Post/Author/DateTime	Post
Zanzibax 07-18-07, 01:46 PM	I'm a bit confused about low ability scores and metamagic. Allow me to use an example: Say I have a 5th level wizard with a 12 intelligence. Normally, that wizard would be unable to cast 3rd level spells. However, Magic Missile is a 1st level spell, empowered, it uses a 3rd level spell slot. Can a 12 intelligence wizard cast an empowered magic missile in that manner? Does this work for ALL metamagic feats that use higher-level spell slots? ((The hypothetical 12 intelligence wizard using a quickened magic missile...using a 5th level spell slot.))
Reylance 07-18-07, 04:37 PM	That does work for all metamagic feats. "To prepare a spell the wizard must have an Intelligence score of at least 10 + the spell’s level." and "A spellcaster who lacks a high enough ability score to cast spells that would otherwise be his or her due still gets the slots but must fill them with spells of lower level." Putting a quickened magic missile in that slot meets both restrictions.
Maesto 07-18-07, 10:00 PM	I have a niggling suspicion that Heighten Spell is an exception, but I can't remember the reason.
copper_wyrmling 07-18-07, 11:01 PM	I have a niggling suspicion that Heighten Spell is an exception, but I can't remember the reason. Heighten Spell actually increases the spell level (for beating globes of invulnerability, save DCs, etc). Thus it should probably require a higher minimum spellcasting stat, although I'm not sure if this is stated explicitly anywhere.
Timlagor 07-18-07, 11:36 PM	I wouldn't allow you to cast Empowered MM with Int 12. The rules on spell levels are very badly written but that's my view of them. I doubt it's ever actually going to be an issue though. I would allow you to cast a normal MM (or 2nd level spell) in a 3rd levels slot if you had a Wizard 5 with 12 Int.
bitznarf 07-19-07, 12:11 AM	Ummm, the rules are pretty clear on this issue Tim, as quoted by Reylance. You are literally changing the core rules here with your ruling.
JJeff 07-19-07, 01:54 AM	No, Tim is saying he see it as that the metamagic-ed spell is a higher level spell than an un-metamagic-ed spell. This is because the Core rules state in the metamagic rules (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/feats.htm#metamagicFeats): "In all ways, a metamagic spell operates at its original spell level, even though it is prepared and cast as a higher-level spell. Saving throw modifications are not changed unless stated otherwise in the feat description." Some people stick to the front part: That it operates at the original level and apply it everywhere with the exception of Heighten, which most people agree to its "higher-level"-ness when cast. But the preparation is stated that the spell is "prepared and cast as a higher-level spell", meaning it is treated as a higher level spell for memorising, preparation, Defensive casting and concentration checks, but is treated as the original spell level after it is casted. Or rather that's how I have always interpreted this.
copper_wyrmling 07-19-07, 03:36 AM	Does anyone know if the save DC for a scroll of a metamagicked spell is given anywhere official or semi-official? (say in the FAQ or an example in one of the books) That would answer the question, since scrolls operate at the minimum attribute required to cast the spell.
JJeff 07-19-07, 04:29 AM	Closest in the FAQ is this: Can you use a metamagic feat when creating items? Yes; calculate the magic item’s price using the new spell level (as adjusted by the metamagic feat). A wand of maximized cure light wounds, for example, would cost 21,000 gp (spell level 4 times caster level 7 times 750 gp). You couldn’t make a wand of maximized cure moderate wounds, because that’s a 5th-level spell, which is beyond the spell level limit of a wand. If you’re not using the spell’s level to calculate the price, remember to estimate the price using the improved potency of the effect for comparison (rather than using the non-metamagic version of the spell). The higher level slot and treatment as a higher level spell is explicit here since the costs are affected. Is this sufficient? Nothing on DC in the FAQ. Don't think so that helps much... The FAQ also says: The reserve feats (Complete Mage) allow you to use their ability as long as you have a spell of a particular type and minimum level prepared. So if I have a maximized fireball prepared, does that mean the Fiery Burst feat deals 6d6 damage since it is now in a 6th-level spell slot? No. Even though a metamagic feat changes the level of the slot occupied by the spell, it doesn’t actually change the spell’s level (except for the Heighten Spell feat, or any other effect that specifically changes the spell’s actual level). The reserve feats care about the spell’s actual level, not the spell slot it occupies And...... Can a pearl of power be used to recall a spell of a lower level than it’s designed for? After all, I could have prepared a lower-level spell in that spell slot. No. A 5th-level pearl of power can recall only a 5th-level spell, even if all you prepared as 5th-level spells were multiple castings of stoneskin. Any metamagic effects (or other effects that altered the spell’s level) apply, so a 5th-level pearl of power can recall the quickened magic missile you’ve already cast, but not the empowered cone of cold (since that’s a 7th-level spell).
