| 15 people marked this as FAQ candidate. |
Can you no longer cast metamagic'd spells if the EFFECTIVE spell SLOT is higher than your requisite ability score +10? The new metamagic FAQ entry brings it into question.
| 1 person marked this as FAQ candidate. |
Except that the rule that sets an ability score cap on your casting higher level spells applies to the spell itself, not the spell slot.
I'm asking if it is intended for this new FAQ to override that, essentially changing the existing rules.
Can you no longer cast metamagic'd spells if the EFFECTIVE spell SLOT is higher than your requisite ability score +10? The new metamagic FAQ entry brings it into question.
By the new FAQ I would say no since that falls in line with not being able to use a lesser metamagic rod in a 4th level slot, but this also means the caster most likely has the minimum score so it is not likely.
I think this is from the wand thread. I did not get in on that one, but I also think the you can not have the spell put into the wand be over a 4th level slot after metamagic is added.<----I don't know what everyone agreed on there, but that is how I see it.
Owner - D20 Hobbies
|
Can you no longer cast metamagic'd spells if the EFFECTIVE spell SLOT is higher than your requisite ability score +10? The new metamagic FAQ entry brings it into question.
I agree, you can't unless you have the stat for the higher level slot.
Once could quibble over whether or not this is "no longer" or "never been able" since 3.0/3.5 days.
Apparently no one has a problem with this? Buff-focused eldritch knights and summoners everywhere who skimped on their casting stat to focus on metamgic'd buff spells (rather than save reliant spells) are going to cry.
I have a problem with it - I absolutely do not think that is an intended consequence of that FAQ.
However, I have been highly endeared of the idea for many years, so am perhaps a bit biased.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
No FAQ needed on that because if you read the section pertaining to ability scores, you can fin the typical sentence in the three casting stats:
" To cast a (class name) spell, you need an [substitute stat name] of 10 + spell level".
So in light of this sentence, it's explicitly said that if you don't meet ability score requirement, you cannot cast the spell.
Sorry for the bubble bursting.
Apparently no one has a problem with this? Buff-focused eldritch knights and summoners everywhere who skimped on their casting stat to focus on metamgic'd buff spells (rather than save reliant spells) are going to cry.
Do we have a problem that someone choosing a MAD class has to take that into account when picking the class? And that not doing so means they are going to have some limitations? Personally, no, I don't have a problem with that.
I don't think the FAQ has anything to do with it, but feel it has always been as such. When cast, the level it is at is the ability score you must have. If this was being ignored before, it will likely still be ignored - this particular FAQ changes nothing in that regard.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Who would ever think that you could get around the ability score requirement by casting metamagic spells? If you don't have a 15 score, you can't cast a 5th level spell, whether it's a cone of cold or an empowered fireball. I don't understand how this is even a question. The only way to use those slots if you don't have the requisite score is to put lower level spells in those slots, which still go by their original DC (i.e. they're not heightened or anything).
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Except for Heighten Metamagic, metamagic feats do not increase the level of the spell. A level 2 spell metamagicked to hell and back is still level 2. Someone with a 12 INT could absolutely cast it.
I think the FAQ May have ruined this one on the RAW side of things. But in my game you can still cast a quickend, maximised, intensified, burning hands with a 9th level slot if you are a level 17 wizard with 11 in int.
Before the FAQ it would have been a level 1 Spell but now it, by RAW( if we belive such a thing exist), counts as the least favorable level for the caster.
But i think this may force us to re open the DC on metamagiced wands. Because if it is impossible to cast a enlarged fireball without int 14 then the wand will need DC(10+3+2) 15.
|
If you apply that "most disadvantageous" principle the way it's written, you get weird situations. For example: you're casting a fireball with +1 metamagic, casting it defensively (Concentration check) and into a Minor Globe of Invulnerability.
So basically we now have a spell that's both 3rd and 4th level at the same time.
If you apply that "most disadvantageous" principle the way it's written, you get weird situations. For example: you're casting a fireball with +1 metamagic, casting it defensively (Concentration check) and into a Minor Globe of Invulnerability.
