That's interesting. I seem to recall something about me being "able to use my existing library of 3.5 products" if I switch from 3.5 to PFRPG.
And you certainly are able. The question is only how willing are you to accept the premisses of PF
@Hogarth: Yeah. quickened acid splash for preventing regeneration is the only one I can come up with that actually does anything at all after enemies have more than 4 HD.
Even that I can only see sorcerers doing. No wizard worth his salt will waste a 4th level slot to have at-will swift action acid splashs.
Even that I can only see sorcerers doing. No wizard worth his salt will waste a 4th level slot to have at-will swift action acid splashs.
Arcane Trickster.
Acid Splash Sneak Attack - Hide
Move at half speed hiding.
Acid Splash Sneak Attack - Hide
Move at half speed hiding.
Acid Splash Sneak Attack - Hide
Etc...
@Hogarth: Yeah. quickened acid splash for preventing regeneration is the only one I can come up with that actually does anything at all after enemies have more than 4 HD.
Even that I can only see sorcerers doing. No wizard worth his salt will waste a 4th level slot to have at-will swift action acid splashs.
Sorcerers can't benefit from a quickened spell.
Sorcerers can't benefit from a quickened spell.
Pathfinder sorcerers can!
Pathfinder sorcerers can!
Sorcerers can't benefit from a quickened spell.
Oops, the rest of the text looked so similar that I missed that last sentence. I'll go and try to pry my foot out.
I see a lot of statements claiming that a spell is the same thing as a spell per day (or spell slot), but no supporting evidence. Could you perhaps provide me with some?
Can you provide any text supporting the idea that it isn't?
It seems very clear to me that the rule you are quoting refers to the spell's effective level for purposes of casting it (which is increased by metamagic) rather than its effective level for determining its effects (which only heighten increases). Assuming the latter would be taking the word "level" out of context; that paragraph is talking about spell slots, not about spell effects.
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
Even that I can only see sorcerers doing. No wizard worth his salt will waste a 4th level slot to have at-will swift action acid splashs.Arcane Trickster.
Acid Splash Sneak Attack - Hide
Move at half speed hiding.
Acid Splash Sneak Attack - Hide
Move at half speed hiding.
Acid Splash Sneak Attack - Hide
Etc...
Clever idea, I approve. Though you have to be
a) 11th level by my math (Rogue 3/Wizard 3/Arcane Trickster 5)b) one sneak attack vs full attack
c) The way Pathfinder skills work, Perception is *much* more common, so this isn't guarenteed.
My back of an envelope math:
Plus you're tying up a feat and a 4th level spell slot/spell memorized to pull that off. It's a nice trick for a specific build.
I'm going to have to nerf my own character!
3nd Rogue/5th Wizard/5th Spellwarp Sniper/7th Arcane Trickter was going to be the final build after running through the Savage Tide AP.
Unlimited Ray of Frost backed with sneak attack...
Non-level-adjusting metamagic feats tend not to be a big deal, at least when applied to cantrips.
Save your trout for the guy using level reducing metamagic feats; i.e, preparing a focused burning hands as a 0th-level spell and flinging 5d6 bullets all day long.
Arcane Trickster.
Acid Splash Sneak Attack - Hide
Move at half speed hiding.
Acid Splash Sneak Attack - Hide
Move at half speed hiding.
Acid Splash Sneak Attack - Hide
Etc...Clever idea, I approve. Though you have to be
a) 11th level by my math (Rogue 3/Wizard 3/Arcane Trickster 5)
b) one sneak attack vs full attack
c) The way Pathfinder skills work, Perception is *much* more common, so this isn't guarenteed.
My back of an envelope math:
** spoiler omitted **Plus you're tying up a feat and a 4th level spell slot/spell memorized to pull that off. It's a nice trick for a specific build.
Not to mention that it would do 1d3+4d6 damage. That's better than nothing, but it's not really that exciting for an 11th level character.
|
So, if you apply a metamagic feat to a Level-0 Spell it effective becomes a higher level spell and must be handled as such. If you can learn/cast it in a 0th level spell slot it is a cantrip, not the other way round.
And yhet in my first post to this thread I posted this:
The PRD also states that "Spells modified by a metamagic feat use a spell slot higher than normal. This does not change the level of the spell...", so a metamagic enhanced cantrip is still a 0-level spell.
