gniht's page

The which spell would work ? The fireball spell creates a sphere of fire, and then the sphere of fire deals damage, not the spell. Any spell can be described that way. the only spell that deals direct damage is the inflinct wounds spells.

Sounds like you're kind of deliberately avoiding Tarantula's point, which is that it's a conjuration spell. the critical distinction in my mind is that tentacles are SR: no. so I see his point, although I think there is a difference between conj (creation) and conjuration (summoning) that would allow one to apply merciful to creation type spells. but maybe that's just me?

Zog makes a good point. The spell conjures tentacles, the tentacles then deal damage. However, the way merciful spell is worded, is that if the spell deals damage, then it is non-lethal.

I'm iffy on whether that should allow the damage the tentacles cause to be non-lethal or not.

Interpretation a) the tentacles are an effect of the spell, and therefore should do non-lethal damage.
Counter to a) If you summon monter 1 (merciful) the summoned monster is an effect of the spell, and should therefore do non-lethal damage.

Interpretation b) the tentacles are the spell effect, not the damage. The summoning of the tentacles does no damage, and so merciful has no effect.

I don't really have a counter to B. So I think I would go with that in my games. Merciful does nothing for black tentacles/other created/summoned spells.

black tentacles aren't quite summoned monsters though, as there isn't a discrete number of them, they can't be damaged, and nothing even says you can target them in any way.

as far as summoned monsters go, you would not need merciful because you can direct them to deal non-lethal damage.

as far as merciful altering the type of damage it would be easy to say that a black tentacles spell augmented by merciful spell creates slightly different tentacles that deal only non-lethal damage... but yeah, I can certainly see arguments that merciful wouldn't work on the spell.

my main point is that allowing this spell to do non-lethal is essentially the equivalent of giving a caster merciful spell for free when the spell description suggests it wouldn't work. I don't see a problem house-ruling this way, so long as it's universal and not just on one spell. If the one spell in question really sounded like it *might* allow this, then a special case might be warranted... otherwise, just give everyone at the table merciful for free and call it good.

gniht wrote:

Tarantula wrote:

Grappling to deal damage states explicitly that the damage can be lethal or non-lethal. So it does bear some weight.

allowing the caster this option implies the tentacles are not mindless and are capable of following direction. furthermore it implicitly says that the caster is capable of directing them...

Unseen servant is a conjuration(creation) spell which conjures an explicitly mindless force. Yet is capable of following instruction.

Again, RAW tentacles do lethal damage.

Still, it isn't crazy to house-rule that the caster can decide for them to do non-lethal without needing merciful spell.

I totally agree it's not overpowered as a house rule, but I also agree with the sentiment of others that it would normally require the merciful spell feat to use it in this manner.

if I were to make a house rule that would allow this, I would instead simply house rule that merciful spell was a virtual feat that all casters had.

Grappling to deal damage states explicitly that the damage can be lethal or non-lethal. So it does bear some weight.

allowing the caster this option implies the tentacles are not mindless and are capable of following direction. furthermore it implicitly says that the caster is capable of directing them...

there is nothing I see in the spell description that would allow the caster to control or give commands to the tentacles in any way, so I would say you couldn't choose for them to do nonlethal unless you had applied merciful spell to it.

any caster could get a similar effect without the merciful meta using the summon creature line, as you could simply command the summoned grappler to subdue rather than kill.

*obviously house rules are house rules. but to me that seems like a stretch because it implies the caster has a degree of control over the actions of the tentacles.

I took Silent Spell at 5th level and it has worked for me, but I feel a majority of discoveries are situational when used in PFS. But, they add some flavor and variety to the character. At 10th level, I took opposition research.

yeah there are some (conceptually) cool things to get, but when you look at how few higher-level slots you'll have to play with through most of your career up to 12th... it's hard to imagine wanting much in the way of meta. they're still usable but for the most part are best applied from rods. if going all the way to 20th it'd be a bit different story but how it looks to me the bulk of the metamagic aren't really good options as things to drop feats on... in fact, most seem almost completely unusable unless you have something like the magical lineage trait for the spell.

maybe i'm being overly pessimistic and in a couple more levels i'll have spell slots galore but at the moment it seems prohibitive to prepare a spell with persistent or empower, and even a +1 slot level increase seems really rough to me. I could see having metamagic feats would be much more worthwhile to a spontaneous caster, but we're obviously talking about wizards.

newton says: F = ma

the way you'll want to focus your gear depends a lot on what the wizard build is and how you play him.

things you may consider:

handy haversack
arrow magnet
traveler's any-tool
eyes of the eagle
minor meta rods for +1 slot meta like extend, silent, selective

if in doubt, just don't spend anything yet. I went through a lot of games without much gear and it mostly doesn't seem like it mattered too much.

