Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Feat Idea: Melee Magic [Metamagic]

Tags:
  • Video Games
Last response: in Video Games
Share
Anonymous
July 3, 2005 5:38:21 PM

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

The ideas on sword mages casting through
their blades got me thinking about the
Fighter/Wizard thing.

I would like a feat that allows my (N)PCs
to cast and fight in one round...

(I dismissed Quicken Spell plus attack,
because it's expensive and not suitable for
spontaneous casters.)

So I humbly present my idea to the brainpool:

----------------------------------------

MELEE MAGIC [METAMAGIC]

Prerequisites:
Dex 15, Two-Weapon Fighting, Combat Casting, BAB +6

Benefit:
As a full round action you can cast a spell on the
defensive and attack with your primary hand, if you
give up the attack with the highest base attack bonus
for the round.
You have to wield a melee weapon in your primary hand
and your secondary hand has to be empty to use this feat.
Your concentration check to cast the spell and all your
remaining attacks take a -2 penalty to the roll.
The attack penalty applies until your next turn.

The spell must have a normal casting time of one standard
action or less and uses up a spell slot two levels higher
than the spell's actual level.
The feat can not be applied to spells with an XP cost or
expensive material components (any with a cost of at
least 1 gp).

If you cast a touch spell with Melee Magic, it has to be
discharged with your secondary hand. You are considered
fighting with two weapons, if you try to touch an opponent
in the round you are casting the spell. This may cause
additional penalties to your attacks.
Otherwise the normal rules for holding the charge apply.

Special:
This feat can be applied to spontaneously cast spells
(unlike Quicken Spell).
The casting time of such spells increases to one full
round. A spontaneous spell cast with Melee Magic comes
into effect just before the caster's next turn,
as usual for spells with a casting time of one round.

----------------------------------------

Sooo, what's it? Too good, too bad, too ugly?

LL

More about : feat idea melee magic metamagic

Anonymous
July 3, 2005 5:50:09 PM

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

Lorenz.Lang@gmx.de wrote:
> The ideas on sword mages casting through
> their blades got me thinking about the
> Fighter/Wizard thing.
>
> I would like a feat that allows my (N)PCs
> to cast and fight in one round...
>
> (I dismissed Quicken Spell plus attack,
> because it's expensive and not suitable for
> spontaneous casters.)

Do you know about the Havoc Mage prestige class (Miniatures Handbook,
page 20)? It's a PrC built on exactly this idea. Check it out.

> So I humbly present my idea to the brainpool:
>
> ----------------------------------------
>
> MELEE MAGIC [METAMAGIC]
>
> Prerequisites:
> Dex 15, Two-Weapon Fighting, Combat Casting, BAB +6
>
> Benefit:
> As a full round action you can cast a spell on the
> defensive and attack with your primary hand, if you
> give up the attack with the highest base attack bonus
> for the round.
> You have to wield a melee weapon in your primary hand
> and your secondary hand has to be empty to use this feat.

What about spells with no somatic components?

> Your concentration check to cast the spell and all your
> remaining attacks take a -2 penalty to the roll.
> The attack penalty applies until your next turn.
>
> The spell must have a normal casting time of one standard
> action or less and uses up a spell slot two levels higher
> than the spell's actual level.
> The feat can not be applied to spells with an XP cost or
> expensive material components (any with a cost of at
> least 1 gp).
>
> If you cast a touch spell with Melee Magic, it has to be
> discharged with your secondary hand. You are considered
> fighting with two weapons, if you try to touch an opponent
> in the round you are casting the spell. This may cause
> additional penalties to your attacks.
> Otherwise the normal rules for holding the charge apply.
>
> Special:
> This feat can be applied to spontaneously cast spells
> (unlike Quicken Spell).
> The casting time of such spells increases to one full
> round. A spontaneous spell cast with Melee Magic comes
> into effect just before the caster's next turn,
> as usual for spells with a casting time of one round.
>
> ----------------------------------------
>
> Sooo, what's it? Too good, too bad, too ugly?

Well... I think all of the restrictions have made it pretty hard to
use. I can think of only one trick I'd like to use it for: True Strike
+ Power Attack. And even that isn't really worth it, since you're
limited to using a one-handed weapon.

Frankly, I don't know of any character that would want to take this
feat. All the restrictions and drawbacks kinda kill it.

