Post/Author/DateTime	Post
Qube 11-13-07, 04:13 AM	Does arcane thesis reduces the spell level with one or with one for each metamagic feat? So: a maximized(+3) empowered(+2) magic missle(lvl1), with arcane thesis(magic missle). Is this spell lvl 5 or 4?
jaelis 11-13-07, 07:55 AM	Happily, we now have errata for it: Page 74– Arcane Thesis [Substitution] Should read, “When you apply any metamagic feats other than Heighten Spell” Thus if you were to prepare an empowered maximized magic missile (assuming magic missile is the spell you choose for your Arcane Thesis), it would be prepared as a 4th level spell (+1 level for empowered, down from +2; and +2 levels for maximized, down from +3). Page 74 – Arcane Thesis [Omission] Add the following text to the end of the “Benefit” section: “A spell cannot be reduced to below its original level with the use of this feat.” Unfortunately, its still not totally clear whether an empowered, energy-substituted scorching ray should be level 2 or level 3.
Koenig 11-13-07, 07:58 AM	PH2 Errata (http://www.wizards.com/dnd/files/PHB2_Errata.zip): Page 74– Arcane Thesis [Substitution] Should read, “When you apply any metamagic feats other than Heighten Spell” Thus if you were to prepare an empowered maximized magic missile (assuming magic missile is the spell you choose for your Arcane Thesis), it would be prepared as a 4th level spell (+1 level for empowered, down from +2; and +2 levels for maximized, down from +3).
risner 11-13-07, 09:36 AM	Happily, we now have errata for it: Unfortunately, its still not totally clear whether an empowered, energy-substituted scorching ray should be level 2 or level 3. That is a very sad thing indeed. There may be a hint, since if you apply the thesis to just an energy sub spell, it wouldn't be lowered.
Tordak 11-13-07, 10:02 AM	It certainly isn't clear from the rules and the errata alone(the one written here, I need to go reread arcane thesis), but I think it's resonable to assumed that no metamagic feat, even using Arcane thesis, would grant a '-1' to the level of the slot used. The scorching ray would use a level 3 slot, +0 for energy sub and + 1 for empowered (down from +2). The general rule for metamagic feats is that the spell uses a higher level slot, and also since the energy sub doesn't increase the level of the slot used (if I remember correctly), arcane thesis should not work on that metamagic feat
runestar 11-13-07, 10:13 AM	There may be a hint, since if you apply the thesis to just an energy sub spell, it wouldn't be lowered. But we are unsure if the limit is checked whenever each metamagic feat is applied, or check at the final moment, after all relevant feats have been applied and the final slot adjustment tabulated. For example, if I applied empower spell and energy sub to an arcane thesis: fireball, the final spell still occupies a 3rd lv slot, which is technically no less than its original lv.:P
gotbrain 11-13-07, 10:21 AM	But we are unsure if the limit is checked whenever each metamagic feat is applied, or check at the final moment, after all relevant feats have been applied and the final slot adjustment tabulated. For example, if I applied empower spell and energy sub to an arcane thesis: fireball, the final spell still occupies a 3rd lv slot, which is technically no less than its original lv.:P This is true so it will have to be a DM call; but it seems to me that either (1) arcanse thesis doesn't apply to any metamagic feat with a level increase of 0, or (2) that no metamagic feat should be allowed to go below 0 level adj. so a fireball with empower and energy substitution should be a level 4 spell.
runestar 11-13-07, 10:30 AM	What about reducing the slot adjustment to zero, say in tandem with improved metamagic?
gotbrain 11-13-07, 11:27 AM	What about reducing the slot adjustment to zero, say in tandem with improved metamagic? I'm not familiar with improved metamagic but reducing it to zero should be ok; in that case fireball would be 3rd level. But once it gets to zero arcane thesis shouldn't be able to affect it.
risner 11-13-07, 01:23 PM	But we are unsure if the limit is checked whenever each metamagic feat is applied, or check at the final moment, after all relevant feats have been applied and the final slot adjustment tabulated. Why assume the check is at the end? It seems more consistent with RAW and logic to assume the check is made as each metamagic is applied. What about reducing the slot adjustment to zero, say in tandem with improved metamagic? There isn't anything I know to argue against getting to zero, at least not via RAW. It also makes sense and is logical that it should be possible.
ravenshrike 11-13-07, 01:41 PM	Why assume the check is at the end? It seems more consistent with RAW and logic to assume the check is made as each metamagic is applied. Because it makes no difference except to force magic users to carefully word the metamagic of their spells?.
deathbane 11-13-07, 04:44 PM	Happily, we now have errata for it: Unfortunately, its still not totally clear whether an empowered, energy-substituted scorching ray should be level 2 or level 3. Disclaimer-not arguing with Jaelis, just using his post. The arcane thesis seems to apply to individual feats which in the end applies to the spell. Looking at it like that, one would have to decide if it applies to energy substitution or not. I would assume that it does not, since that would drop the spell level below the original value. If it does not then only empowered spell is affected in this case.