PS. the thing I have most wished I had so far was a rod for selective spell.

gniht wrote:

it's not like they just outlawed 1 feat choice... it's a huge proportion of the possible options that have been eliminated.

Huge proportion eliminated?

Went and counted, ~12 Item Creation feats vs. ~39 Metamagic and 1 Spell Mastery

I don't consider 1/5 a huge proportion of the options. You've still got ~77% of other options available and that's not even counting the discoveries.

perhaps this is a matter of personal opinion, but I think 23% is huge.

PS. when you look at a wizard build up to level 20, then picking up more meta also seems a lot better than if you're looking at a build retiring at 12th, which is the typical situation in PFS afaik.

On the other hand, 10 dollars is like... 10 tacos. I'd rather have the tacos.

haha, that makes me want to start a "tacos vs player companions" thread.

i'm thinking tacos by a landslide.

P.P.S. I must admit, Forest's Blessing actually looks pretty awesome... but I would have to spend $10 if I wanted to use it :(

Most of my GMs have banned item creation feats to begin with actually. I don't think its a huge hit. Metamagic is pretty powerful, and a great option, though not everyone likes it. I think its a little wierd spell focus isn't a choice, nor other wizard specific feats.

Another two options are Yuelral's Blessing and Steward of the Great Beyond.

I'm not disputing that there are options that a lot of people will like, I just think it makes sense to provide alternatives if you are eliminating options. it's not like they just outlawed 1 feat choice... it's a huge proportion of the possible options that have been eliminated.

PS. furthermore, if the available options are so good, why not allow spell focus or spell penetration or spell specialization as well?

Feral Speech, Fast Study, Opposition Research, Split Slot and Staff-like-wand are all really good! That's 5/10 and 3/5 of the remaining aren't allowed and Immortality you cannot get until 20th. That leaves Multimorph, which is situational at best.

i'm pretty sure that staff like wand wouldn't be legal in society play due to the pre-req... and that's the only one on this list that looks good to me.

PS. it seems pretty clear in my mind that what is "good" is a matter of how your play style, concept, and how you're building the wizard come together... and to a certain extent personal opinion. I think the fact that they eliminated so many good choices for those bonus feats by outlawing item creation is reason enough to add at least some other options... spell focus seems like one of the most obvious due to the swap they give for scribe scroll.

I see no reason why one could not save a feat, but I wouldn't think that doing so should ever allow the use of, say, your 3rd level character feat for something with a pre-req you *couldn't* have had at 3rd level.

I think it's important that the feats are limited to being used on what one would have qualified for at the level on which they received the feat.

if they would simply allow high intelligence to boost the number of orisons you have, then issues like this wouldn't come up so frequently.

to me it makes no sense that it's stuck at 4 on a wizard.

Remember that Wizards already get a free spell focus at first level to replace the loss of Scribe Scroll.

one could easily argue that it is almost implied that spell focus is added to the list because of the fact that scribe scroll is automatically replaced with a spell focus feat.

most of the discoveries suck.

in my opinion the list of options really should be officially expanded to at least include spell focus.

True name is banned. Toppling spell is a nice metamagic feat though. Make your magic missiles into trip attacks in addition to damage.

does toppling really scale well against target cmd?

I've seen people saying it works and I've seen people saying it doesn't work, particularly at higher levels.

If it was going to work it seems like it would be the most effective vs arcane casters, which also have the greatest likelihood to have shield active.

If so, would it be possible to purposefully extinguish the candle after memorizing spells, losing the 9th but keeping the 6/7/8 spells and only using up part of the candle?

