Okay, that's ultimately another guy commenting in a thread for official purposes.
It's not that I think the designers are untrustworthy, incompetent, or dumb or anything. Not at all! The reason it is completely untenable to have forum posts be RAW is instead that they're almost impossible to track, organize, or keep up with. (even if they claimed they wanted comments to be, which they don't now and rightly so).
Expecting anybody to have any sort of common knowledge of rules from random scattered forums posts is ridiculous, unlike at least potentially being able to read through the FAQ or erratas all in one place and be up to date. Might as well have official rules handwritten and hidden under rocks outside the Paizo office building after a point. Just isn't reasonable for any player to expect a GM to know about such things, or vice versa, so they cannot realistically serve as official rules, for basic pragmatic reasons.
And this was recognized and dealt with, probably when the forums started getting too big, I'm assuming. Don't know all the history of it.
Quote: If you are asking what a Quickend Create Water spell is, then the answer is it is a 4th level spell and as such takes up a 4th level slot and the caster may only prepare/cast as many of those as he has 4th level slots. Nope it's a zero level spell prepared in a 4th level slot.
CRB:
Quote: 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. And the infinite castability of cantrips is a feature granted to them by merit of being cantrips, it doesn't say anything about being based on slot.
And then the definition of a cantrip is being a 0 level spell (not using a 0 level slot!).
So a quickened create water is a 0-level cantrip in a 4th level slot, that is not expended when cast since it's still a cantrip.
Crimeo wrote: Okay, that's another guy commenting in a thread.
It's not that I think the designers are untrustworthy or dumb or anything. The reason it is completely untenable to have forum posts be RAW is that they're almost impossible to track, organize, or keep up with. (even if they claimed they wanted comments to be, which they don't now and rightly so).
Expecting anybody to have any sort of common knowledge of rules from random scattered forums posts is ridiculous, unlike at least potentially being able to read through the FAQ or erratas all in one place and be up to date. Might as well have official rules handwritten and hidden under rocks outside the Paizo office building after a point. Just isn't reasonable for any player to expect a GM to know about such things, or vice versa, so they cannot realistically serve as official rules, for basic pragmatic reasons if nothing else.
And this was recognized and dealt with, probably when the forums started getting too big, I'm assuming. Don't know all the history of it.
The system was far less formal in those days. And Jason isn't just "another guy commenting in a thread." He is The Rules Guy, and he was clearly posting in his official role as lead designer.
I'll point out that they did address this issue for Witches.
APG wrote: Cantrips: Witches can prepare a number of cantrips, or 0-level spells, each day, as noted on Table 2–10 under “Spells per Day.” These spells are cast like any other spell, but they are not expended when cast and may be used again. Cantrips prepared using other spell slots, due to metamagic feats for example, are expended normally. And a bit less clearly for Summoners.
APG wrote: Cantrips: A summoner learns a number of cantrips, or 0-level spells, as noted on Table 2–8 under "Spells Known." These spells are cast like any other spell, but they may be cast any number of times per day. Cantrips prepared using other spell slots, due to metamagic feats, for example, consume spell slots as normally. They seem to have overlooked this when writing UM since the Magus still has the older language. The lack of consistency in wording is something that should be fixed, but Jason was very clear about the intended reading.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber
Crimeo wrote: Quote: If you are asking what a Quickend Create Water spell is, then the answer is it is a 4th level spell and as such takes up a 4th level slot and the caster may only prepare/cast as many of those as he has 4th level slots. Nope it's a zero level spell prepared in a 4th level slot.
CRB:
Quote: 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. And the infinite castability of cantrips is a feature granted to them by merit of being cantrips, it doesn't say anything about being based on slot.
And then the definition of a cantrip is being a 0 level spell (not using a 0 level slot!).
So a quickened create water is a 0-level cantrip in a 4th level slot, that is not expended when cast since it's still a cantrip. Fine then I cannot convince you of my interpretation of the RAW on this and you cannot convince me.
This is an example were each side may claim RAW on an issue but remember that EVERYTHING that we as humans take into our brains is subjective and based on our interpretation of it. So there is no one truth that humans can comprehend and there are no facts as everything is relative to the person taking in the data.
So I wish you luck with your interpretation and would count myself lucky to be at your table if you were the DM and ruled this issue as such. I can think of all kinds of shenanigans that would ensue with unlimited Quicked Maximized spells and such...
