Stripped Spell [metamagic feat] - thoughts?

[delericho]

As is somewhat common, the wording could use a bit of tweaking to fully convey the intent, even so that people who tend to nitpick on the rules know exactly what's going on and there can be no misunderstanding.

Perhaps the wording should be something along the lines of "this modifies each metamagic feat used on the enhanced spell to a minimum of 0"? That is very, very clearly the intent of it.

Indeed. I checked the PHBII when I arrived home, and both the wording and the example are slightly different - there, it only mentions applying a metamagic feat, and the example is of only one feat being added.

So, yeah, a tweak to the wording is in order, both for PHBII (though of course that won't happen) and on dndtools (which might).

 

[Dandu]

Could you explain how this relates to the proposed Stripped Spell, or to Ragmon's proposed corrections, please?

--

Incidentally, the example given on the dndtools page appears to be incorrect:

The text of the rule says, "When you apply any metamagic feats other than Heighten Spell to that spell, the enhanced spell uses up a spell slot one level lower than normal."

An empowered maximized magic missile should normally take a level 6 slot (1st level spell, +2 for empowered, +3 for maximised). Per the text of the rule, then, it should take a level 5 slot with Arcane Thesis. The example, of course, says level 4.

Note that the rule text says the effect applies when you use metamagic feats, plural, and also specifies that it is the enhanced spell that is affected, not the metamagic feats themselves.

I'll now return you to your regular thread.

Edit: This post, by the original designer, would indicate that the example is the more correct, though.

To the best of my understanding, going by how the feat is written in the PHB2, an Invisible (+0), Empowered (+2) Magic Missile occupies a first level spell slot. Imagine what happens with a Stripped, Invisible, Empowered Magic Missile.

 

[delericho]

To the best of my understanding, going by how the feat is written in the PHB2, an Invisible (+0), Empowered (+2) Magic Missile occupies a first level spell slot.

Actually, per the strict wording of Arcane Thesis in PHBII (note: not dndtools), the reduced level only applies "when you apply a metamagic feat other than Heighten Spell" (emphasis mine). So if you use Invisible Spell and Empower Spell, Arcane Thesis doesn't apply, as that's not a metamagic feat, but rather two such feats.

(The post I pointed to in my previous post was from the original designer, who indicated that his original intention was for each metamagic feat to be reduced by one, but also for each feat to be limited to a +0 minimum. However, he did also note that the feat had changed from his original vision - it would appear that WotC's developers decided that the use of Arcane Thesis with multiple metamagic feats was just too powerful so they disallowed it.)

Imagine what happens with a Stripped, Invisible, Empowered Magic Missile.

Even allowing for the "multiple metamagic" interpretation, that combination doesn't work: Thanks to the errata, if Arcane Thesis is used, the resultant spell cannot end up at a lower level than the base spell.

 

[Dandu]

Actually, per the strict wording of Arcane Thesis in PHBII (note: not dndtools), the reduced level only applies "when you apply a metamagic feat other than Heighten Spell" (emphasis mine). So if you use Invisible Spell and Empower Spell, Arcane Thesis doesn't apply, as that's not a metamagic feat, but rather two such feats.

What happens if you are caught illegally downloading, say, "Baby" by Justin Bieber? (Assuming the justice system decides to make an example out of you, of course.)

Even allowing for the "multiple metamagic" interpretation, that combination doesn't work: Thanks to the errata, if Arcane Thesis is used, the resultant spell cannot end up at a lower level than the base spell.

Having an Empowered Magic Missile at a level 1 slot is quite something, don't you think?

 

[delericho]

What happens if you are caught illegally downloading, say, "Baby" by Justin Bieber? (Assuming the justice system decides to make an example out of you, of course.)

Hopefully, they'll shoot me for my incurable lack of taste.

On-topic (ish) though, Arcane Thesis is not a well-worded feat because it allows for at least four interpretations:

- because it says a metamagic feat, you can only apply it if you use one such feat. Hence, no invisible empowered magic missiles.

- you can apply multiple metamagic feats. Calculate the total level, then subtract 1. So, an invisible empowered magic missile is level 2 (1 + 2 + 0) -1.

- you can apply multiple metamagic feats. Calculate the adjustments one at a time; at no step should the total level reduce. So, you start with magic missile (1), add empowered (1 + (2-1) = 2), add invisible (2 + (0) = 2), to get an invisible empowered magic missile at level 2.

- you can apply multiple metamagic feats. Calculate the total adjustment, subtract the number of feats applied, and add that to the base level. The total cannot be less than the base level of the spell. Hence, an invisble empowered magic missile would be level 1 (1 + 2 + 0 - 2feats = 1)

The strict wording of PHBII says the first of these, although I'll grant you that that's very much a nitpick. I actually think the second is the best interpretation. The third, however, is the one that the designer indicates was his intention, and also seems to be the one that WotC's customer service agrees with (though their answer doesn't rule out 4, I'll grant you).

The fourth option I'm afraid I just can't agree with. Firstly simply because it's broken. Secondly because it gives an absurd result - an invisible empowered spell is now lower level than just an empowered spell. And thirdly because spellcasters are already overpowered in the game in general, so I'm very much disinclined to interpret everything possible to give them yet more power.