Thanks!

if this worked it would be exceptionally strong on a mystic theurge I think, because they could potentially have fast study.

Glitterdust is great at making invisible enemies appear, and for that use is good through many levels. It's OK at making enemies blind, which is a great tool in your arsenal if you have a party member who uses sneak attacks. Since it's only level 2 and doesn't have damage dice, there's not much reason to apply Magical Lineage to it.

I suggest choosing a spell that targets fortitude, and another that targets reflex, both capable of hitting multiple enemies. That should give you maximum flexibility in the long run.

yeah maybe i'll pick up a minor persistent rod and call it good. I do really think the extra save from persistent would be the goods on a spell like this.

the big reason for trying to sort what i'm going to be focusing my traits on later is so I can decide what meta and focus to pick up as well. I need a couple staples that cover a lot of territory I think. flaming sphere + persistent? aqueous orb + persistent? glitterdust + persistent?

seems i'm just in love with persistent, but don't feel like I can prep it on much of anything without one of those traits to drop it 1 level.

maybe damn near everything meta is best left as a rod :(

I think it also depends on what class and build you have in general. What class and other choices, like bloodline or school?

*bonks self* ... yeah, that might help :)

i'm divination (forsight) school
opposition: necro, ench
spellbinder archetype
and I have spell focus (evo)

honestly I wasn't even sure if i'd get focus in conjuration... my main thing was that I wanted to be able to apply persistent when prepping it without boosting the level too high, and then tack on something else with a minor meta rod... maybe focused spell rod? maybe down the road quicken rod? too bad you can't selective duration spells :/

not sure. it seemed like persistent might be enough to make the save every round still be kind of ok...

but maybe it's better focusing on other things.

thanks for the help guys, i'll think on it some more :)

Anyone else want to pipe on this? I'm currently using it on my diviner to help with the abysmal spell selection of the divination school.

I do so because (and some of these points were noted by others):

1. Technically changing spells with the spellbinder archetype doesn't involve preparation, it just swaps the spell. (this is obviously a technicality that could allow it, not a justification)

2. The arcane bond is actually a pretty useful and potent ability and the difference in power level doesn't seem out of line. (personal opinion)

3. I feel the selection in divination falls behind other schools... and while the school powers are great, they're not clearly better than some other schools. (e.g. admixture or teleportation), while the spell selection frankly just sucks.

So yeah, I think it's justifiable, even appropriate... but probably was not intended to be used in this manner.

*slight edit on 2.

Pan wrote:

Key word is shouldn't. OPs example is joining a balanced 4 player group. What is the harm of a monk/oracle? Keep in mind mechanics are completely different than how a player chooses to roleplay the character.

PFS does expect a level of usefulness. There are even a few missions with DPR race things going on. I keep in mind roleplaying is different, I don't expect him to yell at the top of his lungs to alert foes during stealth missions or to make enemies out of everyone they meet. However I would hope he knows what he's doing to remain competent and useful.

Really thought, what's special about a monk/oracle?

maybe he's taking a couple pally later :p

but seriously...

don't sweat it. if the party is lacking something fundamental, then I think you should consider playing something else... but if your party is pretty balanced already, why not?

the important thing is that you think the concept is cool, and that you have a well defined idea about what the character is going to contribute in different situations.

assuming the team can accomplish it's goals without using a ridiculous amount of consumables, the only reason others really have to be irritated is that their specialized build rolled crappy attempting to do something they were made to do, and you had a decent roll and accomplished it.

but that's how the d20 works, particularly at low levels.

this spell seems to be poorly worded.

on one hand if I make a combat maneuver with the spell, i'm using my caster level and adding my primary casting attribute... which seems good, but...

then on the other hand if I make a disable device or sleight of hand check, then it says nothing of how my caster level or primary casting stat would play in, if at all. so am I just going off a d20 + dex? that doesn't make too much sense in terms of what it gives you for the combat maneuver... I mean, does my ability to manipulate the force magic diminish when I have more time to concentrate on something?

also it says it lasts "as long as you need to accomplish the task," which seems like it should probably read as long as you need to "attempt" the task (assuming a normal attempt, not a rushed one).