Hendelbolaf wrote: Crimeo wrote: Quote: If you are asking what a Quickend Create Water spell is, then the answer is it is a 4th level spell and as such takes up a 4th level slot and the caster may only prepare/cast as many of those as he has 4th level slots. Nope it's a zero level spell prepared in a 4th level slot.
CRB:
Quote: 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. And the infinite castability of cantrips is a feature granted to them by merit of being cantrips, it doesn't say anything about being based on slot.
And then the definition of a cantrip is being a 0 level spell (not using a 0 level slot!).
So a quickened create water is a 0-level cantrip in a 4th level slot, that is not expended when cast since it's still a cantrip. Fine then I cannot convince you of my interpretation of the RAW on this and you cannot convince me.
This is an example were each side may claim RAW on an issue but remember that EVERYTHING that we as humans take into our brains is subjective and based on our interpretation of it. So there is no one truth that humans can comprehend and there are no facts as everything is relative to the person taking in the data.
So I wish you luck with your interpretation and would count myself lucky to be at your table if you were the DM and ruled this issue as such. I can think of all kinds of shenanigans that would ensue with unlimited Quicked Maximized spells and such...
Crimeo is correct that a quickened cantrip is not a 4th level spell. It is a 0 level spell that takes up a 4th level slot. He is wrong when he says that said quickened spell can be cast more than once. When it takes up a 4th level spell slot it is expended when cast.
What's the most broken thing you could do with a metamagic-loaded infinite cantrip?
Quote: Fine then I cannot convince you of my interpretation of the RAW on this and you cannot convince me. So the quote from metamagic that very clearly says "This does not become a higher level spell" "doesn't convince you" that it's not a higher level spell?
I mean, can you even describe to me anything that it COULD hypothetically say that would convince you? What more could you want?
Quote: and would count myself lucky to be at your table if you were the DM and ruled this issue as such. I would never rule that way. I'm just saying it is RAW. At my table, I would house rule it to not be infinitely usable.
Quote: He is wrong when he says that said quickened spell can be cast more than once. When it takes up a 4th level spell slot it is expended when cast. By RAI, not by RAW, for wizards. Unless you have a book, FAQ, or errata quote.
By RAW for the witch and summmoner, I would agree with you.
Astral Wanderer wrote: What's the most broken thing you could do with a metamagic-loaded infinite cantrip? Persistent Dazing Toppling cantrip o' doom.
QuidEst wrote: Astral Wanderer wrote: What's the most broken thing you could do with a metamagic-loaded infinite cantrip? Persistent Dazing Toppling cantrip o' doom. Don't forget to have a quickened copy, as well as heighten as much as you can afford.
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
Crimeo wrote: By RAI, not by RAW, for wizards. Unless you have a book, FAQ, or errata quote.
By RAW for the witch and summmoner, I would agree with you.
*rolleyes*
I think here is where we remind people that even RAW requires common sense interpretation.
Interpreting RAW like a robot is against RAW.
Quote: I think here is where we remind people that even RAW requires common sense interpretation. There's nothing to "interpret" about "Cantrips are zero level and don't expend slots." + "Metamagic doesn't increase spell level" = "metamagic cantrips don't expend slots."
"Doing the opposite of what it plainly states because I don't like it" =/= "interpreting". It's house ruling. And like I said, I'm the first in line to house rule it myself, but that's what it is.
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
FAQ wrote: Metamagic: At what spell level does the spell count for concentration DCs, magus spell recall, or a pearl of power?
The spell counts as the level of the spell slot necessary to cast it.
For example, an empowered burning hands uses a 3rd-level spell slot, counts as a 3rd-level spell for making concentration checks, counts as a 3rd-level spell for a magus's spell recall or a pearl of power.
In general, use the (normal, lower) spell level or the (higher) spell slot level, whichever is more of a disadvantage for the caster. The advantages of the metamagic feat are spelled out in the Benefits section of the feat, and the increased spell slot level is a disadvantage.
Heighten Spell is really the only metamagic feat that makes using a higher-level spell slot an advantage instead of a disadvantage.
The bolded section of the FAQ disagrees with you Crimeo. Zero level level spells placed in a higher level slot are expended because that is the most disadvantageous option.
There are some RAW interpretations that are so stupid that to interpret them RAW is insane. When RAW breaks the game, RAW isn't RAW.