Qube 11-14-07, 10:11 AM	since metamagic feats also increase the spell level of the original spell, you apply metamagic feats one at a time: - you empower a maximized fireball the original spell is "maximized fireball", thus an empowered maximized fireball is level 8. (and not lvl 5) so you energy sub an empowered fireball, which you arcane thesisd: spell level = 4 that way a level 7 human wizard with 2 flaws can't cast energy sub(acid) energy sub(elec) energy sub(cold) energy sub(fire) chain maximized orb of fire
ravenshrike 11-14-07, 07:48 PM	since metamagic feats also increase the spell level of the original spell, you apply metamagic feats one at a time: - you empower a maximized fireball the original spell is "maximized fireball", thus an empowered maximized fireball is level 8. (and not lvl 5) so you energy sub an empowered fireball, which you arcane thesisd: spell level = 4 that way a level 7 human wizard with 2 flaws can't cast energy sub(acid) energy sub(elec) energy sub(cold) energy sub(fire) chain maximized orb of fire Except that's not the original spell. If I took a word document of sayyy, the Anarchists Cookbook(which interestingly is full of really, really bad advice and you are likely to kill yourself if you try to follow it), changed 5 sentences, and then gave it to you in order for you to peruse, you would not be getting the ORIGINAL document. However, you can't put multiple metamagics of the same type on one spell, so that part of your argument is nullified. Besides which, he couldn't do that anyway since he doesn't have arcane thesis without at least 3 flaws.
Qube 11-24-07, 11:59 AM	Except that's not the original spell. Can I apply the Innate Spell feat to a spell improved by another metamagic feat? No. Innate Spell applies only to actual spells, not to spells affected by metamagic feats and the like. Just because you’re capable of applying, say, the Empower Spell feat to a fireball spell, that doesn’t make “empowered fireball” a spell. The spell is still “fireball” and thus Innate Spell applies only to the normal version of that spell. hence the original spell is your handbook with the 3 pages ...
ravenshrike 11-24-07, 01:47 PM	Oookay, in the section I quoted, you noted that the original spell was maximized fireball. I replied that no, it was fireball, the maximize is not part of the original spell. Then you replied with a quote that notes the exact same bloody thing(you'll note it references spell level, which is the important part here, nowhere) but because of an entirely different mechanic(that of innate spell)? The modified spell never goes below the original spell level. And as I also noted, the same variable effect(in this case energy sub) applied many times only counts once.
Qube 11-24-07, 02:23 PM	hence, you were right, and I was wrong ... (perhaps I should of added this little rule in the prev post :embarrass )
Amaranth 11-24-07, 08:39 PM	It seems to me as though it makes no difference when the feat checks the spell level minimum... If it checks at the end, the energy sub'd, empowered scorching ray is +2-1+0-1=0 for a second level spell slot is following the rule that “A spell cannot be reduced to below its original level with the use of this feat.” If it checks at each metamagic feat, the order becomes important, but by applying +0 feats last, you still get the same result. scorching rays that were empowered first (+2-1=+1 for a third level slot) and then energy sub'd (+0-1 for a second level spell slot) is still following the rule that “A spell cannot be reduced to below its original level with the use of this feat.” *note that that same scorching ray would occupy a third level spell slot if it were energy sub'd first.
FrostHammer 11-25-07, 02:09 AM	It's not clear by RAW, but as a DM, I would rule that Metamagic feats that start with a +0 adjustment can not be modified by anything that would lower its metamagic cost. i.e, you ignore it when it comes to Arcane Thesis. So, a Energy Subbed, Lord of the Uttercold, Empowered, Quickened Fireball will take a +0 +0 +1 +3 for a total of +4 to the final adjustment, using up a 7th level slot.
deathbane 11-25-07, 11:12 AM	It seems to me as though it makes no difference when the feat checks the spell level minimum... If it checks at the end, the energy sub'd, empowered scorching ray is +2-1+0-1=0 for a second level spell slot is following the rule that “A spell cannot be reduced to below its original level with the use of this feat.” If it checks at each metamagic feat, the order becomes important, but by applying +0 feats last, you still get the same result. scorching rays that were empowered first (+2-1=+1 for a third level slot) and then energy sub'd (+0-1 for a second level spell slot) is still following the rule that “A spell cannot be reduced to below its original level with the use of this feat.” *note that that same scorching ray would occupy a third level spell slot if it were energy sub'd first. The way it is written the 0's would go to -1's since it does not state the original feat even though there is no such thing as a negative spell slot, but I don't think that was the intention. If that were the case someone could find(for the sake of argument) 3 adjustment 0 metamagic feats, which become -1's, then twin which becomes 4(3)*, maximize 3(2), energy admixture 4(3), quicken 4(3), and empower 2(1), and if the creature somehow survives all that do it again, and replace quicken with another feat the 2nd time. *The number in the () is the number after arcane thesis is factored in. If a DM allows that nonsense then he deserves to have his campaign destroyed when PC's do 10000000000000(exaggeration) damage.
