Intensify Spell is an Epic WASTE!!!!

[Oni]

Marshall, you some how managed to reply to my post without actually reading it, or at least thats the way it comes across.


As for the FAQ being updated not so often, while that may be true, however it is the most recent material that specifically addresses the situation of which you are speaking, and not in the roundabout and vague way that you seem to be trying to conjure up out of the ELH.


If what you are claiming about Enhance Spell (that the special section changes the way in which all metamagic feats are handled when used multiple times) was true then the special note that accompanies Enhance Spell would accompany every other metamagic feat in the ELH. Can you explain to me why this is NOT the case? The rule applies specifically to Enhance Spell and only to Ehance Spell. It has been my experience that when WotC issues a rules change (that is an official change and not a varient which are listed as such) or a clarification that they clearly lable it, for instance the change in polymorph included in Tome and Blood, or the rules clarification for Wildshape in Masters of the Wild. Can you explain to me why this is NOT the case in the ELH?


Your evidence that shows how Empower is superior to Enhance is eye opening with regards to the need for some sort of fix, either an enhancement to Enhance, or a revision of the way Empower works. However, common sense has no place in strict, by the book rules interpretation. If you wish to make this a house rule in your campaign that is your choice and a perfectly valid one, on the other hand it is not by any stretch of the imagination an official rules change.


I will also note that the rules change you purpose doesn't truely make any difference. Using your rule you can just as easily buy Empower instead of Enhance and garther more benefits, because as you stated before Empower can apply to more spells, raising the damage cap by 10 isnt as good as empowering a spell that has a base damage cap higher than 10 (such as Horrid Wilting or Cone of Cold), and all that aside, with just one application of Improved Metamagic you would actually pull ahead with Empower (i.e. two Empower = +2 levels, one Enhance = +3 levels).


Off the top of my head if you want a house rule that might make Enhance worth it you could either do one of two things. Drop Empower from your game (of course thats the easy way out), or try something like any prerequisite metamagic feat, when used with the feat following it in the chain, is applied to the base spell first and the following feat affects the altered version rather than the base version. So with Enhance if you used maximize first then all the Enhancements would be maximized as well. From the way they talk about raising the damage cap instead of just adding extra dice of damage I get the idea that this may be how they intented it to work, however it cannot under the current rules for stacking metamagic. Anyway that is just off the top of my head so there may of course be complications that haven't immediately come to mind.

 

[Jondor_Battlehammer]

Firk Ding, thunder stolen...

I agree with Oni,

If the ELH was meant to be an updated FaQ, it would have one in it.

If it was going to clear up old feats and their stackability, it had the perfect opprotunity to do so in the non-epic feats section.

Enhance spell does not so much affect the spell ypu cast, as it affects your ability to bump up your damage cap. Like energy substitution affects your ability to alter the element of a spell.

If all feats had to be bought multiple times to stack, AND the ELH was a FaQ, then why does it not make the same requirement to intensify spell? If you have 14+ levels to burn on making a low level spell 4 times as potent as it was, go right ahead.

Having said that, I will agree that some meta -magic feats, or combinations of them are more useful than others. Why spend the +4 levels on an enhanced fireball or lightning bolt, when you could have a delayed blast fire ball or a chain lightning. Both do potentially twice the dice, but also have extra effects wich make them more versatile. It might make sense for a sorcerer. I'm sure there is a use for all of them, though.

 

[kreynolds]

and oh yeah, kreynolds, what point are you making with this?

If you can't figure it out, I'm not wasting my time explaining it.

I just can't find a reason to that quote at all in this post since it is talking about persistant spell and not empower. =op

Pathetic. (not so much you, but just the fact that this would require explaining)

-- "always disappointed in the human race" kreynolds --

 

[Marshall]

As for the FAQ being updated not so often, while that may be true, however it is the most recent material that specifically addresses the situation of which you are speaking, and not in the roundabout and vague way that you seem to be trying to conjure up out of the ELH.

No, the ELH is "the most recent material". True the only reference is oblique and vague, but it is the only reference to being able to stack MM feats.

