p

nbhs275
08-09-2007, 04:12 PM
I'm not saying don't do it, I'm asking why anyone would find it necessary. I don't get it.

And realy, do fights ever last longer than 1.5 min? So what good is a 3 min haste anyway? It's a waste of sp. Cast it on the melees when they actualy start fighting and that's all that is realy needed. The extra sp used on an extend is better used nuking :p

Example: POP

Cast haste: time 4 mins 30 seconds ( 260% duration, 30 sp)

5 seconds to fight
90 seconds of fighting (up the halls)
15 seconds of running ( getting key)
20 seconds of fighting (Killing warden)
30 seconds of running (getting orbs and grouping at room)
40 seconds of fighting (First Room)
20 seconds of running
40 seconds of Fighting
Rehaste


Cast haste: time 1 min 24 seconds (100% duration, 20 sp)

5 seconds to fight
90 seconds of fighting (up the halls)
Rehaste
15 seconds of running ( getting key)
20 seconds of fighting (Killing warden)
30 seconds of running (getting orbs and grouping at room)
Rehaste
40 seconds of fighting (First Room)
20 seconds of running
40 seconds of Fighting
Rehaste

In this example instead of being able to haste and then not have to worry about doing it again until after the second room, you have to rehaste twice. So instead of casting it once for 30sp, you have to cast it three(3) times for a total of 60sp.

Thats the advantage of extend. Or take the paladin. Without extend he has to stop every minute to recast divine favor to maintain his max DPS. With extend its once every 2mins, and with the proposed 60% enhancement, once every 2&half minutes.

tc12
08-09-2007, 05:08 PM
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.

Yep. Extend was one of my Ranger's favorite feats before, but I agree this really would blow for Rangers and Paladins who now try to take a share of party buffing. Now I'd likely bark everyone, but say sorry get your resists from the cleric or wiz, I can only get myself. And ya, I'd likely re-spec the feat. :(

Riorik
08-09-2007, 05:30 PM
Ouch - I'm not saying I want this, however, you know what capability was just added with the structure of the metamagic costs, right?

Before the change, even low level spells became prohibitively expensive - level 2 with maximize cost 45 points - equivalent to a level 8 spell (in cost), in theory whereas PnP would have been, what = level 4 or 5 with a completely different mechanic (maximize the die roll).

The ability to cap the maximum amount of spell points you can spend on a given spell since they're now closer in line to PnP.

Just a thought - again, not that I want that to happen. It seems so inappropriate to the mmo environment and the ddo playstyle.

Dkmafia
08-09-2007, 06:51 PM
they're talking about the mod5 changes... when it's +10SP for +100% duration. the % of saved SP varies on spell level.

with the mod5 system, extending a level1 spell costs the same as casting it twice.

Got ya ..

Mad_Bombardier
08-10-2007, 10:09 AM
Before the change, even low level spells became prohibitively expensive - level 2 with maximize cost 45 points - equivalent to a level 8 spell (in cost), in theory whereas PnP would have been, what = level 4 or 5 with a completely different mechanic (maximize the die roll).

The ability to cap the maximum amount of spell points you can spend on a given spell since they're now closer in line to PnP.Riorik, I'm totally with you on reducing metamagic mutliplicative costs. But, remember that in PnP, Extending a spell uses a slot 1 spell level higher, which in DDO is +5 SP. And that would be okay here, too. Okay, maybe it would be too cheap for higher level spells. But, that's why I suggested +8 SP for Extend and Empower Healing, which at least brings those 2 metamagics inline with the other metamagics compared to the old system.