Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Al" data-source="post: 179253" data-attributes="member: 2486">I think that hong has an interesting point with regard to LW not granting the use of a feat.Firstly, the difference between wishing for a 'Maximised Fireball' and 'a Maximise Spell feat for the one-time purpose of casting this Fireball which I have LWed for' is effectively nothing: the first is more commonly used to avoid excessive verbosity, but in effect the latter is what one is doing.However, my first substantive point is that one CANNOT use LW to wish for feats, be they single-use or whatever.  For example, it is possible for LW to automatically cause a creature to hit on its next attack (in the spell description).  However, one cannot and indeed should not be able to permit the 'one-time use of Power Critical (MotW)' just for the purpose of that single attack.  I would hope that we would concur that this is a reasonable interpretation.  Similarly, it could not grant the use of Power Attack for that one attack (although had I had it anyway, I would certainly use it for all it's worth!), Cleave or any other of the host of combat-orientated feats.  From there, it is a very small and logical continuation of the rationale to say that it cannot grant metamagic feats.  Ergo, it does not grant spells enhanced with metamagic feats.  This argument does collapse if the caster already has the feat in question, yet I presume that the clash is when the caster does not.My second substantive point is to do with semantics (which are important btw hong): that of LW granting a spell of 6th level or lower.  Note that the exact word is 'a spell of up to 6th level', not (and I would assert emphatically so) 'a spell which would occupy a slot of up to 6th level'.  The latter would suggest that an Empowered 4th or Maximised 3rd level spell is permissible, the first would indicate that this is not the case.  Furthermore, this argument stands even in the event that the caster does have the relevant feat.I would qualify this by saying that I do allow metamagic from LW, even if the caster does not have the feat.  Nevertheless, I consider this more of a House Rule: based purely on the official spell description and the application of rational argument, this should not be the case.</blockquote>

Verification