Innate Spell (3.5)

[JellyPooga]

This Feat is not, it has to be said, all that good. Pre-Epic, the only spells you can use it on are 0 or 1st level spells, so at the sort of levels (i.e. Lvl.15+) you can actually use the Feat, being able to spam a 1st level spell every round is not something to write home about.

However, I'm sure there must be some spell that has a useful spamming capability...I just can't think of what it might be.

Direct Damage spells are obviously not going to be on this list; the damage output of the average 1st level spell is just too low (hell, even a Warlock get's to do a fistful of dice worth of damage every round with his Eldritch Blast...an Innate Magic Missile is only 5d4+5).

I can't see Utility spells going on here either...I'm sure someone has a use for a thousand Tensers Floating Disks, I just can't think what for in an adventuring capability.

I'm sure there's a 1st level spell out there somewhere that can be usefully spammed...please tell me what it might be!

[olentu]

I think you are using the 3.0 version of innate spell from the forgotten realms campaign setting. If I am remembering it correctly the feat was reprinted in the player's guide to faerun and was changed to use a spell slot of the same level while the usage was limited to 3 per day.

[The Mentalist]

I think it's used for synergy with Quicken SLA, Quickened Truestrike is your friend.

[Boci]

I think it's used for synergy with Quicken SLA, Quickened Truestrike is your friend.

Ins't quickened true strike easier? There are a couple of ways of getting around the range.

[The Mentalist]

At will, without taking up nice fifth level spells which have other uses.

[Logalmier]

I think you are using the 3.0 version of innate spell from the forgotten realms campaign setting. If I am remembering it correctly the feat was reprinted in the player's guide to faerun and was changed to use a spell slot of the same level while the usage was limited to 3 per day.

The version he's talking about is in CA I believe, and it is 3.5.

[Boci]

At will, without taking up nice fifth level spells which have other uses.

But the feats you save can be used for easy metamagic (quicken) and how can you quicken SLA unlimited times per day?

[JellyPooga]

The version he's talking about is in CA I believe, and it is 3.5.

It is indeed...uses a spell slot 8 levels higher and you can use it as a spell-like once per round all day every day.

[Kyeudo]

Possibly worth it:
Detect Magic
Prestidigitation
Shield
Grease
Summon Monster 1 (Excellent Trapspringer)
True Strike (for those that love using ray or touch spells)
Ray of Enfeeblement
Enlarge Person
Cure Light Wounds / Lesser Vigor (no need to buy more wands)
Create Water (Can you find a use for 40 gallons of water at will? I can.)
Shield of Faith

Basically, anything you choose has to be useful. Anything that has a duration of more than 1/minute a level isn't very good because it doesn't cost that many spell slots to just keep on the party and you wouldn't want anything that requires a save to do anything, so no debuffs.

[Zaq]

Do you think a cantrip with a +1 metamagic would be legal? A Fell Frighten or Fell Drain Sonic Snap (assuming Arcane Thesis, Easy Metamagic, or some other way to get Fell Frighten or Fell Drain down to a +1) would be interesting to have at will. Very few things resist sonic damage, so you can just slam them with it every round and have them eat no-save negative levels or no-save escalating fear.

Sure, by the time you have a 9th level slot to sacrifice, you have way better things to do and way easier ways of accomplishing the same goal, but it's an interesting character concept. A villain could go around inflicting an entire city of 1 HD commoners with fatal negative levels, one per round, forever. Then the Wightocalypse begins... but seriously, assume that he's got some way of hiding (Polymorph into a housefly, perhaps, or get earth glide and tremorsense) and can kill one commoner per round... that's a good 600 commoners per hour, assuming that he can find one every round (this is silly, of course, because if the city is large enough for that, he'll be caught by then... but we're looking at maximums).

Sure, he could just shapechange into something that gives negative levels with a touch... but that lacks class. Also, the fact that it's sonic damage, and therefore negated by Silence, makes him thematically very interesting.

...Yeah, overall, I've got nothing. It's a useless feat. I guess under more-permissive-than-normal magic/psionic transparency, you could get some nice things, because 1st level powers that are augmented are still death in a box... but that's probably precisely WHY they don't allow this kind of transparency. I got nothing.

[The Mentalist]

I may be a bit slow, (been a while since I checked on the feats) but I thought Quicken SLA allowed you to use the Spell like abilities the same number of time as the original.

[Boci]

I may be a bit slow, (been a while since I checked on the feats) but I thought Quicken SLA allowed you to use the Spell like abilities the same number of time as the original.

No way. That would be way too abusable. Warlock. Monsters (balors) ect.

[JellyPooga]

I may be a bit slow, (been a while since I checked on the feats) but I thought Quicken SLA allowed you to use the Spell like abilities the same number of time as the original.

...or 3/day, whichever is less

[Foryn Gilnith]

been a while since I checked on the feats

???
http://www.dandwiki.com/wiki/SRD:Quicken_Spell-Like_Ability

It's in the SRD.

[Tiktakkat]

It sort of depends on what you expect to do with it, and what your DM will let you get away with.

My favorite obscene use would be with Power Word Pain from Races of the Dragon. 4d4 x 1d6 damage over time to anything with 50 hit points or less will do terrible things to the local census count, or to any mass quantities of irrelevant grunts that might try and overwhelm you.

There is a degree of absurdity in Blockade from Complete Scoundrel. Summon a wood block that occupies a 5-foot square completely for 3 rounds as a swift action endlessly is sure to make most DMs twitch uncontrollably.

Caltrops from the Spell Compendium becomes pretty much obscene as an innate spell when fighting critters without natural armor. You affect 5 squares, get a +4 to hit ignoring armor, shield, and deflection. The 1 point of damage is irrelevant, it is the halving of speed that is fun. With a duration of rounds per level, you can splatter the battlefield with these things in very short order.

As for utility spells, everyone discounts the humble unseen servant. While its range is limited, it can do pretty much anything, including fun tricks like holding up a screen to shield you from missile weapons, loading bodies and loot on your swarms of floating discs for later looting so you can flee combat as needed, prodding every open surface in groups to trigger traps, and other fun tricks.

[olentu]

The version he's talking about is in CA I believe, and it is 3.5.

Hmm it appears I had reversed the publications dates of complete arcane (November 18, 2004) and the players guide to faerun (March 1, 2004).

[JellyPooga]

My favorite obscene use would be with Power Word Pain from Races of the Dragon. 4d4 x 1d6 damage over time to anything with 50 hit points or less will do terrible things to the local census count, or to any mass quantities of irrelevant grunts that might try and overwhelm you.

