RAW and special circumstances

[Airboy]

Which is why I spend far less time worrying about "the spirit of the rules" and instead worry about the spirit of my gaming group.

So long as we're having fun, I see no problem if we interpret some rules differently than the designer(s) would.

I would have to agree with Andre. As long as the gaming group is having fun and it doesn't unbalance the game.

 

[Mistwell]

But our Arcane Thesis E-Sub Ray of Frost, for example, is a 0 level spell, taking up a spell slot one level lower than normal. Arcane Thesis does not change the level of the spell, merely its slot.

But since we don't have any -1 level slots, we're casting it out of a 0 level slot.

So we have a 0 level spell, being cast out of a 0 level slot. For what reason would the cost to create be negative?

Interestingly, it would appear that an Arcane Thesis E-Sub Cone of Cold, for example, would still be ineligible for placement in a wand; the level 4 limit takes metamagic into account, but specifically it's the higher level that's accounted for.

-Hyp.

The answer is 42. 42 angels can dance on the head of a pin.

 

[Jack Simth]

But our Arcane Thesis E-Sub Ray of Frost, for example, is a 0 level spell, taking up a spell slot one level lower than normal. Arcane Thesis does not change the level of the spell, merely its slot.

But since we don't have any -1 level slots, we're casting it out of a 0 level slot.

Extend Spell doesn't change the level of the spell either, but for purposes of things like scroll creation, that Disguise Self becomes a 2nd level spell. Putting a lower-level spell into a higher-level slot also doesn't change the spell's level (barring use of Heighten and the like, of course). The effective level of that Energy Substituted Arcane Thesis Ray of Frost is -1, regardless of which spell slot it is being cast out of. It's effective level for item creation is thus still -1.

So we have a 0 level spell, being cast out of a 0 level slot. For what reason would the cost to create be negative?

Because we're being RAW silly.

Interestingly, it would appear that an Arcane Thesis E-Sub Cone of Cold, for example, would still be ineligible for placement in a wand; the level 4 limit takes metamagic into account, but specifically it's the higher level that's accounted for.

-Hyp.

And it specifically clarifies in parenthesis that it's "after the application of the metamagic feat"; it just wasn't accounting for metamagic feats that lower the spell's level is all.

 

[Hypersmurf]

Extend Spell doesn't change the level of the spell either, but for purposes of things like scroll creation, that Disguise Self becomes a 2nd level spell.

While I'm almost convinced that's true, I can't find anything to support it... the only core items using metamagic feats all use Heighten, so that's no help.

I know that the higher level applies for level limits on wands and scrolls. I know that the spell level modified by the metamagic feat determines how much space a spell takes up in a ring of spell storing.

But is it stated anywhere that the spell level x caster level formula for pricing magic items refers to the required slot, rather than the level, of the spell?

The effective level of that Energy Substituted Arcane Thesis Ray of Frost is -1, regardless of which spell slot it is being cast out of.

No, it isn't. Its effective level is 0, and it uses a slot one level lower than 0 (which doesn't exist).

And it specifically clarifies in parenthesis that it's "after the application of the metamagic feat"; it just wasn't accounting for metamagic feats that lower the spell's level is all.

When I apply Empower Spell to a fireball, the spell level is 3 and the slot level is 5. The higher level (after application of the metamagic feat) is 5.

When I apply Arcane Thesis E-Sub to a fireball, the spell level is 3 and the slot level is 2. The higher level (after application of the metamagic feat) is 3.

-Hyp.

 

[Jack Simth]

While I'm almost convinced that's true, I can't find anything to support it... the only core items using metamagic feats all use Heighten, so that's no help.

I know that the higher level applies for level limits on wands and scrolls. I know that the spell level modified by the metamagic feat determines how much space a spell takes up in a ring of spell storing.

But is it stated anywhere that the spell level x caster level formula for pricing magic items refers to the required slot, rather than the level, of the spell?

Hmm... funny... I can't find it either.... so... which is better; -1st level spell wands, or caster level 11 wands of Empowered Scorching ray for the same price as caster level 11 wands of regular scorching ray? Same basic ruling that makes one possible makes the other not happen and vice versa.... which is more likely to become an issue in a game?

No, it isn't. Its effective level is 0, and it uses a slot one level lower than 0 (which doesn't exist).

Which, incidentally, is the exact same language pretty much all non-heighten metamagic feats use. Ah, here we go; load up a Minor Ring of Spell Storing with Arcane Thesis Energy Substituted Rays of Frost. They take up a spell slot one lower than 0 (-1, numerically, as there's nothing to indicate specifically for spell level that it can't be negative, as exists with things like ability scores). "fill" a ring of minor spell storing with lots and lots of Arcane Thesis Energy Substituted Rays of Frost, then add regular spells (countered by lots of -1 levels from the ATESRoF's) and for no extra XP and GP, you can load up the ring to your heart's content with stored spells! Never buy a wand again!

