Heighten Spell + another Metamagic feat

[Lamoni]

But you are misunderstanding my problem with "free".

Circumstance 1: Heighten a 1st level spell to 4th level: Cost = +3 spell levels

Circumstance 2: Heighten a maximized 1st level spell: Cost = 0 levels

Why should it be "free" in #2 and not #1? That's not consistent, and (besides all the mistakes in the rules) the spirit of 3E was to be consistent (higher is always better, etc).

I actually feel like I did understand your problem with "free." I guess I just didn't state that I understood you because I thought you expressed yourself rather well. Instead I just tried to show you my position.

Circumstance 1: Heighten a 1st level spell to 4th level: Cost = 0 levels. You are welcome to cast the 1st level spell in the 4th level slot without the feat, then the feat raises its effectiveness to level 4 with no cost. Very fine distinction, and practically it means the same thing to the player and is usually just a dumb choice

Circumstance 2: Heighten a maximized 1st level spell: Cost = 0 levels, but not legal. I still think that it is balanced though.

Circumstance 3: Heighten a 1st level spell to 4th level after you ran out of 1st, 2nd, and 3rd level spell slots: Cost = 0 levels. This is actually the same as circumstance 1, but gives a reason why it might be done. In my opinion, this is when heighten spell is used most often and practically it is free.

I was trying to say that it is already used most often as a practically 'free' feat. If you want to just heighten certain spells for the fun of it, it doesn't appear that free since you raise the spell slot too... but that is usually a less effective choice.

 

[Thanee]

I was trying to say that it is already used most often as a practically 'free' feat. If you want to just heighten certain spells for the fun of it, it doesn't appear that free since you raise the spell slot too... but that is usually a less effective choice.

Obviously, if it would work that way since you could also apply another metamagic feat for 'free' then.

The point is... the increase in spell level is the cost for Heighten Spell as it is for any other metamagic feat. And this cost is cumulative.

Bye
Thanee

 

[IceBear]

I actually feel like I did understand your problem with "free." I guess I just didn't state that I understood you because I thought you expressed yourself rather well. Instead I just tried to show you my position.

Circumstance 1: Heighten a 1st level spell to 4th level: Cost = 0 levels. You are welcome to cast the 1st level spell in the 4th level slot without the feat, then the feat raises its effectiveness to level 4 with no cost. Very fine distinction, and practically it means the same thing to the player and is usually just a dumb choice

Circumstance 2: Heighten a maximized 1st level spell: Cost = 0 levels, but not legal. I still think that it is balanced though.

Circumstance 3: Heighten a 1st level spell to 4th level after you ran out of 1st, 2nd, and 3rd level spell slots: Cost = 0 levels. This is actually the same as circumstance 1, but gives a reason why it might be done. In my opinion, this is when heighten spell is used most often and practically it is free.

I was trying to say that it is already used most often as a practically 'free' feat. If you want to just heighten certain spells for the fun of it, it doesn't appear that free since you raise the spell slot too... but that is usually a less effective choice.

Yeah, I figured you would say you used the slot first and then heighten it, but since no one in my campaign ever casts a low level spell in a high level slot it's contrary to my normal thinking. Also, as Thanee said, all the other metamagic feats would be seen as "free" then too. Going to cast magic missle in a 4th level slot? Just as well maximize it first.

The problem with that line of thought is that it's not supposed to matter as to the order of the applying of the feats. If you maximize first and then heighten you are at 4th level, but if you heighten to 4th and then maximize you are at 7th level.

I don't know why I never read Heighten as you guys are. To me, all metamagic feats were always pay X levels to get some benefit and if you applied more than one, you added them all up to get the final total. I guess if one feat out of the bunch was a little unclear it just makes sense to use it like the others.

I think the wheels are spinning here, so probably no point in continuing. Just so you know, I understand your position - I just don't agree with it Just like you understand mine and don't agree with it so I don't think either of us will convert the others.

 

[Lamoni]

Bye
Thanee

I originally replied to your post by quoting a lot more, but then decided to just ask a few simple questions.

1. Did you miss the several references to the fact that we had already settled the issue on the rules aspect? We had moved on to balance. I agree with you that the feat DOES raise the spell level according to the rules. We finished that discussion. What I was then discussing was that using it like I had interpreted it does not make anything unbalancing, and that using it like it is written is not balanced with any of the other feats by being underpowered.

2. Do you go out of your way to misinterpret what people write? Or does it come naturally to you? I decided not to comment on most of what you wrote because I think that most other people who read my post won't get quite as confused about it as you did.

I normally agree with most of your posts... but normally you seem to try to spend a little more effort to take things in context instead of trying to find ways to interpret them differently.

 

[Lamoni]

I think the wheels are spinning here, so probably no point in continuing. Just so you know, I understand your position - I just don't agree with it Just like you understand mine and don't agree with it so I don't think either of us will convert the others.

