Metamagic Stacking Question

[Hypersmurf]

Not true. Read the feat, Twin causes the spell to be cast a second time.

That's right.

A Twinned Burning Hands deals 5d4 damage, and another 5d4 damage.

Empower multiplies all variable numeric effects of the spell by 1.5.

So if I Empower a Twinned Burning Hands, I multiply all variable numeric effects - 5d4, and another 5d4 - by 1.5.

Once again, why should Twin multiply the effects of other metamagic feats?

Because they become effects of the spell that you're duplicating.

Also, where do you get the interpretation that "original spell" somehow includes the spell+metamagic feats? You still haven't answered that question.

The phrase "original spell" only crops up in Repeat Spell, doesn't it? (I'm away from my Tome and Blood.)

A spell goes off, and then another spell goes off. The second spell is related
to "the original spell". To me, it's obvious that that refers to the spell that originally resolved the round before. A cylindrical Burning Hands, for example.

Really? The only assumption I'm making is that it works the same way for all feats. What are all these extra assumptions you say I'm making?

I merely used your own words. What are the "lot of assumptions" I'm making? My assumption is that Metamagic feats act as written. That makes Maximize plus Empower a special case, since no other feats have any statement that suggests they fail to interact with others, nor is there any general rule that makes such a specification. The only reason Maximize and Empower require such a note is to distinguish them from the general case; if the general case prohibited such interaction, the note would be unnecessary.

And why do you believe that doesn't apply to other feats as well? What rules based support do you have for your intepretation?

The complete absence of any suggestion anywhere in the rules that the specific case is intended to be generalised?

I think it does imply exactly that.

How? Where? Why? Refer back to the hypothetical and fictitious Silent + Sonic Substitution case. How would that case be different to the existing Empower + Maximize case?

But even if it doesn't, what makes you think it would work differently for all other feats? Does anything imply differently? What are you using as a basis for your interpretation? You've haven't answered that question either.

Your interpretation requires that every Metamagic feat be given an "interacts" or "doesn't interact" designator.

Extend interacts. Repeat doesn't interact.

An Extended Fire-Substituted Ice Storm gives two full rounds of fire and bludgeoning damage. A Repeated Fire-Substituted Ice Storm gives one full round of fire and bludgeoning damage, and one full round of cold and bludgeoning damage.

Why should the feat that makes Ice Storm last twice as long yield a completely different result to a feat that makes Ice Storm happen twice, when the only documented rule for metamagic failing to interact is Maximize and Empower?

-Hyp.

 

[Caliban]

That's right.

A Twinned Burning Hands deals 5d4 damage, and another 5d4 damage.

Empower multiplies all variable numeric effects of the spell by 1.5.

So if I Empower a Twinned Burning Hands, I multiply all variable numeric effects - 5d4, and another 5d4 - by 1.5.

Read the damn feat Hyp. It duplicates the spell. When you Twin a spell you get two seperate spells. Jeez.

You only applied Empower once, why should it affect both spells without paying the level difference twice?

Because they become effects of the spell that you're duplicating.

I really don't think that's the case. The only feat that actually changes the base spell is Heighten (and possibly Energy Substitution.)

A spell goes off, and then another spell goes off. The second spell is related to "the original spell". To me, it's obvious that that refers to the spell that originally resolved the round before. A cylindrical Burning Hands, for example.

To me it's obvious that it's referring to the spell before you modified it with metamagic feats.

I merely used your own words. What are the "lot of assumptions" I'm making?

Please don't repeat my words back to me when they don't actually apply.

Your assumptions:

1) Empower and Maximize work differently than every other metamagic feat combination.

2) Metamagic feats apply in specific order.

3) Certain metamagic feats can duplicate the spell and metamagic feats (even though they only say they duplicate the spell).

4) A spell+metamagic feat is identical to a spell without metamagic feats as far as other metamagic feats are concerned.

5) Maximize + Energy Admixture gives the same basic effect as Maximize + Empower, yet would not limited the same way.

My assumption is that Metamagic feats act as written. That makes Maximize plus Empower a special case, since no other feats have any statement that suggests they fail to interact with others, nor is there any general rule that makes such a specification. The only reason Maximize and Empower require such a note is to distinguish them from the general case; if the general case prohibited such interaction, the note would be unnecessary.

Or is it that, of all the feats in the PHB, they are the only ones that can interact in this way? The example they give illustrates the general case, because thats the only place where it comes up in the PHB.

