Post/Author/DateTime	Post
BoDiddilly 09-13-06, 10:50 PM	So yeah I was looking at the complete arcana earlier today, and It accured to me that a twin spell that is then made a repeating spell would cast a single spell 4 times over 2 rounds. Then by freely Quickening the spell through a class feature, item, or feat and casting it again you cause the spell to activate 4 times on the spell to activate Four time on the initial round and then freely four more times at the begining of the next round leaving you a whole round to cast as you like. My suggestion use a twin repeat scouching ray (w/ arcane thesis) twice in the 1st round using two 8thlvl spell slots. Then cast 2 twin scouching ray in the second round using two 5th lvl spell slots and a quickening effect.
Droken 09-13-06, 11:07 PM	A twin - repeat - scorching ray would be spell level 2 + 4 + 4 = 10th level spell.
Seerow 09-13-06, 11:13 PM	But with Arcane Thesis + Incanatrix= 2+2+2=6th level spell, 8th quickened. Add in Easy Metamagic(Twin Spell) to lower those all by one.
BoDiddilly 09-13-06, 11:24 PM	the adjustment for repeat is acually 3 and I wasn't even thinking about the incanatrix.:D but please continue.
StruckingFuggle 09-13-06, 11:25 PM	And then there's also that feat to duplicate the Incantitrix (also Dwomerkeeper)'s capstone feat. So all told it's an adjustment of -3 on all metamagics for an Arcane Thesis spell if you reach that point. And supposedly, it turns +1s into -2s and +2s into -1s on the level (via the fact that Arcane Thesis lowers the adjustment by one, with no mention of it not going negative, whereas the other times such things are mentioned, they mention specifically an adjustment can't be reduced below 1, so some people rule AT can push it into the negatives...)
Seerow 09-13-06, 11:29 PM	StruckingFuggle: Where is this feat found? I'd like to see that. The closest thing I can think of is epic. So Easy Metamagic(Twin Spell), Incanatrix, and Arcane Thesis, means that both Twin Spell and Repeat Spell are +1, and Quicken is +2. So Twin Repeated is 4th level slot, Twin Repeated Quickened is a 6th level slot. Add in Energy Admixture and Searing Spell for excellence.
StruckingFuggle 09-13-06, 11:33 PM	For the life of me, I don't recall. I'll have to find it.
BoDiddilly 09-13-06, 11:55 PM	Im confused the twin spell has a +4 adjustment as does quicken, while the repeat spell has +3 adjustment so how are we coming up with these new numbers?
BW0222 09-13-06, 11:55 PM	BoDiddilly, So? You are at least 17th-level to cast this -- using serious magical items, feats, etc. just to attempt it -- even if it was possible. You average demon or devil would just ignore all the attacks due to fire resistance or spell resistance. Your average dragon would just take the damage and kill you between rounds. If your NPC opponent has a ring of spell turning -- you fry. If your opponent has a ring of fire resistance or resists energy spell up, they likely take little or no damage. If they have a projected image up, it does nothing. 17th-level opponents are happily capable of killing you within one or two rounds if you don't have defenses against their spells/tactics. If you didn't win initiatitve... I wouldn't give you much hope of surviving the first round against most of their attacks either. Welcome to high/epic levels.
Seerow 09-14-06, 12:00 AM	Im confused the twin spell has a +4 adjustment as does quicken, while the repeat spell has +3 adjustment Incantatrix lowers all Metamagic by 1. Arcane Thesis lowers all metamagic by 1. Easy Metamagic lowers a single metamagic by one. So we're lowering Twin Spell by 3, Repeat Spell by 2, so both are at +1, while Quicken is at +2. You average demon or devil would just ignore all the attacks due to fire resistance or spell resistance. Your average dragon would just take the damage and kill you between rounds. If your NPC opponent has a ring of spell turning -- you fry. If your opponent has a ring of fire resistance or resists energy spell up, they likely take little or no damage. Actually Searing Spell lets you ignore all fire resistance, and deal half damage against immunities. The only problem I'm seeing is spell turning. But isn't that usually a one shot deal? *checks* 3/day. But yeah, getting all that turned back would suck.
StruckingFuggle 09-14-06, 12:13 AM	It's much better to use Enervation, and just start off the battle by blasting them with a Greater Dispel Magic if they've got Death Ward or Spell Turning or whatever up. (yes?) Wham! Something like 20 negative levels in one blow!
ShinAkuma2 09-14-06, 12:27 AM	17th-level opponents are happily capable of killing you within one or two rounds if you don't have defenses against their spells/tactics. If you didn't win initiatitve... I wouldn't give you much hope of surviving the first round against most of their attacks either. Welcome to high/epic levels. Welcome to the most generic statement in D&D ever, You basically told him, "If you have no protection and your opponent has every advantage, you lose." That's true no matter what you're doing.
runestar 09-14-06, 12:45 AM	You basically told him, "If you have no protection and your opponent has every advantage, you lose." That's true no matter what you're doing. I believe that is called "Begging the Question"...:D It is not all that powerful, you still have to make ranged touch attacks on all of them, any by that time, any monster with even a moderate amount of fire resistance will easily negate most, if not all of the damage. It would be a nice starter against that white dragon whom you can't affect with shivering touch...assuming the dm is a moron and doesn't give him some items/spells granting fire resistance....:rolleyes: As a 2nd lv spell, it is also quite vulnerable to effects like globe of invul/spell immunity. Considering how easily it can be countered, I don't think it is worth the effort.:(
SpellMaster 09-14-06, 12:46 AM	The problem with this theory is that metamagic feats work off the base spell, NOT the spell modified by other metamagic feats. Therefore, on the first round, you would get a Twinned effect, and the next round, the base spell repeated (presumably 3 rays). In two rounds, with some serious spell slots, you could get... let me see... Round 1: Twinned, Repeated SCorching Ray. 6 bolts this round, 3 the next. Quickened, Twinned, Repeated SCorching Ray. 6 bolts this round, 3 the next. Round 2: Twinned Scorching Ray. 6 bolts. Quickened Twinned Scorching Ray. 6 bolts. Grand total: 30 bolts... damn, that's closer than I thought. Still, those three feats together on a spell is +11 spell slots, I think. Even with a gratuitous -2 to each feat,that's still... +5? I guess that's not too too bad for some 7th level or lower spell slots... Still, -2 to metamagic feats' adjustments seems awefully cheesy to me.
The_One_True_Boris 09-14-06, 12:53 AM	Why does Repeat Spell repeat the metamagic feat?
Cowboy_ninja 09-14-06, 01:04 AM	Incantatrix lowers all Metamagic by 1. Arcane Thesis lowers all metamagic by 1. Easy Metamagic lowers a single metamagic by one. So we're lowering Twin Spell by 3, Repeat Spell by 2, so both are at +1, while Quicken is at +2. where can i find those feats?
Seerow 09-14-06, 01:10 AM	Easy Metamagic is from some Dragon Magazine, Incanatrix is a prestige class from Magic of Faerun, Arcane Thesis is in the PHBII.
runestar 09-14-06, 01:16 AM	Why does Repeat Spell repeat the metamagic feat? For the same reason that maximise spell maximises the twinned portion of a spell - they stack in this case unless stated otherwise, as was the case for empower/maximise, which everyone ended up misinterpreting as canon until the sage had to clear it up.
The_One_True_Boris 09-14-06, 02:20 AM	In this case, the "stacking" has been misapplied. You pay the spell slots to cast the spell twice in one round (Twin Spell). Then, you pay spell slots to have the spell cast again in the next round (Repeat Spell). To contrast with Maximize and Empower, the two are "stacked" by adding the feat effects together. You pay the spell slots to deal max damage per die (Maximize Spell). Then, you pay the spell slots to deal 150% damage of the original spell (Empower Spell). A 10d6 Maximized/Empower fireball deals 60 + (10d6)/2 damage. You get a "stacked" effect, but the feats still apply only to the original spell. To me, Repeating the Twin spell is just an abuse of RAW that belongs on the CO boards.
Enaloindir 09-14-06, 02:26 AM	Why does Repeat Spell repeat the metamagic feat? For the same reason that maximise spell maximises the twinned portion of a spell - they stack in this case unless stated otherwise, as was the case for empower/maximise, which everyone ended up misinterpreting as canon until the sage had to clear it up. And here's the reference:If my wizard applies Energy Admixture (Complete Arcane, page 78) and Maximize Spell to the same spell, does he get a spell that deals double its maximized damage (maximum normal damage in two different energy types)? If he also applied the Twin Spell feat (Complete Arcane, page 84) to the same spell would it duplicate the entire effect? Yes and yes. Assuming your character can cast 13th-level spells—the slot required by a 2nd-level spell affected by these metamagic feats—a scorching ray so affected would create two sets of three rays each, with each ray dealing 24 points of fire damage (4d6, maximized) and 24 points of a second energy type (as appropriate for your Energy Substitution feat), for a grand total of 288 points of damage . . . assuming all six rays hit their target. Enaloindir
The_One_True_Boris 09-14-06, 02:35 AM	Enaloindir, I hope you realize how that doesn't apply to Repeat Spell. Maybe I ninja'd you on my post, but go back and read my response to runestar.