I'd forgotten about PW:P...largely because it's a bit of a borked spell. Death sentence to anything with less than 50HP, a mild inconvenience to anyone up to 100HP and nothing at all with anyhting over that.


There is a degree of absurdity in Blockade from Complete Scoundrel. Summon a wood block that occupies a 5-foot square completely for 3 rounds as a swift action endlessly is sure to make most DMs twitch uncontrollably.

This would be awesomesauce, except for the fact that you'd only ever have 3 in existence at any one time due to the fixed duration...

[Tiktakkat]

I'd forgotten about PW:P...largely because it's a bit of a borked spell. Death sentence to anything with less than 50HP, a mild inconvenience to anyone up to 100HP and nothing at all with anyhting over that.

Yep.


This would be awesomesauce, except for the fact that you'd only ever have 3 in existence at any one time due to the fixed duration...

I picture it like one of those wacky flash games where you have to stack blocks and stuff.
Pile them up, lay something on top of them, watch them disappear and drop said object on an enemies head.

[Starscream]

As for utility spells, everyone discounts the humble unseen servant. While its range is limited, it can do pretty much anything, including fun tricks like holding up a screen to shield you from missile weapons, loading bodies and loot on your swarms of floating discs for later looting so you can flee combat as needed, prodding every open surface in groups to trigger traps, and other fun tricks.

That's what I'd do. Summon a swarm of servants, and while you are fighting the dragon they are shoveling his horde into your bag of holding. If the fight starts to go badly simply call over the bag and port out of there.

And imagine what you could do with so many of the things. They last an hour per level, so at level 15 you could eventually have 9000 of them at a time with continuous casting. Each has an abysmal strength score of 2, but that's 20 pounds of force, and because they are shapeless and have no set size, nothing stops you from having all of them shove the same object at once.

Now excuse me while I push Acererak's tomb over a cliff so I can put up a mini-mall.

[Kelpstrand]

Well, let's not be hasty here. Why just First level spells?

Divine Metamagic Innate would be pretty hilarious, and is now on my list of Clerics.

Incantatrix 10 could be -1 to adjustment. Easy Metamagic and Practical Metamagic for -2 to more. Then Add Arcane Thesis to it. If you can find room for more feats, Invisible spell. Probably not enough feats left over for snowcasting into energy sub.

Now we've got a +4 adjustment. That's pretty badass. So at level 17, we can have at will a level 5 spell. Now that gives a much wider set of options. At will Contact Other Plane? Hell Yeah!

[CockroachTeaParty]

Yeah, the infinite Unseen Servants is what I'd do. Picture a wizard off on an adventure, with a retinue of loyal servants carrying around his personal belongings and generally making the dungeon-delve more comfortable. One follows behind the wizard with a comfy chair, another sweeps the dirt from in front of his feet with a broom, one carries a tray with a pot of hot tea, another a tray with scones or biscuits... A few pluck instruments (poorly) in the background for atmosphere, four hold up a little tent or canopy, another fans the wizard with a palm frond, yet another grooms the wizard's familiar... And there's no reason the wizard couldn't share the niceties of civilized society with his adventuring companions... Imagine the barbarian's axe constantly cleaned and sharpened, the cleric's holy symbol polished to a mirror-sheen, mobile laundry service, etc.
There is of course a task force of unseen trap finders, a squad with shovels for treasure-scooping, perhaps one that marks everywhere you go with finder's chalk. The possibilities are endless. Even at-will prestidigitation can go a long way towards making life more clean, convenient, and enjoyable.

[PhoenixRivers]

DMM doesn't work that way here, alas.

@Kyeudo: Many of the spells you listed are Persistable for less reqource investment, and at lower level.

Ray of enfeeblement has potential, though. True strike, too.

Shield? Not so much. Mage Armor would be decent, if you wanted an entire keep shielded, and were fine with getting 600 per hour.

[JellyPooga]

Well, let's not be hasty here. Why just First level spells?

Divine Metamagic Innate would be pretty hilarious, and is now on my list of Clerics.

Incantatrix 10 could be -1 to adjustment. Easy Metamagic and Practical Metamagic for -2 to more. Then Add Arcane Thesis to it. If you can find room for more feats, Invisible spell. Probably not enough feats left over for snowcasting into energy sub.

Now we've got a +4 adjustment. That's pretty badass. So at level 17, we can have at will a level 5 spell. Now that gives a much wider set of options. At will Contact Other Plane? Hell Yeah!

Alas but Innate Spell is not a metamagic feat and, unlike the Archmage SLA ability, it does not specify that you can apply metamagic to the spell you designate as Innate...so as far as I'm aware, it's got to be a flat 1st or 0 level spell, as is out of the box (or fresh from the scroll)...it's precisely this fact that makes it so limited.

[Grumman]

I just thought of an awesome one: Sniper's Shot, from the Spell Compendium. Play a sneaky blaster type (e.g. Sorcerer 4 / Spellthief 1 / Unseen Seer 10 / Spellwarp Sniper 5 with Master Spellthief), and you can sneak attack from long range an unlimited number of times per day.

[Sinfire Titan]

Possibly worth it:
Detect Magic
Prestidigitation
Shield
Grease
Summon Monster 1 (Excellent Trapspringer)
True Strike (for those that love using ray or touch spells)
Ray of Enfeeblement
Enlarge Person
Cure Light Wounds / Lesser Vigor (no need to buy more wands)
Create Water (Can you find a use for 40 gallons of water at will? I can.)
Shield of Faith

Basically, anything you choose has to be useful. Anything that has a duration of more than 1/minute a level isn't very good because it doesn't cost that many spell slots to just keep on the party and you wouldn't want anything that requires a save to do anything, so no debuffs.

That one isn't needed if you just take Summon Elemental from CM. And I'd prefer CLW to Lesser Vigor (better healing/round due to CL).

[Temet Nosce]

If I'm reading this right (and admittedly I'm being lazy and not checking whether it qualifying as an SLA prevents this) you could stack tons of metamagic onto the spell. It might not give you a higher level spell but... Well, a Lesser Orb spell twinned, empowered, maximized, and admixtured is a nice bit of spam even at those levels.

[JellyPooga]

If I'm reading this right (and admittedly I'm being lazy and not checking whether it qualifying as an SLA prevents this) you could stack tons of metamagic onto the spell. It might not give you a higher level spell but... Well, a Lesser Orb spell twinned, empowered, maximized, and admixtured is a nice bit of spam even at those levels.