bitznarf 07-19-07, 10:41 AM	This is because the Core rules state in the metamagic rules (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/feats.htm#metamagicFeats): "In all ways, a metamagic spell operates at its original spell level, even though it is prepared and cast as a higher-level spell. Saving throw modifications are not changed unless stated otherwise in the feat description." And yet.. "Spells modified by a metamagic feat use a spell slot higher than normal. This does not change the level of the spell..." So it appears the the rules on meta-magic feats directly contradict themselves. I will agree that the rules on metamagic and spell slots/spell levels are very badly written. The FAQ doesn't help either, with it referring to a modified spell level (which doesn't exist with anything other than Heighten Spell) rather than required spell slot before things like 'Sudden' metamagic, metamagic rods, or Metamagic School Focus come into play.
JJeff 07-19-07, 08:57 PM	I agree, so it would become a ETV issue. I'm following the "You can't do metamagic on a spell to raise it above a level that you can't cast" stand. Since RAW doesn't really work due to consideration, there is no way to know RAI, so I'm following what I believe: That a metamagic-ed spell is harder to cast than a non-metamagic-ed spell, thus would require the higher casting stat.
Zanzibax 07-19-07, 10:58 PM	To help with the discussion: http://www.d20srd.org/srd/classes/sorcererWizard.htm#sorcerer To learn or cast a spell, a sorcerer must have a Charisma score equal to at least 10 + the spell level. To learn, prepare, or cast a spell, the wizard must have an Intelligence score equal to at least 10 + the spell level. http://www.d20srd.org/srd/classes/cleric.htm To prepare or cast a spell, a cleric must have a Wisdom score equal to at least 10 + the spell level. http://www.d20srd.org/srd/classes/druid.htm To prepare or cast a spell, the druid must have a Wisdom score equal to at least 10 + the spell level.
Zanzibax 07-19-07, 11:02 PM	And yet.. "Spells modified by a metamagic feat use a spell slot higher than normal. This does not change the level of the spell..." So it appears the the rules on meta-magic feats directly contradict themselves. I will agree that the rules on metamagic and spell slots/spell levels are very badly written. The FAQ doesn't help either, with it referring to a modified spell level (which doesn't exist with anything other than Heighten Spell) rather than required spell slot before things like 'Sudden' metamagic, metamagic rods, or Metamagic School Focus come into play. They say the same thing with different wording. Where do you see a contradiction?
Zanzibax 07-19-07, 11:07 PM	I have a niggling suspicion that Heighten Spell is an exception, but I can't remember the reason. I thought this was a cut-and-dried question with a definitive answer. I guess I have to do my own research. JJeff's response at: http://boards1.wizards.com/showpost.php?p=13121721&postcount=9 seemed to suggest to me that there was no problem. Higher spell slots could be filled with meta-magic spells (excepting heighten), but the caster could never cast higher level spells.
Samwise 07-19-07, 11:24 PM	While I'd expect some pseudo-errata FAQ entry to change this, I think Zanzibax is on to something. Ability score limits the level of spell you can cast, not the level of spell slot you can use. Metamagic feats increase the level of spell slot you can use, not the level of the spell. (Except for heightened spell of course.) The only problem then is with pearls of power and the FAQ entry on them. Quite simply, it is wrong, or the item itself is wrong. (Which is the change I would make.) A pearl of power recovers a spell of a specific level. It does not recover a spell slot. (Which is what a memento magica does.) Since a spell with metamagic added is not a higher level spell but merely occupying a higher level slot, you should, by the strict word of the rules, recover a quickened magic missile with a 1st level pearl of power, and be unable to recover a quickened magic missile with a 5th level pearl of power. Rather than muck with the metamagic rules, I would just change pearls of power so they recover an expended spell slot of a particular level, and not a spell of a particular level, and sidestep that issue.
