I am playing a cleric in a newbie GM's game.
I came up with a great combo using the divine meta-magic feat and the sudden maximize feat. Mind you there is no lvl adjustment for SUDDEN anything because it's once per day; well divine metamagic says you can use your turns to get your feats lvl adjustment +1.
According to my math my cleric can now maximize his spells 8 times a day(3+1 for cha+4 extra turning)
The question is Would you let a player get away with something like this in YOUR game. The 3.5 rules state it's perfectly legal but it does break the spirit of +3 lvl adjustment for maximised spells.
I as a player think anything that lets me max my lower lvl cures is something to be used but I can see how it can be abused as well.
Personally I would allow it. I've used combos like that before. They sound so much more game breaking than they ever turn out to be. The important part is the GM being sure that the player isn't going to be a jerk about it. As long as that understanding is there, it's not going to be a problem. Especially not with something that's being used primarily to max out healing spells.
|
It depends.
Does your game session typically only have 10-12 rounds of combat? If it does then that sounds a smidgen too powerful (where "smidgen" is measured by Tarrasque tails). If your typical game session has 25-30 rounds of comabt then it sounds powerful but certainly not broken (comparatively).
So, you have a new DM. You guys won't know what a typical session will have until you've played a few. Thus, keep it for now and if, after a few sessions your PC is so much better than the others -- or, if the DM's NPCs aren't providing the appropriate challenge because of your PC, change it.
Eh, Maximize is overrated anyways. I find the rules somewhat dubious on this one, but for maximize, it's no big deal; there are plenty of other sources for cheap metamagic anyways. Now, if you tried to pull that with Sudden Quicken, there would be issues.
Then again, considering how stiff the prerequisites on Sudden Quicken are, it might still be a fair return.
Does your game session typically only have 10-12 rounds of combat? If it does then that sounds a smidgen too powerful (where "smidgen" is measured by Tarrasque tails). If your typical game session has 25-30 rounds of comabt then it sounds powerful but certainly not broken (comparatively).
The number of combat rounds per day has nothing to do with the power of this technique as presented. Healing is not a combat action in 3.5, it's something you do between fights, simply because the power of healing is so much less than the power of hurting. As such, the applications are mostly going to be out-of-combat healing maximization anyways; if from time to time it makes healing in-combat actually useful before Heal comes into play, that's a good thing. And it's not like there aren't gobs of other low-cost out-of-combat healing options anyways; a lowly Wand of Lesser Vigor is essentially a jar of 550 HP for 750g. And the classic Divine Metamagic stunt is to make the mass version of Lesser Vigor persistent via Divine Metamagic so that everyone has fast healing 1 for the entire day. So long as you have, say, ten minutes between fights, everyone's pretty much back up to full health every time.
Let's say you're multiclassing as a sorcerer and a cleric. Can you use this toward your arcane sorcerer spells or is it just restricted to divine spells?
I'd allow. Just remember one thing.
If you can use it, so can I.
This.
Let's say you're multiclassing as a sorcerer and a cleric. Can you use this toward your arcane sorcerer spells or is it just restricted to divine spells?
As it specifies Divine in the rules for Divine Metamagic, I'd rule no on the sorc stuff.
Also, no cheese with the Glowstick things or Nightsticks or whatever they're called. (Seriously, I just had a complete brain blank on the proper name...)
They're Nightsticks. Delightful, stacking Nightsticks.
And Divine Metamagic only applies to divine spells. I don't recall if that's errata, or if it was in the original text. However, there are ways to cast your arcane spells as divine, though they elude me at the moment.
And Divine Metamagic only applies to divine spells. I don't recall if that's errata, or if it was in the original text. However, there are ways to cast your arcane spells as divine, though they elude me at the moment.
I went back and double checked; you're right -- it does specify channeling energy into some of your divine spells... In the meantime, I'll look around for the other possible elusive feat you mentioned.
|
The question is Would you let a player get away with something like this in YOUR game. The 3.5 rules state it's perfectly legal but it does break the spirit of +3 lvl adjustment for maximised spells.
I'd allow this. Being able to change your turns into something useful (or using them up before I spring an undead on you) is completely kosher by me.
|
And Divine Metamagic only applies to divine spells. I don't recall if that's errata, or if it was in the original text. However, there are ways to cast your arcane spells as divine, though they elude me at the moment.I went back and double checked; you're right -- it does specify channeling energy into some of your divine spells... In the meantime, I'll look around for the other possible elusive feat you mentioned.