Nope, it's an SLA...can't use metamagic on it, You can use the [Metamagic Feat] Spell-like Ability feats on it though, but they're 3/day only.

[lsfreak]

Nope, it's an SLA...can't use metamagic on it, You can use the [Metamagic Feat] Spell-like Ability feats on it though, but they're 3/day only.

The question isn't adding metamagic onto the spell-like ability, but having the spell-like ability be metamagic. Can I make an empowered scorching ray the spell-like ability?

[JellyPooga]

The question isn't adding metamagic onto the spell-like ability, but having the spell-like ability be metamagic. Can I make an empowered scorching ray the spell-like ability?

I believe not...the somewhat similar ability of the Archmage PrC that turns a spell slot into an SLA actually specifies that you may use a metamagic'd spell. Innate Spell does not. However, even if you were allowed to do so, I'd argue that metamagic shenanigans that reduce the metamagic cost wouldn't apply in this case because you're not casting the spell, you're using the spell slot to power an SLA of a spell...does that make sense? I know it does in my head, but I'm not good at translating my head into language!

[arguskos]

I'd say that if the effect is a level 1 or 0 spell before Innate and with no metamagic reducers, there should be little issue with making a metamagic'd effect Innate. Really, what does that give us? A +0 level 1 spell, or a +0/+1 cantrip. Ooh, fear my Innate Invisible Magic Missile. :smalltongue:

[JellyPooga]

I'd say that if the effect is a level 1 or 0 spell before Innate and with no metamagic reducers, there should be little issue with making a metamagic'd effect Innate. Really, what does that give us? A +0 level 1 spell, or a +0/+1 cantrip. Ooh, fear my Innate Invisible Magic Missile. :smalltongue:

Invisible Magic Missiles? Where!?! umph! ow...

I know what you mean, but it's the thought of metamagic reducers that makes it somewhat cheesy...there's a reason why Innate Spell takes up a slot 8 levels higher and it's that being able to cast Time Stop every round as an SLA is completely borked...RAW you won't be able to do that untill...let's see, that requires a 17th level spell slot, granted 1 feat every three levels, plus 1 at Wizard level 23 and every 3 levels thereafter, means we get that spell slot at level 32, so we can take Innate Spell at level 35...by which time your playing with Epic Spellcasting anyway.

[arguskos]

Ok, what do you think the worst thing you can do with a level 1 slot even is? A VEEEEERY cracked out Magic Missile (Born of the Three Thunders, Invisible, Fell Drain, Empower, maybe something else), and that's with two reducers, and Force Missile Mage. Let's assume that you somehow get an Innate BoTT Invis Fell Drain Empowered MM. That is, for the price of a 9th level slot (eg. Shapechange, Time Stop, and/or Wish) you can deal 5d4+5x1.5+1 negative level to five targets+save vs. stun and you are dazed after you do it. Umm... I'm not seeing the danger on this one. :smallwink:

You COULD just Innate Nerveskitter and have a free +5 to Init every combat, but I don't see anyone yelling about that. The MM above takes 5 feats to get, and isn't even that great.

Innate is SOOO high level it's tough to break really, and whatever you put there better be superior to a Shapechange, Time Stop, or Wish, cause it's what you could have in that slot. :smallwink:

[JellyPooga]

Ok, what do you think the worst thing you can do with a level 1 slot even is?

If you could get reducers to lower Quicken sufficiently then it could become quite unbalanced if only due to the fact that you can get the spell off essentially for free. I'll admit though that I'm no optimiser and don't know exactly how MM reducers work...:smallamused:

[Temet Nosce]

Nope, it's an SLA...can't use metamagic on it, You can use the [Metamagic Feat] Spell-like Ability feats on it though, but they're 3/day only.

Not quite what I meant. I mean, apply the metamagic beforehand (this only alters the spell slot, not level) and select that as your Innate spell. A quick glance at the SLA rules isn't showing me anything that obviously stops it, nor is the wording of Innate Spell.

[olentu]

Not quite what I meant. I mean, apply the metamagic beforehand (this only alters the spell slot, not level) and select that as your Innate spell. A quick glance at the SLA rules isn't showing me anything that obviously stops it, nor is the wording of Innate Spell.

While it has been a bit since I have reviewed the specifics of the wording of metamagic feats I do not believe that, for example, extended mage armor is actually a spell.

[Temet Nosce]

While it has been a bit since I have reviewed the specifics of the wording of metamagic feats I do not believe that, for example, extended mage armor is actually a spell.

It's a modification on the spell, although we're on slightly more solid ground with a prepared caster than a spontaneous one. It's fairly specific about it qualifying in all others ways as a spell of its level though, so unless I'm missing something it should work.

[KellKheraptis]

How about looking at this ability for Archivists, who with the right list can get some pretty nice spells as 1st level spells (say...dispel magic?). At will dispelling is sweet, even if it's only for use out of combat.

[olentu]

It's a modification on the spell, although we're on slightly more solid ground with a prepared caster than a spontaneous one. It's fairly specific about it qualifying in all others ways as a spell of its level though, so unless I'm missing something it should work.

Innate spell says to choose a spell that one can cast and then lets one use this spell as a spell like ability. If a spell does not exist one can not cast it unless the DM is much more lenient than any I have ever seen. If as you say a metamagic feat is a modification on a spell then one is not, for example, casting the spell extended mage armor one is casting mage armor and modifying the spell with the extend spell feat. This however does not change the fact that the spell is still mage armor. So since the spell that one can cast is mage armor regardless of what metamagic feats are modifying the spell then the spell that can be chosen is mage armor since that is the spell that can be cast while the spell extended mage armor does not exist and therefore can not be chosen since it can not be cast.

[Temet Nosce]

Innate spell says to choose a spell that one can cast and then lets one use this spell as a spell like ability. If a spell does not exist one can not cast it unless the DM is much more lenient than any I have ever seen. If as you say a metamagic feat is a modification on a spell then one is not, for example, casting the spell extended mage armor one is casting mage armor and modifying the spell with the extend spell feat. This however does not change the fact that the spell is still mage armor. So since the spell that one can cast is mage armor regardless of what metamagic feats are modifying the spell then the spell that can be chosen is mage armor since that is the spell that can be cast while the spell extended mage armor does not exist and therefore can not be chosen since it can not be cast.

I'm not intending to use this in a game, so ignore RAI/DM fiat. Also, according to the SRD a metamagic spell functions as though at it's original level. It is specifically a spell however.

Everything else you said seems kind of irrelevant, due to the way metamagic is worded (unless you have some specific rule citation as to how I'm reading this wrong).

