Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="rushlight" data-source="post: 1528921" data-attributes="member: 3801"><img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile&nbsp; &nbsp; :)"&nbsp; data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" />&nbsp; Well, I did try to be nice.&nbsp; At least, nicer than Thanee's post.&nbsp;&nbsp;-Which is exactly my point.&nbsp; Allowing the stacking of Heighten with other metamagic feats wouldn't be unbalancing IMHO.&nbsp; The Sage's response, while &quot;official&quot;, is unsatisfying.&nbsp; The text of the feat says one thing, but the Sage says the feat should do something else - and he needed to redefine the feat in order to make it say what he wanted it to.&nbsp; Not to mention that (as pointed out above) the way the Sage has ruled it makes it patently ignorant.&nbsp; &nbsp;Who's gonna cast an 11th level, Empowered, Maximized Burning Hands Heightened to 6th level?&nbsp; No one - that's absurd.&nbsp; But someone might do that as a 6th level spell.&nbsp; Even though it does less damage, effects less targets, and requires more feats than a normal 6th level spell.&nbsp; But it's better than requiring Heighten to add slot levels.&nbsp;I suppose that's my point in continuing this thread - to generate discussion.&nbsp; Am I the only one who sees fault in the Sage's ruling?&nbsp; Why go out of your way to invalidate a feat, when the use (as written!) isn't unbalancing in the least?</blockquote>

[QUOTE="rushlight, post: 1528921, member: 3801"] :) Well, I did try to be nice. At least, nicer than Thanee's post. -Which is exactly my point. Allowing the stacking of Heighten with other metamagic feats wouldn't be unbalancing IMHO. The Sage's response, while "official", is unsatisfying. The text of the feat says one thing, but the Sage says the feat should do something else - and he needed to redefine the feat in order to make it say what he wanted it to. Not to mention that (as pointed out above) the way the Sage has ruled it makes it patently ignorant. Who's gonna cast an 11th level, Empowered, Maximized Burning Hands Heightened to 6th level? No one - that's absurd. But someone [i]might[/i] do that as a 6th level spell. Even though it does less damage, effects less targets, and requires more feats than a normal 6th level spell. But it's better than requiring Heighten to add slot levels. I suppose that's my point in continuing this thread - to generate discussion. Am I the only one who sees fault in the Sage's ruling? Why go out of your way to invalidate a feat, when the use (as written!) isn't unbalancing in the least? [/QUOTE]

Verification