It's still considered a 3rd level spell for Minor Globe of Invulnerability purposes. It's considered a 4th level spell for Concentration DC purposes. So basically we now have a spell that's both 3rd and 4th level at the same time.
I think this is clear, and since it is no problem to use the two different "levels" it is also fine.
Apples and oranges, frankly. All we're talking about is the INT requirement.
Under INT:
" The minimum Intelligence score needed to cast a wizard spell is 10 + the spell's level."
Under Metamagic Feats
" This does not change the level of the spell, "
Open and shut case, no ambiguity whatsoever.
Apples and oranges, frankly. All we're talking about is the INT requirement.
Under INT:
" The minimum Intelligence score needed to cast a wizard spell is 10 + the spell's level."Under Metamagic Feats
" This does not change the level of the spell, "Open and shut case, no ambiguity whatsoever.
The actual level, and the effective level are not always the same, so you use whichever one hurts the most.
Surely this is worth at least some more FAQ clicks.
Surely this is worth at least some more FAQ clicks.
Not really. Unless you want to get me a new copy of the CRB (mine has sadly come apart) in which case I will click whatever crazy FAQ's you want for 12 months.
Apples and oranges, frankly. All we're talking about is the INT requirement.
Under INT:
" The minimum Intelligence score needed to cast a wizard spell is 10 + the spell's level."Under Metamagic Feats
" This does not change the level of the spell, "Open and shut case, no ambiguity whatsoever.
Well, hang on. You say "apples and oranges", but you don't support this.
The Pearl of Power: "The spell must be of a particular level, depending on the pearl."
How does your "open and shut case" not apply equally well to this?
If you can't show a way in which the int requirement's reference to the "spell's level" is meaningfully distnct from the pearl's requirement of a spell that must "be of a particular level", then it seems pretty reasonable to assume that they should behave the same way.
You're still expecting consistent rules from PF?
The FAQ specifies three things, none of which is 'ability requirement', so I see no reason to apply it to ability requirements.
A supposed principal which breaks nearly every precedent before it. So naturally, it raises a lot of doubts.
|
|
I think the current FAQ is clear enough in meaning. I just don't like the meaning very much.
What I don't like is that the spell seems unsure of itself, whether it'll be high or low level. That's one thing if its about concentration DCs and which spell slot it'll use, but it gets a bit weirder when you start working with effects that key off specific spell levels.
For example: a metamagic'd 3rd level spell won't go through a Minor Globe of Invulnerability, but it also won't fit in a Glyph of Warding. Because it's too small for the Globe and too big for the Glyph.
I have aesthetic objections to that.
|
Can you no longer cast metamagic'd spells if the EFFECTIVE spell SLOT is higher than your requisite ability score +10? The new metamagic FAQ entry brings it into question.
It think that your problem is that you are taking the answer and trying to apply it without reading the question:
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.
It don't say "general rule that override the CRB: In general, use the (normal, lower) spell level or the (higher) spell slot level, whichever is more of a disadvantage for the caster."
It say
"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.
....
In general, use the (normal, lower) spell level or the (higher) spell slot level, whichever is more of a disadvantage for the caster."
The CRB statement still stay:
"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. Metamagic feats do not affect spell-like abilities."
Even the FAQ recognize tat as it speak of (normal, lower) spell level VS. (higher) spell slot level
|
|
If you apply that "most disadvantageous" principle the way it's written, you get weird situations. For example: you're casting a fireball with +1 metamagic, casting it defensively (Concentration check) and into a Minor Globe of Invulnerability.
It's still considered a 3rd level spell for Minor Globe of Invulnerability purposes. It's considered a 4th level spell for Concentration DC purposes. So basically we now have a spell that's both 3rd and 4th level at the same time.
Yes, we do. That's pretty much always been the case. The FAQ just clarifies it.
