Magical Knack + Wayang Spellhunter = Win?


Rules Questions

1 to 50 of 56 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>

12 people marked this as FAQ candidate. Answered in the FAQ. 2 people marked this as a favorite.

So would this combo work?
. Can I use these two traits in conjunction with 0-Level Metamagics to lower the original spell level?

I have listed the Traits below. By the wording it should work.
.
.

Wayang Spellhunter:
Wayang Spellhunter (Minata)

Choose: A spell of 3rd level or below.

Benefit: When you use the chosen spell with a metamagic feat, it uses up a spell slot one level lower than it normally would.

Magical Lineage:
Magical Lineage

Benefit: Pick one spell when you choose this trait. When you apply metamagic feats to this spell, treat its actual level as 1 lower for determining the spell’s final adjusted level.

For example. If i have both traits could I make a Magus that has memorized a 0-Level Tenebrous Intensified Shocking Grasp?

How about a Tenebrous Merciful Scorching Ray as a Cantrip?

Im not seeing anything by the wording or under the rules of Metamagic Feats that say this doesn't work. I'm sure it wasn't intended to work this way but it looks like it does if you go strictly off the wording of the traits. If it does I think Magus just lost their 15 minute work day and became true DPR kings lol.


Cheese! Seriously, though, this should probably be errata'd...

Silver Crusade

Rule of thumb: if you found something obviously broken, it's not intended so don't use it.


Im not saying Im going to use it. I just noticed it and wondered if I had misread it.

Contributor

Dragonamedrake wrote:

So would this combo work?

. Can I use these two traits in conjunction with 0-Level Metamagics to lower the original spell level?

I have listed the Traits below. By the wording it should work.
.
.
** spoiler omitted **

** spoiler omitted **

For example. If i have both traits could I make a Magus that has memorized a 0-Level Tenebrous Intensified Shocking Grasp?

How about a Tenebrous Merciful Scorching Ray as a Cantrip?

Im not seeing anything by the wording or under the rules of Metamagic Feats that say this doesn't work. I'm sure it wasn't intended to work this way but it looks like it does if you go strictly off the wording of the traits. If it does I think Magus just lost their 15 minute work day and became true DPR kings lol.

I don't think having multiple metamagic feats would cause the effect to stack multiple times. The feat says "a" metamagic feat, not "each" metamagic feat. In the example of Shocking Grasp, I could see the argument for allowing it to be a 1st level spell.

However, that is almost definitely not the intent of the spell to begin with.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder PF Special Edition, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

You can't lower a metamagic cost below zero, because at zero, there is no cost to lower. Period, end of story. As soon as you pick one of these options, the other no longer applies.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens Subscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber

Well neither feat is discussing the cost of metamagic, they're expressly speaking in regards to the level of the spell. Is it intended to drop it below the actual level of the spell, no probably not.


LazarX wrote:
You can't lower a metamagic cost below zero, because at zero, there is no cost to lower. Period, end of story. As soon as you pick one of these options, the other no longer applies.

I'd go by this line, but also tell the guys crying cheese to politely shut up.


Even if you lower the effective spell level to 0 it doesn't turn the spell into an orizon or cantrip. So I'd say you could use a 0 level slot to cast it but it is expended after casting it because only cantrips and orizons can be cast any number of times per day.

Silver Crusade

Icyshadow wrote:
LazarX wrote:
You can't lower a metamagic cost below zero, because at zero, there is no cost to lower. Period, end of story. As soon as you pick one of these options, the other no longer applies.
I'd go by this line, but also tell the guys crying cheese to politely shut up.

We don't tell other posters to shut up in this community.


Umbranus wrote:
Even if you lower the effective spell level to 0 it doesn't turn the spell into an orizon or cantrip. So I'd say you could use a 0 level slot to cast it but it is expended after casting it because only cantrips and orizons can be cast any number of times per day.

Exactly this.

Shadow Lodge

Umbranus wrote:
Even if you lower the effective spell level to 0 it doesn't turn the spell into an orizon or cantrip. So I'd say you could use a 0 level slot to cast it but it is expended after casting it because only cantrips and orizons can be cast any number of times per day.