Beyond that, I think this may be a case where we have to agree to disagree.

Having an Empowered Magic Missile at a level 1 slot is quite something, don't you think?

Well, yes, but by your interpretation of Arcane Thesis, you don't need Stripped Spell for that - your example said that an invisible empowered magic missile would be level 1 already.

And my nitpicky read of Arcane Thesis doesn't allow it, due to the "a metamagic feat" issue - Empowered and Invisible, or Empowered and Stripped, would each be two such feats.

Funnily enough, in this case it is the commonly-accepted interpretation that allows Stripped Spell to cause a problem (where you have 1 + (2-1) + (-1) = 1).

However, having said all of that...

I think most people on this thread are pretty much in agreement that Stripped Spell is problematic enough on its own, without worrying over-much about the interactions with Arcane Thesis.

 

[aglondier]

What's so special about Humans? Seems this would be a go-to feat for humanoid Shamans like Orcs and Goblins.

That comes from my view of humans in a fantasy world (though that could easily be interpreted as *my* fantasy world). The long lived races know better than to bugger around with magic, and moreso, have the time to devote to the proper study of it. The shorter lived humanoid races generally get their magicks from pacts with outsiders or evil gods and can't spare the time or resources to pick apart the magic they have been granted. Humans fall into the space between, powerhungry and resourceful enough to do original research, but short lived enough to be willing to take shortcuts.

 

[aglondier]

Yep, the damage is too small to really matter beyond about 1st level, while the Concentration check is too easy to really matter at any level.

Bear in mind also that this feat would be available to Clerics, Druids, Paladins, etc, who have hit points to burn.

So...limit it to Arcane Spellcasters, and make it a Fortitude Save vs loss of Physical Attributes as feedback from the spell ravages the caster's body?

 

[delericho]

So...limit it to Arcane Spellcasters, and make it a Fortitude Save vs loss of Physical Attributes as feedback from the spell ravages the caster's body?

Not bad. Better still, leave it open, but make it a hard save to avoid damage to the caster's casting stat.

Many casters will be quite cavalier about damage to their physical stats, since they're mostly not too reliant on them. But threaten their ability to cast and to cast well, and they're likely to think twice.

 

[Dandu]

Hopefully, they'll shoot me for my incurable lack of taste.

What happens when you download the same song multiple times?

On-topic (ish) though, Arcane Thesis is not a well-worded feat because it allows for at least four interpretations:

- because it says a metamagic feat, you can only apply it if you use one such feat. Hence, no invisible empowered magic missiles.

- you can apply multiple metamagic feats. Calculate the total level, then subtract 1. So, an invisible empowered magic missile is level 2 (1 + 2 + 0) -1.

- you can apply multiple metamagic feats. Calculate the adjustments one at a time; at no step should the total level reduce. So, you start with magic missile (1), add empowered (1 + (2-1) = 2), add invisible (2 + (0) = 2), to get an invisible empowered magic missile at level 2.

- you can apply multiple metamagic feats. Calculate the total adjustment, subtract the number of feats applied, and add that to the base level. The total cannot be less than the base level of the spell. Hence, an invisble empowered magic missile would be level 1 (1 + 2 + 0 - 2feats = 1)

The strict wording of PHBII says the first of these, although I'll grant you that that's very much a nitpick. I actually think the second is the best interpretation. The third, however, is the one that the designer indicates was his intention, and also seems to be the one that WotC's customer service agrees with (though their answer doesn't rule out 4, I'll grant you).

The fourth option I'm afraid I just can't agree with. Firstly simply because it's broken. Secondly because it gives an absurd result - an invisible empowered spell is now lower level than just an empowered spell. And thirdly because spellcasters are already overpowered in the game in general, so I'm very much disinclined to interpret everything possible to give them yet more power.

Argumentum ad consequentiam.

Also, as per the PHB2 errata,

Page 74– Arcane Thesis [Substitution]
Should read, “When you apply any metamagic feats other than Heighten Spell” Thus if you were to prepare an empowered maximized magic missile (assuming magic missile is the spell you choose for your Arcane Thesis), it would be prepared as a 4th level spell (+1 level for empowered, down from +2; and +2 levels for maximized, down from +3).
Page 74 – Arcane Thesis [Omission]
Add the following text to the end of the “Benefit” section: “A spell cannot be reduced to below its original level with the use of this feat.”

Well, yes, but by your interpretation of Arcane Thesis, you don't need Stripped Spell for that - your example said that an invisible empowered magic missile would be level 1 already.

Wouldn't it occupy a 0th level slot due to Stripped?

 

[delericho]

What happens when you download the same song multiple times?

Then I guess they can shoot me dead multiple times. I'm sorry, but I really don't think this is a helpful analogy.

Argumentum ad consequentiam.

When trying to work out what someone means by something that is not clear (and, as noted, Arcane Thesis allows for at least four interpretations), it's valid to look at the consequences of each interpretation - doing so is likely to give an insight into what they likely meant. Of course, that only works if you assume that the designers are rational beings, but I think I'm willing to make that leap.