Ummm
Spell perfection lets you apply a metamagic for free and double numerics
piercing lets you treat enemy SR at -5 for +1 level increase
why wouldn't these work together ?
-5 is a numeric. Doubling it is -10
I guess that was the thought behind it, but I don't think that's what Spell Perfection does.
However I never really thought about it, and it's possible that it does.
Up to GM I would say. Honestly I don't think it's really overpowered, needs 2 feats and only works with 1 spell, you need to be level 15 too, at which point you can pull alot of crazy shenanigans anyway.
Aye
Spell perfection has pre-reqs as well and it so late in the game its fine I mean level 8 spells are flying around an reasonable went out the window a couple levels ago.
Part of it comes to how you define a bonus. I'll use a sword as an example...
Way 1
We use "bonus" in dictionary terms, "A payment or gift added to what is usual or expected" or "something in addition to what is expected or strictly due" In both cases what the sword gains makes it better at what it does, a "bonus", and in a set numerical form.
If my sword gets +2 to hit, that's a bonus to the sword
AND
If my sword makes you take a -2 to AC, that's also a still a bonus to the sword.
Way 2
The bonus must be additive to the sword only. A set numeric advantage the sword generates that is not directly additive to it is not a true "bonus" in a Pathfinder sense. Way 1/2nd example is an "advantage" or "addition" to the sword, but not a "bonus".
In this way, we'd have to find somewhere in pathfinder that clearly spells out how it uses it's own definition of bonus here, not the common dictionary one. (and such a rules passage may exist, I just haven't looked that hard, if someone else knows of it, by all means link away)
I tend to think Way 1 is the better way to go, but this is a case I'm marking for FAQ because I think it can certainly be read RAW either way, and RAI isn't clear (it wouldn't be overpowered one way, nor underpowered the other). I couldn't imagine taking a strong stance for or against either way a GM ruled this, but it would be nice to know what Paizo/JJ/TheSpiritOfGygax/Whoever actually intended.
The difference between bonusses and penalties, isn't the only problem regarding this combination. Two others arise:
Looking at the text: " addition, if you have other feats which allow you to apply a set numerical bonus to any aspect of this spell (such as Spell Focus, Spell Penetration, Weapon Focus [ray], and so on), double the bonus granted by that feat when applied to this spell.
1) The feat affects aspects of the spell. Piercing Spell directly relates to the spell resistance as a trait of the target, which is affected by the feat. Thus the text does in more ways suggest that Piercing Spell should not be included.
2) Allowing Spell Perfection to affect Metamagic feats in this way can become very problematic. First of all, the phrase "other feats" suggest that it affect non-metamagic feats, given that the former part relates to metamagic feats. Secondly allowing it, problems might arise from others. Intensified Spell could equally be interpreted as a set numerical bonus, even Heighten Spell could arguably be. Balance wise, doubling these would be significantly stronger than the alternatives.
Additionally, I have to say that I don't think it is needed. There is several options to make SR less of a challenge. Almost entirely removing the effect of spell resistance through a single level adjustment would be disturbing in my opinion.
The difference between bonusses and penalties, isn't the only problem regarding this combination. Two others arise:
Looking at the text: " addition, if you have other feats which allow you to apply a set numerical bonus to any aspect of this spell (such as Spell Focus, Spell Penetration, Weapon Focus [ray], and so on), double the bonus granted by that feat when applied to this spell.
1) The feat affects aspects of the spell. Piercing Spell directly relates to the spell resistance as a trait of the target, which is affected by the feat. Thus the text does in more ways suggest that Piercing Spell should not be included.
2) Allowing Spell Perfection to affect Metamagic feats in this way can become very problematic. First of all, the phrase "other feats" suggest that it affect non-metamagic feats, given that the former part relates to metamagic feats. Secondly allowing it, problems might arise from others. Intensified Spell could equally be interpreted as a set numerical bonus, even Heighten Spell could arguably be. Balance wise, doubling these would be significantly stronger than the alternatives.
Additionally, I have to say that I don't think it is needed. There is several options to make SR less of a challenge. Almost entirely removing the effect of spell resistance through a single level adjustment would be disturbing in my opinion.
I'm not sure if I follow that.
Your #1 seems like Way #2, except your rules quote doesn't negate my points in my #1.
Your #2 references two feats that clearly would not work with this, as neither the bonus from Intensified Spell nor Heightened spell is "set". With Intensified Spell it is variable based on how many levels you have (it could be +d6 one time, and +3d6 the next), and the bonus from Heighten Spell is not "set" because it depends on what spell level you raise the spell to (It could be 1 one time, and 3 the next). They only meet the "bonus" requirement. Not the "set numerical value" requirement. Piercing Spell on the other hand gives you the set bonus that effects any aspect of the spell, -5 to your opponents SR. It is always -5, it provided by a feat, and it is definitely a bonus to the spell (see my Way #1 example) given by said feat.
Your last part is also just an opinion (that it's too powerful), and that's hard to prove, because by what standard do you say that backed by hard rules? Now that's no different then the parts of my post that I admit are opinions, but opinions don't balance the game, devs and the math do. Several other posters have said, and I agree with them, that looking at the feat cost here (minimum 4, 5-6 if you wanted spell pen/great spell pen too which would be needed even for an elf to guarentee total success all the time at level 20 over balanced foes SR), and the level it could even be brought into play (15+), it is not out of balance at all to what abilities, spells,and foes being brought into play.
Even if you stacked being an Elf with sp/gsp/spf/ps, by the time you could combine it ALL at level 20, you'd be facing creatures with the stats to survive anyway even without their SR, that still get their save if applicable, and you're only able to apply it to 1 spell ever because of spell perfections rules (not a feat that can be taken more then once).
In most cases high level casters are beating SR 2/3 to 3/4 of the time anyway. An extra 1/3-1/4 of spells landing for a ton of feats expended doesn't appear, at least to me, to break the game.
I highly encourage you to FAQ this with me by clicking the FAQ button on the original post though. That way even if your opinion is right and my take on this is wrong, we'll have an answer.
Yes, that was the spirit of my question. I agree with you that Way 1 is better.Part of it comes to how you define a bonus. I'll use a sword as an example...
Way 1
We use "bonus" in dictionary terms, "A payment or gift added to what is usual or expected" or "something in addition to what is expected or strictly due" In both cases what the sword gains makes it better at what it does, a "bonus", and in a set numerical form.
If my sword gets +2 to hit, that's a bonus to the sword
AND
If my sword makes you take a -2 to AC, that's also a still a bonus to the sword...
I'm sticking with Way 1 unless someone can link somewhere in the Pathfinder rules explaining how 'bonus' here has a specific Pathfinder definition +spelled out in the rules+ that would differ from the basic english language one. However as before, I can see the other side, and while I'll debate it on the forums and feel that's the current right RAW call, RAI isn't clear here, and I wouldn't waste time at a table arguing it with a GM that disagreed. Again, I highly encourage anyone else who is curious like I am to hit "FAQ" on this, it should be a pretty easy one to get clarified.