PS furthermore it only implies it allows you to use those skills untrained. (e.g. to accomplish sleight of hand checks higher than dc 10)

monk... probably just 2

if I didn't hate playing cha based chars then pally 2-4

the classes in pathfinder are so much better in general that there is usually a temptation to go pure in most classes... and I think that's awesome.

PS though looking ahead at what a class could get it only makes me want to cry when I think that i'll only ever make ~12th level in PFS :(

I thought trait bonuses didn't stack.

gniht wrote:

it's not a lot of damage, maybe I shouldn't even worry about it. but it kinda bugs me to think that I would be doing damage every turn and it's basically adding nothing to the party's dps because it's nonlethal.

Aqueous Orb isn't for damage so much as battlefield control and the fun of sweeping up foes and moving them all over the place.

Consider it a "hold monster" spell that can hold more than one monster and can be reapplied more than once as required as a move action.

I know it's primarily for battlefield control. and that's the main thing I wanted to use it for... I just started thinking that if it could deliver some actual damage that might add up pretty fast... if it was holding, say, 4 medium creatures at 2d6 each sounds like a significant amount of damage per round. with a persistent rod it seems the chance of keeping them trapped in there is pretty good, too.

I think it's funny that by going strict RAW, this combo doesn't work (because Elemental Spell can't enable Rime Spell), while if you fix Elemental Spell to the presumable RAI, the combo also doesn't work (because then you can't make Stone Call cold anymore).

Oh, and metamagic magic items are cool yeah. I keep meaning to make some Reach scrolls of Calcific Touch and Summon Swarm.

i'm not so sure. the reason there isn't SR on stone call is probably just because it's conjuration, and although they might restrict the change in damage type to be applicable only to spells that already did elemental damage, it's not obvious that they would for sure.

Looks like it works just fine. Not sure it's worth your 4th level slot to have a 2d6 damage spell that has a reflex negates and saves as a 3rd level spell but have fun with it. :)

eventually I intend to grab the additional traits feat and pick up magical lineage and wayfang spellhunter... one of those two would be set on Aqueous Orb if this combo works, which I think would enable me to keep it on level 3 and do regular damage instead of nonlethal.

it's not a lot of damage, maybe I shouldn't even worry about it. but it kinda bugs me to think that I would be doing damage every turn and it's basically adding nothing to the party's dps because it's nonlethal.

PS probably using persistent rod with this.

Heighten Spell is very useful for spontaneous casters. It improves their versatility by keeping lower level spells viable. Glitterdust has already been mentioned, and Detect Thoughts or Charm Person are others.

yeah... it still has uses for casters that prepare, but the very fact that it is a pre-req for preferred spell would seem to indicate it was intended more for spontaneous casting.

Unless they've put out errata on Elemental Spell, it looks as if you can. I'm almost certain Elemental Spell was intended strictly for spells that inflict other kinds of "energy damage" (fire, cold, acid, electrical or sonic), but that isn't actually spelled out - as it's written in my APG it can be applied to any spell that does damage (even nonlethal damage).

yeah, it seems as though it should work as it's worded. I think the feat could actually benefit from an errata even if they don't mind it effecting spells like this...

because it seems that elemental spell should also adjust the spell descriptor so that if you had elemental spell (cold) you could use rime spell. ether that or rime spell should be adjusted so that the spell only had to deal cold damage. I see no logical reason why the actual descriptor would matter, only whether or not it deals the appropriate type of damage (cold).

anyone know if this would work? the combo doesn't exactly seem super-powered because the amount of damage isn't anything special. but it would turn an otherwise useful spell into something that could deal some regular damage as well.

the elemental spell text suggests it doesn't matter what the original "type" of the damage is, but it's just vague enough that i'm not sure if it would work.

isn't the shield spell sufficient to block magic missiles, regardless of what effective level the magic missile spell is boosted to?

Oh, I dont know about Heighten Spell being a weak metamagic feat. Personally, I love it for save or suck spells when there are not higher level alternatives. :)

- Gauss

The feat isn't without viable use, and it's a pre-req for preferred spell, which is a good feat... but as it functions now according to the FAQ it's I think it's underpowered* but the way it would have functioned before the FAQ (according to the feat text at least) was overpowered.

