Rewritten FAQ regarding metamagic


Rules Questions


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

The recent FAQ

FAQ wrote:

Metamagic: At what spell level does the spell count for concentration DCs, magus spell recall, or a pearl of power?

The spell counts as the level of the spell slot necessary to cast it.

For example, an empowered burning hands uses a 3rd-level spell slot, counts as a 3rd-level spell for making concentration checks, counts as a 3rd-level spell for a magus's spell recall or a pearl of power.

In general, use the (normal, lower) spell level or the (higher) spell slot level, whichever is more of a disadvantage for the caster. The advantages of the metamagic feat are spelled out in the Benefits section of the feat, and the increased spell slot level is a disadvantage.

Heighten Spell is really the only metamagic feat that makes using a higher-level spell slot an advantage instead of a disadvantage.

is unclear. There is an interpretation that it changes everything about metamagic according to what you write in the FAQ. Which would mean that metamagic rods operated off the new slot level of the spell with metamagic applied. As an example, a fireball (level 3) modified by the Quicken Spell feat (+4 levels) would require a greater rod of metamagic, empower, to empower, instead of a lesser rod as before. Is this what you intended? Or does the FAQ only apply to questions of concentration DCs, pearls of power, and the magus spell recall ability?

Second, the text in the FAQ starting with "The advantages of the..." to the end is unclear as to its purpose. Why was it included?

Third, if you intend for this FAQ to change the rules regarding metamagic feats that thoroughly, would not an errata be a better place to do it?

Liberty's Edge

Sissyl wrote:
There is an interpretation that it changes everything about metamagic according to what you write in the FAQ.

No, it changes very little. Mostly just the mis-interpretation that all other metamagic feats effectively had 'Heighten Spell' as a built in advantage.

Quote:
Which would mean that metamagic rods operated off the new slot level of the spell with metamagic applied. As an example, a fireball (level 3) modified by the Quicken Spell feat (+4 levels) would require a greater rod of metamagic, empower, to empower, instead of a lesser rod as before. Is this what you intended?

No. That's not what they intended.

Quote:
Second, the text in the FAQ starting with "The advantages of the..." to the end is unclear as to its purpose. Why was it included?

To make it clear that if you are interpreting the increased spell slot used to provide advantages then you are doing something wrong. The actual benefits are spelled out in the feat descriptions.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Talonhawke wrote:

So we can for instance have a sorcerer who wants to cast an enlarged fireball using a lesser quicken rod. In the area of effect is a wizard who has lesser Globe of Invulnerability up. How do we apply the FAQ?

1. It is more disadvantageous to cast as a swift action so the spell can't be used with the rod but still over comes the Globe. (Use higher level)

2. It is more disadvantageous to overcome the Globe so we can use the rod but its still a 3rd level spell and the wizard is save. (Use lower level)

3. Apply each circumstance on its own and treat this as a 4th level spell for the rod and a 3rd level spell for the Globe. (Use whatever is most disadvantageous for each spell level check)

Just gonna post my question and point of contention from the other thread. If it is as people are suggesting and 3 it really bothers me that spells can have 2 effective levels.

Sovereign Court RPG Superstar 2011 Top 32

This FAQ isn't that recent. It's pretty clear that the intention is that a metamagic spell is higher level where that would be bad for you, and the original level where that would be bad for you. I don't see the confusion.

So:
Spell slot - higher
Concentration DC - higher
metamagic rod needed - higher
pearl of power needed - higher
magus spell recall - higher
save DC - lower
penetrate globe of invulnerability - lower

Seems obvious to me.


Talonhawke wrote:
Talonhawke wrote:

So we can for instance have a sorcerer who wants to cast an enlarged fireball using a lesser quicken rod. In the area of effect is a wizard who has lesser Globe of Invulnerability up. How do we apply the FAQ?