Example, Hexcrafter:
Quote: Hex Magus (Su)
At 4th level, the hexcrafter magus gains access to a small number of witch’s hexes. The hexcrafter magus picks one hex from the witch’s hex class feature. He gains the benefit of or uses that hex as if he were a witch of a level equal to his magus level.
Ok, all well and good.
Quote: Hex Arcana
A hexcrafter gains access to the following magus arcana, or may select any witch hex in place of a magus arcana. At 12th level, the hexcrafter may select a hex or major hex in place of a magus arcana. At 18th level, a hexcrafter can select a hex, major hex, or grand hex in place of a magus arcana. He cannot select any hex or arcana more than once.
Whoops, no language saying that he uses those hexes as a witch of equal level to his magus, guess all of those hexes just don't work.
RAW
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber
Socrates is mortal
All men are mortal
All men are Socrates
That is like what you are saying.
You say that you do not believe that is how it is supposed to be yet that is how you take each of the words and statements written to be so you continue to argue the point that is how the rules read. Why continue to argue the point?
That is the downside of these messageboards when people recite like a mantra what their take on the rules as written is.
Could we have better editing of the rules? Sure!
Would their still be mistakes? Sure!
Is everything worn an FAQ? Not in my opinion!
What happened to a common sense reading of the rules and an understanding that their is no one right way to look at every situation?
Hendelbolaf wrote: What happened to a common sense reading of the rules and an understanding that their is no one right way to look at every situation? HERETIC!
;)
Gauss wrote: FAQ wrote: Metamagic: At what spell level does the spell count for concentration DCs, magus spell recall, or a pearl of power?
The spell counts as the level of the spell slot necessary to cast it.
For example, an empowered burning hands uses a 3rd-level spell slot, counts as a 3rd-level spell for making concentration checks, counts as a 3rd-level spell for a magus's spell recall or a pearl of power.
In general, use the (normal, lower) spell level or the (higher) spell slot level, whichever is more of a disadvantage for the caster. The advantages of the metamagic feat are spelled out in the Benefits section of the feat, and the increased spell slot level is a disadvantage.
Heighten Spell is really the only metamagic feat that makes using a higher-level spell slot an advantage instead of a disadvantage.
The bolded section of the FAQ disagrees with you Crimeo. Zero level level spells placed in a higher level slot are expended because that is the most disadvantageous option. According to the FAQ, you should choose either level 0 (which isn't expended for a cantrip) or level 4 (which isn't expended for a cantrip), based on whichever you deem more disadvantageous. I'm not seeing either as more disadvantageous in this respect, but your choice!
As to where you got the idea that this FAQ changes the rules of cantrips to ever suddenly start expending slots, I'm not sure.
Quote: There are some RAW interpretations that are so stupid that to interpret them RAW is insane. When RAW breaks the game, RAW isn't RAW. RAW, as I'm sure you are aware, means "Rules as written", not "Rules as written unless the writing implies bad game design choices in which case it's not what's written anymore but instead what would be a less bad game design choice"
So no, if what they WROTE was a broken game, then the RAW are those of a broken game. (Not that that's a huge deal, since it's easy to just unbreak the game at your table with a house ruling)
Quote: Socrates is mortal
All men are mortal
All men are Socrates
That is like what you are saying.
You could throw that up as an "argument" against literally anything in the world.
What is your actual reason for not interpreting the text this way? Quote the sections that imply otherwise, etc. I.e., actually address the issue, please. "You're wrong" is not an argument by itself, nor is "here's a random thing in the world that is wrong, you are like that thing"
Quote: What happened to a common sense reading of the rules I'm not claiming it's common sense. I'm claiming it's what's written. Being sensical is not a universal feature of all written text...
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
Crimeo, you are misreading the FAQ (as usual).
Pick an effect related to spell level vs spell slot. Now, use whichever is most disadvantageous regarding that effect.
It is quite clear that the disadvantageous element here is that you do not get to keep your 4th level spell slot memorized after you have cast a metamagicked zero level cantrip out of it.
But, as usual, you may continue to misread the rules to your heart's content. Enjoy! :)
Quote: Pick an effect related to spell level vs spell slot. Now, use whichever is most disadvantageous regarding that effect. Yep.
Step 1 -- pick an effect) Expenditure of the slot
Step 2 -- Choose the most disadvantageous level) Neither, since neither expend the slot when filled with a cantrip. Since cantrips don't expend slots. "Not using up a 4th level slot" is no more or less disadvantageous than "not using up a 0th level slot."