This sounds good, But I won't be surprised if there is a FAQ stating that the use of Wayang Spellhunter and Magical Lineage cannot lower the spell level of a meta-magiced spell below its original level


I'm not saying I don't agree with all your arguments. The intent of the trait is to lower the cost of metamagic's that raise the level of the spell. However there are metamagic's that don't raise the level of the spell.

By the wording it works exactly as stated:

When you use the chosen spell with a metamagic feat, it uses up a spell slot one level lower than it normally would.

Tenebrous Spell metamagic raises the level of the spell by +0.

So for example according to the wording:

Tenebrous Spell (+0) + Shocking Grasp (1st)= 1st level spell.

You take Magical Lineage it becomes...

Tenebrous Spell (+0) + Shocking Grasp (1st)+ Magical Lineage (-1)= 0 level spell.

LazarX wrote:
You can't lower a metamagic cost below zero, because at zero, there is no cost to lower. Period, end of story. As soon as you pick one of these options, the other no longer applies.

Unfortunately, there is no rule anywhere stating that. Its just not there. It sounds nice though.

Umbranus wrote:
Even if you lower the effective spell level to 0 it doesn't turn the spell into an orizon or cantrip. So I'd say you could use a 0 level slot to cast it but it is expended after casting it because only cantrips and orizons can be cast any number of times per day.

Again unfortunately this isnt the case. Cantrip is another name for 0 level spell. If you lower any spell to 0 level it is a cantrip.

As for the cheese thing. I am not saying that it should be used. I simply think a line like "You can not lower a spell below its original level." should be added to each trait, because as written you can lower a spell below its intended level.


This has all happened before, and it will happen again.


A Snooty Gnome wrote:

This has all happened before, and it will happen again.

Well I flagged my original post for an FAQ so it wont happen again. :)


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Dragonamedrake wrote:
Unfortunately, there is no rule anywhere stating that. Its just not there. It sounds nice though.

People might be thinking back to the d&d 3.5 ruling on the feat Arcane Thesis, which is somewhat of precedence for a thing like this. But indeed, Pathfinder has made no ruling, errata, whatever in regards to this.

PHB II errata wrote:

Page 74 – Arcane Thesis [Omission]

Add the following text to the end of the “Benefit” section: “A spell cannot be reduced to below its original level with the use of this feat.”

...

Dragonamedrake wrote:

Again unfortunately this isnt the case. Cantrip is another name for a 0 level spell. If you lower any spell to 0 level it is a cantrip.

Quite right, there's no such thing as a cantrip descriptor in a spell, it's just a cantrip by virtue of being level 0.

Pathfinder Core Rulebook wrote:
Cantrips: Wizards can prepare a number of cantrips, or 0-level spells, each day, as noted on Table: Wizard under “Spells per Day.” These spells are cast like any other spell, but they are not expended when cast and may be used again. A wizard can prepare a cantrip from a prohibited school, but it uses up two of his available slots (see below).

...

A Snooty Gnome wrote:
This has all happened before, and it will happen again.

Of course! Players always look for ways to combine synergistic things and stumble upon all sorts of potential cheese. That's why errata come in. Like with Spell Perfection and Echoing Spell used to create infinite spells. I think there was also a thread last year about Merciful Spell and Magical Lineage.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I actually think that RAW you technically *can* lower a spell below its original level, but also that reducing the effective level to 0 does NOT make it a cantrip. A cantrip seems to be defined as a spell that is level 0 ab initio (just like haste is a 3rd level wizard spell, whether you cast it using a 4th or 2nd level spell slot). It's just like how an extended haste cast using a 4th level spell slot is still a 3rd level spell. You can apply Wayang Spellhunter and magical lineage to cast it using a 2nd level spell slot. It is STILL a 3rd level spell.

Reducing the level of a spell to 0 means you have to use a level 0 or higher spell slot to cast it. If you are a sorcerer or oracle, you have no level 0 spell slots, so you have to use at least a 1st level slot. If you are a wizard, you can use a 0 level slot, but that means you get one shot, rather than using it an unlimited number of times.