And yet, a 5th level caster can't (reliably) make a scroll that holds a quickened fireball, even though he can scribe 3rd level scrolls. A pearl of power (1st level) can't restore a maximized magic missile, even though it's technically a 1st level spell.
Ultimately, this hinges on whether the text about cantrips refers to spells that are cast as cantrips or spells that are prepared as cantrips. Like I said, context supports the latter, while there is no particular reason to read it as the former (other than that it's a more favorable reading).
I see a lot of statements claiming that a spell is the same thing as a spell per day (or spell slot), but no supporting evidence. Could you perhaps provide me with some?Can you provide any text supporting the idea that it isn't?
I think I've done so already.
|
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
[
Types of FeatsSome feats are general, meaning that no special rules govern them as a group. Others are item creation feats, which allow characters to create magic items of all sorts. A metamagic feat lets a spellcaster prepare and cast a spell with greater effect, albeit as if the spell were of a higher spell level than it actually is.
So, if you apply a metamagic feat to a Level-0 Spell it effective becomes a higher level spell and must be handled as such. If you can learn/cast it in a 0th level spell slot it is a cantrip, not the other way round.
... and anyone bringing up non-level adjusting metamagic feats from splatbooks will be battered into submission with a large trout!
Except it says 'As if' not Is. In fact, your passage is countered by another statement.
Spells modified by a metamagic feat use a spell slot higher than normal. This does not change the level of the spell, so the DC for saving throws against it does not go up.
Emphasis mine.
Then under Bard it says for cantrips:
These spells are cast like any other spell, but they do not consume any slots and may be used again.
Under Cleric for orisions:
These spells are cast like any other spell, but they are not expended when cast may be used again.
Druids:
These spells are cast like any other spell, but they are not expended when cast may be used again.
Sorcerer:
These spells are cast like any other spell, but they do not consume any slots and may be used again.
Wizard:
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).
Since a metamagic feat doesn't change the level of the spell (except Heighten) it's still a 0th level spell, or a cantrip. Since it's a cantrip, it 'does not consume any slots and may be used again'.
That's the logic behind it as I see it.
|
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
[
Types of FeatsSome feats are general, meaning that no special rules govern them as a group. Others are item creation feats, which allow characters to create magic items of all sorts. A metamagic feat lets a spellcaster prepare and cast a spell with greater effect, albeit as if the spell were of a higher spell level than it actually is.
So, if you apply a metamagic feat to a Level-0 Spell it effective becomes a higher level spell and must be handled as such. If you can learn/cast it in a 0th level spell slot it is a cantrip, not the other way round.
... and anyone bringing up non-level adjusting metamagic feats from splatbooks will be battered into submission with a large trout!
Except it says 'As if' not Is. In fact, your passage is countered by another statement.
Spells modified by a metamagic feat use a spell slot higher than normal. This does not change the level of the spell, so the DC for saving throws against it does not go up.
Emphasis mine.
Then under Bard it says for cantrips:
These spells are cast like any other spell, but they do not consume any slots and may be used again.
Under Cleric for orisions:
These spells are cast like any other spell, but they are not expended when cast may be used again.
Druids:
These spells are cast like any other spell, but they are not expended when cast may be used again.
Sorcerer:
These spells are cast like any other spell, but they do not consume any slots and may be used again.
Wizard:
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).
Since a metamagic feat doesn't change the level of the spell (except Heighten) it's still a 0th level spell, or a cantrip. Since it's a cantrip, it 'does not consume any slots and may be used again'.
That's the logic behind it as I see it.
Yes I know, but when you read the whole paragraph it should be clear the the intent was that only to emphasize that the DC does not go up. The "Spells modified by a metamagic feat use a spell slot higher than normal." part supports my standpoint. Once again if it can be cast in a 0th level slot it's a cantrip, otherwise each casting goes again your daily alotment of spells at that level.
It's not just the DC, but also things like level-based spell immunities (i.e, globe of invulnerability). Basically all purposes related to its final effect
However, the spell is prepared exactly as a higher-level spell.
The PRD also states that "Spells modified by a metamagic feat use a spell slot higher than normal. This does not change the level of the spell...", so a metamagic enhanced cantrip is still a 0-level spell.
You can't possibly all think that this was the intended use for cantrips, which makes all of this the worst sort of rules lawyering, abusing an unintentional omission or error in the rules to push waaaaaay outside the boundaries of the rules' intent.
