| 4 people marked this as FAQ candidate. |
Simple question... what happens if you take both of these traits?
Generally, untyped bonuses and trait bonuses stack, so wouldn't this combination, in theory, reduce the effective level of a spell cast with metamagic to be 2 lower? One is Regional, one is Magic, so they are both fair game...
If yes, then a Shocking Grasp (level 1 spell) cast with Quicken would be a level 3 spell. At the same time, an Intensified Shocking Grasp would be a level 0 spell...
Am I missing something?
| 2 people marked this as FAQ candidate. |
I'd like to get an official ruling on this, with an updated FAQ entry. There are a couple traits that have non-trait-bonus effects that might stack unintentionally.
| 1 person marked this as FAQ candidate. |
It has been a busy work week for me! Whew...
Anyway, I looked up trait bonuses and found that I was actually incorrect about trait bonuses stacking (they don't).
However! These two traits do not identify in the text that their bonus/change is in fact a trait bonus. It is implied being that they are traits, but not stated. This to me makes these into "untyped" bonuses, which DO stack.
I also couldn't find anything in the rules (ran a search on the PRD and d2pfsrd) that stated that you cannot lower a spell below its original level.
| 1 person marked this as FAQ candidate. |
Actually, I suspect that one of them should be a trait "bonus" whilst the other should be a racial "bonus", except that it is not precisely a "bonus" in a +X sort of way.
RAW, however, it does look like it may be a cheesy way to cast a spell with a lower-level spell slot - I'm currently trying to find any ruling on not being able to lower a spell below its original spell level.
| 1 person marked this as FAQ candidate. |
yay, magus with intensified shocking grasp cantrip.
yay, magus with intensified shocking grasp cantrip.
Precisely... That's why I identified this as a point of confusion, because there's no way that this is right.
|
Let's read the way the two spells interact. Wayang spell hunter says "When you use the chosen spell (of 3rd level or below) with a metamagic feat, it uses up a spell slot one level lower than it normally would." So a 3rd level fireball quickened qould normally take a 7th level spell slot, but instead takes a 6th. This lowers the final spell level.
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."
So you treat your 3rd level Fireball as a 2nd level spell for determing it's final level.
When used together, you would start by counting your fireball as a level 2 spell, and then add 3 levels instead of 4 for Quicken.
I would say, RAW, these two abilities stack because they're doing two different things.
**EDIT**
However, you can never turn a spell into a cantrip, as noted by Shadow cat. Since you have no 0 level spell slots, there is no "slot" available to memorize a 0 level spell.
|
Simple question... what happens if you take both of these traits?
Wayang Spellhunter
** spoiler omitted **Magical Lineage
** spoiler omitted **Am I missing something?
Wayang Spellhunter and Magical Lineage are both Traits, thus the modifcation should be listed as a trait bonus. These traits offer the same bonus and DO NOT STACK.
|
Wayang Spellhunter and Magical Lineage are both Traits, thus the modifcation should be listed as a trait bonus. These traits offer the same bonus and DO NOT STACK.Simple question... what happens if you take both of these traits?
Wayang Spellhunter
** spoiler omitted **Magical Lineage
** spoiler omitted **Am I missing something?
sure am glad you clarified this, and only 12 YEARS after it was posted
And it still didn’t counter Michael’s point that these aren’t even doing the same thing. They achieve the same ends but through different means.
It’s like if you had 1 trait that gives you a +1 to attack and another trait that lets you count the target’s AC as 1 lower. They give the same accuracy but use different mechanics.
|
|
And it still didn’t counter Michael’s point that these aren’t even doing the same thing. They achieve the same ends but through different means.
It’s like if you had 1 trait that gives you a +1 to attack and another trait that lets you count the target’s AC as 1 lower. They give the same accuracy but use different mechanics.
When you use this spell with a metamagic feat, it uses up a spell slot one level lower than it normally would.
When you apply metamagic feats to this spell that add at least 1 level to the spell, treat its actual level as 1 lower for determining the spell’s final adjusted level.
Where is the difference? They both quack as a duch and walk like a duck, to cite SKR.
They both have the spell counting as one level lower.
One uses up a slot one level lower. And the other is treated as if it were a level lower. It’s just like the example I gave. The ends are the same but the mechanism is different.
But taken a completely different way. These are not bonuses. The stacking rules only apply to bonuses.
The reason I don’t think they work together is that both of them apply when you use a metamagic feat on a spell. That to me means that both traits operate on the level of the spell when the metamagic feat is applied. For example, when you apply heightened to shocking grasp the spell is raised by 1 to a second level spell. The book specifies that metamagic feats are cumulative which is what allows you to stack metamagic feats. Since neither of these traits specifies that they are cumulative that indicates they are not. Both traits reduce the level of the spell from 2 to 1. The fact that they put in a statement that metamagic feats are cumulative indicates that normally things that adjust a spells level are not cumulative by default.
|
|
One uses up a slot one level lower. And the other is treated as if it were a level lower. It’s just like the example I gave. The ends are the same but the mechanism is different.
But taken a completely different way. These are not bonuses. The stacking rules only apply to bonuses.
The words used are different but the effect is the same.
Paizo FAQs have shown regularly that stacking isn't limited only to bonuses.
As an example:
Channel Energy: If I have this ability from more than one class, do they stack?
No—unless an ability specifically says it stacks with similar abilities (such as an assassin's sneak attack), or adds in some way based on the character's total class levels (such as improved uncanny dodge), the abilities don't stack and you have to use them separately. Therefore, cleric channeling doesn't stack with paladin channeling, necromancer channeling, oracle of life channeling, and so on.
posted July 2011 | back to top
The order of the operations are different. They are two different processes.
And channel energy is still additive stacking, though that text is talking about the abilities advancing each other more than about them being used together. One of these traits is doing a subtraction and the other is doing a substitution. There is no bonus.
|
While these are both traits, neither one grants a “trait bonus.” So that argument is out.
I’ll see if I can dig up the link but as far as “official word,” John Compton (the head of PFS at the time) was asked if they should stack and his response was something like “I wish they didn’t but that ship has sailed.”
|
|
Couldn't find the Compton post, but here are Mark Seifter's thoughts on the subject. Written well after this thread died its first death.
(Basically: Should it stack? No, no, no! Does it stack per RAW? Seems like it does but really recommend GMs not allow it.)