If what you are claiming about Enhance Spell (that the special section changes the way in which all metamagic feats are handled when used multiple times) was true then the special note that accompanies Enhance Spell would accompany every other metamagic feat in the ELH.
Can you explain to me why this is NOT the case?

Yes, easily. What makes Enhance an Epic feat is that it is the only feat that can stack with itself. The 'special' section describes how to accomplish that. Since none of the other MM feats have this ability, none of the other feats need the special section.

It has been my experience that when WotC issues a rules change (that is an official change and not a varient which are listed as such) or a clarification that they clearly lable it, for instance the change in polymorph included in Tome and Blood, or the rules clarification for Wildshape in Masters of the Wild. Can you explain to me why this is NOT the case in the ELH?

In this case there is no 'rule' to change. The only place where the concept of stacking MM comes up is the FAQ and an old 'Sage Advice" column. Changes to the FAQ are not announced(if theyre ever made), and the FAQ is usually at odds with the most recent publication.

If you wish to make this a house rule in your campaign that is your choice and a perfectly valid one, on the other hand it is not by any stretch of the imagination an official rules change.

Yet. Of course first there would have to be a rule to change. What happens when that question in the FAQ vanishes?

I will also note that the rules change you purpose doesn't truely make any difference. Using your rule you can just as easily buy Empower instead of Enhance and garther more benefits, because as you stated before Empower can apply to more spells, raising the damage cap by 10 isnt as good as empowering a spell that has a base damage cap higher than 10 (such as Horrid Wilting or Cone of Cold), and all that aside, with just one application of Improved Metamagic you would actually pull ahead with Empower (i.e. two Empower = +2 levels, one Enhance = +3 levels).

Thats true on the first application, but since Enhance then becomes the only stackable feat, its true power begins to shine thru as at 8th the cap goes to 25, then 11th 35 and so on... with no other option for increasing dam. potential.

So with Enhance if you used maximize first then all the Enhancements would be maximized as well. From the way they talk about raising the damage cap instead of just adding extra dice of damage I get the idea that this may be how they intented it to work, however it cannot under the current rules for stacking metamagic. Anyway that is just off the top of my head so there may of course be complications that haven't immediately come to mind.

That could make another Epic MM feat, but Enhance only has the one Special section

 

[Johno]

Well, you interpret the rules that way Marshall.

I see the stacking of Metamagic feats as a minor problem.

Empower might be good for damage dealing spells, up to a point. With Improved Metamagic you lower the cost of metamagicking that feat to its minimum, +1.

Enhance, on the other hand can also be lowered via the same method to a cost of +1. Sure it costs feat wise, but the effects then become MUCH more favourable. (20d6 vs 1.5x10d6... hmmm, what to choose...)

Any system with this much flexibility and number crunching is going to end up with a few pecularities.

The advantages of taking Improved Metamagic three times are quite obvious. Twinned, Repeating Greater Dispel Magic as a 8th level spell, for just one.

Then the Enhance feat doesn't seem like so much waste of space for the damage dealing spells, either.

One thing that has me wondering is the application of Heightened Spell and Improved Metamagic. Strikes me that you would get free heightened levels. So taking Improved Metamagic feat multiple times is also a method to keep up with those who only take Improved Spellcasting, and gain some extra flexibility with metamagic, at the cost of an extra high level spell slot. You could, with enough feat expenditure,cast a spell heightened to 20th level in a 10th level spell slot...

 

[Jondor_Battlehammer]

I gusse this a "half empty..." sort of argument.

One thing that I would hope we could agree on is that WoTC has remained silent on this issue in an "Official" way, i.e., they have not put a clarification into print. This means that they don't realize it's such a hot question, they don't care, or they are choosing to remain silent.


"What makes Enhance an Epic feat is that it is the only feat that can stack with itself. The 'special' section describes how to accomplish that. Since none of the other MM feats have this ability, none of the other feats need the special section."

Personally, I think that this is inverse logic, and that you are reading something into it that is not there. It simply means that you cannot use Maximize, for obvious reason, or Enhance, because by use of this feat there are nolonger variables to the spell. By the way, given the terse direction that this thread has taken, I must stress that I simply dissagree with you. This is by no means an attack.