The argument for this may cling together, barely (and only if you ignore the multiple uses of the word level), but expect to be slapped down hard if you try and run this past most DMs.
That's interesting. I seem to recall something about me being "able to use my existing library of 3.5 products" if I switch from 3.5 to PFRPG.Sure, but that doesn't mean that half-baked feats like Sanctum Spell should be suddenly immune to silly hijinks when going from 3.5 to Pathfinder.
I was actually looking at metamagicked cantrips a couple of weeks ago (specifically to use in combination with the Magical Lineage trait), and I didn't see any cantrips that benefitted much from metamagic. Extended Daze was the best I could come up with, and that gets obsolete pretty quickly.
You're just a step away from the answer, Hogarth. Take the Magical Lineage trait (Magical Lineage: 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.) and the Heighten Spell feat. Heighten your chosen 1st level spell by 0 levels, giving it an effective level of 1st, reduced to 0 by the Magical Lineage trait. You've made your 1st level spell into a cantrip.
Voila! At-will 1st level spell, no splatbooks needed!
|
|
You can't possibly all think that this was the intended use for cantrips
Nah, I think we all agree that :)
which makes all of this the worst sort of rules lawyering, abusing an unintentional omission or error in the rules to push waaaaaay outside the boundaries of the rules' intent.
i think I posted some reasons why it is still useful to debate this stuff though and it isn't all really "the worst sort of rules lawyering", sometimes it is to be prepared to counteract "the worst sort of rules lawyering", other times it is an end unto itself (kind of like why people may join debating clubs).
i think I posted some reasons why it is still useful to debate this stuff though and it isn't all really "the worst sort of rules lawyering", sometimes it is to be prepared to counteract "the worst sort of rules lawyering", other times it is an end unto itself (kind of like why people may join debating clubs).
Fair enough, I just didn't want someone new to the game stumbling in at the end of the thread and getting the wrong idea about the validity of all this. Heh, and god knows I like a good rules debate/neckbearding, so I can understand where you're coming from.
You can't possibly all think that this was the intended use for cantripsNah, I think we all agree that :)
which makes all of this the worst sort of rules lawyering, abusing an unintentional omission or error in the rules to push waaaaaay outside the boundaries of the rules' intent.i think I posted some reasons why it is still useful to debate this stuff though and it isn't all really "the worst sort of rules lawyering", sometimes it is to be prepared to counteract "the worst sort of rules lawyering", other times it is an end unto itself (kind of like why people may join debating clubs).
Yes, that's exactly why I've refrained from saying anything to that effect, even though I think it would pretty silly to try this in a real game. :)
@WelbyBumpus: One problem with that. Heighten says that the spell has a higher spell level than normal, so it's possible a spell can't be heightened by 0 levels.
Aren't cantrips and orisons classified as spell-like abilities? (Thus requiring the specific feats for spell-like abilities?)
My apologies if this has been covered.
Not anymore. That was changed from beta.
Not anymore. That was changed from beta.
Drat - I actually like them as spell-like abilities. :/
@WelbyBumpus: One problem with that. Heighten says that the spell has a higher spell level than normal, so it's possible a spell can't be heightened by 0 levels.
As you said, the idea crossed my mind, but I rejected it because:
(a) I don't think you can heighten a spell by zero levels, and(b) it violates the spirit of the trait, in my opinion.
@WelbyBumpus: One problem with that. Heighten says that the spell has a higher spell level than normal, so it's possible a spell can't be heightened by 0 levels.As you said, the idea crossed my mind, but I rejected it because:
(a) I don't think you can heighten a spell by zero levels, and
(b) it violates the spirit of the trait, in my opinion.
Yes, but we left the spirit of the rules by the door when we entered this thread. :)
I am leaning towards not only allowing it to do this, but also just plain interpreting it that way. It does not in any way seem overpowered. It's... interesting. I like it.
So, if I have a ring of wizardry I, does that mean I get to cast twice my number of first level spell slots worth of empowered maximized magic missiles? Because, hey, it's still a first level spell, right? And spell slots are different from spell levels...
That's basically what I've been saying.
Any effect which refers to casting a spell of a given level again/casting it more often/casting it for free/etc is clearly referring to spell slots.
This is a clever idea and one that never occurred to me. I think I'd allow it since I don't see anything too unbalancing.
Right away I'm thinking an quickened disrupt undead would make a fun addition to a tomb raid. Do whatever you'd normally do and then zap an undead too.
