Intensify Spell is an Epic WASTE!!!!

[Marshall]

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

True, but one feat should not completely invalidate another. If you have Empower(and you allow it to stack), Enhance has no quality that is not already present.

Even the lowly Skill Focus is never completely useless as it will stack with the +2 to 2skills feats. But there is no reason to Enhance Empower when 3x Empower does exactly the same thing.

 

[Henry]

Marshall, I think you are reading too much into the Enhance Spell section from the Epic Level Handbook.

1) WotC DOES update their FAQ more than "once in a millenium." I personally know this because I track their updates on this. They have already updated it three times this year alone. The most recent one is dated June 29th. That's NOT "once in a millenium."

2)WotC has set precendent for this kind of thing before. In both Tome and Blood and Sword and Fist, if there was a rules errata or clarification they felt they MUST release, then they specifically put a blurb in the description STATING "This is considered a rules change and therefore errata on the existing rules." They did not do this, and their example specifically does not leave the Epic Level Handbook.

Now, if WotC decides to make this official errata in the next D&D FAQ, you will have convinced me differently. But you cannot say that this is some sort of clear and irrevocable rules change, and back it up. Your proof just isn't there in the precedent, nor in the official errata.

 

[Anubis]

After carefully reading about Enhance Spell, I have finally found the answer.

The problem here is that everybody seems to think you take Enhance Spell "per spell", much like you tape Weapon Focus "per weapon".

After reading very carefully, however, I find that to not be the case. This is not your normal Metamagic Feat.

Rather, this feat is much more like Fast Healing and Extended Lifespan.

To explain, in order to stack Enhance Spell, you MUST take the feat twice, not just once. According to the description, every time you select Enhance Spell, that gives you the capacity to increase the caps one more time. Enhance Spell can be used with ANY spell you can cast, not just to a sigle spell.

Really simple once you read it carefully enough.

So the answer is, plain and simple, to get a 30d6 Fireball, you must take Enhance Spell twice. For proof abotu my point of not having to select a specific spell for Enhance Spell, simply check out Elminster in the back of the book, he has Enhance Spell.

For proof of my other point, simply read the description of Enhance Spell. The words are very clear.

 

[Anubis]

Now I will also clear up any and all debate as to whether normal spells are able to be stacked by the rules or not.

YOU CAN'T STACK NORMAL METAMAGIC FEATS UNLESS THE FEAT SAYS YOU CAN.

Oh, but we have an FAQ that says you can stack Metamagic Feats? I'm sorry, but that FAQ is unofficial and thus invalid. The FAQ is not part of the rules in any way, and it is not errata which is obviously released seperate from the FAQ.

I once believed you could stack Metamagic Feats until I read this thread and considered the rules carefully, then went back to look at the FAQ. The FAQ means nothing, it is unofficial, it is not by the rules.

The fact that Enhance Spell would be completely useless if you could stack Empower Spell is absolute proof that the OFFICIAL ruling on Metamagic Feats is that they are not stackable.

So sorry, but you can't stack Empower Spell. Or any others, unless the description says otherwise.

There is nothing anywhere saying that stacking is an option, except for that silly FAQ that is just thrown together with quick answers. The FAQ means absolutely nothing, so don't refer to it anymore.

 

[Ristamar]

Now I will also clear up any and all debate as to whether normal spells are able to be stacked by the rules or not.

...

I'm sorry, but that FAQ is unofficial and thus invalid.

...

The FAQ means nothing, it is unofficial, it is not by the rules.

...

The FAQ means absolutely nothing, so don't refer to it anymore.

Well... I'm so glad the official FAQ has been 'officially declared' as 'unofficial.' I feel so enlightened... *cough*

 

[Anubis]

Well, where is it said that the "Official FAQ" is errata?

Considering Empower Spell is NEVER better than Enhance Spell under ANY circumstance, if you guys were right about the rules allowing stacking, then the makers of the FAQ and the game would have had to either been on crack or had their heads up their asses to do something so blatantly stupid.

Then again . . . Ya' know . . . It wouldn't be the first time they did something blatantly stupid with the D&D rules . . . Makig Bladed Gauntlets 19-20 threat instead of 18-20 was stupid . . . Forcing creators to pay XP costs for spell components in items was REALLY stupid . . . So I suppose you guys could be right.