*then again, I have yet to examine all the ways in which it can be applied according to new clarifications. the FAQ suggests an application of the feat which I had thought wasn't possible previous to the FAQ: take magical lineage for a spell, such as fireball. heighten that fireball by 2 levels. you then have a 5th level spell in a 4th level slot.

at some point I intend to select the additional traits feat and get wayfang spellhunter + magical lineage

I'm considering glitterdust for one of these spells. i'm not sure how overall useful blind is on later levels, and i'm not sure how fast creature will saves will scale.

the save every round is kind of annoying... but it seems like it could be pretty good with persistent... but I just don't know.

thoughts?

He ignored this line from the FAQ which I explained to him.

Quote:

The language implies that the heightened spell uses whatever spell level is used to prepare or cast it, but the rules text was inherited from 3.5 and doesn't take into account (1) the normal rule allowing you to prepare a spell with a higher-level spell slot, and (2) combining it with other metamagic feats.

This FAQ did not exist when we were arguing before. If the FAQ says anything in regard to our previous arguments, it says that I was right in what the feat implied, and that you were right in what was intended.

however, I never stated that my interpretation was what they intended, only that it was what followed from the feat text. the FAQ actually validates that point, and the line you quoted contains said validation.

I'll probably get slammed for this, but I'm not too bothered: it takes a special kind of arrogance to ignore 80%+ of posters who interpret a piece of text one way and claim that they were "wrong" when the ultimate authority on the matter rules in their favour.

Even you have said that your arguments stemmed from an "interpretation" of the text. Well, so did the arguments of the 80%+ who disagreed with you in this thread. As a Brit, I tend to support the underdog, and I understand that there is a similar cultural bias in the US, but to argue...

Perhaps I should have just dropped the issue, but I desperately wanted a FAQ because I suspected the feat was intended to work as those arguing against me were saying, but I was completely convinced that it couldn't actually function the way they described without being in direct conflict with the feat text.

When I feel sure about something I will continue to argue it, but I try read and consider other people's arguments to the best of my ability. To me the last line of the feat text read so clearly to be in conflict with how others suggested it worked, that there was no ambiguity to me; another interpretation had to be made. so it seemed very clear to me from the letter of the feat text that it needed a FAQ... and I received a lot of flak early on just for suggesting that it needed a FAQ.

I won't slam you for accusing me of sounding arrogant. I can definitely see where it would come off as such. But to me the language of the feat text was so clear and direct in that last line that I refused to let it drop, and I am very happy to have the FAQ we now have.

In any event this is over.

+1

Watch out for Elemental Spell. It doesn't change the spell descriptor, as the admixture evoker power does, so it doesn't open up Rime Spell for other spells.

Selective Spell. If you are using area effect spells, it cannot be beat. And, as a 1-level metamagic, the rod is cheap. You can get the rod long before level 10 as well.

I definitely plan on picking up a rod for selective, but it probably is not my top priority. originally I had planned on it being my first meta, but had forgotten about the 10 spellcraft limitation :(

thanks for the heads up on elemental spell. I noticed the lack of the descriptor change but had sort of thought that not including a descriptor change in the feat was just an oversight, and rime would probably work as long as the spell does cold damage. but according to how rime is worded, you're right. it doesn't work unless the spell contains the cold descriptor, and elemental spell doesn't say that it will change the descriptor :(

maybe still worth taking for acid? (got to be able to damage things or dazing isn't going to land)

I would look at meta-magic feats that are different in rods than in having the feat itself.

For example - Ectoplasmic Spell in a rod only affects incorporeal creatures, but in a feat affects both Ethereal and Incorporeal creatures. Quite a difference if you have a Night Hag to Black Tentacle (see invisible lets you locate the ethereal critters so where to target is not an issue.

Thanks, I wasn't aware that any of the rods functioned differently from the feat descriptions... I'll have to look through them more carefully.

There might be other meta-magic feats that are also limited in rod form.

I hope your character has a lot of strength, meta-magic rods are very heavy.

my character has a low strength. since I had planned on using a lot of meta rods I have already purchased a handy haversack.