So it doesn't matter even if you somehow reduce the minimum spell slot required to negative. It is not a cantrip, and you still need to find an appropriate spell slot to cast it with.

Dark Archive

1 person marked this as FAQ candidate. 1 person marked this as a favorite.

You cannot reduce a spell below 1'st level because cantrips/orisons are a unique class features, I remember a faq post somewhere stating this ...


Eh, that might be the correct interpretation on cantrips. But you have to admit this is something that should be officially addressed in an errata to end the misconception.

..and we still haven't heard about preparing a Fireball in a 2nd level spell slot, right? (Merciful Spell and Magical Lineage, or whatever combo.)


I would simply say they don't stack because they're both from traits and therefore are coming from the same source.


Paladin of Baha-who? wrote:
I would simply say they don't stack because they're both from traits and therefore are coming from the same source.

These traits aren't granting a trait bonus so they should work together. The rules only mention trait bonuses not stacking. ...but I wouldn't be surprised if GMs ruled that way.

APG wrote:
Many traits grant a new type of bonus: a “trait” bonus. Trait bonuses do not stack.


The Chort wrote:
Paladin of Baha-who? wrote:
I would simply say they don't stack because they're both from traits and therefore are coming from the same source.

These traits aren't granting a trait bonus so they should work together. The rules only mention trait bonuses not stacking. ...but I wouldn't be surprised if GMs ruled that way.

APG wrote:
Many traits grant a new type of bonus: a “trait” bonus. Trait bonuses do not stack.

Correct. It doesn't provide a trait bonus and therefore stacks. There are several traits that do this. The provide a moral bonus for example. Those stack with trait bonuses.


They're not technically trait bonuses, but they are from the same source, and untyped bonuses from the same source don't stack.


Paladin of Baha-who? wrote:
They're not technically trait bonuses, but they are from the same source, and untyped bonuses from the same source don't stack.

Unfortunately, I need to disagree with you here. Saying 2 seperate traits are the same source is like saying that 2 seperate feats are the same source. If this was right, then the damage bonuses from weapon specialisation and power attack would not stack by virtue of being 'untyped bonuses from the same source'.

Paizo Employee Design Manager

FiddlersGreen wrote:

I actually think that RAW you technically *can* lower a spell below its original level, but also that reducing the effective level to 0 does NOT make it a cantrip. A cantrip seems to be defined as a spell that is level 0 ab initio (just like haste is a 3rd level wizard spell, whether you cast it using a 4th or 2nd level spell slot). It's just like how an extended haste cast using a 4th level spell slot is still a 3rd level spell. You can apply Wayang Spellhunter and magical lineage to cast it using a 2nd level spell slot. It is STILL a 3rd level spell.

Reducing the level of a spell to 0 means you have to use a level 0 or higher spell slot to cast it. If you are a sorcerer or oracle, you have no level 0 spell slots, so you have to use at least a 1st level slot. If you are a wizard, you can use a 0 level slot, but that means you get one shot, rather than using it an unlimited number of times.

So it doesn't matter even if you somehow reduce the minimum spell slot required to negative. It is not a cantrip, and you still need to find an appropriate spell slot to cast it with.

^^ This.

You don't have 0 level spell slots, so you can't use this combo to cast a spell as a cantrip. Other than that, they do work together. I think there was an earlier thread on this that had some good links.


Halfling Barbarian wrote:
Cheese! Seriously, though, this should probably be errata'd...

Alright, I've had enough. What the hell does cheese mean?

FiddlersGreen wrote:

I actually think that RAW you technically *can* lower a spell below its original level, but also that reducing the effective level to 0 does NOT make it a cantrip. A cantrip seems to be defined as a spell that is level 0 ab initio (just like haste is a 3rd level wizard spell, whether you cast it using a 4th or 2nd level spell slot). It's just like how an extended haste cast using a 4th level spell slot is still a 3rd level spell. You can apply Wayang Spellhunter and magical lineage to cast it using a 2nd level spell slot. It is STILL a 3rd level spell.