Crimeo wrote: RAW, as I'm sure you are aware, means "Rules as written", not "Rules as written unless the writing implies bad game design choices in which case it's not what's written anymore but instead what would be a less bad game design choice" And I'm sure that you know that language is not a precise communication medium, therefore "Rules as Written" only exists as "Rules as Interpreted".
Do you think that, by RAW, the Hexcrafter archetype doesn't work?
Do you think that's the only thing in the game that is broken by a literal interpretation of RAW?
You simply can't play pathfinder if you interpret RAW robotically, you're playing a different game altogether though, looking at the threads you've been involved in recently, maybe you find that game more fun.
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
Crimeo wrote: Quote: Pick an effect related to spell level vs spell slot. Now, use whichever is most disadvantageous regarding that effect. Yep.
Step 1 -- pick an effect) Expenditure of the slot
Step 2 -- Choose the most disadvantageous level) Neither, since neither expend the slot when filled with a cantrip. Since cantrips don't expend slots. "Not using up a 4th level slot" is no more or less disadvantageous than "not using up a 0th level slot." Cantrips are defined as level 0 spells. If the spell level is increased, it is no longer a cantrip. Therefore the FAQ applies.
Quote: And I'm sure that you know that language is not a precise communication medium, therefore "Rules as Written" only exists as "Rules as Interpreted". Not really relevant yet when, at a given point in a conversation, nobody seems to have provided any actual arguments for any other interpretation from the text.
Just writing some other thing that you feel like the rules should have been with no quotes as to why, no explanation or justification why, not identification of wording or anything that should possibly make you think that, etc., is not truly an "interpretation".
I already did.
Cantrips are defined as 0 level spells. When the spells are no longer 0th level, they are no longer cantrips.
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
Hendelbolaf wrote:
What happened to a common sense reading of the rules and an understanding that their is no one right way to look at every situation?
PFS would tend to disagree with you that there is no one right way to read the rules.
bbangerter wrote: Hendelbolaf wrote:
What happened to a common sense reading of the rules and an understanding that their is no one right way to look at every situation?
PFS would tend to disagree with you that there is no one right way to read the rules. No they wouldn't. For one thing, there is still plenty of table variance. Secondly, a PFS reading of the rules isn't necessarily the 'right' reading, it's just their reading.
My guess is that they don't play Hexcrafters 'RAW'.
I guess I'm missing something with how that works, since I don't play PFS. But the hundreds of rules threads that have a phrase such as "This is for PFS..." seemed to suggest they were pretty strict about things like that. Guess I got the wrong impression from that.
Quote: Cantrips are defined as level 0 spells. If the spell level is increased, it is no longer a cantrip. Cantrips refer throughout the book to like, the actual spells. As in "Hey look here's ghost sound, it's a cantrip." I think it is pretty obvious that they mean 0 level spells as in their native form, not just whatever effective level they're in right at the moment. They are all listed in all the spell lists in all the books by name as cantrips:
http://www.d20pfsrd.com/magic/spell-lists-and-domains/spell-lists---sorcere r-and-wizard (see the headers, also in print version)
I.e. acid splash is a cantrip, Ghost sound is just a cantrip. Etc. This is the confirmed here in this other FAQ:
Quote: Ghost Sound: Can this create intelligible speech?
Making something that sounds like speech, and actually making intelligible speech are two different things. Ghost sound can sound like people talking, but anyone listening can't make out what the "people" are saying. After all, it is a cantrip, and shouldn't be as good as ventriloquism (which is a higher-level spell).
And "cantrip" is also used throughout the book too in other places regarding native spell level, such as writing stuff into spellbooks, various feats, etc.
Also, the usage of the term, "EFFECTIVE level" as in "not the actual level, which spells inherently have and which we are implying is what we mean when we say spell level without a modifying adjective"
But sure, I'll grant you this detail is not absolutely black and white like the others involved. It is just heavily implied throughout like 50 pages of the book vs. one line int the relevant class pages. But sure, go for it.
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
Crimeo wrote: Quote: Pick an effect related to spell level vs spell slot. Now, use whichever is most disadvantageous regarding that effect. Yep.