The complete absence of any suggestion anywhere in the rules that the specific case is intended to be generalised?

*sigh*

How? Where? Why? Refer back to the hypothetical and fictitious Silent + Sonic Substitution case. How would that case be different to the existing Empower + Maximize case?

Because those two feats are modifying different elements of the spell, whereas empower + Maximize are modifying the same element of the spell.

Your interpretation requires that every Metamagic feat be given an "interacts" or "doesn't interact" designator.

It absolutely does not. Other than Heighten, feats don't interact. Each feat modifies the one part of the spell that it's designed for, ignoring the effects of other feats on that part of the spell.

Extend interacts. Repeat doesn't interact.

*sigh*. Now you are putting words in my mouth Hyp. Please don't try to change my interpretation into something it's not.

Extend doesn't interact with any other feat. It just extends the duration of the spell, that's all. Repeat doesn't interact with any other feat. It just duplicates the base spell.

An Extended Fire-Substituted Ice Storm gives two full rounds of fire and bludgeoning damage. A Repeated Fire-Substituted Ice Storm gives one full round of fire and bludgeoning damage, and one full round of cold and bludgeoning damage.

Why should the feat that makes Ice Storm last twice as long yield a completely different result to a feat that makes Ice Storm happen twice, when the only documented rule for metamagic failing to interact is Maximize and Empower?

-Hyp.

Because the feats are designed to do two different things.

Becaus the Extend feat extends the duration of the spell. That's the only thing it effects. It doesnt' interact with the other feats at all. The Fire substition changes the damage type of the spell. It doesn't change anything else, or affect anything else. They directly interact with each other in any way.

Repeat spell just repeats the base spell. It does not duplicate feats.

 

[Hypersmurf]

Because the Extend feat extends the duration of the spell. That's the only thing it effects.

"Of the spell", not "of the base spell"?

Acid Fog - a "base spell" - has a duration of 1 round per level. It deals 2d6 damage each round.

If I Empower the base spell, it deals 2d6 x 1.5 damage for 1 round per level.

If I Extend the base spell, it deals 2d6 damage for 2 rounds per level.

But you've already said that an Extended Empowered Acid Fog deals 2d6 x 1.5 damage for 2 rounds per level.

Aren't you getting a free Empower here as well? Empowering an Acid Fog grants me an effective extra 1d6/level. Empowering an Extended Acid Fog grants me an effective extra 2d6/level. The base spell - Acid Fog - is the same, and yet Empowering the one with another Metamagic feat applied is granting me double the Empowering effect.

And all three elements - two feats and a spell - are core. So apparently there's nothing wrong with a second metamagic feat (that isn't Maximize Spell) making Empower Spell twice as effective.

Energy Admixture in combination with Empower Spell, applied to, say, Burning Hands, in the absence of a rule stating that the feats apply their effects separately to the base spell, would deal 5d4 x 1.5 fire and 5d4 x 1.5 cold, say. The effect of the Empower Spell is doubled by the addition of a second metamagic feat... just like the Extended Acid Fog above. What's the difference?

Given that there is no text in the Energy Admixture feat to state that it applies separately to the base spell in conjunction with Empower, why is it more correct to asssume that it works like the combination of Maximize and Empower, which requires that explicit statement, than to assume it works like Extend and Empower?

-Hyp.

 

[Quixon]

I have to agree with Hypersmurf on this one. The Twinned spell would be cast exactly like the first, metamagic included. The Spell plus the metamagic IS "the spell". It reminds me of something I read here once. If I cast a Silent Fireball then use a 4th level Pearl of Power to recall it, do I get back a 3rd level slot? No I get back a 4th level slot because the spell plus the metamagic WAS "the spell" I cast, not the spell minus any metamagic.

Does it make the Twined Empower a little more efficient, yes. Is it overpowering? Hardly considering its +6 levels for the two. A 3rd level Twinned Fireball doing 10d6+50% twice with 2 saves, at a low DC and any resistance getting counted twice for a 9th level slot isn't that great compared to the standard 9th level spells.

 

[Caliban]

"Of the spell", not "of the base spell"?

Acid Fog - a "base spell" - has a duration of 1 round per level. It deals 2d6 damage each round.

If I Empower the base spell, it deals 2d6 x 1.5 damage for 1 round per level.

If I Extend the base spell, it deals 2d6 damage for 2 rounds per level.