Reducing the level of a spell to 0 means you have to use a level 0 or higher spell slot to cast it. If you are a sorcerer or oracle, you have no level 0 spell slots, so you have to use at least a 1st level slot. If you are a wizard, you can use a 0 level slot, but that means you get one shot, rather than using it an unlimited number of times.

So it doesn't matter even if you somehow reduce the minimum spell slot required to negative. It is not a cantrip, and you still need to find an appropriate spell slot to cast it with.

Also, I'm with this guy. You're attempting to cast a spell, not a cantrip or an orison. Only cantrips and orisons can be cast an unlimited number of times.


Harrison wrote:
Halfling Barbarian wrote:
Cheese! Seriously, though, this should probably be errata'd...

Alright, I've had enough. What the hell does cheese mean?

FiddlersGreen wrote:

I actually think that RAW you technically *can* lower a spell below its original level, but also that reducing the effective level to 0 does NOT make it a cantrip. A cantrip seems to be defined as a spell that is level 0 ab initio (just like haste is a 3rd level wizard spell, whether you cast it using a 4th or 2nd level spell slot). It's just like how an extended haste cast using a 4th level spell slot is still a 3rd level spell. You can apply Wayang Spellhunter and magical lineage to cast it using a 2nd level spell slot. It is STILL a 3rd level spell.

Reducing the level of a spell to 0 means you have to use a level 0 or higher spell slot to cast it. If you are a sorcerer or oracle, you have no level 0 spell slots, so you have to use at least a 1st level slot. If you are a wizard, you can use a 0 level slot, but that means you get one shot, rather than using it an unlimited number of times.

So it doesn't matter even if you somehow reduce the minimum spell slot required to negative. It is not a cantrip, and you still need to find an appropriate spell slot to cast it with.

Also, I'm with this guy. You're attempting to cast a spell, not a cantrip or an orison. Only cantrips and orisons can be cast an unlimited number of times.

Imo cheese means that despite something being legal, its so outrageous and/or game breaking that whether or not it Does say that, it shouldn't- and therefore won't likely be allowed in an actual game environment.

-S


The Chort's 1st post covered everything well and accurately. RAW, it works. I don't like it and would houserule it away in my games. But there's a LOT of crap PF did that I hate, so nothing new.

And "stacking" doesn't matter for the discussion. Even if the traits didn't stack, you could just pick one of them and use it w/ the metamagic that makes a damage spell do nonlethal (+0 level adjustment) and create the same trick; just with a smaller list of spells.


As far as I know, you can't turn any spell into a cantrip by lowering the level of it with a/multiple trait/s.

I also don't think things like that would stack sadly, so you'd more than likely just get the standard -1 spell level from it when determining which meta-magic feats you can slap onto it.

If this worked, I'd have done it on Murderous Command to Extend and Heighten the spell! :p


I'd actually say you could use it to make it a cantrip, since by magical lineage

"Magical Lineage
Benefit: Pick one spell when you choose this trait. When you apply metamagic feats to this spell, treat its actual level as 1 lower for determining the spell’s final adjusted level."

Your lowering the actual level of the spell and not just the spell slot it takes up, so effectively a magic missile (1st level spell) with merciful (+0 adjustment) would be a cantrip since your lowering the actual level of magic missile. You'd have the drawback of lowered DC and what not....but hey it's magic missile, there's no save anyways.

Is it cheese, yes. Could it work...sure why not. But that's just my opinion.


Mate, may need to read it again.

"treat its actual level as 1 lower for determining the spell’s final adjusted level."

'Final and 'adjusted' are the key words there.


Yea but if your modifying it with a +0 modifier and reducing it's level by 1 afterwards for it's "final adjusted level" it's still a 0 level spell.

Your still treating it's actual level as lower per it's wording, as one level, even though it's adjusted by the metamagic. And as someone said since cantrip is just another word for 0 level spells, it would mean you could also argue "actual" is the key word, making it...

(1 + 0) - 1 = 0

Again though, that's just my interpretation.


It clearly is not RAI, so I'm FAQing it in the hopes it is errata'd away.


frostdracul wrote:

Yea but if your modifying it with a +0 modifier and reducing it's level by 1 afterwards for it's "final adjusted level" it's still a 0 level spell.