Step 1 -- pick an effect) Expenditure of the slot
Step 2 -- Choose the most disadvantageous level) Neither, since neither expend the slot when filled with a cantrip. Since cantrips don't expend slots. "Not using up a 4th level slot" is no more or less disadvantageous than "not using up a 0th level slot." You aren't really following the FAQ. In Step 2 you are treating the spell as if it were a zero level spell for both cases. You are comparing the normal level to the normal level. If that is the way the FAQ is supposed to work then the sentence "In general, use the (normal, lower) spell level or the (higher) spell slot level, whichever is more of a disadvantage for the caster" is entirely useless.
The FAQ is asking you to compare the benefits of casting the spell at its normal level (zero on this case) to the benefits of casting it if it was really the level of the higher slot (fourth in this case). Then you are supposed to use the worst version for each property.
You have already said that the spell could only be cast once if it wasn't a zero level spell.
Crimeo wrote: Quote: Basically what I wanted to know was "is a 0-level spell still able to be repeatedly cast if it's prepared in a higher spell slot." Yes a cantrip is defined as "zero level spells" not as "spells prepared in a 0 level spell slot."
So if you prepare acid splash in a 1st level slot, it's still a zero level spell in a 1st level slot, so it's still a cantrip because only the first part of that is the definition.
A HEIGHTENED cantrip would only be able to be cast once, since that actually raises the effective level of the spell. But that's the only reason I can think of. Note that other metamagic, though, would not stop it from being still infinite. You can prepare a quickened, dazing acid orb and cast it infinitely many times by RAW using just one 7th level spell slot. So we compare the two hypotheticals...
(a) It is a zero level spell and so is not expended when cast.
(b) It is a fourth level spell and so is expended when cast.
Clearly (b) is the more disadvantageous case.
bbangerter wrote: I guess I'm missing something with how that works, since I don't play PFS. But the hundreds of rules threads that have a phrase such as "This is for PFS..." seemed to suggest they were pretty strict about things like that. Guess I got the wrong impression from that. The "This is for PFS..." statement is basically letting people know to not include the things that are banned from PFS, like the Synthesist archetype for Summoners, or using Permanency to get an always-on Enlarge Person, or custom crafted magic items, etc.
In PFS, at the table, the GMs attempt to use the RAW for rules, where it doesn't break into the realm of the unplayable, like the RAW reading of that feat mentioned above. We are encouraged to say, "Yes." within reason.
But, in PFS as in any home game, you will run into some things that are unclear in the rules. And, as will happen in home games, the actual interpretation will vary form GM to GM.
An example, and one where I am less permissive than the general run, is the reading of the Paladin's Detect Evil ability.
Can the Paladin just spend a Move action to get the 3rd round reading on a person in their line of sight, or do they have to activate [Detect Evil[/i] as a Standard, then spend an additional Move action to focus it on that person?
My ruling is the second, unless someone has a link to an FAQ that clarifies it to the other reading for me. I know some other GMs rule the first way.
On the original issue, does a metamagicked cantrip, which is also affected by wayang spell hunter or magical lineage (or both) so that it remains a 0 level spell, remain infinitely castable?
kinevon wrote: On the original issue, does a metamagicked cantrip, which is also affected by wayang spell hunter or magical lineage (or both) so that it remains a 0 level spell, remain infinitely castable? Expect table variation because I don't think there's official clarification on that point. If you tried to abuse it, expect the table variation to weigh more heavily against the idea. If you're just thinking of extending the range (for example), the GM would be more likely to let you do it.
I do think that would technically be allowed though.
That would remove any possible ambiguity thus far mentioned. The only snag anybody's brought up is if you interpret "cantrips" to be defined as "0 [effective/current] spell level" and not "0 [actual] spell level" (as in text of Burning Spell feat).
But if you're using wayang and/or lineage, that's not even relevant anymore, because your choice for most disadvantageous would be between 0 and 0 anyway, both of which are undeniably cantrips no matter what.
Although safety vs. any ambiguity does cost you a limit of +2 metamagic, limiting options.
Crimeo wrote: That would remove any possible ambiguity thus far mentioned. The only snag anybody's brought up is if you interpret "cantrips" to be defined as "0 [effective/current] spell level" and not "0 [actual] spell level" (as in text of Burning Spell feat).
But if you're using wayang and/or lineage, that's not even relevant anymore, because your choice for most disadvantageous would be between 0 and 0 anyway, both of which are undeniably cantrips no matter what.