But you've already said that an Extended Empowered Acid Fog deals 2d6 x 1.5 damage for 2 rounds per level.

Yup.

Aren't you getting a free Empower here as well?

Not at all.

Empowering an Acid Fog grants me an effective extra 1d6/level. Empowering an Extended Acid Fog grants me an effective extra 2d6/level. The base spell - Acid Fog - is the same, and yet Empowering the one with another Metamagic feat applied is granting me double the Empowering effect.

Not really, and you know it Hyp. It's still only empowered once.

And all three elements - two feats and a spell - are core. So apparently there's nothing wrong with a second metamagic feat (that isn't Maximize Spell) making Empower Spell twice as effective.

That's not an interaction of the two feats, that's an aspect of that particular type of spell - a spell that does damage over several rounds.

That trick doesn't work with magic missile, fireball, or any other one shot spell.

I've already responded to you about this particular feat/spell combination more than once, so rather than repeat myself again I will ask you to review my previous answers.

You are trying to draw a correlation that doesn't really exist. You are trying to use a quirk of a specific type of spell to show that feats can multiply each other even with my interpretation. Like I already explained, it's the spell, not the feats, that is giving the effect. To do what you want, you would have to show that it would work with any type of spell, not just damage over time spells. I honestly expected better logic from you Hyp.

Anyway, as I've already stated, it's pretty clear that you have made up your mind, and I've made up mine. I think we are both at the point where any further debate does more harm than good. I guess we will have to agree to disagree on this one.

 

[Li Shenron]

In case you want to make a tiny pause, would you mind these questions?

1) why Caliban are you saying that if Twinned doubled e.g. a previously applied Empower you would be getting an extra empower for free? An empowered Fireball is 5th level, if also twinned becomes 9th level: you are casting 2 Empowered Fireballs with a slot 9 instead of with 2 slots 5; is this out of line compared with twinning a damaging spell of level 5 already? wouldn't it suck if you didn't get the second empowered as well, since you are paying a huge +6 on the slot?

2) if a twinned spell ignored other metamagic, how could you twin spells altered with Silent Spell or Still Spell? since you are only casting once, you would have to rule either that both are silenced/stilled or none. What if you twinned a Quickened spell? would you allow only one to be quickened because of your "general rule"? in that case, you would simply have no effect

 

[Scion]

Metamagic is already a bad enough choice most of the time without making it even weaker and more complicated.

Except for listed exceptions , such as that listed for empower and maximise, all of the metamagic effects will work for the entire spell. Stacking in the most appropriate and most beneficial manner (to the caster).

As it is most metamagics just arent worth the price of admission anyway. They are nice and spiffy, but need some major work to keep them useful in any real way.

Or at least that has always been my experience for the entire time 3rd has been out with quite a few casters under my belt and running a few campaigns.

 

[Caliban]

In case you want to make a tiny pause, would you mind these questions?

1) why Caliban are you saying that if Twinned doubled e.g. a previously applied Empower you would be getting an extra empower for free? An empowered Fireball is 5th level, if also twinned becomes 9th level: you are casting 2 Empowered Fireballs with a slot 9 instead of with 2 slots 5; is this out of line compared with twinning a damaging spell of level 5 already? wouldn't it suck if you didn't get the second empowered as well, since you are paying a huge +6 on the slot?

No you are ignoring the cost of the Twin feat. +4 for Twin, +2 for Empower.

You pay for one Empower, and one Twin. So you get one Empower and one extra spell.

If you could Empower both fireballs using Twin it would be equivalent of a +8 level increase, not a +6. (An Empower on the base spell, and extra spell from Twin, and an Empower on the duplicate spell as well.)

This would make Twin better than Quicken for most spells.

2) if a twinned spell ignored other metamagic, how could you twin spells altered with Silent Spell or Still Spell? since you are only casting once, you would have to rule either that both are silenced/stilled or none. What if you twinned a Quickened spell? would you allow only one to be quickened because of your "general rule"? in that case, you would simply have no effect

You are trying to create a complication that doesn't exist.

You said it yourself: You are only actually casting it once. So you only need to worry about Silence or Still once. Twin is creating a duplicate of the spell, it doesn't require you to actually stop and cast it a second time.

And yes, you can Twin a Quickened spell. Quicken lets you cast the spell faster, Twin creates a duplicate of the spell. They do two different things.