Merestil Haye 09-14-06, 07:46 AM	IActually Searing Spell lets you ignore all fire resistance, and deal half damage against immunities. The only problem I'm seeing is spell turning. But isn't that usually a one shot deal? *checks* 3/day. But yeah, getting all that turned back would suck.Spell Turning? From the description of Spell Turning. Spells and spell-like effects targeted on you are turned back upon the original caster. The abjuration turns only spells that have you as a target. Effect and area spells are not affected. Spell turning also fails to stop touch range spells.(Emphasis mine.) From the description of Scorching Ray;Effect: One or more rays Scorching Ray is not a targeted spell. It creates an effect that you aim. Scorching Ray is never affected by Spell Turning.
Merestil Haye 09-14-06, 07:51 AM	In this case, the "stacking" has been misapplied. You pay the spell slots to cast the spell twice in one round (Twin Spell). Then, you pay spell slots to have the spell cast again in the next round (Repeat Spell). To contrast with Maximize and Empower, the two are "stacked" by adding the feat effects together. You pay the spell slots to deal max damage per die (Maximize Spell). Then, you pay the spell slots to deal 150% damage of the original spell (Empower Spell). A 10d6 Maximized/Empower fireball deals 60 + (10d6)/2 damage. You get a "stacked" effect, but the feats still apply only to the original spell. To me, Repeating the Twin spell is just an abuse of RAW that belongs on the CO boards.You may not use the interaction of Maximise and Empower to generalise an interaction between metamagic feats. If that were the general rule, it would be stated is a general discussion about Metamagic feats, not in the specific description of one of the two feats. Indeed, by making it part of the specific text of Maximise, the designers clearly show that it is intended to apply only to that interaction. Further reading (http://boards1.wizards.com/showthread.php?t=522167) for your edification.
Silverthumb128 09-14-06, 08:00 AM	For the enemies with Fire resistance/immunity, how about Energy Substitution?
Enaloindir 09-14-06, 08:11 AM	Energy Substitution certainly is an option if you know you'll be facing fire immune enemies. Otherwise, I suggest using Searing Spell (SS): with Arcane Thesis it's a +0 spell level increase, and it completely ignores any fire resistance you encounter (and still deals half damage against fire immune opponents) Enaloindir
kjenks 09-14-06, 08:44 AM	So yeah I was looking at the complete arcana earlier today, and It accured to me that a twin spell that is then made a repeating spell would cast a single spell 4 times over 2 rounds. Then by freely Quickening the spell through a class feature, item, or feat and casting it again you cause the spell to activate 4 times on the spell to activate Four time on the initial round and then freely four more times at the begining of the next round leaving you a whole round to cast as you like. My suggestion use a twin repeat scouching ray (w/ arcane thesis) twice in the 1st round using two 8thlvl spell slots. Then cast 2 twin scouching ray in the second round using two 5th lvl spell slots and a quickening effect. I'd say you're not trying hard enough. Where is your familiar Imbue Familiar with Spell Ability while all this is happening? Grant your familiar some "scourching" rays and let him get in on the fun. He has the same BAB as you, he's size Tiny and he likely has a higher Dex, so he's probably better at firing ray spells than you are. I'd recommend Extend Spell + Guided Shot and Greater Invis in the previous round (shared with your familiar, of course) so that all of your rays have a much better chance to hit. And while you're cheesing out Arcane Thesis, recheck your math: if your DM is foolish enough to follow the rules exactly as written, you get a -1 spell level for applying Energy Substitution (normally +0) with Arcane Thesis. This thread clearly points out how bad Arcane Thesis can be. I recommend changing it to be -1 spell level total, no matter how many metamagic feats are applied, with a minimum of the actual spell level.
kliate 09-14-06, 09:14 AM	You forgot to tack on Split Ray for another target.
jaelis 09-14-06, 12:41 PM	This thread clearly points out how bad Arcane Thesis can be. I recommend changing it to be -1 spell level total, no matter how many metamagic feats are applied, with a minimum of the actual spell level. That is sensible advice.
tarkin 09-14-06, 02:55 PM	Also there is some debate about twin and repeat stack. I.E. I cast a twinned repeated scorching ray. You assumed they DO stack. So you get 3 +3 this round and 3+3 next round? This follows the line of reasoning in the FAQ. But if you read the Player's Handbook, you see that Maximize and Empower do NOT stack. That would be 3 rays (normal) + 3 rays (twinned) this round and then 3 rays (repeated) next round. I.E. The Twin spell is NOT repeated, anymore then the Empower part is maximized. I use the no-stacking rule from the PHB, finding the Stacking reasoning in the FAQ to be over-powered.
Seerow 09-14-06, 03:09 PM	That is sensible advice. It also makes Arcane Thesis completely worthless, because it only applies to one spell, ever. So unless your build revolves entirely around a single spell, using it as Written is fine. Making the feat completely useless because some builds can abuse it is silly.
Thiez 09-14-06, 03:48 PM	What's with the damn Maximize + Empower stacking? AFAIK, it ONLY applies in that situation. Extend would stack with Empower or Maximize. Quicken would 'stack' with Enlarge. Why do I never hear any of those Maximize/Empower people whine about that?
The_One_True_Boris 09-14-06, 08:14 PM	You may not use the interaction of Maximise and Empower to generalise an interaction between metamagic feats. If that were the general rule, it would be stated is a general discussion about Metamagic feats, not in the specific description of one of the two feats. Indeed, by making it part of the specific text of Maximise, the designers clearly show that it is intended to apply only to that interaction. Further reading for your edification. Actually, you can and should, since they are the only "What if?" metamagic combination in the Core books. There was no argument that a spell could be widened/enlarged or silent/still because the effect of the metamagic feat never operated on the same variable of a spell. However, maximize and empower both change the damage dealt. "What if?" came into being. So, Wizard's innocently clarified that maximize and empower changed the damage a spell dealt independently of each other. Maximize and Empower working in this manner falls into line with every other Metamagic/Metamagic interaction from the Core books. Maximizing and Empowering a spell is the precedent of applying similar Metamagic Feats to a spell. Their, Wizard's, official ruling is to apply the feats seperately to determine the overall effect. Adding Twin Spell to a Repeated Spell merely causes the spell to be cast twice in the first round and once in the second. Just like every other Metamagic Combination from the Core books, they work independently of each other. Similarly if you apply Maximize, Twin, and Repeat to a single spell, it will cast as follows: The spell is cast once at a Maximum value to a variable The spell is cast again as normal In the next round, the spell is cast once more as normal. I am only following what has been set forth in the Metamagic rules.
Bopple 09-14-06, 08:57 PM	If metamagic feats don't stack, you cannot justify the slot increase of Enhance Spell feat. Therefore I'd say it's case by case.
jaelis 09-14-06, 11:25 PM	It also makes Arcane Thesis completely worthless, because it only applies to one spell, ever. So unless your build revolves entirely around a single spell, using it as Written is fine. Making the feat completely useless because some builds can abuse it is silly. To each his own. Even the conservative version seems like a decent feat to me.
Seerow 09-14-06, 11:28 PM	To each his own. Even the conservative version seems like a decent feat to me. The conservative version would be decent if it applied to ANY spell. The reason Arcane Thesis is so strong is because it only ever applies to -one- spell. So when you take it, you're effectively shoe-horning yourself to specializing in that spell forever, or wasting the feat. In some cases, like Shadowcraft Mage, you can get away with that because one spell will be enough versatility to do everything you could ever want. But most cases, Scorching Ray? Enervation? Yes, they're powerful, but they're also a single trick, and it will be just about all that player can do effectively.
wonlee76 09-14-06, 11:35 PM	All this trouble for 36 scorching rays that can be countered by a 2nd level spell (Energy Resistance: Resistance 30 with a caster level of 11) by the time you're high enough level to pull this combo off... It looks pretty spectacular but is very easy to counter. Even creatures with some minor resistance (10 or 20) will be reducing the damage enough so that this is a pretty big waste of resources to pull off.
Seerow 09-14-06, 11:38 PM	All this trouble for 36 scorching rays that can be countered by a 2nd level spell (Energy Resistance: Resistance 30 with a caster level of 11) by the time you're high enough level to pull this combo off... It looks pretty spectacular but is very easy to counter. Even creatures with some minor resistance (10 or 20) will be reducing the damage enough so that this is a pretty big waste of resources to pull off. Seriously, read the topic. Searing Spell has been brought up at least 3 times in this topic so far. Ignore Fire Resistance, deal half damage to immune creatures. Also, Energy Admixture is never a waste here.
jaelis 09-14-06, 11:46 PM	The conservative version would be decent if it applied to ANY spell. Come on. If the conservative version applied to any spell, it would be a well-regarded high-level PrC ability, not a feat.