I have a conjuration specialist PFS wizard 11. The 9K lesser persistent rod works out really well on its own, persistent slow is a favorite. Other MM feats are OK, but not as good as having the rod. I can see that going with a lesser dazing or quicken rod would be excellent too.

yeah, it seems that the rods are just better in most cases. I plan on focusing the majority of my gold on meta rods. I plan to eventually pick up additional traits to get wayfang spellhunter and magical lineage... so I thought I would pick up 1 or 2 meta as feats so I could prepare spells with a meta and then further augment with a rod.

I'll probably also end up getting another spell focus, probably conjuration... I think persistent glitterdust would be good, and that would also open up spell specialization for evards... but not sure on doing this yet.

... actually persistent spell looks so good that it may be worth having both as a feat and as a rod.

So, the only time you should not have a surprise round is when all the PCs know the monsters are there and all the monsters know the PCs are there, and even then, I could possibly mount an argument that your Forewarned diviner still gets a surprise round because you know the fight is going to start just a moment before everyone else, but I could also lose that debate.

yeah... this is the situation where that keeps coming up. "you see them, and they see you; there is no surprise round."

the flavor of the ability seems to be that the diviner would actually just sense the danger before combat was about to happen, which would make you able to react anyhow. but the ability certainly doesn't say that explicitly.

think i'm avoiding heighten. still need to think on it some more since the new FAQ on it suggests it would work with magical lineage and actually boost a spell's effective level higher than it's slot level... which is weird to me but still... it seems a weak feat overall.

but yeah, preferred seems pretty awesome.

I'm currently playing a diviner but I feel a bit dismayed at the fact that often surprise rounds aren't happening. prescience is cool and all and the initiative boost is nice also, but acting in the surprise round was a big part of it for me, too.

is this really something that I should only getting once in a while? the flavor of the ability sort of suggests a "spidey-sense" type thing like others have been referring to, but from that standpoint wouldn't it seem to mean "there is always a surprise round" at least as far as the diviner is concerned?

** spoiler omitted **

** spoiler omitted **
How is this spell broken? I never even get to use it on druid since its always urban type area and worst of all it effects everyone. That aside its good to split NPCs and/or ranged attack them to death. You can use Selective Metamagic feat to make it work on enemies only tho.

I think selective only works on spells with duration of instantaneous

eventually maybe aqueous orb? (not sure how many creatures resist nonlethal damage)

All the undead ones, which is a lot.

I haven't really looked at the pathfinder bestiary yet, but is it safe to say that those creatures would also often be immune to daze?

persistent also seems pretty good with flaming sphere because the save negates damage as well. originally I thought this would be my go-to spell but now i'm a bit concerned about the damage type being resisted.

maybe elemental spell (acid)?
maybe elemental spell (cold)? (to open up the option of using rime spell?)

Ok, your spell focus evocation suggests you are doign damaging spells.

What are your bonded spells?

1st vanish

Persistent is great for Save or suck spells. With dazing it does nto really combo so well since dazing you just need to damage them.

I thought if they saved then it negated the daze effect, but don't remember for certain. I'll look at intensified and lingering again, hadn't really considered taking them before.

what type of wizard are you?

lol... that was a terrible oversight on my part.

elf (spellbinder archetype)
Divination (foresight) school
opposition: necromancy and enchantment

feats: spell focus (evocation), toughness, improved initiative
(I still have to select two for hitting level 5)

I just hit level 5 in PFS on my wizard and I feel it's time to pick up some metamagic feats.

It's my intent to focus the majority of my wealth on metamagic rods (besides the obvious +int headband)

currently it looks like persistent spell is one of the best overall meta, but I've also played with the idea of picking up elemental spell.

bear in mind i'll eventually have a variety of rods, which will include a minor dazing rod (as soon as I can afford one).

persistent + a dazing rod on:

flaming sphere?
magic missile?
eventually maybe aqueous orb? (not sure how many creatures resist nonlethal damage)

I've also considered snapdragon fireworks, but damage is awful low and daze could get shut down from meager amounts of fire resistance.

Can somebody who has played wizard/sorcerer types to a fairly high level in PFS provide any insight?

HangarFlying wrote:

Given my track record, I wouldn't have been surprised to have been wrong, but glad I wasn't.

actually, you were wrong...