Just so we are on the same page. The way you interpret it is correct and by the rules. The way I interpreted it was wrong. That is fine if you think that my interpretation of the rule is unbalancing. I don't think it is unbalanced and it is okay to disagree on that point.

 

[IceBear]

Just so we are on the same page. The way you interpret it is correct and by the rules. The way I interpreted it was wrong. That is fine if you think that my interpretation of the rule is unbalancing. I don't think it is unbalanced and it is okay to disagree on that point.

No, I didn't say I was right / you were wrong (I don't like to think in those terms - there is no right and wrong as long as everyone is having fun). I was saying I can see how you read the rules to get your interpretation and I think you can read them to see how I got mine.

I also don't think it's THAT unbalancing. I just don't think it's how it was MEANT to work and I like staying as close to the rules' intent as possible (unless it impacts my players' enjoyment). I don't ever look at the Sage's Rulings as being rules correct, but I tend to look at them as being the intent of a rule (yes, I make the leap of faith that he discusses with the other designers on stuff like this).

 

[apsuman]

I realize that every feat wasn't written to be equal with every other feat, but are you saying that if all feats were equal, it would be unbalancing?

You implied that the sage's interpretation of the Heighten feat made it worth less than all the other metamagic feats. I inferred that you said that all other metamagic feats are worth about 10, while the sage's interpretation of Heighten makes it worth about 3.

My position is that all feats have various utility. Depending upon your character some feats are going to be worth much more than others.

I was ignoring ...

If you would have said it that way the first time I never would have replied. I agree with (practically) everything you said.

I wasn't disputing that there were benefits. I just don't think that I'd want to give up any 9th level spell slots for that charm person. Casting it as a 1st level means a DC of 8 less, or a 40% greater chance of the opponent succeeding on their saving throw... but it is still just using a 1st level spell and by heightening it to 9th level there is only a 40% chance that it will even make any difference in the outcome. A nice benefit, but still makes a difference less than half the time at the cost of a spell slot 8 levels higher.

Just because you won't take it, does not mean that I (or others) think it is as useless as you do. Again, I point out that heighten works better for sorcerers than for wizards. If I had a wizard I wouldn't want to put a heightened charm person in a ninth level slot either, it's use would be VERY limited. However, given that fighter types have bad will saves, a charismatic sorcerer heightening charm person to the highest level possible has a VERY good chance of working.

At level 20 with a 24 CHA (not unreasonable) AND NO OTHER DC INCREASING EFFECT IN PLACE, the ninth level heightened charm person is 10+9+7 = 26 versus 10+1+7 = 18. A 20th level fighter has will save of +6, so the heightened version of the spell is all but a sure thing, and the non-heightened charm person succeeds 55% of the time.

I think that... <snip> ...slot.

Well said.

 

[Thanee]

1. Did you miss the several references to the fact that we had already settled the issue on the rules aspect?

Actually... yes... The only thing I have seen is, that the sage has changed the feat and that one has to live with that or something to that degree, completely ignoring all the effort spend on explaining it. Or waving it away with the stuff I quoted and replied to.

If I do have missed anything else, then I really have missed it!

I might have mixed up your and the thread starter's posts, tho.

You probably talk of this part here:

There is one good argument that this isn't the case. That is the line that says: "Benefit: A heightened spell has a higher spell level than normal (up to a maximum of 9th level)." This can be interpreted as saying that you can't apply heighten to any spell that isn't in a higher level spot... or it can say that the feat actually does raise the spell level concurrently with the effective level. Still, it is far from clear. To help clear it up you just read on...

I'm puzzled how one can not read this as that Heighten Spell increases the spell level... or that the spell level increase is a result of the effective level increase. It nowhere says anything about by how much the effective level is increased, if you leave out the part, that the spell level is increased first. The heightened level, which is talked about later in the feat description, where it states, that all effects are calculated from that level, can only be the spell level, which is used as a base for the effective level. Without the increase in spell level, the feat becomes completely pointless.

"Unlike other metamagic feats, Heighten Spell actually increases the effective level of the spell that it modifies. " Still it doesn't say whether or not the feat raises the spell level, but it makes it clear that it DOES raise the effective level. Assuming that it raises the spell level too is based on what we expect it to do based on the effects of other metamagic feats.

Just a little note here... it says, that it increases the effective level of the spell that it modifies. But what does it modify, if not the spell level? How can it 'only' increase the effective level?

The only real problem is, that - since Heighten Spell is variable - the wording for the spell level increase is different. It uses up a higher spell slot and raises the effective level accordingly. That's what it does.

And just for the record... in THIS post, I have stated what I think about the balance issues.

And yes, I think Heighten Spell is almost useless, unless you are a sorcerer, in which case it is very good. The 'house rule' version would make it better for other spellcasters to a degree that metamagic becomes more useful, but it would then be extremely potent for sorcerers (but not yet unbalancing).

Bye
Thanee

 

[MerakSpielman]

I'd just like to stop by and say this is a very silly discussion.

Thank you.


Oh, and I'm with Thanee.