Since you can find scrolls and copy the spell in a spell book, and you can find scrolls with spells that are already "meta-magicked", can you then copy a meta-ed spell into a spell book from a scroll? And if so, can you then memorize the meta-ed spell and cast it, even if you don't actually have the appropriate metamagic feat?
I assume not, but not really sure why.
Heh, good questions. I am too lazy tonight to go look to see if they are all answered in the rule book but I'll tell you how I would handle it.
You can find scrolls with meta-magiced spells.
You can't find spell BOOKS with meta-magiced spells.
If you scribe a meta-magiced spell into your spellbook, you lose the metamagic effect and scribe the original spell.
So, no, you could not memorize a metamagiced spell and cast it as if you had the feat. But you could cast it from a scroll. Or a wand. Maybe not a staff.... I'd have to look that up or think about it for a bit...
Since you can find scrolls and copy the spell in a spell book, and you can find scrolls with spells that are already "meta-magicked", can you then copy a meta-ed spell into a spell book from a scroll? And if so, can you then memorize the meta-ed spell and cast it, even if you don't actually have the appropriate metamagic feat?
I assume not, but not really sure why.
It is not covered in the rules either way. But I would allow it. But the spell would have to be copied with the higher spell level because of the metamagic feat, and wouldn't need the metamagic feat to cast it. He also couldn't remove the feat and cast the spell in its normal version. (So, if you had Maximized Fireball in your spellbook, you could only prepare it as a Maximized Fireball, not a normal Fireball.)
I would also let spellcasters use the Independent Research rules to research a version of the spell with metamagic effects added in. (It may not make a difference to most casters, but it will to sorcerers. Applying metamagic feats to spontaneously cast spells increases the casting time. If the sorcerer knew Maximized Fireball as a spell in itself, the casting time would be a standard action as normal.)
Since you can find scrolls and copy the spell in a spell book, and you can find scrolls with spells that are already "meta-magicked", can you then copy a meta-ed spell into a spell book from a scroll? And if so, can you then memorize the meta-ed spell and cast it, even if you don't actually have the appropriate metamagic feat?
I assume not, but not really sure why.
It is not covered in the rules either way. But I would allow it. But the spell would have to be copied with the higher spell level because of the metamagic feat, and wouldn't need the metamagic feat to cast it. He also couldn't remove the feat and cast the spell in its normal version. (So, if you had Maximized Fireball in your spellbook, you could only prepare it as a Maximized Fireball, not a normal Fireball.)
I would also let spellcasters use the Independent Research rules to research a version of the spell with metamagic effects added in. (It may not make a difference to most casters, but it will to sorcerers. Applying metamagic feats to spontaneously cast spells increases the casting time. If the sorcerer knew Maximized Fireball as a spell in itself, the casting time would be a standard action as normal.)
If you allow this, you will allow metamagic feats to stack as far as a wizard can stack them, and sorcerers would not get the same ability.
Balance issues?
To me, yes.
I'm not sure that permitting "double stacking" is an inherent part of how Jeraa would handle it.
I'm not sure that permitting "double stacking" is an inherent part of how Jeraa would handle it.
Well then Jera would have to house rule something along the lines of "A metamagic spell written as a metamagiced spell in a spellbook can be metamagiced by all metamagic feats except those that were alreay applied in the spell written in the spellbook."
How is a wizard (in game, not metagaming) going to know that the summon monster spell metamagiced with "extend spell" can't be extended again?
I just wouldn't let it happen. Besides, the whole point and flavor of metamagic is that it is applied as the spell is cast through the spellcaster with the feat. I'd love to see this FAQ'd, I suspect Paizo would see it my way.
Well, some metamagic feats couldn't stack. You can't double maximize a spell for example.
However, what is the difference between an Extended Summon Monster 1 spell, and a custom researched 2nd level spell that has the effects of a Summon Monster 1, but lasts 2 rounds/level?
It isn't double stacking. Jeraa's Force Armor is a second level spell, granting a +4 armor bonus to AC, and last for 2 hour's a level. The fact that an Extended Mage Armor spell has the exact same effects is beside the point. Jeraa's Force Armor isn't a Mage Armor spell. You can apply an Extend Spell to a Jeraa's Force Armor spell if you wanted. It isn't double stacking Extend Spell, its adding a metamagic feat to a spell that just happens to duplicate the effects of what a metamagiced lower level spell could do.
Note: This is about using the Independent Research rules to make spells that just happen to duplicate metamagiced spells. As for just copying the scroll, no additional rules are needed. THe metamagic feat is already included in the name. It's called Empowered Fireball, not Fireball. It would be obvious which feats are already included.
Yeah, OK Jeraa, not interested in yet another rules debate.
I wouldn't allow it unless Paizo releases an errata saying it works that way.
That's all. It's probably not game breaking. Probably. I think anyway. But there's a lot of spells to check into to be sure. And I'm lazy. Plus I don't think it adds anything to the game.
Just my $.02.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Yeah, OK Jeraa, not interested in yet another rules debate.
Wait, what debate? There is no debate. The rules are silent on the issue. I never said that is how the game does it. Everything else I have said is how I would do it. I don't see any debate here. Just stating my own personal houserules, and then answering a question someone had on my houserule.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Wait, what debate? There is no debate. The rules are silent on the issue. I never said that is how the game does it. Everything else I have said is how I would do it. I don't see any debate here. Just stating my own personal houserules, and then answering a question someone had on my houserule.Yeah, OK Jeraa, not interested in yet another rules debate.
Good, then we agree to disagree agreeably. Quite unusual on the boards lately...