I still maintain that my previous arguments regarding the meaning of the feat text were valid. The distinction now is that we have a FAQ to show what the actual intent is. This overrides the feat text.

I never stated that the way I was describing heighten was the manner in which the design team intended. I actually thought the likelihood was that they intended otherwise.

If I had thought for certain that my interpretation was exactly what was intended then I never would have bothered seeking clarification, because it followed directly from logical analysis of the feat text.

several times I said things to the effect that I was arguing as to the function of the feat as worded in the feat text, and not the intent of the design team.

for example:

gniht wrote:

It's nice to hear somebody can see how what i'm saying follows from the feat text... and although i'm convinced of how it works as worded, I am not fully convinced that it is the intent of the design team for it to work in that manner.

If it makes you feel any better though, you could make similar claims about how the feat functions now as you had been making before... and now you would be right. except now nobody would be arguing it with you, they'd just be referring to the FAQ.

P.S. Incidentally, I do think that you and others had a good reason to argue that the feat should work the way you were describing. It just wasn't supported by the feat text, that is all.

I also think it was obvious to most people (myself included) that as worded in the text the feat was overpowered but I think it is also obvious to most that by the definition we now have the feat is underpowered. So from my point of view it was likely, but wasn't a forgone conclusion that the functionality of the feat was intended to be other than that described in the feat text.

Given my track record, I wouldn't have been surprised to have been wrong, but glad I wasn't.

actually, you were wrong...

I still maintain that my previous arguments regarding the meaning of the feat text were valid. The distinction now is that we have a FAQ to show what the actual intent is. This overrides the feat text.

I never stated that the way I was describing heighten was the manner in which the design team intended. I actually thought the likelihood was that they intended otherwise.

If I had thought for certain that my interpretation was exactly what was intended then I never would have bothered seeking clarification, because it followed directly from logical analysis of the feat text.

several times I said things to the effect that I was arguing as to the function of the feat as worded in the feat text, and not the intent of the design team.

for example:

It's nice to hear somebody can see how what i'm saying follows from the feat text... and although i'm convinced of how it works as worded, I am not fully convinced that it is the intent of the design team for it to work in that manner.

If it makes you feel any better though, you could make similar claims about how the feat functions now as you had been making before... and now you would be right. except now nobody would be arguing it with you, they'd just be referring to the FAQ.

awesome!

PDT, thank you so much for addressing this.

You're being deliberately obtuse. "X" is in reference to the fixed adjustment as required in the applicable metamagic feat.

I think it's safe to say "no comment."

Gniht, the exception still is described in the feat description for Merciful Spell (you were right, it is one; I didn't look it up).

There is, however, no exception described for the slot level increase in Heighten Spell. You'd need one to suspend the general rule. A "suggestion" is not sufficient.

Also, the general rules say that level increases through metamagic are cumulative. Heighten Spell offers no exception here, as well.

I can see where you are coming from, but if you examine this line from the feat text carefully you will see that it indeed indicates how much the effective level is increased from normal:

The heightened spell is as difficult to prepare and cast as a spell of its effective level.

can you see this line says that the slot used becomes the effective spell level?

I think what confuses people is that under my interpretation heighten spell has no slot increase, but since it doesn't explicitly state there isn't one, how do I know that to be true?

well I know it is the case because if I try to apply the heighten spell feat as others are suggesting (e.g. fireball heighten +2 levels along with empower+2 levels would be a level 5 spell in a level 7 slot) then by that logic you end up violating the feat text I quoted above. we all must agree that the spell is heightened, and according to the feat text the effective level is equal to the level of the slot it is prepared in/cast from.

so basically you can choose between being in direct conflict with the feat text or what some interpret as a deviation from general meta rules (a form of departure that I have shown to exist anyhow)

so while heighten doesn't explicitly list that it's slot level increase is +0 or none, it does say exactly what it does (which is raise the effective level) and it tells you what that new effective level is in relation to the difficulty in preparation/casting.

so of the two, my interpretation is the one that most closely follows the feat text.

furthermore, if the spell isn't placed in a "higher than normal" level slot, it doesn't end up benefiting from this feat at all... so it actually does follow the general rules for meta in that sense.