Your still treating it's actual level as lower per it's wording, as one level, even though it's adjusted by the metamagic. And as someone said since cantrip is just another word for 0 level spells, it would mean you could also argue "actual" is the key word, making it...

(1 + 0) - 1 = 0

Again though, that's just my interpretation.

I'd suggest that "for determining the spell's final level" is not the same as "for all intents and purposes". The line means that it is treated as 1 level lower for the sole purpose of calculating the final adjusted level, and for no other purpose.

The Exchange

This has Been addressed so many times. a spell that becomes a 0 level spell does not become a cantrip.

The Exchange

It is also a common rule to refer back to 3.5 if anything is not clearly explained in pathfinder (at least until paizo errata or faqs it) and in 3.5 you couldn't reduce below 1.


Nephril wrote:
This has Been addressed so many times. a spell that becomes a 0 level spell does not become a cantrip.

Where is the rule for this. Everyone keeps saying this like its a rule. There is no rule that says this.

In fact if you look at the description of Cantrip is specifically states Cantrip is another word for 0-Level spell.

From the SRD:

Wizards can prepare a number of cantrips, or 0-level spells, each day, as noted on Table: Wizard under “Spells per Day.” These spells are cast like any other spell, but they are not expended when cast and may be used again.

I hope it is FAQ'ed too, because as it stands, I think it works exactly as stated... it can lower a 1st(or 2nd) level spell to become a Cantrip.

Dark Archive

Dragonamedrake wrote:
Nephril wrote:
This has Been addressed so many times. a spell that becomes a 0 level spell does not become a cantrip.

Where is the rule for this. Everyone keeps saying this like its a rule. There is no rule that says this.

In fact if you look at the description of Cantrip is specifically states Cantrip is another word for 0-Level spell.

From the SRD:

Wizards can prepare a number of cantrips, or 0-level spells, each day, as noted on Table: Wizard under “Spells per Day.” These spells are cast like any other spell, but they are not expended when cast and may be used again.

I hope it is FAQ'ed too, because as it stands, I think it works exactly as stated... it can lower a 1st(or 2nd) level spell to become a Cantrip.

It may not be "errata" like some people desire but James Jacobs made his stance very clear on the subject here.


I don't see why the two shouldn't work together, metamagic feats are damn weak compared to 3.5 possibilities with them, even if you have both of these and get a -2 metamagic level modifier for a single/same spell, using a single metamagic which changes the level by +3 would still increase it by one, and in the end it would only work for that one, lone spell. I see this as a very focused specialization for that one spell's use, not unlike how some classes gain a spell at lower level than others.

Honestly, metamagic in Pathfinder is very uninteresting to me, even in 3.5 I only used it twice maybe (or just once). If a person doesn't absolutely focus on metamagic it just isn't worth it, and I think the idea behind metamagic was to allow spels to evolve and improve.

I would have liked if Pathfinder would have allowed spells to be "skilled up" as a character advances so that one spell could be improved so it becomes hard to resist while another becomes able to affect more targets or larger area. Without use of metamagic, purely through how a caster improved/leveled up the spell itself. Metamagic as mentioned, just looks like a badly implemented method to try to be like this.

EDIT: as for negative leveled spells, I am pretty sure you can't make a level 3 spell into a level 1 because of the -2 modifier, it just means you have a "slot" of 2 level modifiers for free, but the spell has still to be cast at the default level even if not modified by metamagic.


joriandrake wrote:

I don't see why the two shouldn't work together, metamagic feats are damn weak compared to 3.5 possibilities with them, even if you have both of these and get a -2 metamagic level modifier for a single/same spell, using a single metamagic which changes the level by +3 would still increase it by one, and in the end it would only work for that one, lone spell. I see this as a very focused specialization for that one spell's use, not unlike how some classes gain a spell at lower level than others.

Honestly, metamagic in Pathfinder is very uninteresting to me, even in 3.5 I only used it twice maybe (or just once). If a person doesn't absolutely focus on metamagic it just isn't worth it, and I think the idea behind metamagic was to allow spels to evolve and improve.