BoDiddilly 09-14-06, 11:54 PM	Metamagic feats dont sack, they modify. If you have you have two items that grant you a +2 sheild bonus. You are simaltanious granted a +2 sheild bonus from both. If you then recieve a +1 shield bonus from a spell you simply recieve another reduned bonus. However if a class ability/feat would would say "improve your shield bonus by 1" or " your nature armor bonus improves by 1" then the modification would stack with each other and the previous score You can easily see that using a metamagic effect modifies the spell, causing to gain completely new or altered effects, while keeping the spell's: name, spell level, and other key attributes the same. For instance An energy admixture spell "you can modify any spell with an energy discriptor by adding an equal amount of the choosen energy type---the spells discriptor changes to include both energy types). To compensate for this agmentation the spell uses a higher spell slot. there for an energy admixture(+4) scouching ray(lv2) is equivallent to a cone of cold(lv6) and uses the same spell casting compacity. If both these spells were then empowered under the rules Boris presents then the full slot6 cone of cold would empowered while only half of the slot6 Scourching ray would be empowered, adn that dosnt really make any sense. If the adjustment stack the modification should stack and theoriticly create spells with effects relitive to the casting compacity they use(in a perfect world that is). As for the idea that multiple modification could not be made to the same verible well I think it very possible to add to decuct from and then double a varible with a verity effects.
Seerow 09-15-06, 12:13 AM	Come on. If the conservative version applied to any spell, it would be a well-regarded high-level PrC ability, not a feat. No, the well-regarded high-level PrC ability is the Incantatrix ability that applies to all metamagics applies to any spell. The feat is watered down in that it applies to only one spell, but a bit stronger in that it doesn't have the "minimum 1" limit (which really didn't matter in any of the examples here except Searing Spell). I'd say taking one off the top of the metamagic spell of any spell you cast is a pretty fair feat. But to keep Arcane Thesis applying to only one spell and nerfing it in such a manner would make it useless.
The_One_True_Boris 09-15-06, 12:41 AM	If both these spells were then empowered under the rules Boris presents then the full slot6 cone of cold would empowered while only half of the slot6 Scourching ray would be empowered, adn that dosnt really make any sense. If the adjustment stack the modification should stack and theoriticly create spells with effects relitive to the casting compacity they use(in a perfect world that is). You will just have to come to terms with the fact that a Metamagic Spell in its adjusted spell level isn't always as wonderful as the spells of that level. Easy example: Heightened (5th level) Fireball and Cone of Cold. Same save DCs, roughly equivalent areas, but a 5d6 damage difference. By any theory that says a Metamagic Spell must be as powerful/useful as a spell of the level it replaces, Heighten Spell would be considered underpowered. Metamagic Feats allow versatility. Reading into the rules so that Metamagic Spells always outshine their spell level equivalents is just plain cheating.
Seerow 09-15-06, 12:49 AM	You will just have to come to terms with the fact that a Metamagic Spell in its adjusted spell level isn't always as wonderful as the spells of that level. Easy example: Heightened (5th level) Fireball and Cone of Cold. Same save DCs, roughly equivalent areas, but a 5d6 damage difference. By any theory that says a Metamagic Spell must be as powerful/useful as a spell of the level it replaces, Heighten Spell would be considered underpowered. Which is why you don't use heighten spell on a damage spell. That's just stupid. You use it on things like Phantasmal Killer, or other save or dies/be screwed spells that all that matters on them is the save. It's ESPECIALLY useful for the Sorcerer who doesn't want to get something new every level thanks to his limited spells known. Instead he can pick up one every other level, maybe even get away with one at 4th, one at 7th, one at 9th. Of course if you use a Metamagic feat in its worse possible scenario it's going to suck. That's like me saying "I applied Empower to Heal, and it still only healed 150 damage! omg Empowered Heal Sucks!"
The_One_True_Boris 09-15-06, 01:01 AM	Thank you for ignoring the point I was trying to make, Seerow.
gotbrain 09-15-06, 01:03 AM	Why not use the dual wand feat with wands of twinned (4-3), maximized (3-2), empowered (2-2) scorching rays? That would be 12 rays doing 36 damage each, or 432 damage per round. All that for 3 charges per round. That would require 8 feats to pull off.
Seerow 09-15-06, 01:08 AM	Thank you for ignoring the point I was trying to make, Seerow. The point you were trying to make was WRONG. And you used a bad example to try to illustrate a wrong point. If you want to compare a damage dealing spell, look at an Empowered Fireball. 15d6 from a 5th level slot. Competes directly with Cone of Cold, which also caps out at 15d6. Using your logic, this is evidence to say that all metamagic spells are made to be perfectly balanced with other spells of appropriate level, and saying otherwise is fighting the RAW. That better? =D
BoDiddilly 09-15-06, 01:35 AM	I just put a little more thought into this. Looking at heightened spell in the PHB it occured to me that while multipal adjustments to one variable might be illegal, changing one variable can cause other dependable variblies to change for instance when you highten a spell to increase its level this inturn increase the DC, the outcome of dispell checks, (and possibly other checks). A heighened spell modifies the spells lvl while the blistering spell modifies the spell by adding two new effects to it one of which is level dependant (+2 fire damages per spell lvl) the modification can be made indepantly to different fields even though they interact the same is true for empowered energy admixture spell. Energy admixture alters the spell discripter and add an addition varible effect(additional X damage) empower spell improves all varible effects and therefor would applie to both energy damage. Problem w/ empowered and maximize is they both modify the resulting varibles. like wise you wouldnt be able to double and quadruple the range of a spell. but that dosnt mean you should be able to add multi effects to a spell such Blisting Energy admixture(fire) Lightning bolt( which gains addition varible damage, addition lvl dependent damage, and the fixed attack rool penalty), or a reapeating twin spell. I see it like this, the effect of a magic missle casted this way would look some thing like you fire 1d4+1 missles ----- this effect takes place twice against the same targets simultaniously---. this spell automaticlly takes effect again at the begining of the next round
The_One_True_Boris 09-15-06, 01:51 AM	No, not really. Using your logic, this is evidence to say that all metamagic spells are made to be perfectly balanced with other spells of appropriate level, and saying otherwise is fighting the RAW. By stating this, you've proven that my point flew over your head. You will just have to come to terms with the fact that a Metamagic Spell in its adjusted spell level isn't always as wonderful as the spells of that level. This was my point. I stated it first and foremost in my post. I'm sorry you didn't see it. To even use your "compare damage dealing spell" example, the Empowered Fireball's DC is still 2 points lower. Not much of a difference, but it prevents the spells from being equivalent which was more or less the point I was trying to make. The only reason I'm even making the point is because BoDiddly brought it up as a balancing point for his rule interpretation which, when you think about it, he's not even doing correctly. Between the two schools of thought Metamagic feat effect only the spell Metamagic feats effect the spell and the metamagic feats applied thereon He, the OP, represents the second. By his thinking, a Twinned, Repeated, Split Ray, Maximized Scorching Ray actually presents this effect: 1st Round Scorching ray cast twice with rays doubled and dealing max damage 2nd Round Scorching ray cast four times with rays doubled and dealing max damage What I demonstrated was the Twin spell causing Repeat Spell to happen twice and the Repeat Spell then causing Twin spell to cast the spell twice. Rule against this. You can't if you believe the Maximize/Empower rules in the PHB an independent anomaly. There is also no "order of operations" for metamagic effects. It's perfectly legal if you only read what you want to read.
BoDiddilly 09-15-06, 02:02 AM	I didnt mean to use the balance point as a justification or explination for my view on metamagic interaction it is simply part of an over view of how metamagic is disigned to work
The_One_True_Boris 09-15-06, 02:09 AM	But if Metamagic spells preserved each other like so many are claiming, you get that 36 ray beast.
Xoran_Swiftblade 09-15-06, 02:29 AM	It also makes Arcane Thesis completely worthless, because it only applies to one spell, ever. So unless your build revolves entirely around a single spell, using it as Written is fine. Making the feat completely useless because some builds can abuse it is silly. You do realize that the more conservative appoach is how it's written? The feat itself says absolutely nothing about modifying the amount by which metamagic feats adjust the spell level. It says that if you prepare that spell modified by a metamagic feat, the spell takes up a slot one level lower than it normally does. All the metamagic feats would apply their adjustments as usual, and then, essentially, Arcane Thesis is an additional metamagic feat that has a -1 spell level adjustment and no other effects.
BoDiddilly 09-15-06, 02:33 AM	well as you said before You will just have to come to terms with the fact that a Metamagic Spell in its adjusted spell level isn't always as wonderful as the spells of that level. and that my freind can work both ways sometime the adjusted spell slot doesnt justify the effects it all in interpritation and these have to be the 2 most open to interpritation broken metamagic feats out there thats why I started this. fact is using this formula ( to cast 8 spells in 2 rnds) and or other metamagic formulas suggested within this thread in conjuction with the incanatrix, arcana thesis ect you can pull out thing even more statisticly brocken then the 36 ray beast I just choose that because it is such redonkulos consept to fire that many of anything .
