PDA

View Full Version : Metamagic Enhancements and Clerics.



Cowdenicus
01-18-2008, 01:52 AM
Why is it that Clerics do not have access to the enhancements that reduce the price of using Metamagics, yet wizards and sorcerors do?

I believe it cannot be a coding issue, so I have to believe it is a design issue.

Can the developers please post something here in regards to this.

Thank you for your time.

Signed,

My 2 spell point starved clerics.

Yaga_Nub
01-18-2008, 08:54 AM
I have to agree that it doesn't seem logical for one to have them and the other doesn't.

Does anyone know if the items that give metamagic enhancements work for clerics?

Lorien_the_First_One
01-18-2008, 09:27 AM
Agreed, there is no reason for them not to have the same enhancement lines if they get the feats...

EinarMal
01-18-2008, 09:31 AM
Agreed, there is no reason for them not to have the same enhancement lines if they get the feats...

Yeah it should be just like toughness....errr wait. I have no idea how Turbine decides these things my guess is 1d20.

Arianrhod
01-18-2008, 09:37 AM
I would guess it's to do with the way Turbine has decided to implement arcane magic as opposed to divine magic. The enhancement system only exists in DDO, and in DDO metamagic enhancements are something arcane casters get, not divine casters (not sure about bards, but I think they have access to one or two of those enhancement lines).

arminius
01-18-2008, 09:55 AM
Probably the same bright bulb who decided that Healing Lore only come on too-rare named loot and raid loot, while you can't run from the harbor to house P without tripping over a Fire Lore item. And the same genius who decided to make decent Devotion items rarer than Troll rings.

Somebody had some chart somewhere that shows that healing is overpowered, apparently.

_

Mad_Bombardier
01-18-2008, 10:10 AM
Why is it that Clerics do not have access to the enhancements that reduce the price of using Metamagics, yet wizards and sorcerors do?

I believe it cannot be a coding issue, so I have to believe it is a design issue.Wizards are the masters of metamagics. It makes sense that they get ImpMeta enhancements. No other class gets free metas. So, the least Devs could do is take away Improved Metamagics from Sorcs. :p

No? Ok. Just make it feat unlockable like Toughness and available to all who take the feat.

llevenbaxx
01-18-2008, 10:44 AM
Yeah it should be just like toughness....errr wait. I have no idea how Turbine decides these things my guess is 1d20.

Their own skewed perception of what a character should be doing it would seem. Very unD&D imo.

MysticTheurge
01-18-2008, 11:52 AM
Their own skewed perception of what a character should be doing it would seem.

Quoted for the sad truth.

Cowdenicus
01-18-2008, 03:54 PM
I would guess it's to do with the way Turbine has decided to implement arcane magic as opposed to divine magic. The enhancement system only exists in DDO, and in DDO metamagic enhancements are something arcane casters get, not divine casters (not sure about bards, but I think they have access to one or two of those enhancement lines).

Not true, Clerics get enhancements for empowered healing, but that is all.

jkm
01-18-2008, 03:58 PM
which bards do not get

Arianrhod
01-18-2008, 04:02 PM
Not true, Clerics get enhancements for empowered healing, but that is all.

Ok....guess it must be what Lleven said then :)

Akhad_Durn
01-18-2008, 04:29 PM
Just gave my cleric Empower (not Empower Healing) to go with Extend. I'll likely being taking Hieghten in the future too :eek: .

Give cleric some metamagic discount enhancements too. :cool:

MysticTheurge
01-18-2008, 04:58 PM
Just gave my cleric Empower (not Empower Healing) to go with Extend. I'll likely being taking Hieghten in the future too :eek: .

Maximize is generally a better choice.

Akhad_Durn
01-18-2008, 06:03 PM
Maximize is generally a better choice.

Better choice than Heighten or Empower? I guess over adding Heighten. Its soooo expensive to use though, if only we had some enhancements to help out :rolleyes:.

When getting Empower, I mistakenly took Maximize. I played with it for an hour before deciding to switch over to Empower like I'd orginally planned. At level 11, (to me) my base damage roles aren't high enough for me to justify using all the mana it'd take to use Maximize very frequently. I suppose that Extended, Maximized, and Empowered blade barrier would be a diffrent story, but that'd be for fairly limited usage given the SP cost.

MysticTheurge
01-18-2008, 06:16 PM
Better choice than Heighten or Empower? I guess over adding Heighten. Its soooo expensive to use though, if only we had some enhancements to help out :rolleyes:.

Over Empower.

Empower is 1.5x damage for +15 spell points, that means it doesn't become cost effective until the spells start costing more than 30 spell points (or at 6th level spells).

Maximize is 2.0x damage for +25 spell points, that means it becomes cost effect while using 5th level of higher spells.

In addition, regardless of the spell level, maximize is always a bit more cost effective than empower.