Looking at it now, the text as written would make it impossible for a cleric to use it, despite the fact Jozan is used as an example. It says 'spells you know' not 'spells you have prepared or spells you know. And since you have to multi-class to apply it to arcane spells, I see no reason to not allow it. As long as they keep the classes close, no Cleric1/Sorcerer19.
|
|
I'd allow this. Being able to change your turns into something useful (or using them up before I spring an undead on you) is completely kosher by me.The question is Would you let a player get away with something like this in YOUR game. The 3.5 rules state it's perfectly legal but it does break the spirit of +3 lvl adjustment for maximised spells.
And in Pathfinder, it actually makes you give something up in adventures without undead. Maximize your flame strike now, or heal everyone later?
Looking at it now, the text as written would make it impossible for a cleric to use it, despite the fact Jozan is used as an example. It says 'spells you know' not 'spells you have prepared or spells you know. And since you have to multi-class to apply it to arcane spells, I see no reason to not allow it. As long as they keep the classes close, no Cleric1/Sorcerer19.
But in the opening description, it says you can channel energy into some of your divine spells to make them more powerful. Since it specified divine, that would exclude arcane.
|
|
Looking at it now, the text as written would make it impossible for a cleric to use it, despite the fact Jozan is used as an example. It says 'spells you know' not 'spells you have prepared or spells you know. And since you have to multi-class to apply it to arcane spells, I see no reason to not allow it. As long as they keep the classes close, no Cleric1/Sorcerer19.But in the opening description, it says you can channel energy into some of your divine spells to make them more powerful. Since it specified divine, that would exclude arcane.
Suppose you took the generic class Spellcaster(arcane version) and selected Turn Undead as a class ability? You meet the prereqs for the feat, and therefore can use it.
There is no prereq for the Maximize Spell feat, so a 1st level commoner qualifies and could take it, even though he/she can't cast spells.
But in the opening description, it says you can channel energy into some of your divine spells to make them more powerful. Since it specified divine, that would exclude arcane.Suppose you took the generic class Spellcaster(arcane version) and selected Turn Undead as a class ability? You meet the prereqs for the feat, and therefore can use it.
Yes, you can use Divine Metamagic on your Sorcerer/Sacred Exorcist to apply metamagic to your divine spells, as you have Turn undead. However, you can only apply it to your divine spells. Of which you have none.
I use the house rule that though Divine Metamagic has no prerequisites, you must still qualify for the accompanying metamagic feat.
Other than that, I wouldn't sweat it too much.
However, in the case of Sudden metamagic feats combined with the Divine metamagic feat, I would hold to the once per day part of the Sudden description. Divine Metamagic allows for the use of turn attempts instead of additional spell levels, but it doesn't change anything else in the spell or the accomapnying metamagic feat.
I dunno, guys, all this talk about interpreting the RAW -- F the stupid RAW!
If, in the game it seems to become imbalanced, adjust it or take it away. And not just because it's a newbie DM, but hey, especially since it is a newbie DM.
Except the fundamental question stems not just from the rules, but from whether or not it's unbalancing. On whether or not I'd allow it, I would first look at whether it's legal, and then (whether it's legal or not), whether it's reasonable or gamebreaking. The consensus thusfar is mostly that it is both legal and not gamebreaking. Both aspects are relevant.
As presented, the OP intends to use this combination to maximize healing spells. The worst that can ultimately come of that is healing strong enough that it may be worth considering; if your level 1 party's going up against a pair of orcs, they're doing 9 damage per hit on average (ignoring critical hits), and your maximized Cure Light Wounds is healing 9 HP. That doesn't seem at all unreasonable to me, particularly since the orcs can just keep swinging.
I wouldn't allow it. It breaks the spirit of the sudden metamagic feats, which is to allow you to benefit spontanously from metamagic once and only once per day per feat.
I would not allow the use of Divine Metamagic with Sudden Metamagic feats in my game (or at least I would not allow it in a way that would be beneficial to use). My reasoning would follow several lines.
The first would be a pure RAW interpretation. By RAW the Sudden Metamagic feat can only be used once per day. Spending turn attempts through Divine Metamagic would not change this limitation of once per day. (The math that it would only take one turn attempt to do does work, but I don't know why you would do that instead of doing it that once for free... either way you only get it once per day).
