|
when you put links to videos the thread that are obvious attempts to mock me, you are already violating the most important rule "Don't be a jerk."
I let that go, as everyone enjoys a good laugh and i'm not particularly sensitive about it...
I figured since we've had some back and forth conversation since I posted the links, you had either seen the links and got your 'lulz' or just ignored them. I'm confused why you're bringing them up now. The first video was obviously over the top with the intent of providing giggles, but if you were insulted, I apologize. The second video has practical application to this discussion.
but deliberately misquoting goes too far.
if you have an argument to make, just make it. if you need to quote something I actually said, fine. misquoting is not cool, and I think almost everyone would agree on that.
I'm confused. What was I misquoting?
That line you keep quoting doesn't mean what you think it means. The fact that the feat doesn't tell you that "x" number of slots are required is because that number could change depending on the user's wishes—it's variable.wrong. at least in my experience, "x" would indicate a variable. and I think the vast majority here understand that.
You're being deliberately obtuse. "X" is in reference to the fixed adjustment as required in the applicable metamagic feat.
Furthermore, the feat doesn't require that the heightened spell uses up a slot "x" levels higher, it is telling you that the heightened spell is treated exactly as a normal spell of its equivalent level:the language is a bit ambiguous, but assuming that by "equivalent level" you mean effective level then this statement actually suggests you agree with me.
We agree that heighten spell requires such affected spell to use a slot commensurate with its new level. How you apply additional metamagic feats is where you are wrong.
a spell heightened to 6th level is no different than a 6th level spell—how long to prepare the spell, how long to scribe the scroll and how much it costs, and how to adjust for other metamagic feats. If a maximized 6th level spell requires a 9th level slot, so too does a maximized 3rd level spell heightened to 6th level. 6th level spell + 3 level slot adjustment = 9th level slot required.It's not clear what your argument here is, but if this says anything contrary to what i'm arguing then you're implying that the order in which we apply meta is important... and it's not. the fact is that a wizard doesn't heighten a fireball to 6th level, prepare it, then later go back and apply maximize to this 6th level fireball and re-prepare it.
I never insinuated that such a thing would occur.
You are right in that you don't have to apply the heightened feat first, but it's easier to do so so you don't accidentally get confused and find yourself in the situation that you find yourself in.I am not confused. You need to provide examples of how your interpretation follows the feat text... without requiring meta to be applied in a particular order. but it can't be done, because the feat text specifically says that a heightened spell's effective level is equal to the slot which it is prepared in/cast from. since no other meta adjusts effective level we must follow the guidelines listed in the heighten feat text to determine how the feat functions... we don't really have anything else to go on.
The problem is that you are ignoring the requirements of the other metamagic feats. All of the other metamagic feats state that the adjusted spell "uses up a spell slot 'X' levels higher than the spell's actual level". (Do I need to tell you what 'X' means, or are we good)? If you heighten a 3rd level spell, it is no longer a 3rd level spell, it is whatever level higher you set it at--6th level, for example. A maximized spell slot adjustment isn't added to the spell's original level, it is added to the actual level it is at, which in this case is 6th level. So, a maximized fireball, heightened to 6th level, would require a 9th level slot, not a 6th level slot as you are wont to do.
So, when I say "do the heighten adjustment first", am I literally saying "prepare the heighten spell, and then come back and prepare another metamagic feat"? No. I am not saying that. I am saying that to make things less confusing, apply the spell level adjustment from heighten spell first, then work the math of the other metamagic feats. EDIT: Yes, I realize that preparing a spell with multiple metamagic feats is a singular event.
Gniht, the exception still is described in the feat description for Merciful Spell (you were right, it is one; I didn't look it up).
There is, however, no exception described for the slot level increase in Heighten Spell. You'd need one to suspend the general rule. A "suggestion" is not sufficient.
Also, the general rules say that level increases through metamagic are cumulative. Heighten Spell offers no exception here, as well.
Official Rules Response
|
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
FAQ: http://paizo.com/paizo/faq/v5748nruor1fm#v5748eaic9qpo
Heighten Spell: How does this spell combine with other metamagic feats and using higher-level slots for lower-level spells?