I choose to give people the benefit of the doubt, however, and believe them to be more intelligent than this. Plain and simple logci that even a child could understand would get one to understand that stackig Metamagics is pretty darn stupid, since it makes Epic Metamagic Feats useless.

 

[mikebr99]

Now I will also clear up any and all debate as to whether normal spells are able to be stacked by the rules or not.

YOU CAN'T STACK NORMAL METAMAGIC FEATS UNLESS THE FEAT SAYS YOU CAN.

Where did you get this from?

Not sure what this does to your theory...

from the SRD:

METAMAGIC FEATS
Some spellcasters choose spells as they cast them. They can choose when they cast their spells whether to use metamagic feats
to improve them. As with other spellcasters, the improved spell uses up a higher-level spell slot. If its normal casting time is 1
action, casting a metamagic spell is a full-round action for a spellcaster that chooses spells as they cast them. For spells with a
longer casting time, it takes an extra full-round action to cast the spell.
Spontaneous Casting and Metamagic Feats: Clerics spontaneously casting cure or inflict spells can cast metamagic versions of
them. Casting a 1-action metamagic spell spontaneously is a full-round action, and spells with longer casting times take an
extra full-round action to cast.
Effects of Metamagic Feats on a Spell: In all ways, a metamagic spell operates at its original level even though it is prepared
and cast as a higher-level spell. Saving throw modifications are not changed (unless stated otherwise in the feat description).
The modifications made by these spells only apply to spells cast directly by the feat user. A spellcaster can’t use a metamagic
feat to alter a spell being cast from a wand, scroll, or other device.
Multiple Metamagic Feats on a Spell: A spellcaster can use multiple metamagic feats on a single spell. Changes to its level are cumulative.
Magic Items and Metamagic Spells: With the right item creation feat, a character can store a metamagic spell in a scroll,
potion, or wand. Level limits for potions and wands apply to the spell’s higher, metamagic level. A character doesn’t need the
metamagic feat to activate an item storing a metamagic spell.
Counterspelling Metamagic Spells: Whether a spell has been enhanced by a metamagic feat does not affect its vulnerability to
counterspelling or its ability to counterspell another spell.

Don't trust the SRD???

How about the phb...

Multiple Metamagic Feats on a Spell: A spellcaster can use multiple metamagic feats on a single spell. Changes to its level are cumulative. A silent, still version of charm person, for example, would be prepared and cast as a 3rd-level spell.

 

[Ristamar]

Well, the bulk of it isn't errata. It's mostly clarifications and answers to commonly asked questions, most of which appeared in Sage Advice at one time or another.

Metamagic wackiness aside, I'm not saying the FAQ is infallible (especially since the designers aren't infallible), but it's about as official as you get.

If someone is willing to display some initiative, perhaps these findings and inquiries can be emailed to Skip, and he can mull over the arguably perceived problems.

 

[Anubis]

mikebr99, sorry to burst your bubble, but read the SRD a bit more carefully. It says "Multiple Metamagic Feats" . . . That doesn't mean "Stacking Metamagic Feats" . . .

Same in teh PHB, just look at their example. You can put Silent Spell and Still Spell on the same spell, sure. That's MULTIPLE METAMAGIC FEATS. That's NOT STACKING METAMAGIC FEATS.

Read a bit more carefully. I never said you can't put different Metamagic Feats on the same spell, I said you can't STACK the SAME Metamagic Fets multiple times on a single spell.

 

[mikebr99]

mikebr99, sorry to burst your bubble, but read the SRD a bit more carefully. It says "Multiple Metamagic Feats" . . . That doesn't mean "Stacking Metamagic Feats" . . .

Same in teh PHB, just look at their example. You can put Silent Spell and Still Spell on the same spell, sure. That's MULTIPLE METAMAGIC FEATS. That's NOT STACKING METAMAGIC FEATS.

Read a bit more carefully. I never said you can't put different Metamagic Feats on the same spell, I said you can't STACK the SAME Metamagic Fets multiple times on a single spell.

Ok?!? *shrug*

Where does it say that you can't stack Metamagic feats?