[Draz74]

Benign Transposition is a pretty nice spell to be able to spam at will. Still not really overpowered for a 9th-level spell slot and a feat, though.

[olentu]

I'm not intending to use this in a game, so ignore RAI/DM fiat. Also, according to the SRD a metamagic spell functions as though at it's original level. It is specifically a spell however.

Everything else you said seems kind of irrelevant, due to the way metamagic is worded (unless you have some specific rule citation as to how I'm reading this wrong).

Clearly we are not understanding each other. I shall ask a question to try and pin down the misunderstanding. Assume that one casts mage armor modified by the extend spell feat. Please assume that the character in question is casting a spell.

The question would then be are they (a) casting the spell mage armor (b) casting a spell that is not the spell mage armor (c) doing something else.

[PhoenixRivers]

Clearly we are not understanding each other. I shall ask a question to try and pin down the misunderstanding. Assume that one casts mage armor modified by the extend spell feat. Please assume that the character in question is casting a spell.

The question would then be are they (a) casting the spell mage armor (b) casting a spell that is not the spell mage armor (c) doing something else.

(1) It can be ascertained that yes, they are casting a spell.
(2) The Spell is Extended Mage Armor, which behaves as mage armor in all ways, except for double duration.
It is the mage armor spell, modified.

In the Archmage PrC's description for its innate spell ability, it shows how to add metamagic feats to spells that you turn into an innate spell. I suggest following that template.

[olentu]

(1) It can be ascertained that yes, they are casting a spell.
(2) The Spell is Extended Mage Armor, which behaves as mage armor in all ways, except for double duration.
It is the mage armor spell, modified.

In the Archmage PrC's description for its innate spell ability, it shows how to add metamagic feats to spells that you turn into an innate spell. I suggest following that template.

So are you saying that you choose option (b) where the character is not casting the spell mage armor. And are you saying that the spell "extended mage armor" actually exists as a separate spell from mage armor.


I would say that the fact that this thread is about the innate spell feat (that does not have specific wording allowing metamagic) rather then the archmage spell-like ability high arcana (that does have specific wording allowing matamagic) would mean that the archmage class is not necessarily related. Following that template might mean adding something to the rules that may or may not exist. This is something that I would think would be undesirable in a discussion of what the rules actually allow.

[Temet Nosce]

Clearly we are not understanding each other. I shall ask a question to try and pin down the misunderstanding. Assume that one casts mage armor modified by the extend spell feat. Please assume that the character in question is casting a spell.

The question would then be are they (a) casting the spell mage armor (b) casting a spell that is not the spell mage armor (c) doing something else.

As Metamagic is written? B, most definitely. A metamagic spell is still a spell, but it is most decidedly not the same spell (although in certain aspects it operates as its former self).

Now, perhaps somewhere else this is clarified to be wrong, but I'm unaware of that.

[PhoenixRivers]

So are you saying that you choose option (b) where the character is not casting the spell mage armor. And are you saying that the spell "extended mage armor" actually exists as a separate spell from mage armor.


I would say that the fact that this thread is about the innate spell feat (that does not have specific wording allowing metamagic) rather then the archmage spell-like ability high arcana (that does have specific wording allowing matamagic) would mean that the archmage class is not necessarily related. Following that template might mean adding something to the rules that may or may not exist. This is something that I would think would be undesirable in a discussion of what the rules actually allow.

It basically shows a spell like ability, permanently modified by the metamagic. Whether this is ability specific or not is open to contention. It does, however, provide a guide for how this is done.

For those that wish to interpret it in a permissive manner, this could be a helpful tool.

If you wish to interpret it in a restrictive manner, do so, and don't use it. That's your choice.

This is intended as an aid to people that are doing it. Not a be-all, end-all, authoritative assertation that it must be legal by RAW.

EDIT: Yes, I'm saying that extended mage armor exists seperately. It is a modified version of the original, which makes it different. It's available to anyone with the Mage Armor spell, a second level slot, and the extend spell feat. Perhaps a first level slot, with the appropriate other feats.

[olentu]

As Metamagic is written? B, most definitely. A metamagic spell is still a spell, but it is most decidedly not the same spell (although in certain aspects it operates as its former self).

Now, perhaps somewhere else this is clarified to be wrong, but I'm unaware of that.

Well then there is the misunderstanding as without something saying that a spell modified by metamagic is a different spell then one not modified my metamagic I assume that they are the same while you apparently assume that they are different and as such there are different consequences that come about from the two views. For example qualification for the innate spell feat, interaction with the various other feats that talk about a spell that one knows or can cast, and so forth. This being said without finding or being able to construct a ruling one way or the other it seems that we will disagree.

Edit: Interesting position PhoenixRivers. That would mean that archivists with enough cash would never have to permanently learn metamgaic feats except for those that they wish to apply after preparation in some way. I think sorcerers would be unable to cast any spell modified by a metamagic feat using versatile spellcaster. Also the limitations on using metamagically modified spells with arcane fusion would be unnecessary since spells such as extended mage armor do not appear on the sorcerer list (given a reasonable interpretation of sorcerer spell). Not to mention all the various other things that would act up since the metamagicly modified versions of the regular spells do not appear on any spell list as far as I can tell.

[Seatbelt]

The feat doesn't say you can't use metamagic'd spells. The monster entry doesn't say bears cant shoot lasers out their eyes. *shrug*


Just sayin'

[Gralamin]

The feat doesn't say you can't use metamagic'd spells. The monster entry doesn't say bears cant shoot lasers out their eyes. *shrug*


Just sayin'

Bears (with Spellcasting) clearly CAN shoot lasers from their eyes (http://realmshelps.dandello.net/cgi-bin/feats.pl?Ocular_Spell,all).

[Kelpstrand]

If you could get reducers to lower Quicken sufficiently then it could become quite unbalanced if only due to the fact that you can get the spell off essentially for free. I'll admit though that I'm no optimiser and don't know exactly how MM reducers work...:smallamused:

It isn't unbalanced to give up your swift action and basically all your feats in order to get some minor damage and a negative level each round.

That's not even remotely unbalanced.

Ignoring the damage entirely and just focusing on getting a quickened Fell Drain MM, you have: Still/Silent/Quicken/Fell Drain/Easy Meta Quicken/Practical Meta Quicken/Arcane Thesis (Magic Missile)/Innate Spell (Fell Drained Quicken Magic Missile). Assuming you are a level 10 Incantatrix, that gives you an Innate negative level machine to throw at people for minor damage as a swift action.

It also cost you eight feats, only one of which contributes to your standard action attacks.