Heighten Spell is worded poorly and can be confusing. It lets you use a higher-level spell slot for a spell, treating the spell as if it were naturally a higher level spell than the standard version. Unlike Still Spell, which always adds +1 to the level of the spell slot used for a spell, Heighten Spell lets you decide increase a spell's level anywhere from +1 to +9, using a spell slot that is that many spell levels higher than the normal spell.
The language implies that the heightened spell uses whatever spell level is used to prepare or cast it, but the rules text was inherited from 3.5 and doesn't take into account (1) the normal rule allowing you to prepare a spell with a higher-level spell slot, and (2) combining it with other metamagic feats.
For (1), having Heighten Spell doesn't mean any spell you cast with a higher-level slot is automatically heightened; you still have to make the decision to prepare or cast the spell an normal or heightened.
If you are a non-spontaneous caster (such as a cleric or wizard) who wants to prepare a lower-level spell in a higher-level slot, there is no reason not to use Heighten Spell on that spell (it doesn't cost you any extra time or any other game "currency").
If you are a spontaneous caster, heightening a spell when using a higher-level spell slot still increases the casting time, just like any other use of metamagic, so you have to weigh the benefits of either
• casting it normally using the higher-level slot
vs.
• increasing the casting time to cast it as a heightened spell and treat the spell as the level of the spell slot you're using.
Example A 10th-level sorcerer could cast fireball using a 3rd-, 4th-, or 5th-level spell slot, it would only be a standard action casting time, would count as a 3rd-level spell, and have a DC of 13 + Charisma bonus. If she had Heighten Spell and wanted to heighten it using a 4th- or 5th-level spell slot, it would have a full-round action casting time, but would count as a 4th- or 5th-level spell and have a DC of 14 + Cha bonus (for a 4th-level spell) or 15 + Cha bonus (for a 5th-level slot).
For (2), you can't apply Heighten Spell to a spell at no cost: any increase to the effective spell level of the spell must be tracked and paid for by using a higher-level spell slot, above and beyond any other spell level increases from the other metamagic feats.
Example: A 15th-level wizard has Quicken Spell. If he prepares a quickened fireball, that requires a 7th-level spell slot (fireball 3rd level + quicken 4 levels). The spell's DC is still 13 + his Int bonus because it's still just a 3rd-level spell, even though it's in a 7th-level spell slot. If he also has Heighten Spell, the spell is not automatically heightened; it still counts as a 3rd-level spell and has the DC of a 3rd-level spell. If he wants to increase the quickened fireball's effective level with Heighten Spell, he needs to use an even higher level spell slot than the adjusted spell level from the Quicken Spell feat. Increasing the fireball's effective spell level by +1 (from 3rd to 4th) requires using a spell slot +1 level higher (in this case, an 8th-level spell slot instead of a 7th-level slot); increasing the fireball's effective spell level by +2 (from 3rd to 5th) requires using a spell slot +2 levels higher (in this case, a 9th-level spell slot instead of a 7th-level slot).
Another way to look at (2) it is to add Heighten Spell first, then other metamagic feats. Continuing the above example, you'd first heighten the fireball to a 4th-level spell, then quicken it, which requires an 8th-level spell slot (fireball 4th level + quicken 4 levels). Or first heighten the fireball to a 5th-level spell, then quicken it, which requires a 9th-level spell slot (fireball 5th level + quicken 4 levels).
(Heighten Spell is a weak metamagic feat and has limited utility when combined with other metamagic feats.)
Thank you, PDT.
Weird. I've never interpreted the feat in any way other than what the FAQ said. I was wondering why this got such a huge FAQ. Guess a 150 plus thread would do it.
I disagree with the FAQ post, but really only so far that it says the wording of the feat is confusing. It was mildly ambiguous at best, but I think quite clear when read in conjunction with the other rules.
If you quicken a 4th level spell, it's an 8th level spell, regardless if the 4th level spell was originally a 4th level spell, a 3rd level spell cast silently, or a 3rd level spell heightened to 4th level.
Regardless, I'm happy that the matter can be put to bed.