The_One_True_Boris 09-15-06, 02:45 AM	Actually, my 36 ray beast doesn't take into account Quicken spell. If you cast a Quickened version along with it, you get an extra 36 rays.
BoDiddilly 09-15-06, 03:02 AM	scouching ray creates 3 ray each so: quickened twin repeat spell + twin repeat spell = 4 spells first repeaters + quicken twin spell + twin spell = 8 spells second round 12 spells/ 36 rays total It easy to get so free quicken and empower effects in there as well via sudden metamagic and rods
The_One_True_Boris 09-15-06, 03:07 AM	Don't forget Split Ray.
Rundor The Mighty 09-15-06, 06:19 AM	You can do the 36 ray beast and stacking metamagic is neither for or against the raw because there is blab from wotc pointing both ways and ultimately a lot of confusion. Thus it is purely speculation on whether it works or not. My question though is why argue about this? If a player comes into my game and stacks meta on enervation and does +/-around 20 negative levels for an 8th or so level slot, I will procede to grab a solid object and bash him over the head. Repeatedly. You just don't let these things happen so there is no reason to even argue if they work on not because of how far over the realm of balance they are. I mean it is so easy to ignore energy resistance with searing spell OR archmage OR energy substitution so the 36 ray beast must not be allowed. Granted, it would be nice to have a rules of the game - metamagic article that stopped this madness (aka no stacking) so it could be put to rest.
wonlee76 09-15-06, 11:31 AM	Seriously, read the topic. Searing Spell has been brought up at least 3 times in this topic so far. Ignore Fire Resistance, deal half damage to immune creatures. Also, Energy Admixture is never a waste here. In that case, how about a simple Minor Globe of Invulnerability to counter all this hard work? Its still a 2nd level spell that is being metamagicked out the wazoo to get a huge result. Last I checked, the only metamagic feat that "counts" against Minor Globe/Globe of Invulnerability is the Heighten Metamagic feat.
StruckingFuggle 09-15-06, 12:14 PM	If a player comes into my game and stacks meta on enervation and does +/-around 20 negative levels for an 8th or so level slot, I will procede to grab a solid object and bash him over the head. Repeatedly. 8th Level? Hah! Try 4th level. Or, depending on your reading of Arcane Thesis, 0th Level.
Sancus 09-15-06, 02:06 PM	I see numerous people here claiming that metamagic doesn't stack, and that the FAQ entry doesn't prove they stack, so I'm going to have to ask, what the heck? All metamagic stacks directly, there is no such rule as 'modifies the base spell', that is something entirely invented by people generalizing the specific Maximize+Empower rule and that particular phrase about the base spell has never been used anywhere other than random internet forums, certainly not in any official material. To confirm this, there is the FAQ entry that shows two feats that stack directly, Energy Admixture and Maximize. To DOUBLY confirm this, in Sage Advice, Andy Collins gave the example of a Twin Fireball casting two Maximized fireballs. In fact, someone who felt that it was unbalanced questioned Andy on his website( http://p198.ezboard.com/fgameschat19968frm12.showMessage?topicID =653.topic) and he was quite clear: "I find no support in the rules for the claim that a metamagic effect does not apply to the entire spell being cast (including any other metamagic effects)." Now, if you want to claim that it's overpowered and so you're changing it for your own game, that's your business -- but to claim that the official position is "no stacking" is blatantly incorrect. He also comments, quite correctly: "Sage Advice is not an avenue for comment upon rules balance. Whether or not I think applying Twin Spell to a maximized fireball *should* create a second maximized fireball or just a regular fireball has no bearing on what answer the rules support." Finally: "If R&D wanted the Max + Emp to set a precedent, they would have used its language in other metamagic entries, or *much better yet* have simply inserted language to that effect into the metamagic rules." So far as WotC is concerned, that is the final word on metamagic stacking.
The_One_True_Boris 09-15-06, 05:10 PM	"I find no support in the rules for the claim that a metamagic effect does not apply to the entire spell being cast (including any other metamagic effects)." And there is no support for the opposite. I'm just trying to make sure, that when people bend the rules to be most beneficial for them, they do it correctly.
BoDiddilly 09-15-06, 05:53 PM	Im not sure know what you mean by correctly but Ive thought this over in detail from both side all day now snd i to still find no evidence to settle this with. hmm but now i back track Don't forget Split Ray. dont think its worth it 8th Level? Hah! Try 4th level. Or, depending on your reading of Arcane Thesis, 0th Level. Today 11:31 AM Ok just no the adjustment ability prestented by the incantrix reduces to a nin of 1, also the adustment only occures once for an altered spell not once for each alteration. Also while Im while im aware of arcane thesis and its ability to apply metamagic at no lvl adjustment that doesnt apply here because adjustment to spell slot penalties are min 1 whenever these feats are used in conjunction with Incanatrix ability. And now lets look at Arcane thesis- You do realize that the more conservative appoach is how it's written? The feat itself says absolutely nothing about modifying the amount by which metamagic feats adjust the spell level. It says that if you prepare that spell modified by a metamagic feat, the spell takes up a slot one level lower than it normally does. All the metamagic feats would apply their adjustments as usual, and then, essentially, Arcane Thesis is an additional metamagic feat that has a -1 spell level adjustment and no other effects. Today 02:09 AM ok then the only im conserned w/ now is how to determine the inaction of stacking metamagic effect and getting some opinions on how to interprit the twin spell but thats another time
StruckingFuggle 09-15-06, 09:39 PM	Ok just no the adjustment ability prestented by the incantrix reduces to a nin of 1, also the adustment only occures once for an altered spell not once for each alteration. Also while Im while im aware of arcane thesis and its ability to apply metamagic at no lvl adjustment that doesnt apply here because adjustment to spell slot penalties are min 1 whenever these feats are used in conjunction with Incanatrix ability. That's not quite how it works. First, such a build uses the Practical Metamagic feat (Races of Dragon), reducing the adjustment cost for all metamagic feats by 1 (minimum +1) ... +4 becomes +3, +2 becomes +1, +1 stays +1, so on and so forth. Second, the Incantatrix's capstone ability then reduces the slot adjustment for any (and all, per feat, not once per spell no matter how many metamagic feats you tack on) metamagic feats. Between those two, anything with a +3 adjustment or lower becomes +1 - and then on top of that, Arcane Thesis reduces the cost of all metamagic feats by 1 (to a minimum of 0) when applied to the thesis spell : making anything +3 equal to +0. See, the first feat and the class ability come first, because they reduce the cost for the feat in general, and then Arcane Thesis' reduction (the one with no +1 minimum) comes last, as it's triggered only when the feats are applied to the Thesis spell. Which granted, costs two feats per metamagic feat you want to apply, to pull it off.
Sancus 09-16-06, 02:54 PM	And there is no support for the opposite. You can think whatever you like, regardless of how wrong it is, but the official standpoint is clear. That is all. Claiming otherwise is willful ignorance.
Teydyn 09-16-06, 02:55 PM	Question to all "Metamagic doesnt stack" peoples.... How much damage do i do if i cast a Empowered Enlarged Fireball at someone 1000ft away at CL 10? 10d6 or 15d6? (10d6 sounds stupid, doesnt it?)
The_One_True_Boris 09-16-06, 05:34 PM	You can think whatever you like, regardless of how wrong it is, but the official standpoint is clear. That is all. Claiming otherwise is willful ignorance. Andy Collins' defense of his statement was along the lines of "the book doesn't say metamagic feats do not apply to the entire spell". If you read the books, neither do they say metamagic does apply to the entire spell. Coincidently, if you quicken a twin spell, the twin spell aspect is negated....unless you're epic and have multispell. How much damage do i do if i cast a Empowered Enlarged Fireball at someone 1000ft away at CL 10? 0d6, you can't target a point that far away at CL 10
Teydyn 09-16-06, 06:37 PM	0d6, you can't target a point that far away at CL 10 Enlarge Spell [Metamagic] You can alter a spell with a range of close, medium, or long to increase its range by 100%. long-range spells have a range of 800 ft. + 80 ft./level. Fireball Range: Long (400 ft. + 40 ft./level) 800 + 10*80 = 1600, yes you can. So is it 10d6 or 15d6? :) I cast a EnergySubstitution(Acid) Repeat Fireball, 2nd round is no acid damage? I cast a Quickened Repeat Magic Missile, this round i cast as a swift action, next round Quickened didnt work at all so i have to "pay" the standard action "back"? I cast a Twinned Subdual Fireball to NOT kill someone, bad luck the Twinned Ball deals normal damage? I cast an Maximised Heigtened (+3) Magic Missile at someone in a Lesser Globe of Invulnerability. I affect him, but not maximised? Crap like this is a HUGE indicator for Metamagic stacking, with the written exception of Maximise & Empower.