Consider what you could have spent those seven feats on to get a Split Rayed Quickened and Split Rayed Twinned Enervation each round, instead of just getting 1 negative level on every swift action.

[Temet Nosce]

Well then there is the misunderstanding as without something saying that a spell modified by metamagic is a different spell then one not modified my metamagic I assume that they are the same while you apparently assume that they are different and as such there are different consequences that come about from the two views. For example qualification for the innate spell feat, interaction with the various other feats that talk about a spell that one knows or can cast, and so forth. This being said without finding or being able to construct a ruling one way or the other it seems that we will disagree.

However, the metamagic entry does say so. I am not making an assumption, but rather simply proceeding with RAW. Also, I am uninterested in a ruling. I'm doing this purely as an exercise in "Would this work by RAW?", and do not particularly care whether it would be allowed or is intended. If you can point out an area where this does not function by RAW, please do (as this is actually what I wish to know).

I shall attempt to do this step by step.

1. Take Orb of Fire Lesser, it's a level 1 spell.

2. Apply say Maximize to Orb of Fire, lesser. You now have Maximized Orb of Fire Lesser, which by the rules is a metamagic spell which acts in all ways as though it were at the original spell level.

3. Take Innate Spell. This uses up a spell slot eight levels higher than the innate spell.

4. Apply Innate Spell to Maximized Orb of Fire, Lesser (which is still functioning based on the original spell level).

The basic question here is simply whether a metamagic spell is a spell. If it's clarified somewhere that a Metamagic spell does not qualify as a spell then this doesn't work. If so, I would like to know where.

[olentu]

However, the metamagic entry does say so. I am not making an assumption, but rather simply proceeding with RAW. Also, I am uninterested in a ruling. I'm doing this purely as an exercise in "Would this work by RAW?", and do not particularly care whether it would be allowed or is intended. If you can point out an area where this does not function by RAW, please do (as this is actually what I wish to know).

I shall attempt to do this step by step.

1. Take Orb of Fire Lesser, it's a level 1 spell.

2. Apply say Maximize to Orb of Fire, lesser. You now have Maximized Orb of Fire Lesser, which by the rules is a metamagic spell which acts in all ways as though it were at the original spell level.

3. Take Innate Spell. This uses up a spell slot eight levels higher than the innate spell.

4. Apply Innate Spell to Maximized Orb of Fire, Lesser (which is still functioning based on the original spell level).

The basic question here is simply whether a metamagic spell is a spell. If it's clarified somewhere that a Metamagic spell does not qualify as a spell then this doesn't work. If so, I would like to know where.

Would you mind giving a quotation that clearly supports your position as I have obviously missed any such that exist. I ask because without a clearly supporting quotation I can not agree that your position is the RAW position and must then say that you are not simply proceeding with RAW.

If you can not however come up with a quotation that supports your case and I after trying can not come up with one that supports mine then I must say that there is no RAW resolution to the argument beyond it being unclear without a DM ruling.

[PhoenixRivers]

Look at the meta descriptions:

"An empowered spell uses up a slot one level higher than the original"
"All variable, numeric effects of a maximized spell are..."

This shows that a empowered spell is a spell. Empowered is merely a description, like "burnt chicken". It is still chicken, in a sense. But it's different than raw chicken.

So a spell that is empowered is an empowered spell.

An empowered spell does not have the same characteristics as one not empowered. Therefore, it is different.

[Temet Nosce]

Would you mind giving a quotation that clearly supports your position as I have obviously missed any such that exist. I ask because without a clearly supporting quotation I can not agree that your position is the RAW position and must then say that you are not simply proceeding with RAW.

Sure, here's the most relevant bit of the Metamagic section as far as this discussion is concerned.


In all ways, a metamagic spell operates at its original spell level, even though it is prepared and cast as a higher-level spell

It is, specifically still a spell.


If you can not however come up with a quotation that supports your case and I after trying can not come up with one that supports mine then I must say that there is no RAW resolution to the argument beyond it being unclear without a DM ruling.

DM fiat is rather irrelevant here. I am either wrong or right, what a DM would want to do has no bearing on it either way.

[olentu]

Look at the meta descriptions:

"An empowered spell uses up a slot one level higher than the original"
"All variable, numeric effects of a maximized spell are..."

This shows that a empowered spell is a spell. Empowered is merely a description, like "burnt chicken". It is still chicken, in a sense. But it's different than raw chicken.

So a spell that is empowered is an empowered spell.

An empowered spell does not have the same characteristics as one not empowered. Therefore, it is different.

I read that as saying that Empowered is merely a description. It is short hand for saying that a spell has been modified by a metamagic feat not that a new spell has been created with the application of said metamagic feat.

I would say that burnt chicken and raw chicken are both still chicken. And so when one is to choose variety of poultry one says chicken as burnt chicken and raw chicken are both still the same variety of poultry.

Edit: What is "a metamagic spell" Temet Nosce. Is that shorthand for a spell that has been modified by a metamagic feat or is it shorthand for the new spell that is created when one applies a metamagic feat to a spell. Without a definiton of what this means the quotation is unclear due to the undefined term and so does not support either side.

Also there are parts of the rules when there is not enough information for a RAW position to exist except to say that the rules are unclear and thus can not be used without a DM ruling.

[PhoenixRivers]

I read that as saying that Empowered is merely a description. It is short hand for saying that a spell has been modified by a metamagic feat not that a new spell has been created with the application of said metamagic feat.

I would say that burnt chicken and raw chicken are both still chicken. And so when one is to choose variety of poultry one says chicken as burnt chicken and raw chicken are both still the same variety of poultry.

Edit: What is "a metamagic spell" Temet Nosce. Is that shorthand for a spell that has been modified by a metamagic feat or is it shorthand for the new spell that is created when one applies a metamagic feat to a spell. Without a definiton of what this means the quotation is unclear due to the undefined term and so does not support either side.

Also there are parts of the rules when there is not enough information for a RAW position to exist except to say that the rules are unclear and thus can not be used without a DM ruling.

And magic missile and Empowered magic missile are both evocation spells. They're both magic missile spells.

But they're not the same. The same spell, at the same caster level, has different rolled amounts. That is not the same.

The definition for "different" is, most simply, not the same.

Thus, if I take a fireball at CL 10, and I empower it, I have the following:

{table=header]Stat | Fireball | Empowered Fireball
Range | 800 | 800
Area | 20' radius | 20' radius
Save | Ref 13+stat for half | Ref 13+stat for half
Damage | 10d6 (1d6 per CL, max 10) | 15d6 (1.5d6 per CL, max 15)
Min Spell Slot | 3 | 5[/table]
Now, are these two the same? No. If they are not the same spell (same meaning identical in every way), then they are different.