Maybe a silent and still lullaby? No proof that you're making everybody yawn.
You could extend the little boosts like resistance just so you don't have to cast them as often.
An extended touch of fatigue would now likely last the whole battle.
Nothing too disruptive, but fun for the right sort of caster.
So, if I have a ring of wizardry I, does that mean I get to cast twice my number of first level spell slots worth of empowered maximized magic missiles? Because, hey, it's still a first level spell, right? And spell slots are different from spell levels...
Ring of Wizardry refers specifically to spells per day (or spell slots, as I've called them in this thread), not spells themselves.
The whole point is that RAW Lehmuska is absolutely correct, even though his interpretation is against the spirit of the rules. This is what's called a rules loophole. And yes, I am aware that its easy to fix with a house rule. However, for example in an organized play environment, we don't have that luxury. Until an official errata, the rules are that a cantrip that gets metamagic'ed is still a cantrip and follows the rules of cantrips.
While Lehmushka is correct that a spell modified by a metamagic feat generally retains its level, this means merely that the rule is ambiguous in such a way that it is open to an interpretation that, IRL, few or no DMs will allow.
The ambiguity arises because the text uses "cantrips" in two ways. In one sense, "cantrip" is a synonym for "0-level spells". In another sense, "Cantrips" is a class feature of the sorcerer and wizard that allows them to cast 0-level spells without expending the spell slot.
Wizard: Spells: A wizard casts arcane spells drawn from the sorcerer/wizard spell list presented in Spell Lists. A wizard must choose and prepare his spells ahead of time.
...A wizard can cast only a certain number of spells of each spell level per day. His base daily spell allotment is given on Table: Wizard. In addition, he receives bonus spells per day if he has a high Intelligence score (see Table: Ability Modifiers and Bonus Spells).
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).
Magic: Spell Slots: The various character class tables show how many spells of each level a character can cast per day. These openings for daily spells are called spell slots. A spellcaster always has the option to fill a higher-level spell slot with a lower-level spell. A spellcaster who lacks a high enough ability score to cast spells that would otherwise be his due still gets the slots but must fill them with spells of lower levels.
The "Cantrips" class feature refers to "Table: Wizard > Spells per Day" as the controlling reference to adjucate this class feature.
This table describes a wizard's allotment of spells. As described in the Magic section, a spellcaster's allotment of spells are his spell slots. Thus, the table labelled "Spells per Day" is a table of spell slots per day, not spells. A sorcerer also has spell slots, even if those spells are not prepared ahead of time.
By referring to the "Spells per Day" section of "Table:Wizard", the "Cantrips" class feature is clearly referring to spells prepared in the 0-level spell slots, not all 0-level spells prepared in any spell slot.
As you see, it's these spells that are not expended, not the spell slots.
In fact, it IS the spell slots that are not expended, not the spell.
Spell slots are not referred to in the class descriptions, but in the descriptions of magic and casting.
"Spells per Day" refers to spell slots. Spells are not something that a player can expend, although arcane casters can lose knowledge of or access to spells.
Compare, for example, this text in the Wizard class description:
A wizard can cast only a certain number of spells of each spell level per day. His base daily spell allotment is given on Table: Wizard. In addition, he receives bonus spells per day if he has a high Intelligence score (see Table: Ability Modifiers and Bonus Spells).
According to your original argument, a quickened magic missile remains a 1st-level spell. Consequently, a 9th-level wizard could cast four quickened magic missiles per day, since the "Spells per Day" table shows that he can cast four 1st-level spells per day regardless of what spell slot they take up.
That would be a serious misinterpretation of the text.
Not sure if anyone posted this one yet but it's one that could actually be useful.
Persistent Spell [Metamagic]
Prerequisite: Extend Spell
Benefit: A persistent spell has a duration of 24 hours. The persistent spell must have a personal range or a fixed range. Spells of instantaneous duration cannot be affected by this feat, nor can spells whose effects are discharged. You need not concentrate on spells such as detect magic or detect thoughts to be aware of the mere presence or absence of the things detected, but you must still concentrate to gain additional information as normal. Concentration on such a spell is a standard action that does not provoke an attack of opportunity. A persistent spell uses up a spell slot six levels higher than the spell’s actual level.
Mix this with Resistance and you can give everyone in the party (and anyone else you want) a +1 to all saving throws for the day. A sixth level slot is pretty steep but it's not a horrible trade especially if you have a large party.
|
Very thorough, although couching your argument in extreme language does not make it more right.