I would have liked if Pathfinder would have allowed spells to be "skilled up" as a character advances so that one spell could be improved so it becomes hard to resist while another becomes able to affect more targets or larger area. Without use of metamagic, purely through how a caster improved/leveled up the spell itself. Metamagic as mentioned, just looks like a badly implemented method to try to be like this.

EDIT: as for negative leveled spells, I am pretty sure you can't make a level 3 spell into a level 1 because of the -2 modifier, it just means you have a "slot" of 2 level modifiers for free, but the spell has still to be cast at the default level even if not modified by metamagic.

Umm...no. No, they are not weaker in PF. Energy Substitution, which was pretty weaksauce as it was, got inexplicably nerfed into a +1 metamagic. But other than that one, all others are the same and the PF additional metamagic feats are beastly, stupidly good. Bouncing Spell, Persistent Spell, Dazing Spell, Selective Spell...these are incredible! Nothing nearly as good as them in 3E! And just compare the 3E Reach Spell vs. PF version sometime.

Metamagic is buffed in PF, just like casters as a whole are.


not true, Persistent Spell as example from your list is not even having the same effect as it had in 3.x and only the name is the same, there were also multiple metamagic-centered classes in 3.x while it doesn't look that way in pathfinder (unless you count the Arcane bloodline sorcerer)

still, wouldn't you also just prefer to any kind of metamagic the ability to level the spells up, so two spells of two different characters could evolve very differently despite being cast on the same level?


Yes, I'm aware PF persistent spell is totally different than 3E feat of the same name. The 3E feat was ridiculously broken, at both extremes. Used normally it was prohibitively expensive for what it did. Used w/o paying the cost (most commonly via Divine Metamagic) and it become horrifically overpowered. Guess that's what happens when some idiot writes up a +SIX level adjustment feat that defaults the spell you apply it to to a 24 hour duration, without caring one bit what its original duration actually was, whether it was 1 round or 2 days/level.

I'm saying there was no meta feat in 3E like PF's Persistent Spell.

And what metamagic focused classes? Only ones I can think of were Incantatrix and Dweomerkeeper, 2 of the 3 most commonly banned prestige classes in the game (planar shepherd rounding out the top 3) due to how blatantly overpowered they were. Are your examples of how metamagic was better in 3E only going to be limited to theoretical optimization crap like DMM + Persistent, or Incantatrix, that seldom if ever were actually used in a real game?


From what I am seeing on thesrd you are taking a DC 15 concentration check anytime you want to cast that one spell--higher if you apply any further metamagic feats on top of it. Further, this little trick is only going to work on first level spells, which seems pretty good at low levels, but less so the higher level your character gets to. Some spells, like Glitterdust, would be pretty cool cantrips, but again you are looking at that concentration check to make sure you don't botch things.

So even if, by RAW, it works, I am not terribly frightened of this little combo. Anybody with good system mastery got a good way to really show how damaging it could be to game balance?


Both magical knack and wayang spellhunter refer to "effective spell level" not "spell level". In creating spells if you took an existing spell and you lowered its spell level you got a weaker spell. (go investigate creating spells) Hieghten spell feat is used to adjust the spells level not its effective level otherwise adding a 0 effective level to spells with other meta-magics would increase their dc.
Both magical knack and wayang spellhunter address the effective level and the only things that change effective level are meta-magics. Therefor, you can logically and deduce that you may not lower a spells effective level bellow the spells actual level.
If the english language is getting to everyone becouse spell level and actual spell level are so close in composition try this: substatute the words "ability to cast" for "spell level" and "cast energy" for "effective spell level". Then they would read something like this.
Shocking Grasp requires ability to cast level one spells (therefor uses up a level one spell slot). Meta-magic intisify spell require the cast energy of a secound level spell slot (therefor requiring the use of a secound level spell slot). Magical knack or wayang spell hunter lowers the cast energy needed to cast a spell by one spell slot (leting you cast an intisified shocking grasp using a level one spell slot). If you apply both traits to a the spell you would still require the ability to cast a level one spell slot.
Since you are a memorize spell caster you would need to place those spell in the spell slot where you have the ability to cast the spell, once those spell spell slots are gone you no longer have the ability to cast those spells.
None memorize spell casters would have to choose on the spot how to use those avalible abilities to cast untill they are gone, increasing casting time do to fomulating the spell on the spot.
You can also come to this conclusion by using math instead of words.
Words are tricky in the english language due to the fact it's made up of alot of other languages and slang terms.


