Metamagic Stacking Question

[Hypersmurf]

By now it should be obvious that BOTH Hypersurf...

Hypersurf?

-Hyp.

 

[Caliban]

By now it should be obvious that BOTH Hypersurf 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 and a 3rd level spell is using a 9th level slot, or it could be cast twice as 2 4th level spells. Using one 9th lvl spell slot vs. two 5th lvl spells slots seems pretty balanced to me.

I think you mean "it could be cast twice as 2 5th level spells."

I don't think that is the proper way of calculating the cost. The +4 levels for Twin is to get an extra spell in the same round. If you cast it as two 5th lvl spells (two seperate Empowered Fireballs) you are getting two spells in two seperate rounds without using Twin spell. It's not really equivalent.

The close equivalent would using a Quickened Empowered spell and an Empowered spell in the same round (something only a wizard can do). The cost there would be a 9th level spell slot and a 5th level spell slot if you were casting a 3rd level spell.

See the difference? Using Hyp's way you get the equivalent of an extra 5th level spell slot for free, as compared to the way I believe it's supposed to work.

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??

The area of effect would be that of the base spell before it was shaped. In some circumstances that would be a good thing, in others it wouldn't be.

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.

I happen to think there is an issue with it making certain feat combinations to powerful (primarily Twin and Repeat), but you are only going to see those come into play at very high levels so it's hard to tell for sure.

 

[Artoomis]

Good point on balance issue, Caliban. That's offset slightly by the fact that a Twinned spell must be the SAME spell - no changes allowed, which is somewhat limiting.

Anyway, the area of effect (or other problems) still exists. Some spells would not have an "base" area of effect designated if they were "shaped," leaving one to wonder where the target center and/or area of effect might be.

The latter can be handled, but could possibly generate very odd results sometimes.

I stick with my view that you are BOTH right and a DM just simply needs to decide which way to go - knowing both positions can be justified by the rules without any House Rules coming into play.

 

[Artoomis]

...I don't think that is the proper way of calculating the cost. The +4 levels for Twin is to get an extra spell in the same round. If you cast it as two 5th lvl spells (two seperate Empowered Fireballs) you are getting two spells in two seperate rounds without using Twin spell. It's not really equivalent...The close equivalent would using a Quickened Empowered spell and an Empowered spell in the same round (something only a wizard can do). The cost there would be a 9th level spell slot and a 5th level spell slot if you were casting a 3rd level spell.

Upon further thought I think this balance argument is a red herring.

A quickened Fireball followed by a Fireball would be 7th and 3rd levels spells.
A twinned Fireball is a 7th level spell.

That's a free 3rd level spell.

Same problem, right?

So, on balance, either Twinned is okay at +4 levels or it's not, other metamagic effects notwithstanding.

 

[James McMurray]

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.

I fail to see how explaining what makes your interpretation work invalidates Caliban's interpretation.

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 ?

He is not inventing the term "original" its already there in the metamagic feat. He's just applying a different interpretation than you are. He is also not inventing the other terms, he is just using them to try to explain his position.

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.

In your opinion.

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.

No, it just means that you've watched Perry Mason reruns. You have yet to show how it is that Caliban's interpretation generates any contradictions, although you constantly state that it does.

 

[Hypersmurf]

Upon further though I think this balance argument is a red herring.

Heh. I was just looking for an example to make almost the same point

-Hyp.

 

[Wippit Guud]

From twin spell:
"Any variables of the spell (such as target, shaping, area, and so on) apply to both of the resulting spells."

Both spells must have the exact same variables. If the variables have been changed, then the second spell must have those variables. Or, twin spell supercedes the other metamagic feat, and both are cast as base spells, which wastes the extra levels used to cast the spell.

In either case, the two spells must be identical.

 

[Artoomis]

From twin spell:
"Any variables of the spell (such as target, shaping, area, and so on) apply to both of the resulting spells."

Both spells must have the exact same variables. If the variables have been changed, then the second spell must have those variables. Or, twin spell supercedes the other metamagic feat, and both are cast as base spells, which wastes the extra levels used to cast the spell.

In either case, the two spells must be identical.

I agree. Strongest argument yet.

Both spells get the metamagic effects applied. Otherwise you cannot follow the Twinned Spell feat language.

 

[James McMurray]

Upon further thought I think this balance argument is a red herring.

A quickened Fireball followed by a Fireball would be 7th and 3rd levels spells.
A twinned Fireball is a 7th level spell.

That's a free 3rd level spell.

Same problem, right?

So, on balance, either Twinned is okay at +4 levels or it's not, other metamagic effects notwithstanding.

Twin Spell is balanced against Quicken Spell because it has to be the same spell. Thus you give up the versatility of casting a quickened fireball and another spell in order to get two fireballs from one spell slot.

If you allow the twinned fireball to also duplicate all metamagic feats, you end up with someone using a 9th level slot to cast 11 levels worth of metamagic (twin plus two empowers).

 

[Artoomis]

Heh. I was just looking for an example to make almost the same point

-Hyp.

You quoted me with Typos TWICE!! To even up the score (well, sort of) I just added in typos to your quote above.

Childish, ain't it!