MatteBlack 07-19-07, 11:45 PM	And yet.. "Spells modified by a metamagic feat use a spell slot higher than normal. This does not change the level of the spell..." So it appears the the rules on meta-magic feats directly contradict themselves. I think you may be taking this quote incorrectly. "This" most likely refers to the way you increase level of slot used not, metamagic feats in general. Essentially, you are applying the second sentence too broadly which causes the contradiction. "This" doesn't change the level of the spell but, other things, like the function of the metamagic feat, can. Lee
copper_wyrmling 07-20-07, 08:31 AM	While I'd expect some pseudo-errata FAQ entry to change this, I think Zanzibax is on to something. Ability score limits the level of spell you can cast, not the level of spell slot you can use. Metamagic feats increase the level of spell slot you can use, not the level of the spell. (Except for heightened spell of course.) The only problem then is with pearls of power and the FAQ entry on them. Quite simply, it is wrong, or the item itself is wrong. (Which is the change I would make.) A pearl of power recovers a spell of a specific level. It does not recover a spell slot. (Which is what a memento magica does.) Since a spell with metamagic added is not a higher level spell but merely occupying a higher level slot, you should, by the strict word of the rules, recover a quickened magic missile with a 1st level pearl of power, and be unable to recover a quickened magic missile with a 5th level pearl of power. Rather than muck with the metamagic rules, I would just change pearls of power so they recover an expended spell slot of a particular level, and not a spell of a particular level, and sidestep that issue. Samwise, what do you think about lesser metamagic rods and the LGCS ruling on them? (i.e. that you can't use a lesser rod of maximize on an empowered fireball, it counts as a L5 spell for that purpose?) Note that by the core rules, metamagicked spells count as the higher level for the purpose of placing them in wands / potions / scrolls - you can't make a wand of empowered fireball (even if you're using Sudden Empower to craft it), and a scroll of empowered fireball is priced as a L5 spell. It's really not at all clear when a metamagicked spell counts as the higher-level slot and when it's the base level that's relevant - it gets even worse when you include stuff like metamagic school focus and you have three relevant levels (you can prepare an empowered fireball in a L4 slot, that's priced like a L5 spell if you scribe it to a scroll, and counts as a L3 spell for save DCs and beating globes of invulnerability).
Zanzibax 07-20-07, 10:14 AM	While I'd expect some pseudo-errata FAQ entry to change this, I think Zanzibax is on to something. Ability score limits the level of spell you can cast, not the level of spell slot you can use. Metamagic feats increase the level of spell slot you can use, not the level of the spell. (Except for heightened spell of course.) The only problem then is with pearls of power and the FAQ entry on them. Quite simply, it is wrong, or the item itself is wrong. (Which is the change I would make.) A pearl of power recovers a spell of a specific level. It does not recover a spell slot. (Which is what a memento magica does.) Since a spell with metamagic added is not a higher level spell but merely occupying a higher level slot, you should, by the strict word of the rules, recover a quickened magic missile with a 1st level pearl of power, and be unable to recover a quickened magic missile with a 5th level pearl of power. Rather than muck with the metamagic rules, I would just change pearls of power so they recover an expended spell slot of a particular level, and not a spell of a particular level, and sidestep that issue. You would need to be more careful with your wording so that a wizard with a pearl of power wouldn't be able to become a pseudo-sorcerer...but that makes sense. I am very carefully trying not to take a stand on this issue and simply would like to reduce table variation.
Zanzibax 07-20-07, 10:19 AM	Samwise, what do you think about lesser metamagic rods and the LGCS ruling on them? (i.e. that you can't use a lesser rod of maximize on an empowered fireball, it counts as a L5 spell for that purpose?) Note that by the core rules, metamagicked spells count as the higher level for the purpose of placing them in wands / potions / scrolls - you can't make a wand of empowered fireball (even if you're using Sudden Empower to craft it), and a scroll of empowered fireball is priced as a L5 spell. It's really not at all clear when a metamagicked spell counts as the higher-level slot and when it's the base level that's relevant - it gets even worse when you include stuff like metamagic school focus and you have three relevant levels (you can prepare an empowered fireball in a L4 slot, that's priced like a L5 spell if you scribe it to a scroll, and counts as a L3 spell for save DCs and beating globes of invulnerability). I think the LGCS ruling must be made, or that the clarification is concerning the rod itself regarding the spell *slots* that the rod can manipulate. Thus it cannot maximize an empowered 3rd level spell such as a fireball because it takes up a 5th level *slot*, which is beyond the scope of the Rod. Please cite instances of confusion where any meta-magicked spell counts as a higher-level spell instead of merely taking up a higher-level spell slot. I agree that the metamagic school focus seems to be confusing, as you've presented it, so find other examples beyond the example provided by that feat.