I am a big believer in RAW, but there are certainly times where a pure RAW interpretation comes out with something very broken (though I don't think this is one of them due to the limitation on Sudden Metamagics to being usable only once per day)... so then I would go to a RAI or Rules as Intended.
I would venture a guess that the Divine Metamagic feat was not intended to combine with Sudden metamagics in a such a way as to give you 1 turn cost metamagics. It would seem clear by presenting an X+1 cost model they wanted to make sure it was more costly to use this than the feat itself. For this reason I do not believe that RAI is in support of the use of sudden metamagic with divine metamagic.
Finally I would ask myself what the effect in game would be... and this one would be a doozy. Sure it would take a lot of feats to get that Sudden Quicken but once you did it would one turn attempt to quicken any spell you have on the fly. That is crazy! Even maximize which is generally looked at as only a middlin' metamagic feat is only such because of the upgrade to the spell slot it gives balancing it back down. At the cost of 1 turn attempt this is too cheap. The previous poster who stated if you can do it so can the DM is right... and the DM would likely crush the party by making use of this.
Anyway... bottom line is that I feel there is little to no support that would suggest that this should be an allowable combination. I applaud the original poster for coming up with it (and the many others who have posted the same question on other boards), but I just don't see this one as doable.
Sean Mahoney
|
|
Except the fundamental question stems not just from the rules, but from whether or not it's unbalancing. On whether or not I'd allow it, I would first look at whether it's legal, and then (whether it's legal or not), whether it's reasonable or gamebreaking. The consensus thusfar is mostly that it is both legal and not gamebreaking. Both aspects are relevant.
Well said, I agree with everything there.
Completely.I guess I was flustered by several posts in a row that seemed to imply we should bow before the almight RAW. And that bugged me.
Ultimately, in this case, there's a newbie DM and an experienced Player who is concerned that the character build is unbalancing and/ or taking advantage in a loophole in a system where each splat book was designed without real consideration for mixing equitably with other splat books.
Thus, play it for a few sessions and let it be spoken aloud that if it looks unfair it will be changed.
Simply put, no I would not allow it.
While RAW is not the be-all end-all of rules discussions, it should be a considerable factor and according to the rules there is no way this works.
The Sudden feats have a limit of 1/day and Divine Metamagic doesn't increase this. Divine Metamagic is only used for using turn attempts to remove the level adjustment of metamagicked spells.
And while maximize is a weaker metamagic feat, Empower and Quicken certainly aren't. Even without stacking nightsticks it's relatively easy to get upwards of 17 turn attempts in a day. 17 free quickened or empowered spells is not something I would even consider allowing in my game.
While RAW is not the be-all end-all of rules discussions, it should be a considerable factor and according to the rules there is no way this works.
The Sudden feats have a limit of 1/day and Divine Metamagic doesn't increase this. Divine Metamagic is only used for using turn attempts to remove the level adjustment of metamagicked spells.
This. Does not work even remotely close to RAW and is seriously unbalanced as described in the OP, so no, I wouldn't allow this.
Divine Metamagic only allows the spontaneous addition of metamagics to spells by sacrificing channel/turn attempts instead of spell levels. All other restrictions of the metamagic feat applies. For example, you couldn't use Divine Metamagic with Energy Substitution to turn cure light wounds into fire damage. Same thing with the Sudden metamagics: they're usable once daily, regardless of whether you use Divine Metamagic to activate them or not.
Examining both feats in detail:
Divine Metamagic:
Choose a Metamagic feat you possess. As a Free Action, you may apply that feat to a Divine spell you are casting without changing its level by sacrificing (1 + the feat’s level adjustment value) of your Turk/Rebuke attempts of the day.
You may take this feat multiple times. Each time, it applies to a different Metamagic feat.
Sudden Maximize
Once per day, you may apply Maximize Spell to a spell you cast without increasing the spell’s level.
As far as I understand it, Sudden Maximize only works once per day, so you only get one maximized spell costing you 1 Turn Undead use in a given day, the rest still costing you 4 T.Us each... and to get that benefit you'd still need the regular Maximize Spell feat, as you already used up your Sudden Maximize for the day.
|
I am playing a cleric in a newbie GM's game.
I came up with a great combo using the divine meta-magic feat and the sudden maximize feat. Mind you there is no lvl adjustment for SUDDEN anything because it's once per day; well divine metamagic says you can use your turns to get your feats lvl adjustment +1.