Laszlo
Anonymous
July 3, 2005 11:10:19 PM

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

laszlo_spamhole@freemail.hu wrote:

> Well... I think all of the restrictions have made it pretty hard to
> use. I can think of only one trick I'd like to use it for: True Strike
> + Power Attack. And even that isn't really worth it, since you're
> limited to using a one-handed weapon.
>
> Frankly, I don't know of any character that would want to take this
> feat. All the restrictions and drawbacks kinda kill it.
>
> Laszlo

I agree. I like the idea, but the restrictions make it not worth it.
Casting and using a touch attack spell counts as two-weapon fighting?
You then force the character to take two-weapon fighting feat. I do
like the idea that the casting of a spell counts as one of your
iterative attacks. I don't think it's necessary to declare it must
take up the first one, but I can live with it if you take away the -2
penalty to hit and concentration checks to cast defensively. If you
keep the -2 penalty, then let the player choose which iterative attack
it takes.

There should be a pre-requisite of +6 BAB. The feat also doesn't have
a meta-magic feel. It could be a general feat. A +2 spell level I'm
not sure about. I could accept making two-weapon fighting be a
prerequisite and then getting rid of the +2 spell level cost. Because
of the DX requirement for two weapon fighting, even if every cleric
would want this not every cleric could take it.

Gerald Katz
Related resources
Anonymous
July 3, 2005 11:29:53 PM

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

Hadsil wrote:

> I agree. I like the idea, but the restrictions make it not worth it.
> Casting and using a touch attack spell counts as two-weapon fighting?
> You then force the character to take two-weapon fighting feat. I do
> like the idea that the casting of a spell counts as one of your
> iterative attacks. I don't think it's necessary to declare it must
> take up the first one, but I can live with it if you take away the -2
> penalty to hit and concentration checks to cast defensively. If you
> keep the -2 penalty, then let the player choose which iterative attack
> it takes.
>
> There should be a pre-requisite of +6 BAB. The feat also doesn't have
> a meta-magic feel. It could be a general feat. A +2 spell level I'm
> not sure about. I could accept making two-weapon fighting be a
> prerequisite and then getting rid of the +2 spell level cost. Because
> of the DX requirement for two weapon fighting, even if every cleric
> would want this not every cleric could take it.
>
> Gerald Katz

Ack!!!

Disregard. I just had a second look at the feat. I saw but did not
truly see the prerequisites the first time. Now I see that some of my
points had already been addressed. Major goof by me.

Given a new look at the feat, I'd say there's no reason to prevent
spells with expensive material components or XP cost. I'm still not
convinced it should be a metamagic feat nor a spell level cost.

Gerald Katz
Anonymous
July 4, 2005 11:15:48 AM

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

Hadsil wrote:
> Hadsil wrote:
>
> > I agree. I like the idea, but the restrictions make it not worth it.
> > Casting and using a touch attack spell counts as two-weapon fighting?

If you're attacking with the other hand in the same round?
Sure, I dare to say. ;-)

> > You then force the character to take two-weapon fighting feat.

As it's already a prereq...yes.

> > I do
> > like the idea that the casting of a spell counts as one of your
> > iterative attacks. I don't think it's necessary to declare it must
> > take up the first one, but I can live with it if you take away the -2
> > penalty to hit and concentration checks to cast defensively. If you
> > keep the -2 penalty, then let the player choose which iterative attack
> > it takes.

Wouldn't every PC give up the last (weakest) attack, if given the
choice?
I prefer your proposal to take away the -2 to attacks and concentration
check. I didn't want to make the feat too good - maybe I overreacted
and crippled it instead.

<snip>

> Given a new look at the feat, I'd say there's no reason to prevent
> spells with expensive material components or XP cost.

I made this restriction by intuition, maybe it's not unbalancing
to allow. But Stoneskin or Symbols cast in the middle of melee?
I don't know...

> I'm still not
> convinced it should be a metamagic feat nor a spell level cost.

I think a feat that requires a spell to be cast in a higher slot
should be metamagic; I've read the SRD on metamagic:
"...can learn to cast spells in ways slightly different from the
ways in which the spells were originally designed or learned.[...]
Spells modified by metamagic feat use a spell slot higher than
normal."

Maybe +2 level is too much and a +1 should do?
If you convince me that the loss of the highest attack is enough
to balance the ability to cast a spell in the same round,
it could even be a general feat.

For the moment I'd say we have:

----------------------------------------

MELEE MAGIC [METAMAGIC]

Prerequisites:
Dex 15, Two-Weapon Fighting, Combat Casting, BAB +6

Benefit:
As a full round action you can cast a spell on the
defensive and attack with your primary hand, if you
give up the attack with the highest base attack bonus
for the round.
You have to wield a melee weapon in your primary hand
and your secondary hand has to be empty to use this feat.