I'm in complete agreement. In cases like these, there aren't any rules elements that I know of suggesting that the spell is expendable. The spell still isn't using up a spell slot so it isn't expended when cast.
|
1 person marked this as FAQ candidate.
|
Can the Adept NPC class cast 0 level spells an unlimited number of times? It doesn't actually say so like the PC classes.
Crimeo wrote: Quote: Cantrips are defined as level 0 spells. If the spell level is increased, it is no longer a cantrip. Cantrips refer throughout the book to like, the actual spells. As in "Hey look here's ghost sound, it's a cantrip." I think it is pretty obvious that they mean 0 level spells as in their native form, not just whatever effective level they're in right at the moment. Not only do they mean 0 level, as I said they actually are defined as 0 level spells:
Quote: Wizards can prepare a number of cantrips, or 0-level spells, each day, as noted on Table: Wizard under “Spells per Day.” Grammatically, a term followed by a phrase like that defines the term.
In this context, it obviously doesn't mean cantrips OR 0-level spells in an either-or sense because 1) there are no 0-level wizard spells that are not cantrips, and 2) that would be written without the commas like so:
Quote: Wizards can prepare a number of cantrips or 0-level spells each day, as noted on Table: Wizard under “Spells per Day.”
Ozy, yes it says 0 level. You are reading this as "0 adjusted level" whereas from context throughout half a dozen places, I think it's very clear overall that it is supposed to be "0 ACTUAL level" (see for instance the text of burning spell metamagic"). I.e. "0 native/base/true level, the level listed in spell lists" (which are labeled cantrips! Another of the several clues. Some others mentioned above).
No, from the FAQ it is clear that you use either 0 adjusted or 0 actual whichever is more disadvantageous.
So, combine that FAQ with the 0-level definition of cantrips, and you have the answer. A 4th level metamagic'd cantrip is no longer a cantrip and can't be cast infinitely.
Guys,
The FAQ says metamagicked cantrips burn out the slot
The Developer says the same thing.
How is this still a question?
Matthew Morris wrote: Guys,
The FAQ says metamagicked cantrips burn out the slot
The Developer says the same thing.
How is this still a question?
Because there is a certain population that believes the rules forums only purpose is to clarify the strictest definition of what RAW is. Personally, I like to reference what Nefreet said about "RAW".
Quote: No, from the FAQ it is clear that you use either 0 adjusted or 0 actual whichever is more disadvantageous. That's only for metamagic whereas in this case, we are talking about the definition and function of cantrips, written in the class description, which is not metamagic and has nothing to do with metamagic necessarily. They haven't even introduced the word "metamagic" in the book yet by the time you are reading class descriptions. It's just text in a class ability description. There is no "pick the more disadvantageous interpretation" rule when it comes to class ability descriptions.
If the definition is "0 actual level spells" then that's it: ghost sound is then a cantrip, period. Whether it's quickened or not won't matter, because it will be a cantrip in either case, and cantrips don't expend slots.
Whereas if the definition is "0 adjusted-by-whatever level spells" as in that being established in the class description alone already, then when you go to do a quickened one, it would change being a cantrip or not based on the metamagic, and thus change whether it expends slots.
The former of those two possibilities is much more heavily implied throughout the entire CRB than the latter.
Did you even read the FAQ? It explained how metamagic interacts with other rules such as pearls of power, concentration DCs, and so on.
The definition of cantrips and slot usage falls under this 'other rules' category, where cantrips are defined as a 0th level spell.
Is a metamagic cantrip a 0th level spell? Well, now you go to the FAQ to see if it's better or worse to consider the actual or effective level with respect to slot usage, definitions, and 'other rules', and the answer is no. It's no longer a cantrip because it is no longer a 0th level spell.
In any case, given that your main argument was this:
Quote: JJ saying stuff in a thread =/= rules.
The actual text seems very very clear that only heighten spell changes the spell level, and every other metamagic definitely does not change spell level, and cantrips are definitely defined as their level not their slot.
Not seeing any iffy grammar or any other wiggle room there in the RAW.
Now that we have FAQ and grammar that provides the wiggle room you were looking for, why are you still here arguing?
Quote: Did you even read the FAQ? It explained how metamagic interacts with other rules such as pearls of power, concentration DCs, and so on. The definition of cantrip is a standalone definition that either is "actual level 0" OR it is "adjusted level 0".
One or the other. Not both, not fluid, not dynamic. Because the only thing that's fluid by that FAQ is which spell level you use for metamagic. Nothing else. Not "what the definition of a cantrip is", not "what is the weather like" not "what class and race Jim is", none of these other variables... because none of those things are spell levels.