According to my math my cleric can now maximize his spells 8 times a day(3+1 for cha+4 extra turning)
The question is Would you let a player get away with something like this in YOUR game. The 3.5 rules state it's perfectly legal but it does break the spirit of +3 lvl adjustment for maximised spells.
I as a player think anything that lets me max my lower lvl cures is something to be used but I can see how it can be abused as well.
No.
I am playing a cleric in a newbie GM's game.
I came up with a great combo using the divine meta-magic feat and the sudden maximize feat. Mind you there is no lvl adjustment for SUDDEN anything because it's once per day; well divine metamagic says you can use your turns to get your feats lvl adjustment +1.
According to my math my cleric can now maximize his spells 8 times a day(3+1 for cha+4 extra turning)
The question is Would you let a player get away with something like this in YOUR game. The 3.5 rules state it's perfectly legal but it does break the spirit of +3 lvl adjustment for maximised spells.
I as a player think anything that lets me max my lower lvl cures is something to be used but I can see how it can be abused as well.
Nope - wouldn't allow it. This kind of nonsense is one of the things that drove me from 3E
Orthos is incorrect, it does not specify divine spells. Levering DMM(Persist) onto non-cleric spells is a common past-time of theoretical builds on the old WOTC CO boards.
Non-Cleric, yes. Non-divine, no.
DMM was errata'd into only applying to divine spells. If you got Turn Undead on your Druid or Archivist (which is actually very easy, even without caster level loss), then you could use DMM to improve your spells and it is in fact common practice. However, you cannot do so with a Sorc/Wiz without first finding a way to make their casting divine.
|
|
Orthos is incorrect, it does not specify divine spells. Levering DMM(Persist) onto non-cleric spells is a common past-time of theoretical builds on the old WOTC CO boards.Non-Cleric, yes. Non-divine, no.
DMM was errata'd into only applying to divine spells. If you got Turn Undead on your Druid or Archivist (which is actually very easy, even without caster level loss), then you could use DMM to improve your spells and it is in fact common practice. However, you cannot do so with a Sorc/Wiz without first finding a way to make their casting divine.
Give us the link to the errata then.
Some folks do not use or check for ettra. So stuff gets banned for more then people going "Oh I downloaded the fix for that"
I'd allow. Just remember one thing.
If you can use it, so can I.
Thank you, Gary Gygax. >:|
Killing PCs horribly to make a point is almost always worse than simply saying to players politely, "I think this is going to be disruptive. Could you please not do that?"
"If you can use it so can I" is a standing rule in my games. Has been from day one. My players know what they're getting into.
"If you can use it so can I" is a standing rule in my games. Has been from day one. My players know what they're getting into.
Killing PCs horribly to make a point is almost always worse than simply saying to players politely, "I think this is going to be disruptive. Could you please not do that?"
+1
I am playing a cleric in a newbie GM's game.
I came up with a great combo using the divine meta-magic feat and the sudden maximize feat. Mind you there is no lvl adjustment for SUDDEN anything because it's once per day; well divine metamagic says you can use your turns to get your feats lvl adjustment +1.
According to my math my cleric can now maximize his spells 8 times a day(3+1 for cha+4 extra turning)
The question is Would you let a player get away with something like this in YOUR game. The 3.5 rules state it's perfectly legal but it does break the spirit of +3 lvl adjustment for maximised spells.
I as a player think anything that lets me max my lower lvl cures is something to be used but I can see how it can be abused as well.
I wouldn't allow it in my games. Two reasons, really, though your intent for it doesn't strike me as unbalancing it.
1) It sets precedent. If one person uses it as such, others will assume that it's allowed for any character, and quickly opens things up for abuse.
2) Since its a Sudden feat, I wouldn't allow it. If you want Maximize to be used with Divine Metamagic, I'd require you to take, and use, Maximize Spell. Not a Sudden version.
you're better off having a chat with your players than channeling your inner Gygax.
"Channeling your inner Gygax", sounds something worth starting a new thread. =D
And if your goal is just to be unfair to stop people from doing things, then you're better off having a chat with your players than channeling your inner Gygax.
What you're talking about has nothing to do with Gygaxian DMing. Gygax killed players arbitrarily for doing things "wrong". As in, if you put your ear to a door to listen and try to find out what's on the other side, there were insects that lived in doors that would crawl into your ear and kill you unless you received a remove disease within 3 rounds. That's got nothing to do with using the same tricks the players use.
|
|
And if your goal is just to be unfair to stop people from doing things, then you're better off having a chat with your players than channeling your inner Gygax.What you're talking about has nothing to do with Gygaxian DMing. Gygax killed players arbitrarily for doing things "wrong". As in, if you put your ear to a door to listen and try to find out what's on the other side, there were insects that lived in doors that would crawl into your ear and kill you unless you received a remove disease within 3 rounds. That's got nothing to do with using the same tricks the players use.