Seriously, it's not that complicated, these "problems" you are bringing up aren't problems at all.

 

[Caliban]

Metamagic is already a bad enough choice most of the time without making it even weaker and more complicated.

Except for listed exceptions , such as that listed for empower and maximise, all of the metamagic effects will work for the entire spell. Stacking in the most appropriate and most beneficial manner (to the caster).

As it is most metamagics just arent worth the price of admission anyway. They are nice and spiffy, but need some major work to keep them useful in any real way.

Or at least that has always been my experience for the entire time 3rd has been out with quite a few casters under my belt and running a few campaigns.

That's a nice house rule. You go with that.

 

[Majere]

Im going to have to go with.. Caliban your talking our your bum.
Why ?
Because you habitually and repeatedly contradict yourself.

Let us scrutanize your first argument:

1) Twin/repeat copies only the BASE spell.
Firstly this is based entirely on your interpretation of what the word "original" means in the blurd of repeat spell. As far as I can tell there is no definition of "original spell" in any book ever printed. Therefore your assertion that the "original" spell is the base spell before metamagics is entirely your own reading. I think 99% of people when face with this wording would simply read it as "the same spell is cast again".

And I quote
"Read the feat, Twin causes the spell to be cast a second time"
"A repeated spell is automatically case again at the beginning of your next turn in the round"
Yes quite, the spell is cast a second time, in EXACTLY THE SAME FORM as the original.
The only reason the word original is used is to differentiate the first and second spell, the first definates the location of the second. the word original does NOT in anyway imply the "base" spell (another term with no definition of any book I have ever read).

And in evidence I bring point 2)

2) You habitually contradict yourself
Having asserted that the feets do not see themselves and that each meta magic feat only affects the "base" spell, you now have to deal with some veryvery clear problems with this definition.
Eg.
An enlarged cold fire ball would, by the rules you just defined, only do cold damage to the limit of the "base" spell, after this it does fire because the cold damage substitution only affects the original spell with its original range.

This is clearly going to lead to manymany problems, extended maximized spells that do maximum damage for the base period then switch to rolled damage, enlarged silent spells that are only silent if they are cast witin their original "base" range.

To get out of this you NOW assert that "They affect differnet parts of the spell"- WHAOH NELLY !!!
Where did you get that from, where in ANY book is the term "parts of a spell" defined. Again you are making this up as you go along. First you claim the feats ONLY affect the "base" (sic) spell, then you claim that they affect each other as long as they are differnet parts of the spell.
WHERE ARE YOU GETTING THIS FROM ?
Least of all you have contradicted yourself, because the very examples you state the two metamagic feats are NOT affecting the "base" spell seperately but clearly acting on each other.
And no: "They affect different aspects of the spell" is not a valid get out, you are making this up. "Aspects of a spell" is not a term used in any published work ever, and certainly not put down that MM feats that affect different "aspects" stack. Stop inventing this rubbish.

I fail to see one SHRED of any evidence for the terms "base" "original" "part of a spell" or "aspect". There are all terms you have made up yourself and therefor are not usable to support any argument.

Your original argument of "base" spells leads to some clearly ridiculous situation, at which point you come up with the ever more spurious argument of "parts of a spell".

Im afriad that it is clear that
1) Meta magic feats do stack and they affect each other.
2) This does no in anyway cause them to become dependant on the order of applying the feats.
To deal with the examples:
a) Twinned cold fireball
-Cold then twin: The twinned fireball is converted to the cold type, and then this COLD fireball twinned.
Result: two cold fireballs
-Twin then cold: I twin the cold fireball, I now have two fireball to which the cold subtype was applied. The two fireballs are BOTH converted to cold damage
Result: two cold fireballs.

b)Twin Empowered MM
-Twin then Emp: I twin the empowered MM, giving me two empowered MM's I then apply the Empower to BOTH MM's.
Result: Two empowered MM's
-Emp then Twin: I change the MM to empowered MM, I then twin the empowered MM.
Result: Two empowered MM's

I think those two will suffiec to show that, with thought, the order is spurious.

3) The empower maximize example is an EXCEPTION, not a rule.
Without this being in print most people would reasonably maximize the extra dice from empower. This line was put in because this particular combination is the EXCEPTION.
No where in this example are the term "base" or "original" spell used. Because these terms do not exist outside of your head.

Please stop filling this thread with your bunk intill you can provide self consistant rules based on print and not your imagination.

Majere