When I apply Empower Spell to a fireball, the spell level is 3 and the slot level is 5. The higher level (after application of the metamagic feat) is 5.

When I apply Arcane Thesis E-Sub to a fireball, the spell level is 3 and the slot level is 2. The higher level (after application of the metamagic feat) is 3.

-Hyp.

That's a reasonable interpertaion. But since when has the rules forum been about reasonable interpertations?

 

[Hypersmurf]

Ah, here we go; load up a Minor Ring of Spell Storing with Arcane Thesis Energy Substituted Rays of Frost. They take up a spell slot one lower than 0 (-1, numerically, as there's nothing to indicate specifically for spell level that it can't be negative, as exists with things like ability scores).

But in the Ring, they take up space equal to the spell level, modified by the metamagic feat.

The spell level is 0; the metamagic feat adds +0; Arcane Thesis causes it to take up a slot one level lower than normal.

So "the spell level, modified by the metamagic feat" is 0 + 0, or 0; it's only -1 when you bring in other factors than "the spell level, modified by the metamagic feat".

Incidentally, I don't see any reason you can't store a thousand cantrips in a Minor Ring of Spell Storing, as well as three 1st level spells.

-Hyp.

 

[hong]

But in the Ring, they take up space equal to the spell level, modified by the metamagic feat.

The spell level is 0; the metamagic feat adds +0; Arcane Thesis causes it to take up a slot one level lower than normal.

So "the spell level, modified by the metamagic feat" is 0 + 0, or 0; it's only -1 when you bring in other factors than "the spell level, modified by the metamagic feat".

Surely by the rules of d20 mathematical operations, 0 + 0 = 1, just as 2 x 2 = 3. Someone should write a complete d20 algebra. It would be a hoot.

 

[Question]

By the RAW you cant breathe while under the effects of otto's irrestible dance, as you can only dance and caper in place.

 

[smetzger]

This concept gets spoken quite a lot in this forum. It seems to suggest that there is no room or need for DM interpretation. Although I prefer to use the RAW, straight, I still run into plenty of instances where a DM must make a ruling and/or interpretation. Even situations where the DM may have to actually rule against the RAW.

Or am I wrong? Does the RAW always stand, regardless of circumstances?

Well, this is the 'rules' forum. Answers should _always_ come from the RAW.
But D&D is not a video game the DM exists to adjucate and make common sense rulling like not leting the horse grapple and air elemental.

 

[(Psi)SeveredHead]

This concept gets spoken quite a lot in this forum. It seems to suggest that there is no room or need for DM interpretation. Although I prefer to use the RAW, straight, I still run into plenty of instances where a DM must make a ruling and/or interpretation. Even situations where the DM may have to actually rule against the RAW.

Or am I wrong? Does the RAW always stand, regardless of circumstances?


How would you rule these examples:

A flaming sphere is 5’-dameter spongy, burning, globe of fire. Say a halfling casts it between himself and a goblin archer, down a 5’-wide corridor. Does it provide cover or concealment for the halfling?

Yes.

Can you see a magic missile “shot” through a dark room (at a target in a lighted area)? Can you see a magic missile in a lighted room? (It is merely described as a “magical force”, which in all/most other cases is not visible.)

Well, there's pictures showing magic missiles... I figure they glow enough to be seen. The spell doesn't get more powerful if you can see the MM - it's not like you can dodge.

Does a wall of fire illuminate the area it is in and around? If it can be used as a light source, doesn’t that expand the uses and flexibility, and therefore the power, of the spell?

It's fire. Of course it illuminates an area.

Can you get full concealment by hiding inside an illusion?

Yes, until someone stumbles upon you

If you cast sleep on an already sleeping target, does it wake up at the end of the spell’s duration, or does it continuing sleeping, but in a normal (noise can awaken) mode?

The second.

If a mage with improved invisibility casts disintegrate, can you “trace” the ray back to the caster’s square (for targeting)? Are rays visible?

Yes, but most likely the mage will cast and then move. It's pretty dumb to make it that obvious where you are - at least take a 5 foot step. (Same goes for Lightning Bolt, Fireball, etc.) The Disintegrate is a green beam, so it's visible. One reason why summoning while invisible is so good - there's no cue as to where you're standing (if you use Silent Spell).

And I love the summoned celestial bison thread for these questions:

Can the summoned celestial bison initiate a grapple? Can it perform a heal check to stabilize a dying PC?

Yes and yes (it has Int 3, barely enough to attempt that skill). However, without a healing kit and no ranks in Heal, good luck! The lack of fingers should inflict a penalty, too (I'd say -4 or even -8). Furthermore, I think the caster has to speak Celestial to tell it to do something other than fight. (Let's ignore that it's good aligned, k?)

On the issue of Arcane Thesis ... DM's should either rewrite or ban such unclear or unbalanced rules.