BoDiddilly 09-16-06, 07:21 PM	Ok heres a good one. A heighten(+3) blistering fireball is counted as a 6th level spell for all perposes but only receive bonus blisting damage as though it were a third level spell. Then once the save for half damage is resloved you resolve the blisting penalty some how with the same save :thinks: at a -3 penalty perhaps? :nonono: :nonono: :nonono: :nonono: :nonono: :nonono:
The_One_True_Boris 09-16-06, 10:37 PM	800 + 10*80 = 1600, yes you can. My bad. I confused Enlarge with Widen. Enlarge is a misnomer for what the feat does, anyway. Anywho, technically the spell deals 10d6 + (10d6)/2 points of damage. On average, its equivalent to 15d6 (since CL doesn't affect empower), but could be the result of 10d6 multiplied by 1.5. I cast a EnergySubstitution(Acid) Repeat Fireball, 2nd round is no acid damage? Yes, why not? I cast a Quickened Repeat Magic Missile, this round i cast as a swift action, next round Quickened didnt work at all so i have to "pay" the standard action "back"? The spell is quickened in the first round, and cast normally in the second. Does Repeat spell cost an action? Not explicitly. What's so hard about this? I cast a Twinned Subdual Fireball to NOT kill someone, bad luck the Twinned Ball deals normal damage? That's your fault. There are other spells that can subdue an opponent. I cast an Maximised Heigtened (+3) Magic Missile at someone in a Lesser Globe of Invulnerability. I affect him, but not maximised? By asking this, you've obviously made no effort to understand the "alternate" reading of the rules. The heighten brings it up to 4th level, the maximize does its thing to damage. A heighten(+3) blistering fireball is counted as a 6th level spell for all perposes but only receive bonus blisting damage as though it were a third level spell. Same as the last. The problem isn't with a single casting of a spell. Its hard to abuse the rules when you pay the spell slot requirements. Its when Twin and Repeat start granting "free" metamagic to the extra spells they create that I oppose. Twin says it casts the spell twice. Repeat spell casts the spell again in the next round. Neither say whether or not Metamagic applies. Both choices are correct.
BoDiddilly 09-16-06, 11:47 PM	By asking this, you've obviously made no effort to understand the "alternate" reading of the rules. The heighten brings it up to 4th level, the maximize does its thing to damage. using that same patern thought How is (heighten spell's spell level adjustment, then maximize does its thing) different from (energy subtition's energy discription adjustment, then twin does its thing) Your proccess of resolving the metamagic stack is essently (direct feild adjustments and spell modifcations are made, then spell resolves and other metamagic effects that accompany the spell are determined with no interation between them and other accompanying effects,so they can then resolve?
The_One_True_Boris 09-17-06, 12:53 AM	using that same patern thought How is (heighten spell's spell level adjustment, then maximize does its thing) different from (energy subtition's energy discription adjustment, then twin does its thing) Your proccess of resolving the metamagic stack is essently (direct feild adjustments and spell modifcations are made, then spell resolves and other metamagic effects that accompany the spell are determined with no interation between them and other accompanying effects,so they can then resolve? Your assessment of "my" process is in error. Their are no rules for metamagic "order of operations". Therefore, you cannot determine whether one metamagic effect happens before the other. Because of this there are two ways of applying multiple metamagic effects: simultaneously or sequentially. Applying metamagic simultaneously nets you a 36 ray Scorching Ray. This is backed up by "the rules don't say I can't" argument and RAAW (Rules As Aren't Written). Applying metamagic sequentially applies metamagic effects, one-by-one in any order you wish. This is supported by "the rules say what I can do" argument, and better fits RAW. Why does it fit RAW? RAW states that a metamagic feat cannot be applied to a single spell more than once. This sends any Twin combinations out the door, but it doesn't prevent Repeat from functioning as writen. It is arguable, however, that Repeat spell is benefiting from another metamagic feat twice.
Teydyn 09-17-06, 02:20 PM	Their are no rules for metamagic "order of operations". So far so good. This is backed up by "the rules don't say I can't" argument and RAAW (Rules As Aren't Written). This is supported by "the rules say what I can do" argument, and better fits RAW. This is just a "its true because i say so" mumble... Have you read the Twin Spell feat (CArc p 84)? "Casting the spell causes the spell to take effect twice in the same area or on the same target simultaneously" Do you notice how they talk about the spell, not the spells? Its just 1 spell, not 2. If you modify the spell with metamagic, its still one spell (taking effect twice).
The_One_True_Boris 09-17-06, 03:02 PM	This is just a "its true because i say so" mumble... I also happen to be correct. Those are the arguments. I'm sorry you do not like them. "Casting the spell causes the spell to take effect twice in the same area or on the same target simultaneously" causes the spell to take effect twice causes the spell to take effect twice How does this not violate the "Metamagic cannot applied more than once" rule. There are two, count them, two instances of the spell. Benefitting from a single Metamagic feat more than once is against the rules.
StruckingFuggle 09-17-06, 04:06 PM	How does this not violate the "Metamagic cannot applied more than once" rule. "Causes the spell to take effect twice"? simple. When you cast a Maximized Fireball, the spell that takes effect twice is the same spell you cast, right? Well, when you cast the Twinned Maximized Fireball, you didn't cast just any fireball, - the effects of the fireball, which take effect twice (via twin spell), were maximized (via Maximize). So unless you cast two different spells when you cast Twin Fireball, the twinned fireballs must be identical, to have the same effect, and that effect is "a fireball, with the damage maximized".
The_One_True_Boris 09-17-06, 05:09 PM	Read Twin Spell. It clearly states that the variables for each spell effect created are unique to each spell (i.e. if you spells deals damage die, you roll the die for each spell effect seperately). For variable effects, the spell effects are considered seperate. A Twin spell is not a "double-damage" spell, it is two spells. StruckingFuggle, in your infinite wisdom, you do seem to be ignoring that I have said that the rules (or lack thereof) support two ways of applying multiple metamagic feats to a spell. It's too bad you think so much of yourself that you don't bother to read what others have posted.
Teydyn 09-17-06, 06:08 PM	A Twin spell is not a "double-damage" spell, it is two spells. No. It is ONE spell. Taking effect twice. As written in CArc. Casting the spell causes the spell to take effect twice in the same area or on the same target simultaneously you do seem to be ignoring that I have said that the rules (or lack thereof) support two ways of applying multiple metamagic feats to a spell. Actually there is only 1 way, at least thats what StruckingFuggle and i think. that you don't bother to read what others have posted. I am sure he has read it, just disagrees.
StruckingFuggle 09-17-06, 06:22 PM	Everything about me is as Teydyn said in his previous post. I just looked one more time at Twin Spell, and it indeed seems to be quite clear that it creates two seperate instances of the same spell, and "maximized fireball" or "repeat fireball" or "maximized repeat fireball" is "the same spell". Metamagic : magic about magic, or modifying the spell you cast. If I take your car, and metacar it by putting spinners on, "your car" is now "your car + spinners". Similarly, the spell you cast when you slap on, say, "maximize" is not just a plain vanilla fireball, but a "(maximized fireball)" as its entire entity.
The_One_True_Boris 09-17-06, 08:10 PM	Metamagic : magic about magic, or modifying the spell you cast. If I take your car, and metacar it by putting spinners on, "your car" is now "your car + spinners". Similarly, the spell you cast when you slap on, say, "maximize" is not just a plain vanilla fireball, but a "(maximized fireball)" as its entire entity. That's wonderful. Too bad it has no relevance. "Maximized Fireball" is not a unique spell. The same way a Delayed Fireball is not the Delayed Blast Fireball spell. Twin spell doesn't say it preserves the Metamagic effects of a spell. I don't see how the "the rules don't say I can't" is a valid argument in any circumstance. Core RAW also doesn't say humans can't breathe fire from their backsides. Thus is born the "Metamagic Preservation Theory" where all metamagic effects affects all parts of the spell simultaneously. This is the thought process that justifies two maximized fireballs coming from a Twinned, Maximized fireball spell. Unfortunately for most people, they can apply the theory to basic combinations (Twinned, Maximized) properly, but were making simple mistakes with a more complex combination (Twinned, Repeated). There was a claim that the Twinned Repeated spell casts the spell four times over two rounds when it actually casts the spell six times over two rounds. Not even you, StruckingFuggle, who champion this theory of metamagic, noticed this mistake. Following the guidelines set in Core RAW, A spell cannot benefit from the same metamagic effect more than once. Thus is born the "Selective Metamagic Theory". For a single spell that occurs once, the theories are identical...until you trip into Twin and Repeat Spell. When Twin spell creates the second spell effect, it cannot benefit from the metamagic feats applied to the original. Otherwise, it violates Core rules. The same is true for Repeat Spell. There is nothing in Core rules that invalidates this interpretation.