Except for Heighten Metamagic, metamagic feats do not increase the level of the spell. A level 2 spell metamagicked to hell and back is still level 2. Someone with a 12 INT could absolutely cast it.If this were true, they could also recover it with a level 2 Pearl of Power. Which, the FAQ makes very clear, they can't.
The pearl and other abilities listed on the FAQ work on your spell slot, not your spell level. The items/ability descriptions often don't spell that clearly, so the FAQ was needed (for some guy).
Arguing that you can recover a 9th spell slot with a pearl of power that allow you to recover 1st level spells, because you have memorized a 1st level spell in that slot (metamagiched or not) is simply silly.
Sounds to me like we could use some clarification.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Sounds to me like we could use some clarification.
Not really. All I'm seeing is some people don't like the rule (which is fine, I have no problem with that) so are insisting the rule isn't very clear (even though it is absolutely clear), in hopes that it will get changed.
For the most part it is clear and consistant within the existing framework that had applied to how objects with magical properties iinteract with spell slots and metamagic feats. The logic is then applied to other abilities.
The only part I disagree with is this seems to make a high casting state mandatory rather than optional. Ie as written in the crb a lvl 10 wizard with 11 int could stick metamagiced spells in all his higher spell slots.
Now the fact that no one made the above character isn't relevant the rules allowed for it. But the FAQ requirement to treat a spell in its least favourable position now explicitly disallows this.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Metamagic'd spells being just as easy to cast (not needing a higher casting stat) as one without metamagic just doesn't make sense to me.
|
Owner - D20 Hobbies
|
A supposed principal which breaks nearly every precedent before it. So naturally, it raises a lot of doubts.
If boards1.wizards.com was still live, I could have shown you WotC developers saying the same thing in 2008. So I'm struggling to understand the concept of it breaking precedence?
What I don't like is that the spell seems unsure of itself
Not unsure as much as "what is least beneficial to you". It is pretty sure about what it counts as in that case.
this seems to make a high casting state mandatory rather than optional. Ie as written in the crb a lvl 10 wizard with 11 int could stick metamagiced spells in all his higher spell slots.
There isn't a single example of an Int 11 Wizard using his higher level slots to cast metamagic spells. The examples just talk about lower level spells.
Pretty sure if you looked hard enough, you would find an official Paizo statblock somewhere, where an NPC is said to use metamagic'd spells without the requisite casting stat (even if only due to ability damage or drain).
Pretty sure if you looked hard enough, you would find an official Paizo statblock somewhere, where an NPC is said to use metamagic'd spells without the requisite casting stat (even if only due to ability damage or drain).
I have never seen this, and even if it exist we know the statblocks are wrong at times. 3.5 and Paizo dev statements trump adventure block stats.
Pretty sure if you looked hard enough, you would find an official Paizo statblock somewhere, where an NPC is said to use metamagic'd spells without the requisite casting stat (even if only due to ability damage or drain).
I'm pretty sure if you looked hard enough you could find a cow who tells people that she tastes delicious grilled with onions. If only we could translate bovine to English I could prove it. What's keeping you from proving your baseless claim?
|
Owner - D20 Hobbies
|
Pretty sure if you looked hard enough, you would find an official Paizo statblock somewhere, where an NPC is said to use metamagic'd spells without the requisite casting stat (even if only due to ability damage or drain).
Wouldn't prove that is the rule. It would just prove the writer (freelancer) didn't understand it and the editors (Paizo staff) didn't catch it.
Just like the many many many examples of personal ranged potions in NPC stat blocks (like Shield.) Clearly not allowed, but there is a potion for it.
|
|
Heck, now that I think about it, I'm pretty sure you can't, because I don't think you even get the spell slots if you don't have the stat.
Spell Slots: The character class tables show how many spells of each level each can cast per day. These openings for daily spells are called spell slots. A spellcaster always has the option to fill a higher-level spell slot with a lower-level spell. A spellcaster who lacks a high enough ability score to cast spells that would otherwise be her due still gets the slots but must fill them with spells of lower levels.
Yeah, there's no confusion there at least; you definitely get the slots.