Heighten Spell + another Metamagic feat

[Felix]

Heh heh... I fight the Rules forum when I get a ruling I don't like too. Kinda reminds me of John Mellancamp...
"I fought the law and the... law won!"

Edit: Didn't see this thread had 3 pages, and what I wrote was redundant. I agree with Thanee.

 

[Altamont Ravenard]

Heh heh... I fight the Rules forum when I get a ruling I don't like too. Kinda reminds me of John Mellancamp...
"I fought the law and the... law won!"

Bobby Fuller was the original artist to play this song

 

[Lamoni]

Heh. Even your way... a heightened maximized burning hands, which is a 4th level spell... that spell is still useless crap... might be the very suboptimal use of Heighten Spell in this example more than the Heighten Spell feat itself?

I agree

Hmm... one problem is, that you basically get the effect of one of the feats for free then.

I disagree. Well, actually I agree with your assessment of the effect, I just don't see it as a problem. A fighter who takes improved weapon specialization gets the effect of that feat for free whenever he swings his weapon. The thing is... it wasn't really free. It cost a feat. If you have the feat, you would of course use it all the time you applied any other metamagic. You still need to weigh wether it is worth the cost to take the feat in the first place though.

No, I don't see it unbalancing in the slightest to allow heighten to actually raise the DC of empowered or maximized spells to the spell level they are cast at. In fact, I see it as making the heighten spell feat more balancing. I don't deny that heighten has its uses right now. But try comparing it to any other metamagic feat and you see that it is far less useful in a lot fewer situations than any of the others. All of this is my opinion of course.

 

[Thanee]

I agree with Thanee - see, I do agree with you sometimes!

Bye
Thanee

 

[apsuman]

I agree

No, I don't see it unbalancing in the slightest to allow heighten to actually raise the DC of empowered or maximized spells to the spell level they are cast at. In fact, I see it as making the heighten spell feat more balancing. I don't deny that heighten has its uses right now. But try comparing it to any other metamagic feat and you see that it is far less useful in a lot fewer situations than any of the others. All of this is my opinion of course.

I DO think it would be unbalancing (maybe not a lot, but still unbalancing).

Not all feats are supposed to be equal. Not all metamagic feats are equal.

Augment Summong (albeit not a metamagic feat) is down right useless unless you have loads of summon spells.

Heighten is imho geared toward the sorcerer, kinda like how quicken is for wizards.

*IF* you insisted upon making it work the way you describe, I would suggest the following changes:

Make it a general feat.
Do *NOT* make it a bonus wizard feat (unless you house rule bonus feats for sorcerers)

 

[rushlight]

I DO think it would be unbalancing (maybe not a lot, but still unbalancing).

Not all feats are supposed to be equal. Not all metamagic feats are equal.

Augment Summong (albeit not a metamagic feat) is down right useless unless you have loads of summon spells.

Heighten is imho geared toward the sorcerer, kinda like how quicken is for wizards.

*IF* you insisted upon making it work the way you describe, I would suggest the following changes:

Make it a general feat.
Do *NOT* make it a bonus wizard feat (unless you house rule bonus feats for sorcerers)

Actually, my campaign doesn't allow sorcerers. The campaign started back in 2e, and for consistancy, they don't exist.

Second, I do think that the cost of Heighten (it still takes one of your precious feats) is worth the sometimes marginal gain you might get from it. In order to use it most effectively, you'd need to combine it with a second metamagic feat. Even then you'd still usually be worse off than using a spell natural to the level you are casting.

In the examples of 6th level spells above, the most damage shown in a single round is 47.5, no save and it only affects one target. But the 6th level spell Chain Lightning (cast by a 12th level caster) will hit one target with 42 points average, and another 11 targets for 21 points, all with a base save DC of 16 + ability. That's 273 average points of damage, spread across 12 targets - which requires only the spell.

If you wanted to spend 3 feats (Empower, Maximize and Heighten) and the spell Burning Hands (which is the only 1st level damage spell I can find that can make use of all 3 feats) to get 32.5 points of damage per target (assuming you could fill the entire cone, that's 7 targets) that's 227.5 points of damage. Not only is it 45.5 points less of damage, I see no reason why it shouldn't be allowed to have a base save of 16 + ability. It would be absurd to require this spell to be 11th level (which it would need to be to have that base save).

Not only is it harder to use (you have to ask all your enemies to get in a nice pattern for you) it does less damage, AND requires 3 feats. Assuming you are a human mage, at 12th level you'll only have 8 - that's over a third of your feats. Compared to just using a single spell, that's not much of a balance issue.

I suppose I should issue this challenge:

Find a spell that can be Empowered, Maximized and Heightened (assume that Heighten stacks with the +5 from the other feats - this also means that the spell must allow for a save) that can dish out more damage to the same number of targets in the same amount of time than a native spell of that level. Perhaps then we can see if allowing Heighten to stack is truly unbalanced. Also assume that we're not getting into epic levels - just keep this at 9th level and under.

 

[Thanee]

Eh, but that's not what your question is about. You asked how it works per the rules. We tell you.

If you don't like it... ---> House rule. Problem solved.

Bye
Thanee

 

[rushlight]

Eh, but that's not what your question is about. You asked how it works per the rules. We tell you.

If you don't like it... ---> House rule. Problem solved.

Bye
Thanee

*tap* *tap* *tap* Is this thing on?