bitznarf 07-20-07, 10:24 AM	Please cite instances of confusion where any meta-magicked spell counts as a higher-level spell instead of merely taking up a higher-level spell slot. A couple have already been provided by JJeff earlier in the thread.
Zanzibax 07-20-07, 10:26 AM	A couple have already been provided by JJeff earlier in the thread. I didn't see any confusion in JJeff's examples. Could you highlight them for me? It must just be me. It seems items specifically and rather simply use the spell-slot used when determining costs, without regard for the meta-magic focus feat. Therefore, it is not confusing to me. No additional abilities are required...just additional monies.
bitznarf 07-20-07, 11:08 AM	Can you use a metamagic feat when creating items? Yes; calculate the magic item’s price using the new spell level (as adjusted by the metamagic feat). "...even though it is prepared and cast as a higher-level spell..."
solbergb 07-20-07, 11:45 AM	That's the thing. Ability score is a function of "casting" the spell. Metamagic feats make you "prepare and cast" as if it's a higher level spell. It's only a lower level spell after it's cast (the spell "effect") for purposes of things that care about spell level. So to me, it is cut and dried. All metamagic feats that raise the slot raise the ability score needed to cast it. Which is the opposite of my opinion before this thread came up and I re-looked up the rule, looking for an exception that wasn't there, not in the rules or the FAQ. Not that it matters. I've never in LG seen a PC or NPC that had a higher level slot and lacked the ability score to use it with a spell of that level. The only time I've seen ability score come up is in things like scroll use by UMDers or "dip into spellcasting class" type characters.
Zanzibax 07-20-07, 12:15 PM	Can you use a metamagic feat when creating items? Yes; calculate the magic item’s price using the new spell level (as adjusted by the metamagic feat). "...even though it is prepared and cast as a higher-level spell..." Yes, that is consistent with the rules, the spell is prepared and cast, filling a higher level spell slot. It isn't a higher level spell, but it is prepared and cast from a higher-level spell slot, thus while it is not, itself, a higher level spell, it is prepared and cast as one, from the stand-point of filling higher-level spell slots, costing more gold and experience. There is no confusion for me in that...Why are you confused about it?
Zanzibax 07-20-07, 12:19 PM	That's the thing. Ability score is a function of "casting" the spell. Metamagic feats make you "prepare and cast" as if it's a higher level spell. It's only a lower level spell after it's cast (the spell "effect") for purposes of things that care about spell level. http://www.d20srd.org/srd/feats.htm#metamagicFeats As a spellcaster’s knowledge of magic grows, she can learn to cast spells in ways slightly different from the ways in which the spells were originally designed or learned. Preparing and casting a spell in such a way is harder than normal but, thanks to metamagic feats, at least it is possible. 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. It looks absolute to me. Where do you see the exception? All it says is that it fills a higher spell slot. Heighten Spell seems to be the only feat that actually changes both the spell slot of the spell and the DC.
bitznarf 07-20-07, 12:20 PM	It isn't a higher level spell, but it is prepared and cast from a higher-level spell slot, thus while it is not, itself, a higher level spell, it is prepared and cast as one, from the stand-point of filling higher-level spell slots, costing more gold and experience. I'm not confused. The problem with what you have just said (if that was all that is involved), is that it means that a (N)PC could cast a empowered fireball out of a 5th level slot with only a 13 intelligence. And there are other bits and pieces of rules text that say otherwise. That is what the thread is about, not whatever you are trying to get at. Edit:It looks absolute to me. Where do you see the exception? All it says is that it fills a higher spell slot. Heighten Spell seems to be the only feat that actually changes both the spell slot of the spell and the DC. And *now* you see the confusion. Remeber that quote from the SRD that JJeff used that I showed you: "even though it is prepared and cast as a higher-level spell". Hence the contradictory rules.