It's ONLY the spell level that varies based on advantageousness. So, if cantrip is not defined based on adjusted spell levels in the first place but only static actual level, then who the hell cares what spell level we use for the spell, since it would still be a cantrip either way, and thus still expend slots either way (it's actual level underneath doesn't change no matter what you're using for spell casting purposes), making it not any more disadvantageous one way or the other, and the FAQ is irrelevant.
You are arbitrarily making things up now, and you didn't answer my final question. Why are you still arguing when your demand for grammar with wiggle room was provided with a FAQ as an additional bonus?
Crimeo wrote: Quote: And I'm sure that you know that language is not a precise communication medium, therefore "Rules as Written" only exists as "Rules as Interpreted". Not really relevant yet when, at a given point in a conversation, nobody seems to have provided any actual arguments for any other interpretation from the text.
Just writing some other thing that you feel like the rules should have been with no quotes as to why, no explanation or justification why, not identification of wording or anything that should possibly make you think that, etc., is not truly an "interpretation". Page 9, Core Rulebook:
Quote: The Most Important Rule
The rules in this book are here to help you breathe life into
your characters and the world they explore. While they are
designed to make your game easy and exciting, you might
find that some of them do not suit the style of play that your
gaming group enjoys. Remember that these rules are yours.
You can change them to fit your needs. Most Game Masters
have a number of “house rules” that they use in their games.
The Game Master and players should always discuss any
rules changes to make sure that everyone understands how
the game will be played. Although the Game Master is the
final arbiter of the rules, the Pathfinder RPG is a shared
experience, and all of the players should contribute their
thoughts when the rules are in doubt.
This is why I don't get the RAW vs RAI arguments.
Quote: Why are you still arguing when your demand for grammar with wiggle room was provided with a FAQ as an additional bonus? My goal is to establish as clearly as possible what the rules say. Not "achieving 'demands'" or earning "bonuses" whatever that's all supposed to mean.
You have just now recently begun to incorrectly overly broadly apply that FAQ (claiming it applies to pick the most disadvantageous term definitions now, instead of just spell levels like it says), so you've opened up a new misconception that should be cleared up.
I was happy to stop the discussion prior to that being claimed.
Quote: This is why I don't get the RAW vs RAI arguments. If your answer to everything were simply that, then why click on the "Rules Forum" link in the first place? It's clearly intended as a place to discuss details of things outside of rule 0.
Crimeo wrote: Quote: Why are you still arguing when your demand for grammar with wiggle room was provided with a FAQ as an additional bonus? My goal is to establish as clearly as possible what the rules say. Not "achieving 'demands'" or earning "bonuses" whatever that's all supposed to mean.
You have just now recently begun to incorrectly overly broadly apply that FAQ (claiming it applies to pick the most disadvantageous term definitions now, instead of just spell levels like it says), so you've opened up a new misconception that should be cleared up.
I was happy to stop the discussion prior to that being claimed. I already quoted your relevant post on the matter.
And you are misstating what I said.
The FAQ says when you apply metamagic you use the spell level or the slot level, whichever is more disadvantageous as the spell level for the rule consideration at hand.
From the FAQ:
Quote: The spell counts as the level of the spell slot necessary to cast it. So, the metamagic 'cantrip' counts as a 4th level spell. Is a 4th level spell a 0th level spell? Nope. Therefore that spell is not a cantrip, and uses up slots accordingly.
No actual, no effective, just the spell level. It is a 4th level spell in this situation.
Crimeo wrote: Quote: Did you even read the FAQ? It explained how metamagic interacts with other rules such as pearls of power, concentration DCs, and so on. The definition of cantrip is a standalone definition that either is "actual level 0" OR it is "adjusted level 0".
One or the other. Not both, not fluid, not dynamic. Because the only thing that's fluid by that FAQ is which spell level you use for metamagic. Nothing else. Not "what the definition of a cantrip is", not "what is the weather like" not "what class and race Jim is", none of these other variables... because none of those things are spell levels.