1. It is more disadvantageous to cast as a swift action so the spell can't be used with the rod but still over comes the Globe. (Use higher level)

2. It is more disadvantageous to overcome the Globe so we can use the rod but its still a 3rd level spell and the wizard is save. (Use lower level)

3. Apply each circumstance on its own and treat this as a 4th level spell for the rod and a 3rd level spell for the Globe. (Use whatever is most disadvantageous for each spell level check)

Just gonna post my question and point of contention from the other thread. If it is as people are suggesting and 3 it really bothers me that spells can have 2 effective levels.

Being personally bothered by it does not mean the reading of the rule is wrong. (Lots of people are bothered by the hands of effort/physical hands FAQ - but it is still the rule).

+1 to what Ryric said. No response needed for this FAQ request (though PDT may choose to further clarify it anyway like they did the fairly recent "flanking is melee only or not" question).

I'll keep the rest of my responses restricted to the other thread.


Seems silly to me. Simplify the whole thing and make spells be the level of the slot they cost.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
bbangerter wrote:
Talonhawke wrote:
Talonhawke wrote:

So we can for instance have a sorcerer who wants to cast an enlarged fireball using a lesser quicken rod. In the area of effect is a wizard who has lesser Globe of Invulnerability up. How do we apply the FAQ?

1. It is more disadvantageous to cast as a swift action so the spell can't be used with the rod but still over comes the Globe. (Use higher level)

2. It is more disadvantageous to overcome the Globe so we can use the rod but its still a 3rd level spell and the wizard is save. (Use lower level)

3. Apply each circumstance on its own and treat this as a 4th level spell for the rod and a 3rd level spell for the Globe. (Use whatever is most disadvantageous for each spell level check)

Just gonna post my question and point of contention from the other thread. If it is as people are suggesting and 3 it really bothers me that spells can have 2 effective levels.

Being personally bothered by it does not mean the reading of the rule is wrong. (Lots of people are bothered by the hands of effort/physical hands FAQ - but it is still the rule).

+1 to what Ryric said. No response needed for this FAQ request (though PDT may choose to further clarify it anyway like they did the fairly recent "flanking is melee only or not" question).

I'll keep the rest of my responses restricted to the other thread.

So spells have 2 levels if meta-magic is involved? And for x number of situations x can change based on what would be worst? That seems to be a flaw not just my issues with it.


It's worse for anything that deals with it. If there are multiple options you go with the one that ends up the weakest.

Sovereign Court RPG Superstar 2011 Top 32

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Talonhawke wrote:


So spells have 2 levels if meta-magic is involved? And for x number of situations x can change based on what would be worst? That seems to be a flaw not just my issues with it.

But that's always been true for as long as metamagic has existed - since 3.0. Even in the simplest case a empowered fireball is a 3rd level spell for saves/globe effects but requires a 5th level slot. That much was clear in the 3.0 PHB and has never changed.


This is just how metamagic works. For the use of items a metamagic spell is the level of slot you use. For the power of the spell, DC, etc. it is the level of the spell subject to metamagic. This isn't confusing or surprising really; it makes intuitive sense in application.


kyrt-ryder wrote:
Seems silly to me. Simplify the whole thing and make spells be the level of the slot they cost.

If they did that, Heighten Spell would be an obsolete means of increasing spell level, which is clearly not intended.

This FAQ basically says "You always take what is worse for the spell except for what the feat says it improves." That applies to slot cost, Save DCs, effects, and other variables that are impacted by the level of the spell being cast. It's not confusing, it's just annoying and one of the few things that keep spellcasters in check.


Yeah. Heighten spell shouldn't exist. I can't recall using it except for early entry shenanigans.


Sissyl wrote:

The recent FAQ

FAQ wrote:
Metamagic: At what spell level does the spell count for concentration DCs, magus spell recall, or a pearl of power?

is unclear.

As the one who started up the original thread that spawned this question, I'd like to thank you for summarising the problems with this FAQ.

I propose that we now all lean back, and wait for the editors to come up with a clarification. No use continuing this cat-fight, especially since the original thread has by now been closed.

Thanks, everyone who responded!

Kroisos.


Meta-Magic Rod wrote:
This does not change the spell slot of the altered spell.