Zanzibax 07-20-07, 12:29 PM	I'm not confused. The problem with what you have just said (if that was all that is involved), is that it means that a (N)PC could cast a empowered fireball out of a 5th level slot with only a 13 intelligence. And there are other bits and pieces of rules text that say otherwise. That is what the thread is about, not whatever you are trying to get at. Edit: And *now* you see the confusion. Remeber that quote from the SRD that JJeff used that I showed you: "even though it is prepared and cast as a higher-level spell". Hence the contradictory rules. I don't think bits and pieces of the rules text actually *do* say otherwise. I just think that too many people have a poor grasp of language. However, I have despaired of having an answer to a question here found by people with more time to research these things than myself. I now understand that people are just firing off random opinions and I am bitterly disappointed. I have done my own research. Observe: http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/rg/20050503a A spell modified with metamagic functions at its normal spell level, even though it requires a spell slot of higher level than normal. Using our previous example of a charm person spell placed into 3rd-level spell slot because of metamagic, the spell functions as a 1st-level spell in all respects. If a wizard with an Intelligence score of 11 casts the spell, the saving throw DC is 11 (10 + 1 [spell level] + 0 [Intelligence modifier]). The wizard can cast the modified spell even though his Intelligence score is only 11, which is sufficient for a 1st-level spell but not for a 3rd-level spell. All other variables or characteristics that depend on the example spell's level, such as its ability to penetrate a minor globe of invulnerability effect, function at the spell's original level (1st). The Heighten Spell feat is an exception to the foregoing. When increasing a spell with the Heighten Spell feat, the spell functions at its increased level. For example a charm person spell heightened to 3rd level has a base save DC of 13, requires a relevant ability score of at least 13, and functions as a 3rd-level spell in all other respects.
bitznarf 07-20-07, 12:40 PM	The Sage articles are not binding on LG. Hence, people use sources that are: the PHB, DMG, MM, and FAQ.
Samwise 07-20-07, 12:46 PM	Samwise, what do you think about lesser metamagic rods and the LGCS ruling on them? (i.e. that you can't use a lesser rod of maximize on an empowered fireball, it counts as a L5 spell for that purpose?) Note that by the core rules, metamagicked spells count as the higher level for the purpose of placing them in wands / potions / scrolls - you can't make a wand of empowered fireball (even if you're using Sudden Empower to craft it), and a scroll of empowered fireball is priced as a L5 spell. I'd default to what Zanzibax said about a metamagic rod affecting spell slots and not spell levels. Indeed, that is the LGCS ruling, and is effectively the same change I suggested for pearls of power. (Zanzibax: You control wizards by having the pearls only recover the slot with the specific memorized spell, not just re-opening the slot. Note, if it recovered the slot wholesale, the wizard would be more flexible, but would need to stop adventuring and memorize a new spell for that slot, reducing the effectiveness somewhat anyway.) It's really not at all clear when a metamagicked spell counts as the higher-level slot and when it's the base level that's relevant - it gets even worse when you include stuff like metamagic school focus and you have three relevant levels (you can prepare an empowered fireball in a L4 slot, that's priced like a L5 spell if you scribe it to a scroll, and counts as a L3 spell for save DCs and beating globes of invulnerability). I agree. I think, without having dug out every single existing reference and cross-referencing them for relevance and power synergies, that it would be easiest to revise all magic items to affect/refer to level of slots rather than of spells. Or they could do a major revision of the description of metamagic. Or it could be scheduled for the Rules Compendium. Or we could get a Rules of the Game article which wouldn't be "official" for LG with all those attendant problems. (Legal or not, it does pretty clearly state an intent.)
bitznarf 07-20-07, 12:52 PM	Legal or not, it does pretty clearly state an intent. I was more responding to Zanzibax's accusation of 'us' being lazy by not scouring non-binding sources, and thus not solving his problem for him.