And if one of the evil NPCs was the mentor to a PC that tuaght the PC everything he/she knows about adventuring, why wouldn't he/she have the same tricks as the PC?
If all the players agree; or most of them anyway; then I would allow it; I try to never let a rule get in the way of a player build; I do let them know that any build the players can do; my monster can do as well; so it all evens out which is the goal of having rules.
The Sudden Metamagic feats are a bit tricky. They can seem relatively harmless, but with a little ingenuity can be game-breaking really quick(hidden for cleanliness).
For something as extreme as maximizing 8 spells a day, I am not so sure I would allow it. It's hard to justify a character being able to do that without completely being for sheer cheese-ness. Just get some "Armbands of Maximized Healing" from the Magic Item Compendium; you get to maximize 3 healing spells per day.
|
|
And if your goal is just to be unfair to stop people from doing things, then you're better off having a chat with your players than channeling your inner Gygax.What you're talking about has nothing to do with Gygaxian DMing. Gygax killed players arbitrarily for doing things "wrong". As in, if you put your ear to a door to listen and try to find out what's on the other side, there were insects that lived in doors that would crawl into your ear and kill you unless you received a remove disease within 3 rounds. That's got nothing to do with using the same tricks the players use.
And mostly, the idea that Gygax was trying to kill characters is a lie conveyed by wotc to distance themselves from him and to sell more books to players under the marketing guise of "needing" these rules to survive and combat the GM. What a bunch of nonsense over the past 9 years from the wotci.
I appreciate the mention of Gary Gygax though. The idea of rot grubs in doors is very Gygaxian insomuchas the ecology of rotted doors and rot found in dungeons make sense for such things to exist. And yes, things were deadly.
Unfortunately, in today's gaming culture - the thrill of the "metagame" seems to have supplanted the actual game, or discussion of it. And to be clear, so many threads, including this one. Think about it: the discussion is about meta game decisions whether to allow metamagic to exist with reference to books that posit levels of meta-game powers at the table for the player.
The crisis here is that for 9 years the wotci have indoctrined gamers to think dungeons and dragons was or is about character builds, power widgits, and all about individualistic choices. None of this necessarily relates to character-development or story development. Much of this has nothing to do with collective roleplaying, but seems more akin to finding loopholes in the game and exploiting them.
Its no wonder that so many game tables still find an adversarial culture between payers and GMs - not in-game, but meta (above) it. I think its a gross misunderstanding that the game itself was ever about these things.
An analogy: a group of friends get together to play Conquest of the Empire. The ship movement rules are exploited because they don't specifically exclude 1 persons interpretation of them. That player then "wins" because she got to do something with ship combat that other players didn't know/understand or really care about. What is troubling to me, is that nowadays, dungeons and dragons games have become (to extend this analogy) an event by which players get together not to play Conquest of the Empire, but rather to spend their evenings getting together to exploit the rules against one another. This was never what the game was meant to be.
And mostly, the idea that Gygax was trying to kill characters is a lie conveyed by wotc to distance themselves from him and to sell more books to players under the marketing guise of "needing" these rules to survive and combat the GM. What a bunch of nonsense over the past 9 years from the wotci.
To be blunt:
Bullhockey.
Even a casual reading of Gygax's monsters and adventures reveal that he was a very adversarial DM. You played the game his way or you died. It didn't really matter where you were or what you were doing, he had a custom-made ridiculous monster that would kill you for "doing things wrong". It's got nothing to do with WotC, because I had formed that opinion back before WotC took over; in fact, I've never read anything by WotC or any WotC staff even discussing Gygax, let alone badmouthing him.
|
|
Even a casual reading of someone using the phrase, "even a casual reading" tells me you're inflexible and static in your opinion. Adversarial DMs have always been those who don't understand the game very well, and not what Gary advocated for. It is a plain misinterpretation to perceive it the way you do. I reject your bullhockey-and recommend you read the game he invented and wrote about, especially his guidance in the Dungeon Master's Guide. Even your phrase choice on the subject, "custom-made rediculous" gives away your youth of knowledge on the subject.