StruckingFuggle 09-17-06, 08:27 PM	When Twin spell creates the second spell effect, it cannot benefit from the metamagic feats applied to the original. Why not? Isn't it a distinct version of the spell? ;) Ergo, a different spell, ergo not under the umbrella of "cannot benefit from the same metamagic effect more than once" (speaking of which, what that really means is you can't empower an empowered fireball, or twin and twinned ennervation, which is something entirely distinct), eh?
The_One_True_Boris 09-17-06, 08:41 PM	The spell is still the base spell. Metamagic doesn't create a new spell, just a variation of the old. This is why a normal fireball can still counterspell any type of fireball, no matter how many metamagic effects are applied.
Enaloindir 09-18-06, 02:00 AM	Using a very strict reading of the rules... TWIN SPELL Benefit: Casting a twinned spell causes the spell to take effect twice in the same area or on the same target simultaneously.[...] WIDEN SPELL Benefit: You can alter a burst, emanation, line, or spread shaped spell to increase its area. Any numeric measurements of the spell’s area increase by 100%.[...] Now, assume we're casting a widened twinned fireball, and a puny little orc is located 30' from the center of the fireball...what happens? Does the orc get hit by one or two blasts of the fireball? If you argue that the metamagic effect don't stack, the orc get hit by one blast only: the one originating from the widened fireball. The blast from the twinned fireball wouldn't reach the orc, because it only affects a 20'-radius. However, Twin Spell clearly says the spell affects the same area twice. Thus, we have two options: either the fireball affects only creatures within its original (unwidened) 20' spread, or it affects all reatures within 40'. The first option would indeed mean metamagic doesn't stack, but it would also indicate metamagic effects are replaced: Twin Spell in this case completely trumps Widen Spell. So, talking about an empowered maximized fireball would also be complete non-sense. The second interpretation would mean metamagic effects actually stack, a conclusion fitting perfectly in the line of the FAQ entry. :D Enaloindir
The_One_True_Boris 09-18-06, 04:40 AM	Read the rest of Twin Spell, not just what you want to read. It is written poorly and allows enough for one to consider two spells with different areas. In fact, the use of area in the feat description was the simplist (and worst) way of saying "originating from the same point if the spell effects an area". The first option would indeed mean metamagic doesn't stack, but it would also indicate metamagic effects are replaced It only indicates this because you read the rules the way you wanted them to be. Twin Spell contains contradictory elements. a conclusion fitting perfectly in the line of the FAQ entry. The FAQ isn't infallible. I'm sorry for you loss.
Teydyn 09-18-06, 06:20 AM	There was a claim that the Twinned Repeated spell casts the spell four times over two rounds when it actually casts the spell six times over two rounds. Just want to know: HOW can a Twinned Repeated spell have the effect 6 times? Twinned this round -> 2 effects. Repeated Twinned next round -> 2 effects. No way to have 6 effects with 1 casting. It only indicates this because you read the rules the way you wanted them to be. Applies to you too :) Twin Spell contains contradictory elements. No? I just dont see the part you think of as contradictory? Take my nose and push it in the right direction (quote or say which part you think of as contradictory please)
StruckingFuggle 09-18-06, 11:45 AM	The FAQ isn't infallible. So everything in it is wrong, eh? Or just the stuff you want to be wrong?
StruckingFuggle 09-18-06, 07:16 PM	Hey hey now, that's not called for. :/
Seerow 09-18-06, 07:17 PM	Yeah, no need to bring his mom into it =(
Teydyn 09-18-06, 10:05 PM	Hey hey now, that's not called for. :/ QFT PS: reported
Enaloindir 09-19-06, 12:52 AM	Posts missing...or deleted?
Ploppy 09-19-06, 02:26 AM	Hi all, Iīm not posting very often but Iīm quite confused about this discussion. First of all everybody is talking about the "stacking" of Metamagic feats. Iīve always thought that "stacking" relates to a similar effect applied by different sources (e.g. a enchantment and inherent Bonus +3 stacks). IMO all metamagic feats posted yet donīt influence the same part of the spells: Empower Spell: All variable, numeric effects of an empowered spell are increased by one-half. For an Empowered Fireball it would be (1d6*1.5)/CasterLevel, correct? (the variable is increased by 50% to 1 to 9 points of damage - to sad we donīt have d9, isnīt it?) Maximize Spell: All variable, numeric effects of a spell modified by this feat are maximized. For an Maximized Fireball it would be 6/CasterLevel, correct? (the variable resolves at a maximum) So why shouldnīt metamagic feats effect the target spell simultaniously. An Empowered Maximized Fireball would result in (6*1.5)/CasterLevel (like in the FAQ), because the metamagic feats does not change the SAME parameter. (Empower increases the span of the variables by 50%; maximize causes all variables to resolve at a maximum - of course the damage output is increased by both, but nobody would question the increased damage output by a +3 weapon and a strength bonus of +3)). Lets have a look at the other feats: TWIN SPELL Benefit: Casting a twinned spell causes the spell to take effect twice in the same area or on the same target simultaneously.[...] Repeat Spell (found nothing to quote): The spell effect is repeated in the next round, if the target didnīt move more than blablabla[...] Where is the Stacking? A Twinned Fireball generates two simultanious fireballs in 1 round. A Repeated Fireball generates an additional Fireball in the next round. Why shouldnīt a Repeated Twinned Fireball generate 2 simultanious fireballs in the first round and repeat this spell effect in the second round - two pairs of shoes, isnīt it? If two metamgic feats, which do not influence the SAME parameter of the spell, donīt work simultaniously (I intentionally avoid stacking) the whole system is nerfed. Imagine a Silent Repeated Fireball - are verbal components needed for the repeated effect? Would be kind of strange, wouldnīt it? If you look very closely to the metamagic feats it is really hard to find any which indeed influence the same parameter of the spell (e.g. Persistent Spell and Extend Spell). In this case I would agree that metamagic doesnīt "stack" - I would use it just like any other Bonuses in D&D - only the higher one counts. Just my 2 cents.
Teydyn 09-19-06, 05:05 AM	An Empowered Maximized Fireball would result in (6*1.5)/CasterLevel Actually this is the only case where it does NOT stack, its 6*CL + 1d6/2*CL. A Repeated Fireball generates an additional Fireball in the next round. Why shouldnīt a Repeated Twinned Fireball generate 2 simultanious fireballs in the first round and repeat this spell effect in the second round I agree with you and will keep on playing this way (as i think boris will keep on playing his way), as i dont think this to be overpowered in any way. A Twinned Repeat Magic Missile is a friggin 8th level spell. 20 Magic Missiles (20d4+20) over 2 rounds is NOT too much for an 8th level spell. I just like to know why he thinks this way and how he came to that conclusion (sometimes you get nifty new ideas this way or *gasp* change the way you handle things). Repeat & Twin stacking isnt broken, the crappy "you have to pay less for your metamagic" feats are.
kjenks 09-19-06, 10:11 AM	Scorching Ray is one of the most important spells to include in the set of spells that you include in your Spell Immunity mix. Before heading into trouble, my fighter character loves to get a Spell Immunity from the party cleric. He usually chooses Scorching Ray, Fireball, Magic Missile (in that order) for the "one specified spell for every four levels you have." No matter how many metamagic feats you apply to it, the spell is still Scorching Ray.
BoDiddilly 09-19-06, 06:01 PM	That's not quite how it works. First, such a build uses the Practical Metamagic feat (Races of Dragon), reducing the adjustment cost for all metamagic feats by 1 (minimum +1) ... +4 becomes +3, +2 becomes +1, +1 stays +1, so on and so forth. Second, the Incantatrix's capstone ability then reduces the slot adjustment for any (and all, per feat, not once per spell no matter how many metamagic feats you tack on) metamagic feats. Between those two, anything with a +3 adjustment or lower becomes +1 - and then on top of that, Arcane Thesis reduces the cost of all metamagic feats by 1 (to a minimum of 0) when applied to the thesis spell : making anything +3 equal to +0. See, the first feat and the class ability come first, because they reduce the cost for the feat in general, and then Arcane Thesis' reduction (the one with no +1 minimum) comes last, as it's triggered only when the feats are applied to the Thesis spell. Which granted, costs two feats per metamagic feat you want to apply, to pull it off. To adress an early issue now, Well done on your explanation of Arcane thesis' timing tigger. What I draw from this, is the adjustment is -2 slots per feat apllied, -1 (min 0) Correct?
Mindwin 09-19-06, 07:39 PM	A twinned repeat spell does not give 4 castings. Its the same rule for the doubling of criticals. A twinned repeat spell does this: two spells in round 1 one spell in round 2 same as maximize and empower. they dont stack (maxmize does not affect empower). Split ray would do on all 3 castings, that would make 6 rays.