Take Blade Barrier for instance:

Base damage 14d6, or an average of 49, but let's say 50 for 35 spell points or 1.4286 damage per SP.
Empowered it's 75 damage for 50 spell points or 1.5000 damage per SP.
Maximized it's 100 damage for 60 spell points or 1.6667 damage per SP.

Cowdenicus
01-22-2008, 04:59 AM
I would love to hear something from a developer on this though.

Ustice
01-22-2008, 04:04 PM
This is yet another example of how the enhancement system needs to be adjusted so that it is not class-based, but is feat/class-FEATURE-based. Class features could be "Cast 3rd or higher arcane spells", "Base Attack Bonus of +6 or higher", "Ability to Turn Undead", "Ability to Rage", "Sneak Attack bonus of 3d6 or higher", etc. It would give us more flexibility and allow for more interesting multi-classed builds that can take the strengths that compliment each other. The tech exists. It is used on Feats. Just port it over.

Right now, enhancements pigeonhole us into roles that we don't necessarily want to fill. It shouldn't be too difficult to open up the enhancement selection to more classes, and it would even make it easier for new classes, as you wouldn't have to add a new entry for an enhancement that exists.

Cupcake
01-22-2008, 04:23 PM
Over Empower.

Empower is 1.5x damage for +15 spell points, that means it doesn't become cost effective until the spells start costing more than 30 spell points (or at 6th level spells).

Maximize is 2.0x damage for +25 spell points, that means it becomes cost effect while using 5th level of higher spells.

In addition, regardless of the spell level, maximize is always a bit more cost effective than empower.

Take Blade Barrier for instance:

Base damage 14d6, or an average of 49, but let's say 50 for 35 spell points or 1.4286 damage per SP.
Empowered it's 75 damage for 50 spell points or 1.5000 damage per SP.
Maximized it's 100 damage for 60 spell points or 1.6667 damage per SP.


What MT said.

I was talking with a guildmate the other day and mentioned that I noticed something about using maximize versus not using it.

MT gives you stats. I give you perception.

When not using it on my casters, either wizard or sorc, I noticed that I was going through mana quicker when using say wall of fire.

When maximizing wall of fire, I found that I was using less mana, even given the extra cost of the maximize, because the mobs were dying quicker.

This was readily apparent in Desc. Temp. of Vol.

llevenbaxx
01-23-2008, 07:35 AM
This is yet another example of how the enhancement system needs to be adjusted so that it is not class-based, but is feat/class-FEATURE-based. Class features could be "Cast 3rd or higher arcane spells", "Base Attack Bonus of +6 or higher", "Ability to Turn Undead", "Ability to Rage", "Sneak Attack bonus of 3d6 or higher", etc. It would give us more flexibility and allow for more interesting multi-classed builds that can take the strengths that compliment each other. The tech exists. It is used on Feats. Just port it over.

Right now, enhancements pigeonhole us into roles that we don't necessarily want to fill. It shouldn't be too difficult to open up the enhancement selection to more classes, and it would even make it easier for new classes, as you wouldn't have to add a new entry for an enhancement that exists.

This is what went through my mind the first week after launch. They could have easily made the enhancement system an extension of the feat and skills systems but chose not too. Still asking myself why. Makes MCing more difficult until you really get to know how the high level enhancements work and plan accordingly.

At least the revamped system is more MC friendly, though Im sure this is partly by comparison to how terrible their first shot at it was.:)

EinarMal
01-23-2008, 07:39 AM
This is what went through my mind the first week after launch. They could have easily made the enhancement system an extension of the feat and skills systems but chose not too. Still asking myself why. Makes MCing more difficult until you really get to know how the high level enhancements work and plan accordingly.

At least the revamped system is more MC friendly, though Im sure this is partly by comparison to how terrible their first shot at it was.:)

I agree feat/feature base is much better, I cringe however at the thought of them wasting resources to re-do the enhancement system again....Just think how many more base classes, quests, real prestige classes we could have had if they had simply not spent all this time making a new rule system on top of 3.5.

It really is a shame the devs thought that they could do better than the ruleset they were given, when had they just stuck to those rules the game would be much more complete. A lot of imbalance could also have been avoided as well by all the inflation caused by enhancements.

Had they simply added more classes, prestige classes, feats, and made skills more useful the game would have been more than fine without enhancements at all. I enjoy enhancments, but I would enjoy playing an Arcane Trickster a lot more.

llevenbaxx
01-23-2008, 07:55 AM
It really is a shame the devs thought that they could do better than the ruleset they were given, when had they just stuck to those rules the game would be much more complete. A lot of imbalance could also have been avoided as well by all the inflation caused by enhancements.



QFT

Also agree that another all out enhancement revamp would be bad for the game overall.

Ah well, theres always a chance for DDO2.:D

EinarMal
01-23-2008, 08:51 AM
QFT

Also agree that another all out enhancement revamp would be bad for the game overall.

Ah well, theres always a chance for DDO2.:D

More like go Bioware....please make a 4.0 D&D game, at least they stick with the rules they are given and only change what is really neccessary.