Hypersmurf
Moderatarrrrh...
Majere said:
Keep it polite, please.
(And the same goes, of course, for anyone replying...)
-Hyp.
(Moderator)
Metamagic Stacking Question
- Thread starter Burne
- Start date
Keep it polite, please.
(And the same goes, of course, for anyone replying...)
-Hyp.
(Moderator)
Caliban said:
Nope, it is core. You should listen to the smurf, he knows what he is talking about.
You cant have it both ways, either you apply everything equally (which you are not doing in your examples) or you do not. Except for course for exceptions.
Enjoy your houserule, too bad it makes metamagic even worse. A hit which it just cannot take.
I'm sure he does. But guess what? I know what I'm talking about too, and I don't think Hyp has any actual rules backing his stance here. Just the way he thinks it should work. Which is fine (because I generally respect his opinions), but just because Hyp says something doesn't mean it's automatically true.Scion said:
Some of us can still think for ourselves.
Then you didn't actually pay attention to my explanations. I did in fact apply everything equally. If you are going to disagree with something I said, actually back it up with real reasons, not just unsupported statements.
I really don't think you have been using metamagic feats properly if you really believe this. In my experience I've found them to be very powerful, especially at higher levels. I've played spellcasters who use them and seen others who use them to devestating effect.
When properly used, metamagic feats don't need any "help", believe me.
In any case, for most campaigns this discussion is academic, since the kind of interactions we are talking about aren't generally possible until 12th level plus.
Last edited:
James McMurray
First Post
Because "original spell" is not defined anywhere, Caliban's take on it is just as valid as yours. Thus, both of your interpretations of how metmagics interact are either a) equally valid, or b) equally "rubbish."
And yet you seem to feel that your unfounded interpretation is somehow better than his.
Can you point to any single rule that backs up your claims?
And for the record: trying to sound like a lawyer doesn't give your arguments any more weight. This is not a courtroom.
And yet you seem to feel that your unfounded interpretation is somehow better than his.
Can you point to any single rule that backs up your claims?
How can you apply tein before cold, but still manage to twin the "cold fireball." If you're twinning a cold fireball, obviously cold substitution has been applied before twin.
Same here. How can you apply twin first, but still see empower?
I submit that you should perhaps endeavor to do the same yourself. Oddly enough, neither side's interpretation has any basis in the rules. One side sees an example of interaction between two feats and decides that it is an eception to a general rule. The other side sees the same thing and decides it is the general rule, that simply isn't mentioned anywhere else beause it isn't necessary to mention it anywhere else. Who's right? Without more rules to clarify the issue, the answer is "both are right, for their games."
And for the record: trying to sound like a lawyer doesn't give your arguments any more weight. This is not a courtroom.
Most of your examples are contradictory or just flat out wrong.
Like I said, listen to the smurf.
Plus, like I keep saying, in my opinion metamagic is very weak as it is already. There are a few that are ok, but the vast majority are so weak as to be laughable. This is easily demonstrated just by looking at core spells. Useing a spell of the appropriate level is almost always better than useing a metamagic'd spell in almost every way. Which means that you spent a very limited resource to do worse than you were doing before. See the problem?
Like I said, listen to the smurf.
Plus, like I keep saying, in my opinion metamagic is very weak as it is already. There are a few that are ok, but the vast majority are so weak as to be laughable. This is easily demonstrated just by looking at core spells. Useing a spell of the appropriate level is almost always better than useing a metamagic'd spell in almost every way. Which means that you spent a very limited resource to do worse than you were doing before. See the problem?
Repeating the same unsupported statement over and over again doesn't actually make it true.Scion said:
Like I said, I'll think for myself.
Nope, I don't see the problem. Sometimes spells of the equivalent level are better, sometimes a spell with the proper metamagic feat is more effective. I will just politely disagree with your opinion, based on my own experiences.
James McMurray
First Post
As you say, its your opinion. I tend to play almost nothing but spellcasters, and at higher levels, metamagic feats are my bread and butter. Quicken allows both a low-level buff and a high level attack to be made in the same round. Empower and Maximize mean that higher level spells learned can be more utility based, and the lower level spells can be used for combat firepower. Extend and / or Chain mean that the weaker buffs get to affect many more people and last much longer.
Artoomis
First Post
By now it should be obvious that BOTH Hypersmurf and Caliban have good, rule-based arguments here.
Both also have problems in their analyses.