<snip: no -2 to attacks and concentration checks>

The spell must have a normal casting time of one standard
action or less and uses up a spell slot one level higher
than the spell's actual level.

<one level higher slot instead of two>

The feat can not be applied to spells with an XP cost or
expensive material components (any with a cost of at
least 1 gp).

If you cast a touch spell with Melee Magic, it has to be
discharged with your secondary hand. You are considered
fighting with two weapons, if you try to touch an opponent
in the round you are casting the spell. This may cause
additional penalties to your attacks.
Otherwise the normal rules for holding the charge apply.

Special:
This feat can be applied to spontaneously cast spells
(unlike Quicken Spell).
The casting time of such spells increases to one full
round. A spontaneous spell cast with Melee Magic comes
into effect just before the caster's next turn,
as usual for spells with a casting time of one round.

----------------------------------------

LL
Anonymous
July 4, 2005 12:17:06 PM

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

Jasin Zujovic wrote:
> In article <1120486548.048081.33700@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com>,
> Lorenz.Lang@gmx.de says...
>
> > > > I agree. I like the idea, but the restrictions make it not worth it.
> > > > Casting and using a touch attack spell counts as two-weapon fighting?
> >
> > If you're attacking with the other hand in the same round?
> > Sure, I dare to say. ;-)
>
> However, you're not getting an extra attack, you're spending one of your
> iterative attacks. Doing the same with two short swords wouldn't incur
> TWF penalties, I think: someone with BAB +6/+1 can attack with his
> primary hand at +6, and his secondary at +1... with an additional -4
> penalty, if he doesn't have TWF, but that's the off-hand penalty, not
> the TWF penalty.
>
> For your feat, tying it to TWF would make more sense if it let you use
> the spell attack as an additional light off-hand attack.

If I get you right (and I can be dumb sometimes...) you would
allow the (extra) attack with a touch spell at -2 to attack
without modifying the attacks of the primary hand.

I think that makes more sense indeed. Otherwise touch spells would
result
in greater penalties than other spells, which is not exactly intuitive.

LL
Anonymous
July 4, 2005 12:48:27 PM

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

I'm more interested in this brainpool idea.
Anonymous
July 4, 2005 7:29:31 PM

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

Jasin Zujovic wrote:
> In article <1120490226.920903.286510@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com>,
> Lorenz.Lang@gmx.de says...
> > I think that makes more sense indeed. Otherwise touch spells would
> > result in greater penalties than other spells, which is not exactly
> > intuitive.
>
> Right. So a guy with BAB +6/+1 could attack at +6/+1 with a sword; or at
> +6 with a touch spell; or at +4/-1 with the sword and +4 with the spell,
> using TWF rules and counting the spell as a light weapon. If the spell
> doesn't require an attack roll, you don't make it, but you still take
> the penalty with the sword, resulting in +4/-1.
>

Okay, you wouldn't let him sacrifice the highest iterative attack,
but instead use TWF-penalties for the guy using Melee Magic.
The longer I think about it, the more I like your idea.

In this case I lean towards putting the -2 penalty to the concentration
check back into the equation.
And the spell should (at least?) take up a slot one level higher IMO.

I copied the current/modified version below...

LL

----------------------------------------

MELEE MAGIC [METAMAGIC]

Prerequisites:
Dex 15, Two-Weapon Fighting, Combat Casting, BAB +6

Benefit:
As a full round action you can cast a spell on the
defensive and attack with your primary hand
You have to wield a melee weapon in your primary hand
and your secondary hand has to be empty to use this feat.
Your concentration check to cast the spell and all your
attacks take a -2 penalty to the roll.
The attack penalty applies until your next turn.

The spell must have a normal casting time of one standard
action or less and uses up a spell slot one level higher
than the spell's actual level.
The feat can not be applied to spells with an XP cost or
expensive material components (any with a cost of at
least 1 gp).

If you cast a touch spell with Melee Magic, it can be
discharged with your secondary hand in the round it is cast.
You make the attack at your highest base attack bonus,
but with the -2 penalty to the roll mentioned above.
Otherwise the normal rules for holding the charge apply.

Special:
This feat can be applied to spontaneously cast spells
(unlike Quicken Spell).
The casting time of such spells increases to one full
round. A spontaneous spell cast with Melee Magic comes
into effect just before the caster's next turn,
as usual for spells with a casting time of one round.