StruckingFuggle 09-19-06, 08:53 PM	A twinned repeat spell does not give 4 castings. Its the same rule for the doubling of criticals. .... Huh. How do you figure?
smrtgmp 09-19-06, 11:57 PM	A twinned repeat spell does not give 4 castings. Its the same rule for the doubling of criticals. A twinned repeat spell does this: two spells in round 1 one spell in round 2 same as maximize and empower. they dont stack (maxmize does not affect empower).The only two metamagic feats that dont stack are maximize and empower. The only reason they dont stack is that the rules specify they dont. Nowhere is it stated that other MM feats dont stack.
VulcanStormwrath 09-20-06, 09:28 PM	The spell is still the base spell. Metamagic doesn't create a new spell, just a variation of the old. This is why a normal fireball can still counterspell any type of fireball, no matter how many metamagic effects are applied. Actually according to Unearthed Arcana a metamagic spell is or can be considered a unique spell, allowing for a sorcerer to learn the metamagic version of a spell in it's own slot and cast as a standard action. Once metamagic is applied to something it is a changed entity, hence the "Meta"
Seerow 09-20-06, 09:32 PM	Hrm... that actually sounds right. Especially if you think of Maximized Empowered Fireball. Rather than talking about it as Maximized Empowered, it'd just be its own spell that deals 5d6+60 damage as an 8th level Spell. (Or 4th with the right feats/abilities)
BoDiddilly 09-20-06, 10:30 PM	Yes this axactly what ive been getting at, metamagic modifies spells while theyre casted or with their preparation before the spell takes effect, effectively creating new spells ( though they techicly still have the some name and can be countered by unmodiffied spells of the same name), that use the altered feilds and spell discripter in reguards to all forces that act on them (other spells, class abilities,ect). Hrm... that actually sounds right. Especially if you think of Maximized Empowered Fireball. Rather than talking about it as Maximized Empowered, it'd just be its own spell that deals 5d6+60 damage as an 8th level Spell. (Or 4th with the right feats/abilities) ??confusion?? Havent we already established that this (Emp/Max) is the only metamagic combo that doesnt stack because a specific clauses in the phb bars it, which in my opinion is logic be cause this would cause the spell two have two conflicting clauses,(one that changes the varible into a constant and another that adds a x1.5 multiplier to the resulting varible). this is simular to try to use Presistant chain spell to buff a whole party 24 hour with a single spell. Chain spell gives the spell a range type the make it inelligable for teh presisant feat. and while a maxized spell has a varible in the spell, the variable is made constant so there is no resulting varible to act on. :thumbsup: Scorching Ray is one of the most important spells to include in the set of spells that you include in your Spell Immunity mix. Before heading into trouble, my fighter character loves to get a Spell Immunity from the party cleric. He usually chooses Scorching Ray, Fireball, Magic Missile (in that order) for the "one specified spell for every four levels you have.":thumbsup:
Sancus 09-20-06, 10:32 PM	Andy Collins' defense of his statement was along the lines of "the book doesn't say metamagic feats do not apply to the entire spell". Andy Collins' defense of his statement is entirely irrelevant, it's nice for the curious, but at the end of the day, when the FAQ and the Sage both make an official standpoint clear, that is the last word of it if and until they choose to amend it. There's lots of design decisions in this game that one can reasonably question, but when WotC says something is one way, that's it. That's all. You don't have to agree with Andy Collins' statement, but his statement has official standing, yours has no standing at all outside of your own game. People making the case that metamagic doesn't stack officially are claiming that both the FAQ and the Sage are to be disregarded, with no official citations of their own to back up that claim. That makes no sense. I really can't believe that people are still wasting their time arguing this. Argue the balance of it, argue the consistency of it, whatever, but why are people trying to question the official standpoint when it is crystal clear? I don't understand it, and it's blatantly moronic.
Kyuketsukiouji 09-20-06, 10:52 PM	All that fuss for a combo that requires you to be what, 17th level, with all of your feats aimed at pulling it off, and that can still be beat by level 2-3 spells (Mirror Image, Blur, Minor Globe of Invulnerability...), common magic items (Cloak of Displacement), SR, Damage Resitance, or a decent Dex score)? Man, that's sad.
BoDiddilly 09-20-06, 11:46 PM	Im sorry but if make 36 touch attacks your Mirror image leaves you standing Alone. Point is you dont have to use just such scourching ray you can 12 spell effects in two rounds of any combo of up to 4 spells, heighten if must the slot adjusting abilities here and magic items make anything possable really.
StruckingFuggle 09-21-06, 12:45 AM	Yeah, if you get Scorching Ray as a 3rd level spell, you could still highten it. Or, alternatively ... ... take the Arcane Preperation feat (that lets you prepare a metaspell in advance, slap on all the metamagic feats, prepare it in that slot, and use a Metamagic Rod of Quicken. Bwah ha hah ... 72! 72 scorching rays! ... :D ... right? ) (which could actually be a LOT of fun with magic missile. Significantly less damage, but it's just... a nifty image! And yes there's defenses, I'm not seriously suggesting it, but it's like a combination of bazooka and double-barreled shotgun of force missiles!! o.o ... Actually I might roll up a Sorc/Argent Savant/Force Missile Mage Arcane Thesis(MM) character now ... )
Ploppy 09-21-06, 02:22 AM	All that fuss for a combo that requires you to be what, 17th level, with all of your feats aimed at pulling it off, and that can still be beat by level 2-3 spells (Mirror Image, Blur, Minor Globe of Invulnerability...), common magic items (Cloak of Displacement), SR, Damage Resitance, or a decent Dex score). Sure, if you want to do UBER-damage, you have to be high level or abuse Arcane Thesis. Nevertheless it is a more general problem how metamagics interact. A Splited Scourching Ray with Energie Sub [Cold] is possible at moderate levels and if you use it against a Fire Elemental the question of the additional ray being cold or hot is quite essential.;)
smrtgmp 09-21-06, 02:28 PM	All that fuss for a combo that requires you to be what, 17th level, with all of your feats aimed at pulling it off, and that can still be beat by level 2-3 spells (Mirror Image, Blur, Minor Globe of Invulnerability...), common magic items (Cloak of Displacement), SR, Damage Resitance, or a decent Dex score)? Man, that's sad.seriously
smrtgmp 09-21-06, 02:29 PM	Im sorry but if make 36 touch attacks your Mirror image leaves you standing Alone. Point is you dont have to use just such scourching ray you can 12 spell effects in two rounds of any combo of up to 4 spells, heighten if must the slot adjusting abilities here and magic items make anything possable really.unless you're also displaced, in which case your images have that 50% miss chance as well. And then there's minor globe of invulnerability and ray deflection, both of which stop scorching ray in its tracks.
Kyuketsukiouji 09-21-06, 08:39 PM	Sure, if you want to do UBER-damage, you have to be high level or abuse Arcane Thesis. Nevertheless it is a more general problem how metamagics interact. A Splited Scourching Ray with Energie Sub [Cold] is possible at moderate levels and if you use it against a Fire Elemental the question of the additional ray being cold or hot is quite essential.;) The question is completely moot. Despite what some hard-headed deeply-entrenched people keep claiming, it's been answered years ago: metamagic feats affect each other unless specifically stated otherwise. And your example is far better than the one given so far. Two general-use feats working together to produce a good effect is quite nice, and far more palatable. I'd definitely see a ray-caster sorcerer take those two feats. But I wouldn't see anyone sane taking the 6-feat package other people have been pushing forward.
Teydyn 09-22-06, 11:14 AM	But I wouldn't see anyone sane taking the 6-feat package other people have been pushing forward. We play D&D, doesnt that make us insane by default? :)
BoDiddilly 09-22-06, 06:54 PM	unless you're also displaced, in which case your images have that 50% miss chance as well. And then there's minor globe of invulnerability and ray deflection, both of which stop scorching ray in its tracks. Not at all Displacement effects you and only you. causing your accual physical image to be displaced in location but it still looks like you, in fact when a character stikes adn misses due to displacement they may be confused or mislead, by see a sword pass right though that other person. Point is images nave no physical form and gain no benifit from your displacement, an image can not appear to be an image of something it is not an image of , or appear to be somewhere it is not. You could make a better arguement for blurr or blink In fact I ve been planning to make a beguiller who has a focus in Mirror image and i might start a thread on just that how should other spell interact with mirror image. So my previous point still stands you dont have to use just such scourching ray you can 12 spell effects in two rounds of almost any combo of up to 4 spells, heighten if must the slot adjusting abilities here and magic items make anything possable really. So what is you conveinently prepared ray deflection doing for you now that Ive casted X fireballs? Nothing. You know why? Because Im a PC and random monster dont have these spells. I'd definitely see a ray-caster sorcerer take those two feats. But I wouldn't see anyone sane taking the 6-feat package other people have been pushing forward.Originally Posted by Kyuketsukiouji All that fuss for a combo that requires you to be what, 17th level, with all of your feats aimed at pulling it off, and that can still be beat by level 2-3 spells (Mirror Image, Blur, Minor Globe of Invulnerability...), common magic items (Cloak of Displacement), SR, Damage Resitance, or a decent Dex score)? I dont think it Insane at all. The feats build on each other well giving lots of flexablity at all levels.Exp 3rd level Human Wizard Feats: Arcane thesis, Practiced Metamagic, Empower spell Can empower scourching ray(acually a 2nd lvl spell) for free or Any other spell for +1 spell slot. That is very good for a LOW level character and not too nonlike any other standart build. This build can produce more than just damage to Imagine empowering mirror image first, what would your scouching ray combo look like than, even at low level its pretty intimidating. :mage: :chicken:
smrtgmp 09-22-06, 07:10 PM	Not at all Displacement effects you and only you. causing your accual physical image to be displaced in location but it still looks like you, in fact when a character stikes adn misses due to displacement they may be confused or mislead, by see a sword pass right though that other person. Point is images nave no physical form and gain no benifit from your displacement, an image can not appear to be an image of something it is not an image of , or appear to be somewhere it is not. You could make a better arguement for blurr or blink I was thinking of blur. my bad. I think the FAQ could help you regarding your beguiler. if you get into shadowcraft mage, the concealment offered by that class would make your images harder to hit. (if you take mindbender at 6th level, you can delay access to the 7th level beguiler expanded knowledge until you can cast 4th level spells, allowing you to easily pick up a shadow spell of 4th level, thereby qualifying for shadowcraft mage). edit: According to the FAQ, I was right about mirror image and displacement. See the mirror image thread for the relevant quote.
