Mnemonic Enhancer

[Staffan]

Hmm... and here I thought the use was in a trick of the wording:
(Emphasis added)
one 4th level spell lets you prepare 3 additional levels of spells. Two 4th level spells might then let you prepare 6 additional levels of spells. Trading two 4th level slots for a 6th level slot might be rather handy. Trading three four a 9th level slot might be even better. Sure, you still need to be able to cast a 6th level spell in order to make the two 4th for one 6th trade, likewise for the 9th level trade.

That would fall under the "Can't be affected by the same spell more than one at a time." Same thing that keeps Ray of Enfeeblement from zapping people to Str 1.

 

[Jack Simth]

That would fall under the "Can't be affected by the same spell more than one at a time." Same thing that keeps Ray of Enfeeblement from zapping people to Str 1.

... except that it is an unnamed bonus from an instant spell. I suppose the question then becomes a matter of which line takes precedence:

Stacking Effects: Spells that provide bonuses or penalties on attack rolls, damage rolls, saving throws, and other attributes usually do not stack with themselves.

More generally, two bonuses of the same type don’t stack even if they come from different spells (or from effects other than spells; see Bonus Types, above).

or

Different Bonus Names: The bonuses or penalties from two different spells stack if the modifiers are of different types.

A bonus that isn’t named stacks with any bonus.

Just at a glance, the section on the same spells not stacking uses the word usually, while the section that speaks to unnamed bonuses has no such limiting word.

 

[Thanee]

Uhm... you have to prepare the three levels of spells, you cannot save and merge them with later spells, how should that work!?

Bye
Thanee

 

[Hypersmurf]

Uhm... you have to prepare the three levels of spells, you cannot save and merge them with later spells, how should that work!?

I think perhaps it's being read, in this case, that the spell grants you the ability to prepare three more levels of spells, the next time you prepare spells... rather than that you cast the spell with your spellbook in your lap for ten minutes, and at the end of the casting have three more levels of spells prepared.

I can see how it could be read either way, though I don't think the cast-now, prepare-later reading is right.

-Hyp.

 

[the Jester]

one 4th level spell lets you prepare 3 additional levels of spells. Two 4th level spells might then let you prepare 6 additional levels of spells. Trading two 4th level slots for a 6th level slot might be rather handy. Trading three four a 9th level slot might be even better. Sure, you still need to be able to cast a 6th level spell in order to make the two 4th for one 6th trade, likewise for the 9th level trade.

Good God. I never thought of that.

The only way I can see this working is if you could somehow simultaneously cast RME twice. (Twin Spell? Contingency? Good lord, chain contingency???)

 

[Thanee]

Even then they are seperate spells and resolved seperately.

Bye
Thanee

 

[the Jester]

Even then they are seperate spells and resolved seperately.

Bye
Thanee

Say you have both a contingency and a chain contingency set to cast RME (a total of four times, n'est-ce pas?) when... you cast RME! So you trade a 9th, a 6th and a 4th level slot for fifteen spell levels that you can now prepare in ten minutes.

You sit with your spellbook afterwards for ten minutes and prepare the spells- so when you're preparing, could you prepare a 9th and a 6th level spell? The RMEs 'resolve' by granting you the ability to prepare three spell levels. What you do after that is entirely up to you. For instance, you could conceivably not ahve a chance to prep spells- maybe you get tossed in a lake and you have to swim, for instance, or maybe your spellbook gets destroyed. Your spells have already taken effect; you simply don't have a chance to use the effects. It's like if you cast fly and then just keep walking until it expires.

Edit: Note that regardless, it looks like you lose spell levels in the transaction. I wonder if an epic character with some serious Improved Spell Capacity might be able to capitalize on this, though....

 

[Elder-Basilisk]

... except that it is an unnamed bonus from an instant spell. I suppose the question then becomes a matter of which line takes precedence:
or

Just at a glance, the section on the same spells not stacking uses the word usually, while the section that speaks to unnamed bonuses has no such limiting word.

You can evade even the more restricted version by using the RMEs for long-duration spells that you cast immediately (mage armor, darkvision, low-light vision, longstrider (if you're a mystic theurge), etc) and then casting RME again for spells to use the next day.

 

[Someone]

The Retain option can be mildly handy in wand form.

A charge of the wand costs 420gp. A scroll of a 3rd level spell at CL10, for example, costs 750. It's not ultra-cheap broken, but it's a useful (and oft-overlooked) tool for a wizard.

The ten minute casting time is the really painful part.

-Hyp.

Or you could just use a fully charged wand to prepare extra 150 extra spell levels for 21000 gold. A bit extreme, but using a couple charges now and then could be useful.

 

[Hypersmurf]

Or you could just use a fully charged wand to prepare extra 150 extra spell levels for 21000 gold.

Only takes a little over 8 hours, too...

-Hyp.