So it comes down to what you interpret the silence of the rules to mean. By the rules, there is nothing stopping a fighter from taking a meta magic feat. You could say that he can waste the slot if he likes, or refuse him the feat. He could argue that he plans on becoming a sorcerer, and that this is untapped potential, and that he will discover that potential late in life in a dramatic fashion. Or you could say that he can't take it till that potential is tapped.

This thread has gotten me to look at the argument, where as before I always took it as a given that you could stack. That's good. However, I will continue to allow it, and I justify it by looking at other spells, and using them as precident.

Bulls Strenght, +2-5 STR for multiple hours. 2nd level spell.
Maximized, 5 Empowered, 3-7, as a 5th or 4th level spell, respectively.
Tenser's (Not the Tenser!) Transformation, 6th level spell, 2-8 STR. Only multiple rounds, but with all the other extras, it could turn Hugh Grant into an ass kicking machine. So...
Double Enhanced, 6th, +4-10.
Enhanced and Maximized, 6-7

2nd) 2-5 (Normal)
4th) 3-7 (Enhanced)
5th) 5 (Maximized)
6th) 2-8 (Tenser's)
6th) 4-10 (double Enhanced)
7th) 6-7 (Enhanced and Maximized)

Yes, there is an advantage in using Enhance Spell twice, but is the extended duration, a set and forget spell, worth sacrificing a slot which could give you everthing that Tenser's transformation could give you? Sometimes yes, Sometimes no. However, both 6th level possibilities have comparable STR bonuses,and the extras of Tenser's more than make up for the extreamly shorter duration, and visa versa. Then look at this.

8th) 5-11 (x3 Enhance)
8th) 3-12 (Tenser's Enhanced)

Again, similar bonuses, and the extras/durations balance the rest out. An official spell, Bite of the Weretiger, gives you a staight out +12 STR as an 8th level spell, no chance of rolling poorly, no variables.

9th) 8 (Tenser's Maximized)
10th) 6-13 (x4 Enhanced)
10th) 4-16 (Tenser's x2 Enhanced)

Bite of the Werebear gives a flat +16 to STR., as a 9th level spell.

I just don't see the balance issue. Sometimes it would be useful, but not overpowerful. Sometimes it would be redundant, or even less powerful. It's almost 2:00, I just hope I'm making sense.

 

[kreynolds]

Personally, I think that this is inverse logic, and that you are reading something into it that is not there.

Personally, I just think he's trying to get his post count up.

The metamagic feat descriptions don't state one way or the other whether or not they stack. The FAQ states they can. Sage Advice says they can. Emails from The Sage/Skip say they can. The ELH says nothing about any other feat published anywhere else, when in fact, it only applies to the one single feat.

Now, I don't know about Marshall, but I'm not suicidal. If he wants to keep using his argument, by all means, I won't stop a guy from jumping off a bridge. No way, I'd rather pull up a lawn chair, put up the umbrella, and sip on a big ol' glass of lemonade while I watch the show.

 

[James McMurray]

Twin is made more for enchanment spells I think. Least, that's what I normally use it for. A twined hold monster is one of my favorites.

For damaging spells and many buff me spells, I think you are right though. With the Improved Metamagic feat, empower becomes spell level +1 and easily out distances the rest.

Actually, if you're doing enchantment spells, you may be better off with Chain Spell. Sure the DC drops a little, but you can affect many more targets, for one level less.

Twin is (I think) intended to allow you to toss 2 fireballs, at different areas. Instead of doubling your damage to a few people, you get to double the number of people you hit.

 

[Limper]

Let us not forget that all feats are NOT equal.... per cannon.

 

[Shard O'Glase]

Let us not forget that all feats are NOT equal.... per cannon.

True but epic feats should always be better than standard feats. I don't have the book, but from what people have posted many of these feats seem decidedly unepic. Many I think would of fit perfectly well in a standard campaign, as a run of the mill ordinary feat, not a just for 21th+level players feat.