It's nice to hear somebody can see how what i'm saying follows from the feat text... and although i'm convinced of how it works as worded, I am not fully convinced that it is the intent of the design team for it to work in that manner.If it makes you feel any better though, you could make similar claims about how the feat functions now as you had been making before... and now you would be right. except now nobody would be arguing it with you, they'd just be referring to the FAQ.
bertstare.gif
I'm not sure where you get "You were wrong" from a clarification that stated, basically, "Yep, that's the way it's always worked". If I'm being honest, I'd say the PDT was being generous and kind, like they were with the Fighter's Armor Proficiency Feats. But again, put to bed. Huzzah.
I disagree with the FAQ post, but really only so far that it says the wording of the feat is confusing. It was mildly ambiguous at best, but I think quite clear when read in conjunction with the other rules.
If you quicken a 4th level spell, it's an 8th level spell, regardless if the 4th level spell was originally a 4th level spell, a 3rd level spell cast silently, or a 3rd level spell heightened to 4th level.
Regardless, I'm happy that the matter can be put to bed.
It's nice to hear somebody can see how what i'm saying follows from the feat text... and although i'm convinced of how it works as worded, I am not fully convinced that it is the intent of the design team for it to work in that manner.If it makes you feel any better though, you could make similar claims about how the feat functions now as you had been making before... and now you would be right. except now nobody would be arguing it with you, they'd just be referring to the FAQ.bertstare.gif
I'm not sure where you get "You were wrong" from a clarification that stated, basically, "Yep, that's the way it's always worked". If I'm being honest, I'd say the PDT was being generous and kind, like they were with the Fighter's Armor Proficiency Feats. But again, put to bed. Huzzah.
He ignored this line from the FAQ which I explained to him.
The language implies that the heightened spell uses whatever spell level is used to prepare or cast it, but the rules text was inherited from 3.5 and doesn't take into account (1) the normal rule allowing you to prepare a spell with a higher-level spell slot, and (2) combining it with other metamagic feats.
In any event this is over. Off to work
Given my track record, I wouldn't have been surprised to have been wrong, but glad I wasn't.actually, you were wrong...
I still maintain that my previous arguments regarding the meaning of the feat text were valid. The distinction now is that we have a FAQ to show what the actual intent is. This overrides the feat text.
I never stated that the way I was describing heighten was the manner in which the design team intended. I actually thought the likelihood was that they intended otherwise.
If I had thought for certain that my interpretation was exactly what was intended then I never would have bothered seeking clarification, because it followed directly from logical analysis of the feat text.
several times I said things to the effect that I was arguing as to the function of the feat as worded in the feat text, and not the intent of the design team.
for example:
It's nice to hear somebody can see how what i'm saying follows from the feat text... and although i'm convinced of how it works as worded, I am not fully convinced that it is the intent of the design team for it to work in that manner.If it makes you feel any better though, you could make similar claims about how the feat functions now as you had been making before... and now you would be right. except now nobody would be arguing it with you, they'd just be referring to the FAQ.
I'll probably get slammed for this, but I'm not too bothered: it takes a special kind of arrogance to ignore 80%+ of posters who interpret a piece of text one way and claim that they were "wrong" when the ultimate authority on the matter rules in their favour.
Even you have said that your arguments stemmed from an "interpretation" of the text. Well, so did the arguments of the 80%+ who disagreed with you in this thread. As a Brit, I tend to support the underdog, and I understand that there is a similar cultural bias in the US, but to argue vehemently that the text can ONLY mean what you interpret it to mean, to shout down everyone who expressed an alternate interpretation, to be told that the alternate interpretation is in fact correct, and then to say "hey, I was right!" is boorish behaviour at best.
Another +1 for it being over - and gniht, I never expected you to slam me for what I said - I pretty much expected you to say what you said above, actually. You may be a little over zealous in your assertions of meaning for my taste, but I didn't feel that you were unwilling to listen to reasoned arguments (though to be honest, perhaps a little unwilling to accept alternate hypotheses regarding the meaning of the text). I actually meant the forum moderation staff, since my post was possibly inflammatory and jerkish.