Zanzibax 07-20-07, 12:57 PM	The Sage articles are not binding on LG. Hence, people use sources that are: the PHB, DMG, MM, and FAQ. I'll have to go with The Rules of the Game as written by the man formerly known as "The Sage" until I see something that actually shows confusion within the rules instead of confusion with respect to reading and understanding what The Sage helped write into the rules. Sorry...I am bitterly disappointed...I do not have time to find why Skip discovered the same understanding of rules that seemed clear to me after doing my own research
bitznarf 07-20-07, 12:59 PM	I'll have to go with The Rules of the Game as written by the man formerly known as "The Sage" until I see something that actually shows confusion within the rules instead of confusion with respect to reading and understanding what The Sage helped write into the rules. Just a bit of clarification here. I have no problem with a GM using those articles, and in fact Britt has stated that they can be used as a good source for rulings. It was the accusation that anyone not looking at them was just throwing around random opinions that I was upset about.
solbergb 07-20-07, 01:12 PM	I can point to at lest 6 flat-out contradictions to core rules in those articles. Skip has been away from the rules for a long time. There also isn't total agreement among authors on how the rules should work. Which is why we get things like wands of swift action spells in books that don't have the rules text (as Spell Compendium does) which say that spell completion and spell trigger items need minimum std action to activate even for swift/immediate action spells. Skip and Andy (the current FAQ writer) disagreed on several other points (eg hardness and spell interactions) enough that the "skip FAQ" was rewritten in places and the faq is self-contradictory in other places. Nature of the beast. I stick with the legal rules sources in LG (which is core 3 books, FAQ, Eratta, PRC/feat/spell/item descriptions from the most current allowed source or source referenced on the AR and whatever the LGCS explicitly allows, plus LGCS and dispel confusions coming out after LGCS). There's dumb stuff in lots of places, including published books. (some stuff in Libris Mortis contradicts the monster manual type/subtype/special abilities, for example) Until the dumb stuff hits a legal source, I'll stick with my interpretation of the rules we're supposed to use, since my opinion is as good as anyone else's until it hits the FAQ, Eratta, LGCS or Dispel Confusion.
Samwise 07-20-07, 01:44 PM	I can point to at lest 6 flat-out contradictions to core rules in those articles. Skip has been away from the rules for a long time. What are they? (I agree with the rest of your analysis of the content and interaction of the rules and examples in books and Sage Advice, I'm just curious as to what direct conflicts you are referring to here.)
solbergb 07-20-07, 03:06 PM	It's been a while and I think at least one was instantly reversed and edited. About every other time he posts an article, some rules monkey on a board I frequent finds a boner in his "rules of the game". The number 6 was pulled out by my memory of how many times this happened. The real number is almost certainly different. Two I can remember because they're pet peeves. Being allowed to use all natural weapons inside a grapple (direct contradiction of "rake" in monster manual which explicitly says how many nat weapons you can use without the ability) incorporeal "miss chance" confusion when discussing pos energy touch spells (direct contradiction of incoporeal type rules in monster manual - he assumed there was some concealment-like miss chance where actually you always hit, you just don't always do damage if you don't have the right damage type) I have some vague memories of mistakes with charge/overrun, confusion of grapple checks with ability checks and attack rolls, with polymorph (admittedly easy to get wrong given the rules flips on this). I don't remember the others. Some of the stuff may only be contradicting the FAQ, which shouldn't be surprising, as Skip and Andy don't agree on what the rules are. I could probably go through them all and pick them out but I don't have that kind of time today and it is a topic for another thread.
KarmaInferno 07-24-07, 01:53 PM	Skip has been infamous for using his position as the Sage to create new rules based on how he THINKS the rules should go, while calling them "clarifications". The column is not subject to the same level of review by other designers for balance as the rules books are. Example: Back in 2nd Edition D&D, the rulebooks did not have any rule that stated that you would auto-fail a saving throw on a natural roll of 1. Skip used the Sage Advice column to change that, adding in auto-fail on saves while claiming that was the specified intent all along. Okay. Third edition rolled around. Once again, there was no mention of auto-fail on saves in the rulebooks. At least two of the designers (Ryan Dancey and I think Steve Miller) in public discussions noted that this was deliberate, as it made no sense that a level one apprentice wizard could ALWAYS affect a 34th level godling with a save spell at least 5% of the time. Skip used Sage Advice shortly afterwards to reintroduce Auto-fail to saves yet again. 3.5 rolls around, and look, the guys who had objected to auto-fail are no longer involved with development. But Skip is. And guess what rears it's head in the rules now. Yeah. Auto-fail on saves. -karma