That they share broad similarities is irrelevant. They are not identical. They are different. It's not a new spell that has been created. But it is a different spell than the original. Modifying it, changing it, makes it mechanically different. There is no text stating that it counts as the same spell as the pre-metamagic version, so we default to the english definition of different. Not the same. It's been shown to not be the same. Therefore, it is different.

[Temet Nosce]

Edit: What is "a metamagic spell" Temet Nosce. Is that shorthand for a spell that has been modified by a metamagic feat or is it shorthand for the new spell that is created when one applies a metamagic feat to a spell. Without a definiton of what this means the quotation is unclear due to the undefined term and so does not support either side.

Could you explain how this is relevant? So long as a metamagic spell still qualifies as a spell it seems to function. If as you say a spell is merely modified... well, it's still not the original and still functions as a spell (so in fact it's a new spell either way). The only reason this would not work is if a metamagic spell is not a spell, or if it's still the original spell which would require a specific denunciation of aforementioned sections of the rules.

So, is there a section of the rules which either...

A.) Dictates that a metamagic spell does not function as a spell (and specifically overrides the original rules) or...

B.) Shows that a metamagic spell is not altered from the base (thus attempting to use Innate Spell on it would not work)... and quite likely neither would metamagic.

I don't know of any such rules, but it's certainly possible they exist. If so, please direct me to them.


Also there are parts of the rules when there is not enough information for a RAW position to exist except to say that the rules are unclear and thus can not be used without a DM ruling.

Example? The only way I can picture this is if the rules simply have no information on something whatsoever (or if the rules directly contradict each other with no indication of which takes precedence.... which I cannot think of an example of.)

Also, even assuming you were correct here about rules being unclear the DM would still be irrelevant, as the moment you do that it's no longer RAW.

[olentu]

And magic missile and Empowered magic missile are both evocation spells. They're both magic missile spells.

But they're not the same. The same spell, at the same caster level, has different rolled amounts. That is not the same.

The definition for "different" is, most simply, not the same.

Thus, if I take a fireball at CL 10, and I empower it, I have the following:

{table=header]Stat | Fireball | Empowered Fireball
Range | 800 | 800
Area | 20' radius | 20' radius
Save | Ref 13+stat for half | Ref 13+stat for half
Damage | 10d6 | 15d6
Min Spell Slot | 3 | 5[/table]
Now, are these two the same? No. If they are not the same spell (same meaning identical in every way), then they are different.

That they share broad similarities is irrelevant. They are not identical. They are different. It's not a new spell that has been created. But it is a different spell than the original. Modifying it, changing it, makes it mechanically different. There is no text stating that it counts as the same spell as the pre-metamagic version, so we default to the english definition of different. Not the same. It's been shown to not be the same. Therefore, it is different.

Please give me a qoutation that says that it is a different spell that is being cast and not the same spell modified by a metamagic feat. The spell being cast must actually be a different spell or both castings of the spell fireball will still be blocked by a single choice from one casting of spell immunity. And similarly since one is just casting fireball both times there is only one choice generated for a spell that one can cast.

Also since there is not text saying that the spell is a new spell after a metamagic feat has been applied I must first say that it is unclear and thus there is no RAW. Next I must say that given various circumstantial evidence in the absence of a RAW ruling I would rule that a spell modified by a metamagic feat is not a new spell.

Edit: I should really wait for both postings but in any case.

Temet Nosce please first direct me to a section of the rules that makes your quotation relevant to the discussion. If you can not do that then I see no reason to try and support my position of it being unclear since you can not support your position of clarity.

Also let me see if I can dig something up.

[PhoenixRivers]

Please give me a qoutation that says that it is a different spell that is being cast and not the same spell modified by a metamagic feat. The spell being cast must actually be a different spell or both castings of the spell fireball will still be blocked by a single choice from one casting of spell immunity. And similarly since one is just casting fireball both times there is only one choice generated for a spell that one can cast.Is it the same? Is it identical in every way? If so, then yes, it is the same. If it is modified, it is different. It is still the fireball spell, but it is a DIFFERENT fireball spell.

All beach balls are round, but not all round things are beach balls.

An Empowered Fireball is always a Fireball. But a Fireball is not always an Empowered Fireball.

And, for a sorceror, I can guarantee that there is more than one choice. I cast fireball. I have empower and maximize. I can Empower it, Maximize it. Empower and Maximize it, or do none and just cast it. Four different choices, four different results.


Also since there is not text saying that the spell is a new spell after a metamagic feat has been applied I must first say that it is unclear and thus there is no RAW. Next I must say that given various circumstantial evidence in the absence of a RAW ruling I would rule that a spell modified by a metamagic feat is not a new spell.You can say that. You're wrong, but you can say that. There's no text stating you can't take actions while unconscious. There's no text stating that characters may not, at level 1, grant themselves an arbitrary +30 to all their rolls. Does this mean that it's unclear? No.

Metamagic spells are prepared differently. They generate different effects.

My computer has Windows. So does many other computers. Are they all the same version of Windows? Nope. They're different. They're all Windows, whether XP, 2000, NT, Vista, or Windows 7. But they're different.

EDIT: Dictionary definitions:

Same:
unchanged in character, condition, etc.; It's the same town after all these years.
Is the spell unchanged? (No. The spell is modified.)

Different:
not identical; separate or distinct; three different answers.
Are the two identical? (No. They have differing characteristics and qualities.)

Are they the same, or different?

[olentu]

Is it the same? Is it identical in every way? If so, then yes, it is the same. If it is modified, it is different. It is still the fireball spell, but it is a DIFFERENT fireball spell.

All beach balls are round, but not all round things are beach balls.

An Empowered Fireball is always a Fireball. But a Fireball is not always an Empowered Fireball.

And, for a sorceror, I can guarantee that there is more than one choice. I cast fireball. I have empower and maximize. I can Empower it, Maximize it. Empower and Maximize it, or do none and just cast it. Four different choices, four different results.
You can say that. You're wrong, but you can say that. There's no text stating you can't take actions while unconscious. There's no text stating that characters may not, at level 1, grant themselves an arbitrary +30 to all their rolls. Does this mean that it's unclear? No.

Metamagic spells are prepared differently. They generate different effects.

My computer has Windows. So does many other computers. Are they all the same version of Windows? Nope. They're different. They're all Windows, whether XP, 2000, NT, Vista, or Windows 7. But they're different.