According to your original argument, a quickened magic missile remains a 1st-level spell. Consequently, a 9th-level wizard could cast four quickened magic missiles per day, since the "Spells per Day" table shows that he can cast four 1st-level spells per day regardless of what spell slot they take up.That would be a serious misinterpretation of the text.
A quickened magic missile does remain a 1st level spell, one that requires a 4th level slot. "A quickened spell uses up a spell slot four levels higher than the spell’s actual level."
I agree that refreshing metamagic cantrips were probably not intended by Jason, although the wording for spontaneous casting gives me pause since it implies that he considered Clerics memorising Orisons with metamagic applied in higher level slots. However, as written the text parses as allowing this interpretation and needs to be clarified.
I'm happy to allow metamagiced cantrips at my table, so that is one for your "few or no DMs".
I'm happy to allow metamagiced cantrips at my table, so that is one for your "few or no DMs".
Add me to the list. After some consideration and the angles we've discussed, I can't think of a reason not to allow it. There is currently no precedent that would break this (such as unlimited 1st or 2nd level Cleric spells).
A quickened magic missile does remain a 1st level spell, one that requires a 4th level slot.
A quickened magic missile is a first-level spell which is prepared and cast as a fifth-level spell. In other words, you prepare and cast it the same way that you would cone of cold or raise dead.
If you're allowing this, you should also allow a 1st level pearl of power to restore that quickened magic missile. I think it's an intentional misreading either way, but it's your call.
Don't forget that, if conjured below freezing, Create Water becomes a cheap and inexpensive infinitely castable Wall of Ice. Add to that the amazing tricks possible with a substance that magically vanishes one day later--imagine the booby-trapped igloo that collapses when the bottom blocks vanish first.
If you're allowing this, you should also allow a 1st level pearl of power to restore that quickened magic missile. I think it's an intentional misreading either way, but it's your call.
Pearl of power makes a reference to spells per day. It's a different situation from cantrips.
|
|
Don't forget that, if conjured below freezing, Create Water becomes a cheap and inexpensive infinitely castable Wall of Ice. Add to that the amazing tricks possible with a substance that magically vanishes one day later--imagine the booby-trapped igloo that collapses when the bottom blocks vanish first.
Create water + quickened ray of frost?
Create water + quickened ray of frost?
I think I hear a Mystic Theurge weeping for joy!
The whole point is that RAW Lehmuska is absolutely correct, even though his interpretation is against the spirit of the rules.
RAW is an unlived term. It doesn't exist. No one can read anything and not interpret it, thus everything is RAI.
There is RAI as intended, though, and Lehmuska is stretching. Having spent a good three years brooding on the CO boards I have the following learned ability:
Sense Cheese (Ex): Upon obtaining this ability, anytime you view, read or otherwise encounter something harmful you may immediately make a will save versus a DC equal to 10 + 1/2 the harmful event's HD. If this save succeeds, you may immediately recognize this writing or viewed experience as bull cocky, and may disregard it according to your beliefs.
|
|
The "Cantrips" class feature refers to "Table: Wizard > Spells per Day" as the controlling reference to adjucate this class feature.
Yep, but it refers to the whole table, not just the 0-level spell slot column, so...
By referring to the "Spells per Day" section of "Table:Wizard", the "Cantrips" class feature is clearly referring to spells prepared in the 0-level spell slots, not all 0-level spells prepared in any spell slot.
I think using the word "clearly referring" is not the case here.
My wizard prepares a cantrip, a 0-level spell, enhanced by metamagic, according to the Table: Wizard under "Spells per Day" (it is this table that informs me that I could only prepare 1 such cantrip rather than 3 due to needing a level 1 spell slot).
My wizard then cast this metamagic enhanced cantrip like any other spell, but (the argument goes) it is not expended when cast and may be used again.
None of the above is in contradiction to the literal reading of the cantrip write up:
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.
If the above text had stated Wizards can prepare a number of cantrips, or 0-level spells, each day. As long as these cantrips are prepared in a 0-level spell slot they may be cast and not expended, able to be used again then I think yes, we could categorically put this to rest in terms of a matter of RAW.
I think a definition of what constitutes a Cantrip needs to be given, and also whether preparing a metamagic enhanced Cantrip makes that cantrip ineligable for the "is not expended and may be re-used" ability.