The level of the spell slot is not altered. The FAQ has no effect on meta-magic applied via rod. To use the Fireball example: when quickened via rod, the Fireball remains a 3rd level spell occupying a 3rd level spell slot. Concentration DC, rod required, pearl of power, recall, etc. are still calculated for a 3rd level spell.


CBDunkerson wrote:


Quote:
Which would mean that metamagic rods operated off the new slot level of the spell with metamagic applied. As an example, a fireball (level 3) modified by the Quicken Spell feat (+4 levels) would require a greater rod of metamagic, empower, to empower, instead of a lesser rod as before. Is this what you intended?

No. That's not what they intended.

Why not? it seems exactly as intended.


Nicos wrote:
CBDunkerson wrote:


Quote:
Which would mean that metamagic rods operated off the new slot level of the spell with metamagic applied. As an example, a fireball (level 3) modified by the Quicken Spell feat (+4 levels) would require a greater rod of metamagic, empower, to empower, instead of a lesser rod as before. Is this what you intended?

No. That's not what they intended.

Why not? it seems exactly as intended.

Read the quoted rule above.

Meta-magic rods do not alter spell slot.

Sovereign Court

Pathfinder Starfinder Society Subscriber
Snowlilly wrote:
Nicos wrote:
CBDunkerson wrote:


Quote:
Which would mean that metamagic rods operated off the new slot level of the spell with metamagic applied. As an example, a fireball (level 3) modified by the Quicken Spell feat (+4 levels) would require a greater rod of metamagic, empower, to empower, instead of a lesser rod as before. Is this what you intended?

No. That's not what they intended.

Why not? it seems exactly as intended.

Read the quoted rule above.

Meta-magic rods do not alter spell slot.

The Quicken Spell feat does, though.


Starfinder Charter Superscriber
KingOfAnything wrote:
Snowlilly wrote:
Nicos wrote:
CBDunkerson wrote:


Quote:
Which would mean that metamagic rods operated off the new slot level of the spell with metamagic applied. As an example, a fireball (level 3) modified by the Quicken Spell feat (+4 levels) would require a greater rod of metamagic, empower, to empower, instead of a lesser rod as before. Is this what you intended?

No. That's not what they intended.

Why not? it seems exactly as intended.

Read the quoted rule above.

Meta-magic rods do not alter spell slot.

The Quicken Spell feat does, though.

What if you apply the quicken feat with spell perfection so you use still use a 3rd level slot, could you use a lesser rod then?


As both slot level and actual level would be level 3 then, then yes all effects would use level 3.


Snowlilly wrote:
Meta-Magic Rod wrote:
This does not change the spell slot of the altered spell.
The level of the spell slot is not altered. The FAQ has no effect on meta-magic applied via rod. To use the Fireball example: when quickened via rod, the Fireball remains a 3rd level spell occupying a 3rd level spell slot. Concentration DC, rod required, pearl of power, recall, etc. are still calculated for a 3rd level spell.

Yes but if you empower the fireball you will not be able to use , lets say, a lesser metamagic rod of dazing with it because the empowered fireball is effectively a 5th level spell.

Liberty's Edge

Nicos wrote:
CBDunkerson wrote:


Quote:
Which would mean that metamagic rods operated off the new slot level of the spell with metamagic applied. As an example, a fireball (level 3) modified by the Quicken Spell feat (+4 levels) would require a greater rod of metamagic, empower, to empower, instead of a lesser rod as before. Is this what you intended?

No. That's not what they intended.

Why not? it seems exactly as intended.

You're right, it is. It just isn't a change from "as before". It was always that way.

The Exchange Owner - D20 Hobbies

CBDunkerson wrote:
You're right, it is. It just isn't a change from "as before". It was always that way.

The original issue that kept cropping up was using rods or other "free metamagic" effects to stuff metamagic'd spells into ring of spell storing or a lower level than the slot it would take if done properly. After years of fussing over this type of stuff, presto we have the FAQ. It blocks that and more.

Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / Rules Questions / Rewritten FAQ regarding metamagic All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.