----------------------------------------
Anonymous
July 4, 2005 8:31:04 PM

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

In article <1120486548.048081.33700@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com>,
Lorenz.Lang@gmx.de says...

> > > I agree. I like the idea, but the restrictions make it not worth it.
> > > Casting and using a touch attack spell counts as two-weapon fighting?
>
> If you're attacking with the other hand in the same round?
> Sure, I dare to say. ;-)

However, you're not getting an extra attack, you're spending one of your
iterative attacks. Doing the same with two short swords wouldn't incur
TWF penalties, I think: someone with BAB +6/+1 can attack with his
primary hand at +6, and his secondary at +1... with an additional -4
penalty, if he doesn't have TWF, but that's the off-hand penalty, not
the TWF penalty.

For your feat, tying it to TWF would make more sense if it let you use
the spell attack as an additional light off-hand attack.


--
Jasin Zujovic
jzujovic@inet.hr
Anonymous
July 4, 2005 10:09:13 PM

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

In article <1120490226.920903.286510@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com>,
Lorenz.Lang@gmx.de says...

> > > > > I agree. I like the idea, but the restrictions make it not worth it.
> > > > > Casting and using a touch attack spell counts as two-weapon fighting?
> > >
> > > If you're attacking with the other hand in the same round?
> > > Sure, I dare to say. ;-)
> >
> > However, you're not getting an extra attack, you're spending one of your
> > iterative attacks. Doing the same with two short swords wouldn't incur
> > TWF penalties, I think: someone with BAB +6/+1 can attack with his
> > primary hand at +6, and his secondary at +1... with an additional -4
> > penalty, if he doesn't have TWF, but that's the off-hand penalty, not
> > the TWF penalty.
> >
> > For your feat, tying it to TWF would make more sense if it let you use
> > the spell attack as an additional light off-hand attack.
>
> If I get you right (and I can be dumb sometimes...) you would
> allow the (extra) attack with a touch spell at -2 to attack
> without modifying the attacks of the primary hand.
>
> I think that makes more sense indeed. Otherwise touch spells would
> result in greater penalties than other spells, which is not exactly intuitive.

Right. So a guy with BAB +6/+1 could attack at +6/+1 with a sword; or at
+6 with a touch spell; or at +4/-1 with the sword and +4 with the spell,
using TWF rules and counting the spell as a light weapon. If the spell
doesn't require an attack roll, you don't make it, but you still take
the penalty with the sword, resulting in +4/-1.


--
Jasin Zujovic
jzujovic@inet.hr
Anonymous
July 6, 2005 8:00:31 AM

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

Jasin Zujovic wrote:
> In article <1120587890.169104.300750@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
> Lorenz.Lang@gmx.de says...
>
> Just drop the spell level requirement. If they don't yet have 2nd-level
> spells, they'll be casting melee 0-level spells, so, eh, whatever. If
> they do have 2nd-level spells... they'd fulfill your prereq. :) 

Okay. No min. spell level, but I stick with the restriction to spells
one level below max.

> I'd also drop the BAB requirement to +3, because I don't think this is
> something an eldritch knight (wannabe) should have to wait until 9th-
> level to be able to do. And an eldritch knight wannabe is a Ftr1/Wiz5
> when he gets his 6th-level feat, and still has BAB +3.

Okay again. BAB +3 just for the EK wannabe :) 

> > > > The feat can not be applied to spells with an XP cost or
> > > > expensive material components (any with a cost of at
> > > > least 1 gp).
> > >
> > > Why this?
> >
> > Just my personal gusto. These spells are special and I thought
> > they shouldn't be cast en passant during melee.
>
> <shrug> They sometimes get cast like that without this feat. OK, not
> during melee, but I can easily see an eldritch knight doing melee -
> whoops, getting whacked; stoneskin - melee - melee - &c.

I looked through the spells in the SRD. Many spells with XP or gp cost
have long casting times anyway and couldn't be used with the feat.
Feat texts should be short and easy, so I'd just drop the restriction.

> > MELEE MAGIC [METAMAGIC]
> >
> > Prerequisites:
> > Dex 15, Two-Weapon Fighting, Combat Casting,
> > BAB +4 (, ability to cast 2nd level spells)
> >
> > Benefit:
> > As a full round action you can cast a spell on the
> > defensive
>
> BTW, to pick a nit, I wouldn't specify defensive casting. If, for some
> reason (invisibility, greater reach...), the caster wants to cast
> without going on the defensive, let him. Of course, most of the time,
> the caster will want to cast on the defensive anyway.