It's ONLY the spell level that varies based on advantageousness. So, if cantrip is not defined based on adjusted spell levels in the first place but only static actual level, then who the hell cares what spell level we use for the spell, since it would still be a cantrip either way, and thus still expend slots either way (it's actual level underneath doesn't change no matter what you're using for spell casting purposes), making it not any more disadvantageous one way or the other, and the FAQ is irrelevant. Actually according to the Core Rulebook, page 79:
Quote: Cantrips: Wizards can prepare a number of cantrips,
or 0-level spells, each day, as noted on Table 3–16 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 an opposed school, but
it uses up two of his available slots (see below).
Is Ray of Frost still a cantrip once it isn't level 0 anymore? You like to use math-like arguments so:
"level 0 spell"=cantrip
^That is RAW.
The FAQ says to treat the level of the spell in the most disadvantageous manner possible(between original level or a level equal to the spell slot filled). Because a quickened level 0 spell would be most problematic if treated as level 4:
("Quickened Ray of Frost"="level 4 spell" ) != "level 0 spell"
Your argument seems to be:
"Ray of Frost" = "cantrip" = "Quickened Ray of Frost"
Which would mean:
"Ray of Frost" = "Quickened Ray of Frost"
Obviously a quickened spell is not a non-quickened spell.
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
Maybe the 5th person to tell him the same thing will finally work. ;)
Quote: The FAQ says when you apply metamagic you use the spell level or the slot level, whichever is more disadvantageous as the spell level for the rule consideration at hand. A choice which makes no difference if the definition of cantrip is "0th ACTUAL level spells"
Because if so, then the FAQ is giving you a choice between a cantrip (0th actual level spell) currently using a 0 spell level OR a cantrip (0th actual level spell) currently using a 4th level slot.
Since the "doesn't expend slots" rule is part of being a cantrip itself, in both cases, you wouldn't expend the slot, so who cares?
Quote: So, the metamagic 'cantrip' counts as a 4th level spell. Is a 4th level spell a 0th [ACTUAL] level spell? Bold, crucial word added by me. And then YES, would be your answer, if the original spell was, say, ghost sound.
Quote: Is Ray of Frost still a cantrip once it isn't level 0 anymore? If you're talking about "isn't ACTUAL level 0", then that's impossible, that can never happen, it's actual level will forever and in all circumstances be 0, so yes it's still a cantrip if that's what cantrip means.
Crimeo wrote: Quote: The FAQ says when you apply metamagic you use the spell level or the slot level, whichever is more disadvantageous as the spell level for the rule consideration at hand. A choice which makes no difference if the definition of cantrip is "0th ACTUAL level spells"
Because if so, then the FAQ is giving you a choice between a cantrip (0th actual level spell) currently using a 0 spell level OR a cantrip (0th actual level spell) currently using a 4th level slot.
Since the "doesn't expend slots" rule is part of being a cantrip itself, in both cases, you wouldn't expend the slot, so who cares?
Quote: So, the metamagic 'cantrip' counts as a 4th level spell. Is a 4th level spell a 0th [ACTUAL] level spell? Bold, crucial word added by me. And then YES, would be your answer, if the original spell was, say, ghost sound. it is 4th level for purposes of slot expenditure, but still 0th actual level at the same time, so if "cantrip" means "0th actual level" it's still a cantrip, and still doesn't expend it's 4th level slot. It is not about whether they are [ACTUAL] levels, but about whether they are [METAPHYSICAL] levels. Let us not forget about the possibility of [VIRTUAL] levels and [THEORETICAL] levels, as these could well change the entire argument.
Quote: It is not about whether they are [ACTUAL] levels, but about whether they are [METAPHYSICAL] levels. Let us not forget about the possibility of [VIRTUAL] levels and [THEORETICAL] levels, as these could well change the entire argument. Read the text of the metamagic feat "Burning Spell"
"Actual level" is a real phrase used in the book, that is one example of it in action. (It also shows up in various other places, sometimes they call it "original" level or similar). It refers to spell level as printed in the spell lists. I.e. ghost sound's actual or original level is always 0, and magic missile's is always 1, etc. Or occasionally, as permanently modified by inherent traits like wayang, or having gotten the spell at a different original level from a domain than it would be for other people.
Then there's the slot it takes up which is different. It is either the same as the actual level, or sometimes forced higher by things like metamagic, or chosen voluntarily to prep a lower actual level spell in a higher slot.
Then there's the adjusted level of [original + metamagic adjustment] when metamagic is being used. Which is explicitly different than the original, as you can see in the text of various metamagics and generla metamagic rules, it is differentiated out as its own thing. As well as in the FAQ.
|