Amaranth 11-25-07, 02:32 PM	deathbane: in your example the spell still has a PLUS NINE spell level modifier. that means you could, at 17th-20th level, if you had the feats, you could do that to a 0 level spell..... you want an acid splash that does like 16 damage for a 9th level spell slot? Is it probably a RAW vs RAI issue? Sure Would I houserule it against the RAW in a home game? Maybe, I would actually have been more likely before you showed me how gloriously the trick fails to be broken with your example. Still, I see no reason to think there is a lack of clarity in the description of the feat, just a mild oversight. Home games are home games, and youre welcome to house rule the feat in your own games (some of which might be better or worse than core rules) but it is a house rule none the less.
deathbane 11-25-07, 05:19 PM	deathbane: in your example the spell still has a PLUS NINE spell level modifier. that means you could, at 17th-20th level, if you had the feats, you could do that to a 0 level spell..... you want an acid splash that does like 16 damage for a 9th level spell slot? Is it probably a RAW vs RAI issue? Sure Would I houserule it against the RAW in a home game? Maybe, I would actually have been more likely before you showed me how gloriously the trick fails to be broken with your example. Still, I see no reason to think there is a lack of clarity in the description of the feat, just a mild oversight. Home games are home games, and youre welcome to house rule the feat in your own games (some of which might be better or worse than core rules) but it is a house rule none the less. Fireball level 3 minus 3 becomes = 0 3(fireball)+4(twin) +3(maximize)+4(energy admixture)+2(empower)= level 16 spell 3(fireball)-3(3, 0 slot adjustment metamagic feats)+3(twin) +2(maximize)+3(energy admixture)+1(empower)= level 9 spell 10d6=admixture makes it 20d6 20d6 maximized = 120 20d6 empower = 30 on average so far that is 150 damage twin it for 300 now replace empower and maximize with quicken admixture does 20d6 20d6 twin is 40d6 40d6 would average about 120 You have just taken 420 points of damage before the rest of the party has even had a chance to do anything. I know some monsters have energy resistance, but when you take that much damage that -15 does not matter all that much anymore, and if you wait for the boards or a player to give a specific example of how to break something then your campaigns may be in trouble. It is better to not allow something than to try to take it away later. I am trying to convince you that it is broken. Your group may play, and enjoy such games, but I was just giving a brief example of possible abuse of nonclarity.
ravenshrike 11-25-07, 07:46 PM	Um, 420 damage in one round for two 9th level spells is a really inefficient use of resources. Especially since most creatures will make their reflex saves since it's a 3rd level spell. So that becomes 210 damage. And that assumes you beat SR, which many non-humanoid enemies have at this level. So a bit under half the time against SR enemies, your ninth level combo fails. I can do more damage at that level with a 0 and a bunch of 3rd level spells. Now, Twinning and Repeating SoDs would be a nasty tactic.
Amaranth 11-25-07, 10:07 PM	Youre right, it would be a 3rd level spell that that feat set could be applied to, my mistake. And looking at it now, there is more reason to hesitate at allowing it... I don't think that this is exactly the highest damage dealing combo allowed by the rules (in addition to requiring 9 feats to pull off) but it seems at least to be a powerful use of a 9th level spell slot. Again, though I am more inclined to agree that it should be houseruled so that it does not apply with 0-level adjustment feats than I was before, I do still believe that this would be a houserule
deathbane 11-25-07, 11:28 PM	Raven you are right. I think I could do more with scorching ray, and magic missle ,but that was me just throwing feats at a spell. I think there are threads on those two spells somewhere on these boards already. Amaranth, you are also right. Anytime a feat is played other than how it is written it is a house rule. The way it is written the 0 down to -1 is legal(at least it seems that way), but I don't think it was intended that way. Hopefully errata is made to clear that up. I hate to ask, but what is SoD?
Qube 11-26-07, 04:42 AM	I personnaly house-rule it like this: core metamagic feats: as normal non-core metamagic: +0 -> +0 (example: energy substitution) +1 -> +0 or +1 (checked on a case-by-case senario; becuase I allow a lot of spalshbooks (and variants on spalshbooks; like using frostburn's feats for fire spells (replacing 'cold' by 'fire') ), and this could get greatly overpowered ... ) +2, +3 ... -> +1, +2 ...