The wotci capitolized on the myth of the adversarial DM by marketing to players the need for character builds using so many products to survive their DM. Further, its kind of sick that the rules and the company's obsession over them has transferred into the community a belief that excellence comes from twisting rules knowledge, rather than using critical thought or imagination. It was adversarial DMs, who wanted to kill characters, that sucked—and now they think they're masters because they are rules lawyers and detail nijas. NEWS FLASH: Munchkins, meta-gamers, and rules lawyers aren't masters of the game. I argue they're not even playing it. Further, the shift toward 100% rules details discussions on thread/boards/nets/during games provided a comfort zone for who wanted to play but not be challenged to use their imagination.
The fact that a game master has at her disposal UNLIMITED combinations, permutations, powers, levels, forces, armies and deadly thingys is a GIVEN. The fact that someone crys about a creature they could not overcome, or an event that is deadly/lethal, reveals the generation who has lost the mind-expanding art of this game.
The wotci capitolized on the myth of the adversarial DM by marketing to players the need for character builds using so many products to survive their DM.
Can you point me to or remind me of some marketing material that WotC put out that indicated that players needed character builds to survive killer DM's? I don't seem to recall any that could really be interpreted that way, but would be happy to look if you can point me in the right direction.
Further, its kind of sick that the rules and the company's obsession over them has transferred into the community a belief that excellence comes from twisting rules knowledge, rather than using critical thought or imagination.
Wow... that is a lot of bitterness for some reason. I don't recall anything from WotC that would make you think that it is only about rules (and certainly the rules discussions require logic and critical thinking).
I guess what I really don't get is why you seem to think that creativity of story and thinking can not co-exist very nicely with rules or the understanding of them. It has been my experience that the more the rules are understood and consistently applied by the GM and players the less time they take up around the game table so that far more time can be spent on the actual game and the story.
The rules are not the game, but they framework on which it operates. If that framework is solid and well understood then you don't really ever notice the frame and focus on what you are supposed to. If, though, the rules are not understood or followed consistently then they become jarring and are much more the focus of time around the table.
At least that has been my experience.
Additionally, the fact that there is a rules discussion in a thread on the boards does not mean that the people participating in that discussion only care about the rules... it just means that the rules are what that particular discussion is about.
You mention that being a munchkin, meta-gamer and rules lawyer does not make you a master of the game... and you are correct. But not having a decent understanding of the rules DOES detract from the game. If we have to pause a game to, once again, go over the grappeling rules for the same player who always asks, then there is less time to play and have fun.
Likewise, if the original poster or anyone else who is participating in this discussion were to pause their home game to have this discussion there instead of on the boards, then they would have less time to enjoy their game. Having it here helps solidify understanding and give more time for the game.
Coming in and saying that discussions like this are bad fun and are ruining the game is not helpful. This is a message board, if you don't like a particular type of discussion then don't read it. It is pretty rude though to go into discussions you don't enjoy and try to keep other people from having them or discouraging them from doing so.
There is NOT a shift to 100% rules discussion on these boards. There are threads with people looking for character ideas or ideas for a campaign or advice on their campaign. In the AP sections there are very few (relatively) discussions about rules with the exception of conversions and most of the questions are about how to deal with a specific situation or resolve a contradiction in the books. Sure... there are more rules discussions in D&D 3.5/D20/OGL section of the board... because that description denotes a rule set so that is the appropriate place for a discussion about those rules. You sure don't see many of them in the Campaign Journals section as it wouldn't make sense there.
Anyway... I will let this go now.
Sean Mahoney
hmm; does anyone but me think this is a bit of thread jacking? Dont mean to intrude on your arguement; but I am interensted in GM feedback on combos they may not allow and why; thought the original question was interesting.
I'd say 'no'.
1. Too much potential for abuse.
2. Newbie GM would find himself in a position of looking for, and possibly, misinterpreting rules for, countering/bettering it.
3. It nukes the inherent cost of maximize, though I hate the +3 and +4 level costs.
4. Spells in Spell Compendium could make this deadly. Max'd Moon bolt or Languor could nuke a BBEG.
It'd might not be bad a low level but you'd be putting the afterburners on for power creep in your game.
Of course, trying it out and seeing how it actually plays is the best way. I have an iber-powerful build in a game and I deliberately avoid lording over the game itself, and I'm sure others do the same.
you're inflexible and static in your opinion.
Thank you for this excellent example of irony.