That's a relic of the dropped -2 to concentration checks that
can be dropped too.

> > and attack with your primary hand at a -2 penalty.
> > You have to wield a melee weapon in your primary hand
> > and your secondary hand has to be empty to use this feat.
>
> What about if the spell has no somatic components?

The empty hand is needed for balance? :) 
Should this requirement be dropped?

> The way this version works, without increasing the spell level, but
> limited to spells one level below max, I don't think it should be a
> metamagic feat at all. The way it feels now is that you're not
> preparing/casting spell in a different way, you've just learned how to
> coordinate your hands/arms/mind so you can whack people with a sword
> while casting a spell with your off hand.

You're probably right again.

> Making it not-metamagic also neatly solves the "how does it work out for
> a sorc?" problem, like for Eschew Materials.

Good point too.

> BTW, ignoring the sorcerer issue for now, when exactly does the spell
> take effect? It will make a difference most of the time, but will be
> especially important with the likes of true strike, which affect the
> next attack you make.

Before, after or between attacks, caster's choice?
(Like the 5' step rule.)

The text gets shorter and the feat better - I hope...
Changed the type, prereqs, defensive casting and emtpy hand
restrictions, "handedness"

----------------------------------------
MELEE MAGIC [GENERAL]

Prerequisites:
Dex 15, Two-Weapon Fighting, Combat Casting, BAB +3

Benefit:
As a full round action you can cast a spell and
make melee attacks at a -2 penalty.
The attack penalty applies until your next turn.
The spell must have a normal casting time of one standard
action or less and be at least one level below your
maximum spell level.
You can cast the spell before, between or after your
attacks and 5' step for the round.

If you cast a spell with a range of touch and/or somatic
components, one of your hands must be empty.
If you cast a touch spell it must be discharged with
the empty hand. You may discharge the spell in the round
it is cast with the -2 penalty to the attack roll
mentioned above in addition to your other attacks.
Otherwise the normal rules for holding the charge apply.
----------------------------------------

LL
Anonymous
July 10, 2005 5:25:56 AM

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

Jasin Zujovic wrote:
> In article <1120658886.995638.13520@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com>,
> Lorenz.Lang@gmx.de says...
>
> > MELEE MAGIC [GENERAL]
>
> BTW, I just found out that there's a class in the Miniature's Handbook
> which does pretty much what we were trying to do here, allowing you to
> cast up to 8th-level spells while also making a melee attack, as a full-
> round action. You might want to check it out.

Ummm.... :) 

http://groups-beta.google.com/group/rec.games.frp.dnd/m...

Laszlo
Anonymous
July 10, 2005 1:44:39 PM

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

In article <1120658886.995638.13520@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com>,
Lorenz.Lang@gmx.de says...

> MELEE MAGIC [GENERAL]

BTW, I just found out that there's a class in the Miniature's Handbook
which does pretty much what we were trying to do here, allowing you to
cast up to 8th-level spells while also making a melee attack, as a full-
round action. You might want to check it out.


--
Jasin Zujovic
jzujovic@inet.hr
Anonymous
July 10, 2005 4:37:50 PM

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

In article <1120983956.343520.138910@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
laszlo_spamhole@freemail.hu says...

> > > MELEE MAGIC [GENERAL]
> >
> > BTW, I just found out that there's a class in the Miniature's Handbook
> > which does pretty much what we were trying to do here, allowing you to
> > cast up to 8th-level spells while also making a melee attack, as a full-
> > round action. You might want to check it out.
>
> Ummm.... :) 
>
> http://groups-beta.google.com/group/rec.games.frp.dnd/m...

Eh. I don't remember that post at all. I don't know if my server didn't
carry it, or I just tuned it out for some reason.

My excuse is that I was having exams at the time, so I wasn't paying
full attention to rgfd matters. :) 


--
Jasin Zujovic
jzujovic@inet.hr
Anonymous
July 12, 2005 7:35:18 PM

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

Jasin Zujovic wrote:
> Lorenz.Lang@gmx.de says...
>>MELEE MAGIC [GENERAL]
> BTW, I just found out that there's a class in the Miniature's Handbook
> which does pretty much what we were trying to do here, allowing you to
> cast up to 8th-level spells while also making a melee attack, as a full-
> round action. You might want to check it out.

It's also related to the Daggerspell PrC in Complete Arcane.
--
"... respect, all good works are not done by only good folk. For within these Trials, we
shall do what needs to be done."
--till next time, Jameson Stalanthas Yu -x- <<poetry.dolphins-cove.com>>
!