Spell Perfection not compatible with Quicken Spell?

[Jackie the Witch]

"Benefit: Pick one spell which you have the ability to cast. Whenever you cast that spell you may apply any one metamagic feat you have to that spell without affecting its level or casting time, as long as the total modified level of the spell does not use a spell slot above 9th level."

Okay, I need to know the intent of this. If taken exactly as worded, this feat does not function to reduce the spell level of a Quickened Spell, because it prevents the metamagic feat from affecting the casting time, and therefore Quicken cannot reduce the casting time of the spell.

I *suspect* that the wording of this feat was intended only to suggest that spontaneous casters, when metamagically-modifying their "perfected spell" suffer no increase in casting time. However, as worded, the feat does not function with Quicken Spell.

I considered just ignoring the wording and allowing it to work in my games, but then I wondered if I was the only one who saw this. One of my more common RPG playmates sees it the other way, that the designers thought quicken was too powerful an effect to have modified by Spell Perfection and so wrote the wording of the feat explicitly to exclude it. Which is a completely valid assumption based on the wording of the spell. I just don't think that this is the case.

So...which is it?

[Lord Pendragon]

Actually I believe the wording you are referring to is meant to allow spontaneous casters to use it without increasing the casting time of their spells as metamagic usually does, not to hedge out Quicken.

Quote:

One of my more common RPG playmates sees it the other way, that the designers thought quicken was too powerful an effect to have modified by Spell Perfection and so wrote the wording of the feat explicitly to exclude it. Which is a completely valid assumption based on the wording of the spell.

I disagree. I think the designers are smart enough that if their intention were for it not to work with Quicken the last line of the description would have simply read "This feat does not work with Quicken Spell."

[Orfamay Quest]

I agree with His Lordship as to the intended meaning but respectfully submit that the strict wording does not admit of that interpretation.

[Xaratherus]

I agree on RAI, and I think that reading it strictly as RAW doesn't pass the 'common sense' test.

If we actually read it that strictly, from a grammatical perspective it would grant two possible benefits - "...that spell without affecting its level or casting time..."

'Or' implies one or the other. So does that mean you can use it to either cancel out the level increase or the casting time? If so, then yes - you could use Quicken Spell with it.

But I'm pretty sure the intended meaning (and while grammatically sloppy, it's still acceptably-phrased) is really "level and casting time".

I don't think that's the sentence's meaning in any way - just pointing out that if we dissect it based on 'strict wording', we wind up with even more confusion and fail the 'common sense' test.

[PathlessBeth]

Quote:

One of my more common RPG playmates sees it the other way, that the designers thought quicken was too powerful an effect to have modified by Spell Perfection and so wrote the wording of the feat explicitly to exclude it.

I disagree with your friend: if quicken was too powerful to apply with a heavy feat investment to spells 5th level and below, they wouldn't have allowed for quicken metamagic rods to do it without requiring a bunch of feats AND potentially be used on 9th level spells.

Yea, I'd say this is an over-site--whoever wrote that forgot about Quicken Spell when they worded it.

[Jackie the Witch]

Glad everyone here sees it the way I do.

Now if only I could get an official answer along those lines...

[Atarlost]

The general rule is that the specific overrules the general.

A feat that always applies to a spell is more general than a feat that applies only to specific castings of the spell.

[Talya]

@Atarlost:

I'm not sure how your statement applies here.

[Orfamay Quest]

Jackie the Witch wrote:

Glad everyone here sees it the way I do.

Now if only I could get an official answer along those lines...

So push the FAQ button and hope. Personally, I suspect that the people behind Paizo's official answers have other demands on their time that they may feel take precedence.

[Jackie the Witch]

oh wow. Thanks Orfamay... I'm new on these forums and didn't even notice that that FAQ button was there.