In my game I'd go with 'smurf's rule because:
1. Cost: +4 levels is pretty steep to start with, add in another, say, +2 lvls from another metamagic feat, and a 3rd level spell is using a 9th level slot, or it could be cast twice as 2 5th level spells. Using one 9th lvl spell slot vs. two 5th lvl spells slots seems pretty balanced to me.
2. "Original spell" could possibly mean what Caliban thinks, but I don't think that was what was intended, and could lead to really odd results, like the spell being "shaped" one round, and then not the next. I assume (maybe wrongly) that when the twinned spell goes off the second time the area of effect is the same (it was already decided when the spell was cast originally). What happens to that shaped lightening bolt? What's the area of effect now??
It's just plain easier to follow Hypersmurf's rules interpreation (note - I say that BOTH interpretations are valid - neither is a "House Rule'), and there appears to be no serious issue of suddenly overpowering the spell.
Both also have problems in their analyses.
In my game I'd go with 'smurf's rule because:
1. Cost: +4 levels is pretty steep to start with, add in another, say, +2 lvls from another metamagic feat, and a 3rd level spell is using a 9th level slot, or it could be cast twice as 2 5th level spells. Using one 9th lvl spell slot vs. two 5th lvl spells slots seems pretty balanced to me.
2. "Original spell" could possibly mean what Caliban thinks, but I don't think that was what was intended, and could lead to really odd results, like the spell being "shaped" one round, and then not the next. I assume (maybe wrongly) that when the twinned spell goes off the second time the area of effect is the same (it was already decided when the spell was cast originally). What happens to that shaped lightening bolt? What's the area of effect now??
It's just plain easier to follow Hypersmurf's rules interpreation (note - I say that BOTH interpretations are valid - neither is a "House Rule'), and there appears to be no serious issue of suddenly overpowering the spell.
Last edited:
How can you apply tein before cold, but still manage to twin the "cold fireball." If you're twinning a cold fireball, obviously cold substitution has been applied before twin.
Same here. How can you apply twin first, but still see empower?
Easy
When you twin the spell you twin EVERYTHING including the metamagic effects.
Thus is I apply cold and the twin:
1) I first have a cold type fireball to which Im going to apply the twin metamagic
2) I twin the cold fireball
Result: Two cold fireballs
Conversely, I apply twin then cold:
1) I first apply twin giving me two fireballs to which the cold metamagic will be applied.
2) I apply the cold substitution to BOTH fireballs
Result: Two cold fireballs
There is no difference in order as long as you are consistant in the fact that twin copies BOTH the spell and metamagic.
And no, there is no support for my interpretation...
... Except that my interpretation doent lead to endless contradictions and ridiculous results.
I dont need to invent or define the terms "original" "base" "aspect" "parts of the spell". Infact I dont need to invent any new rules or definitions, I just apply everything all together.
Caliban has to invent FOUR new terms, for his interpretation to make any sense. Now if his interpretation was correct surely these terms would already be defined in our DMG ?
While my explanation is not explicitly stated anywhere, its is 100% more consistant with what IS explicitally stated. Thus I would suggest it is a better one.
And no talking like a lawyer doesnt make me any more correct, but It does mean I know how to construct a valid and logical argument from the available material, and not make it up as I go along.
Majere
Same here. How can you apply twin first, but still see empower?
Easy
When you twin the spell you twin EVERYTHING including the metamagic effects.
Thus is I apply cold and the twin:
1) I first have a cold type fireball to which Im going to apply the twin metamagic
2) I twin the cold fireball
Result: Two cold fireballs
Conversely, I apply twin then cold:
1) I first apply twin giving me two fireballs to which the cold metamagic will be applied.
2) I apply the cold substitution to BOTH fireballs
Result: Two cold fireballs
There is no difference in order as long as you are consistant in the fact that twin copies BOTH the spell and metamagic.
And no, there is no support for my interpretation...
... Except that my interpretation doent lead to endless contradictions and ridiculous results.
I dont need to invent or define the terms "original" "base" "aspect" "parts of the spell". Infact I dont need to invent any new rules or definitions, I just apply everything all together.
Caliban has to invent FOUR new terms, for his interpretation to make any sense. Now if his interpretation was correct surely these terms would already be defined in our DMG ?
While my explanation is not explicitly stated anywhere, its is 100% more consistant with what IS explicitally stated. Thus I would suggest it is a better one.
And no talking like a lawyer doesnt make me any more correct, but It does mean I know how to construct a valid and logical argument from the available material, and not make it up as I go along.
Majere
Similar Threads