EDIT: Dictionary definitions:

Same:
Is the spell unchanged? (No. The spell is modified.)

Different:
Are the two identical? (No. They have differing characteristics and qualities.)

Are they the same, or different?

So if there is text saying that a new spell is created when a metamagic feat is applied to a spell then please by all means post said text. If you can not then I am correct in saying that there is not text saying that the spell is a new spell after a metamagic feat has been applied.

If you are going to say I am wrong I would appreciate some proof.


Edit: Also let us not forget about this dictionary definition



Similar in kind, quality, quantity, or degree.

[Temet Nosce]

Temet Nosce please first direct me to a section of the rules that makes your quotation relevant to the discussion. If you can not do that then I see no reason to try and support my position of it being unclear since you can not support your position of clarity.

Also let me see if I can dig something up.

I quoted a section which stated the rules treat a metamagic spell as a spell, however if you need me to point out the relevance...


Choose any spell you can cast. You can now cast this spell at will as a spell-like ability once per round.

[olentu]

I quoted a section which stated the rules treat a metamagic spell as a spell, however if you need me to point out the relevance...

As I said before "a metamagic spell" is merely shorthand for a spell that has been modified by one or more metamagic feats. Clearly a spell is a spell regardless of if it has been modified by a metamagic feat (unless said feat makes the spell not a spell) and so the quotation is saying nothing meaningful.

Now I did not really say this but I could argue as such meaning that if you can not give a quotation that makes this argument invalid then the quotation is unclear and as such does not support either side and is irrelevant.

[PhoenixRivers]

So if there is text saying that a new spell is created when a metamagic feat is applied to a spell then please by all means post said text. If you can not then I am correct in saying that there is not text saying that the spell is a new spell after a metamagic feat has been applied.

If you are going to say I am wrong I would appreciate some proof.

It's not a new spell. You're getting hung up on this concept. Just because it's different doesn't mean it's new.

It is not the same, by the very definition of "same". There's not much more that can be said about that.

There is text stating that it's not the same spell. That's the definition of "same".

Tell you what. I've shown you what "same" means.

By the definition of "same", an Empowered Fireball and a Fireball are not the same. This is not opinion. This is fact, supported by dictionary definition, and proper usage of the language, in absence of any reserved term by D&D (such as Save, which typically has a different D&D definition than standard english)

Your turn. Show me rules text that overrides the above. Show me text stating that the spell is considered the same. Otherwise, default rule applies.

[olentu]

It's not a new spell. You're getting hung up on this concept. Just because it's different doesn't mean it's new.

It is not the same, by the very definition of "same". There's not much more that can be said about that.

There is text stating that it's not the same spell. That's the definition of "same".

Tell you what. I've shown you what "same" means.

By the definition of "same", an Empowered Fireball and a Fireball are not the same. This is not opinion. This is fact, supported by dictionary definition, and proper usage of the language, in absence of any reserved term by D&D (such as Save, which typicall has a different D&D definition than standard english)

Your turn. Show me rules text that overrides the above. Show me text stating that the spell is considered the same. Otherwise, default rule applies.

It would seem that you missed my edit as I can also say By the definition of "same", an Empowered Fireball and a Fireball are the same.

[Temet Nosce]

As I said before "a metamagic spell" is merely shorthand for a spell that has been modified by one or more metamagic feats. Clearly a spell is a spell regardless of if it has been modified by a metamagic feat (unless said feat makes the spell not a spell) and so the quotation is saying nothing meaningful.

Now I did not really say this but I could argue as such meaning that if you can not give a quotation that makes this argument invalid then the quotation is unclear and as such does not support either side and is irrelevant.

So to be clear here. You comprehend that by RAW a metamagic spell is a spell. Then how in the world are you objecting? Modifying something means it is different. It is, inherently no longer the sam. Phoenix has already gotten into this, and bluntly I see no need to go over something so incredibly simple again so I'll ask a short question.

Do you have any citations which invalidate the aforementioned rules sections?

Also, I have absolutely no idea what you mean in the second paragraph beyond that you somehow think one of my quotations is unclear (if so I want to know how, and why it matters) and apparently that you didn't say something.

[PhoenixRivers]

It would seem that you missed my edit as I can also say By the definition of "same", an Empowered Fireball and a Fireball are the same.

Are they identical? No? Then they are not the same.


same  

–adjective 1. identical with what is about to be or has just been mentioned: This street is the same one we were on yesterday.
2. being one or identical though having different names, aspects, etc.: These are the same rules though differently worded.
3. agreeing in kind, amount, etc.; corresponding: two boxes of the same dimensions.
4. unchanged in character, condition, etc.: It's the same town after all these years. They're not identical. That rules out 1 and 2.
They have differing amount. 10d6 vs 15d6. That rules out 3.
It is changed. Explicit text of metamagic (modified). That rules out 4.

Same does not equal similar. Similar is subjective. Same is objective.

[olentu]

So to be clear here. You comprehend that by RAW a metamagic spell is a spell. Then how in the world are you objecting? Modifying something means it is different. It is, inherently no longer the sam. Phoenix has already gotten into this, and bluntly I see no need to go over something so incredibly simple again so I'll ask a short question.

Do you have any citations which invalidate the aforementioned rules sections?

Also, I have absolutely no idea what you mean in the second paragraph beyond that you somehow think one of my quotations is unclear (if so I want to know how, and why it matters) and apparently that you didn't say something.

Yeah given the last bit I am being a bit to vague. I will try to be more clear. I am saying that the quote can be argued to merely says that mage armor is a spell even if metamagic feats have been applied. This in no way says that there exists a spell "extended mage armor". Without you giving citations that support your reading of the aforementioned rules section your reading is no more valid then the one that I have put forth.

Also PhoenixRivers has not proven that modifying a spell with a metamagic feat makes a new spell. I have given an argument that counters the argument that one is not casting the spell fireball when one casts the spell fireball modified by a metamagic feat.

Edit: So PhoenixRivers are you saying that I have not given a viable definition of the word same.



same (sm)
adj.
1. Being the very one; identical: the same boat we rented before.
2. Similar in kind, quality, quantity, or degree.
3. Conforming in every detail: according to the same rules as before.
4. Being the one previously mentioned or indicated; aforesaid.


Clearly number two.

[PhoenixRivers]

Also PhoenixRivers has not proven that modifying a spell with a metamagic feat makes a new spell. I have given an argument that counters the argument that one is not casting the spell fireball when one casts the spell fireball modified by a metamagic feat.Indeed. I have never tried to prove that it makes it a new spell. New spells must be researched, by D&D. It's a reserved term, which is expressly why I've avoided it. It carries a weighted meaning, which means more than we need to use in this instance.