khellendros460 09-27-06, 03:16 AM	ALL OF YOU ARE WRONG!!!!! Yes, It would be 36 rays between the 2 rounds, but your spell levels and the use of the feats are wrong..."How?" you ask? Scorching ray is a 2nd level spell that gives a max of 3 rays at caster level 11 Incantatrix: reduces the spell level increase of EACH metamagic feat applied by one Spell Thesis: states " the enhanced spell uses up a spell slot one level lower than normal". That spell level is reduced AFTER all metamagic feats are applied, it does not apply to each metamagic feat. Easy metamagic reduces the spell level increase of one metamagic feat by 1. THUS on round 1: an incantatrix with scorching ray as her thesis spell and the quickened, twinned, and repeat metamagic feats could cast 1 quickened repeat twinned scorching ray, firing 6 bolts, as a free action. Then as a standard action in the first round she could cast a twinned repeat scorching ray for 12 bolts during round 1. On round 2: Both repeat spells will "repeat", firing a total of 12 bolts. She could then cast a quickened twinn scorching ray as a free action firing 6 bolts, then a twinned scorching ray as a standard action. For a GRAND TOTAL of 36 scorching rays in 2 rounds. Heres how the spell levels break down: QUICKENED SPELL ROUND 1 Scorching Ray-spell level 2 Quickened spell-spell level +4 Twinned spell-spell level +4 Repeat spell-spell level +3 Sub-total spell level 13 Incantatrix ability:-1 level per feat(-3) Arcane Thesis:spell level -1 Easy Metamagic:-1 spell level to one feat For a GRAND TOTAL spell level of 8. STANDARD SPELL ROUND 1 Scorching Ray-spell level 2 Twinned spell-spell level +4 Repeat spell-spell level +3 Sub-total spell level 9 Incantatrix ability:-1 level per feat(-2) Arcane Thesis:spell level -1 Easy Metamagic:-1 spell level to one feat For a GRAND TOTAL spell level of 5. QUICKENED SPELL ROUND 2 Scorching Ray-spell level 2 Quickened spell-spell level +4 Twinned spell-spell level +4 Sub-total spell level 10 Incantatrix ability:-1 level per feat(-2) Arcane Thesis:spell level -1 Easy Metamagic:-1 spell level to one feat For a GRAND TOTAL spell level of 6. STANDARD SPELL ROUND 2 Scorching Ray-spell level 2 Twinned spell-spell level +4 Sub-total spell level 6 Incantatrix ability:-1 level per feat(-1) Arcane Thesis:spell level -1 Easy Metamagic:-1 spell level to one feat For a GRAND TOTAL spell level of 3. For 2 rounds you cast an 8th a 5th and then a 6th and a 3rd level spell giving you 36 Scorching Rays in 2 rounds. Which means you have to be a 16th level sorcerer or a 15th level wizard in order to make this work.
Llathos 09-27-06, 11:04 AM	It ain't a bad combo. A level 15 wizard firing off 36 rays does 144d6 dmg, or 504 dmg on average. To all those people saying "Oh, well beat it with Deflect Rays spell, or Globe of Invulnerability, etc", you're kinda missing the point about "real" tactical gameplay. The wizard has the choice of targets, and can spread out these rays across any number of targets. He's just as likely to know that the opponent has a blur/displacement/globeInvul up as it is to be up in the first place thanks to our attacker's options(spellcraft, detect magic, arcane sight, etc). So yeah, it's POSSIBLE to use those as counters, but it's far more likely that it's the enemy tank, cleric, etc that get hit with this. Not even the rogues and monks are off the hook from this. With the attack roll likely coming in at about +10 (+7 bab at 15 +3 dex), even a touch AC of 20 is 50% likely to get hit. Using searing metamagic or energy sub, even the fire resist angle can be countered to maintain the damage viability. It's pretty potent.
StruckingFuggle 09-27-06, 12:26 PM	Spell Thesis: states " the enhanced spell uses up a spell slot one level lower than normal". That spell level is reduced AFTER all metamagic feats are applied, it does not apply to each metamagic feat. But coming before that is "when you apply a metamagic feat" ... not 'when you apply metamagic feats', or 'after applying metamagic feats' ... but "when you apply a metamagic feat, the enhanced spell uses up a spell slot one level lower than normal" ... which, if not clearly, could certainly be read to trigger when you apply each metamagic feat. In fact, it would seem to clearly reduce it by one per spell. So unless you've got some sort of proof that it only provides a blanket -1, your answer is far from definitive. And seeming to me to be quite wrong.
khellendros460 09-27-06, 02:31 PM	But coming before that is "when you apply a metamagic feat" ... not 'when you apply metamagic feats', or 'after applying metamagic feats' ... but "when you apply a metamagic feat, the enhanced spell uses up a spell slot one level lower than normal" ... which, if not clearly, could certainly be read to trigger when you apply each metamagic feat. In fact, it would seem to clearly reduce it by one per spell. So unless you've got some sort of proof that it only provides a blanket -1, your answer is far from definitive. And seeming to me to be quite wrong. Heres the problem with this entire thread: Every one has thier own interpretation of how this should all work, if you read the text in the PHB2 concerning the Arcane Thesis feat it States: "Choose one arcane spell that you cast to be your thesis spell. When casting that spell you do so at a +2 caster level. When you apply a meta magic feat other than Heighten Spell to that spell, the enhanced spell uses up a spell slot one level lower than normal." The key word is ENHANCED meaning after all metamagic feats have been applied then you can lower the spell slot by one level. It would seem to me, the only thing to do to clear this all up, is to post a query to a wizards R&D guru about this, to see his or her interpretation of how this should all work, instead of bickering back and forth about who is right or who is wrong. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- The only problem with this type of focused ability is, especially a ranged touch attack, if you roll a 1 on the die it all fizzles and you could lose the 8th level spell slot, or any of the other three depending on when the 1 was rolled.
StruckingFuggle 09-27-06, 05:11 PM	The key word is ENHANCED meaning after all metamagic feats have been applied then you can lower the spell slot by one level. Interesting intepretation. Why is that more key than "when you apply a metamagic feat" ... specifically, the "a", being a singular, and then feat being singular, not plural. "When you do an action, X happens" ... and since the action is "applying a metamagic feat" not "appling metamagic feats", the action is done multiple times, and when you do it each time, it should trigger the reduction.
Merestil Haye 09-27-06, 05:33 PM	Interesting intepretation. Why is that more key than "when you apply a metamagic feat" ... specifically, the "a", being a singular, and then feat being singular, not plural. "When you do an action, X happens" ... and since the action is "applying a metamagic feat" not "appling metamagic feats", the action is done multiple times, and when you do it each time, it should trigger the reduction.Considder the precedent of the sorcerer applying multiple metamagic feats to a spell. The spell is either a normal spell, or enhanced by one or more metanmagic feats. However, no matter how many feats are applied to the spell, the casting time is increased only to (or by) a full-round action. This suggests that the question is "Has the spell been enhanced or not?" not "How many times has the spell been enhanced?"
khellendros460 09-28-06, 02:03 AM	Interesting intepretation. Why is that more key than "when you apply a metamagic feat" ... specifically, the "a", being a singular, and then feat being singular, not plural. "When you do an action, X happens" ... and since the action is "applying a metamagic feat" not "appling metamagic feats", the action is done multiple times, and when you do it each time, it should trigger the reduction. I dont need to give you definitive proof, the proof is in the feat description, you just need to read the feat correctly. The feat effects the enhanced spell and not the metamagic feats enhancing the spell.