Carbon D. Metric wrote:
It may not be "errata" like some people desire but James Jacobs made his stance very clear on the subject here.

That...is actually saying exactly the opposite. <_< From the link:

James Jacobs wrote:

The rules as intended and as they should be interpreted are that you only get to cast 0 level spells at will. Once they're prepared with higher level spell slots, they follow all the rules for how higher level spell slots work.

Allowing all cantrips to be cast at will despite that spell slot you used to prepare the spell is an interesting house rule, though.

He's saying if you prepare a cantrip in a 1st level slot, you use the slot up when you cast it. That is in no way the same thing as "of you can prepare a 1st level spell as a cantrip, you do not use it up when you cast it" and, in fact, reinforces (in my opinion) the view that it would count as a cantrip, as what matters is what slot it's prepared in, not what its base level is.


1 person marked this as FAQ candidate.
DrowVampyre wrote:
Carbon D. Metric wrote:
It may not be "errata" like some people desire but James Jacobs made his stance very clear on the subject here.

That...is actually saying exactly the opposite. <_< From the link:

James Jacobs wrote:

The rules as intended and as they should be interpreted are that you only get to cast 0 level spells at will. Once they're prepared with higher level spell slots, they follow all the rules for how higher level spell slots work.

Allowing all cantrips to be cast at will despite that spell slot you used to prepare the spell is an interesting house rule, though.

He's saying if you prepare a cantrip in a 1st level slot, you use the slot up when you cast it. That is in no way the same thing as "of you can prepare a 1st level spell as a cantrip, you do not use it up when you cast it" and, in fact, reinforces (in my opinion) the view that it would count as a cantrip, as what matters is what slot it's prepared in, not what its base level is.

That's the exact same thing I inferred from James' post. xD


StreamOfTheSky wrote:

Yes, I'm aware PF persistent spell is totally different than 3E feat of the same name. The 3E feat was ridiculously broken, at both extremes. Used normally it was prohibitively expensive for what it did. Used w/o paying the cost (most commonly via Divine Metamagic) and it become horrifically overpowered. Guess that's what happens when some idiot writes up a +SIX level adjustment feat that defaults the spell you apply it to to a 24 hour duration, without caring one bit what its original duration actually was, whether it was 1 round or 2 days/level.

I'm saying there was no meta feat in 3E like PF's Persistent Spell.

And what metamagic focused classes? Only ones I can think of were Incantatrix and Dweomerkeeper, 2 of the 3 most commonly banned prestige classes in the game (planar shepherd rounding out the top 3) due to how blatantly overpowered they were. Are your examples of how metamagic was better in 3E only going to be limited to theoretical optimization crap like DMM + Persistent, or Incantatrix, that seldom if ever were actually used in a real game?

you totally misinterpreted my intention/comment and didn't reply to my question, if you would have thought about what I asked you should have realized what you accuse me of was not at all what I meant


Wildonion wrote:

From what I am seeing on thesrd you are taking a DC 15 concentration check anytime you want to cast that one spell--higher if you apply any further metamagic feats on top of it. Further, this little trick is only going to work on first level spells, which seems pretty good at low levels, but less so the higher level your character gets to. Some spells, like Glitterdust, would be pretty cool cantrips, but again you are looking at that concentration check to make sure you don't botch things.

So even if, by RAW, it works, I am not terribly frightened of this little combo. Anybody with good system mastery got a good way to really show how damaging it could be to game balance?

I don't think so, even if used on fireball it doesn't seem that much

1 to 50 of 56 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / Rules Questions / Magical Knack + Wayang Spellhunter = Win? All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.