Yes I realize that the Sage said that it shouldn't work that way. Finally, someone was able to point to an official source instead of just saying, "No! Because I said!"

I made that concession several posts up. They were interesting, you should maybe read them. I have asked new questions.

This discussion has sort of branched out from the original post (Is it legal?) into a new direction (Should it be legal?) This wouldn't be the first time a debate has existed on one of the Sage's rulings, and it won't be the first time that some people might disagree. But, since this is a discussion board, perhaps a discussion should take place - your post essentially says, "Question answered, now go away", and I take exception to that.

If you have an opinion on the current topic, I'd love to hear it. Especially any claims that the proposed idea (which, by the text of the book, is legal - the Sage reworded the Heighten feat to make it do what he said it should do) is unbalancing. So far, I've not been able to find a situation where a spell requiring 2 or 3 feats to modify into a higher level slot is more powerful than a spell that belongs to the level of that slot. Perhaps there's a situation where that might occur. In fact, I dare you to prove me wrong. It will at least be more interesting than your simple dismissal.

 

[two]

*tap* *tap* *tap* Is this thing on?

Yes I realize that the Sage said that it shouldn't work that way. Finally, someone was able to point to an official source instead of just saying, "No! Because I said!"

I made that concession several posts up. They were interesting, you should maybe read them. I have asked new questions.

This discussion has sort of branched out from the original post (Is it legal?) into a new direction (Should it be legal?) This wouldn't be the first time a debate has existed on one of the Sage's rulings, and it won't be the first time that some people might disagree. But, since this is a discussion board, perhaps a discussion should take place - your post essentially says, "Question answered, now go away", and I take exception to that.

If you have an opinion on the current topic, I'd love to hear it. Especially any claims that the proposed idea (which, by the text of the book, is legal - the Sage reworded the Heighten feat to make it do what he said it should do) is unbalancing. So far, I've not been able to find a situation where a spell requiring 2 or 3 feats to modify into a higher level slot is more powerful than a spell that belongs to the level of that slot. Perhaps there's a situation where that might occur. In fact, I dare you to prove me wrong. It will at least be more interesting than your simple dismissal.

Typically, one catches more flies with honey than, for example, a pile of granulated, and dessicated, palm fronds.

Metamagic feats, are, in general, pretty weak except under very specific conditions. The fact that it's impossible to find a spell that, when modified by three metamagic feats, is more powerful than a compative spell of the same level speaks more to the weakness of stacking metamagic feats.

You might get close with an maximized empowered split-rayed ray of enfeeblement or something, but this is not my area of expertise. And I still doubt it.

 

[Thanee]

Yes I realize that the Sage said that it shouldn't work that way. Finally, someone was able to point to an official source instead of just saying, "No! Because I said!"

I think the PHB is very official (more official than the sage actually ).
I just stated, what the PHB says about that issue.

your post essentially says, "Question answered, now go away", and I take exception to that.

It says: "Question answered, the rest is up to you." That's quite a difference.

You obviously have a problem with the way Heighten Spell works (in my opinion, which I am pretty sure of correlates with the way it is meant to work officially).

If you don't like it... change it! That's what I do as well, when I do not like stuff.

If you have an opinion on the current topic, I'd love to hear it.

You mean the balance question? Hmm... I find it strange, if heighten costs something if applied alone, but not if it is applied in addition to other metamagic feats (unlike any other metamagic feat).

About the balance... as a sorcerer (or any other character that actively uses metamagic... sorcerers are simply the most prominent metamagic users) it would make Heighten Spell not only a very good feat, but certainly a no-brainer choice, it's a considerable effect (increased save DC) for free (cost of the feat choice not included).

It's probably not so bad, that it could be called unbalancing, since stacking metamagic is usually rather pointless in 3.5 (see below).

Especially any claims that the proposed idea (which, by the text of the book, is legal - the Sage reworded the Heighten feat to make it do what he said it should do) is unbalancing.

Only if you ignore the rule, that changes in level are cumulative, then it is legal. Otherwise, it is not.

See post #45 above for further explanation.

If you don't think that Heighten Spell changes the spell level, then I really cannot help you. It's stated quite clearly in the feat description (first sentence).

So far, I've not been able to find a situation where a spell requiring 2 or 3 feats to modify into a higher level slot is more powerful than a spell that belongs to the level of that slot.

I don't think there is any.

But that is besides the point of metamagic.

Metamagic makes spells of lower levels more useful at higher levels. It doesn't claim to make spells equally useful compared to other spells of the higher level. Applying single metamagic feats sometimes produces a result more desireable to that of regular spells of the modified spell level, however.

Naturally, this is most important for spellcasters with a very limited spell selection (sorcerers).

Combining metamagic only gives diminishing returns, since all metamagic is only applied to the base level. If you metamagic a 5th level spell it will work off the full 5 levels worth of spell power. If you metamagic a metamagicked (not counting feats, that do not change the spell level, obviously) 5th level spell it will only work off the 0-4 levels worth of spell power, which is less. So the spell with only one metamagic feat applied is obviously more powerful.

The baseline is, that applying multiple metamagic feats to a single spell is in almost all cases a suboptimal choice, regardless of combination.

The only reason to do so is, that you do not know a spell of the modified spell level, which can produce the desired result.

For a sorcerer, this is a very common situation, which is why metamagic is so good for sorcerers, not because it makes their spells more powerful, but because it gives them more choice of high level spell effects.

Bye
Thanee