I have shown that it is different.


Edit: So PhoenixRivers are you saying that I have not given a viable definition of the word same.
I am saying that your definition of the word "same" is not applicable in this context. That is a definition that applies to qualitative analysis (We feel the same). This is quantitative analysis. (Several cars from the GM product line use the same chassis.)

[olentu]

I am saying that your definition of the word "same" is not applicable in this context. That is a definition that applies to qualitative analysis. This is quantitative analysis.

Would you mind quoting text that states that in every case in the D&D rules the quantitative definition of all words is the one to be used especially since what we are arguing over is not, I believe, a section or rules text.

Edit: So would you like to tell me how one can cast a spell that does not exist. Being able to do so would be an excellent trick.

[PhoenixRivers]

Would you mind quoting text that states that in every case in the D&D rules the quantitative definition of all words is the one to be used especially since what we are arguing over is not, I believe, a section or rules text.
Simple. We are dealing with mechanics. Not emotions. No text is needed. If you want to talk about how you feel about the spell, that's fine. Go qualitative.

If you want to talk about the function of the spell, that can be quantified.


Edit: So would you like to tell me how one can cast a spell that does not exist. Being able to do so would be an excellent trick.I respond with this:

Prove to me that something must be created to exist.

Alternately: I have a laptop. I go in and upgrade the ram. It's still a laptop. But it's different. So much so, that my factory warranty no longer applies.

Now, did I create a brand new laptop? No. I changed an existing one. It is changed from what it was. No new computer needed to be built, however.

Now, please, can we stop arguing meaningless semantics? If it is not the same, it is different. That doesn't mean it's a new spell, by the D&D definition. It is a spell, legally changed by existing D&D mechanics. When it is changed, that makes it different. You ask how? You take the metamagic feat, you prepare the spell with the metamagic feat, and you cast the spell.

If you don't like that explanation, well, you can also drown up to -1 HP(from -8), arrows don't follow a parabolic path, and expanding creatures don't break their bones. These don't make sense in D&D. But, by RAW, they are all true.

[olentu]

Simple. We are dealing with mechanics. Not emotions. No text is needed. If you want to talk about how you feel about the spell, that's fine. Go qualitative.

If you want to talk about the function of the spell, that can be quantified.

Who said anything about the function a spell. I was talking this whole time about the existence of a new spell created by the application of a metamagic feat. I mean clearly a spell can function differently and yet be the same spell such as if it is on different spell lists that were not created at the time of the original printing of the spell.

If the new spell is not created then one can not cast it and so one can not choose it for innate spell.

Like I originally said if one casts mage armor modified by the extend spell feat I believe that we can both agree that one is casting a spell.

Now said spell is either mage armor or it is not mage armor.

Now then if the spell is not mage armor then it must either be a printed spell that is not mage armor or a new non-printed spell that is not mage armor. I would hope that we can agree on both the fact that it must either be a printed spell or a new non-printed spell and that the spell is not a printed spell that is not mage armor.

So it the spell is not mage armor then it must be a new spell that is not printed.

Now as you have said


Indeed. I have never tried to prove that it makes it a new spell.

And thus the spell must not be a new spell that is not printed.

But since it is not a printed spell that is not mage armor and it is not a new spell that in not mage armor there is a contradiction with the assumption that the spell is not mage armor.

And so the spell must be mage armor.

Edit: You want me to prove that something must be created to exist. Are you really arguing that there are things in D&D that exist while haveing not been created by anyone.

[PhoenixRivers]

Who said anything about the function a spell. I was talking this whole time about the existence of a new spell created by the application of a metamagic feat. I mean clearly a spell can function differently and yet be the same spell such as if it is on different spell lists that were not created at the time of the original printing of the spell.Because what a spell is, is more than a title. If it functions differently, it is different.


If the new spell is not created then one can not cast it and so one can not choose it for innate spell.Then this cannot be true, for metamagic spells can be cast. Therefore, It cannot be an "uncreated new spell".


Like I originally said if one casts mage armor modified by the extend spell feat I believe that we can both agree that one is casting a spell.Correct.


Now said spell is either mage armor or it is not mage armor.Correct. It is Mage Armor. More precisely, it is Extended Mage Armor.

Your argument is saying that a Honda Accord and a Chevrolet Corvette are the same. They are both cars. Either they are both cars, or they are not, right?


Now then if the spell is not mage armor then it must either be a printed spell that is not mage armor or a new non-printed spell that is not mage armor. I would hope that we can agree on both the fact that it must either be a printed spell or a new non-printed spell and that the spell is not a printed spell that is not mage armor.Incorrect. We can also have a different version of an existing spell, by RAW. This is the point your argument breaks down.


So it the spell is not mage armor then it must be a new spell that is not printed.Or an altered (different) Mage Armor, by RAW.


And thus the spell must not be a new spell that is not printed.Or an altered version of an existing spell, altered legally through currently printed rules.

But since it is not a printed spell that is not mage armor and it is not a new spell that in not mage armor there is a contradiction with the assumption that the spell is not mage armor.Until you accept the option you never considered.


And so the spell must be mage armor.Correct. But a different mage armor than exists as printed.


Edit: You want me to prove that something must be created to exist. Are you really arguing that there are things in D&D that exist while haveing not been created by anyone.
If the DM so says it, then there are things in his multiverse that have not been created by any character in the game, and yet exist. For the DM doesn't exist in the game. That's a player.

So yes. Prove to me that things can't exist in the game universe that were not created by anything in the game universe.

What was created by developers, is metamagic. They created it so that people could change spells, and alter how they perform. And it was good. How is a metamagic spell born? By the existing RAW. You don't need to create it. The rules make sure that the concept is there.

Now, if you're stating that a Mage armor, modified by extend spell, is a spell...

And the only requirement for Innate spell is "choose a spell 8 levels lower than the slot you give up"

Then "Mage armor, modified by extend spell" is a valid choice, provided that you give up a slot 8 levels higher than it.

[olentu]

Because what a spell is, is more than a title. If it functions differently, it is different.
Then this cannot be true, for metamagic spells can be cast. Therefore, It cannot be an "uncreated new spell".
Correct.
Correct. It is Mage Armor. More precisely, it is Extended Mage Armor.

Your argument is saying that a Honda Accord and a Chevrolet Corvette are the same. They are both cars. Either they are both cars, or they are not, right?
Incorrect. We can also have a different version of an existing spell, by RAW. This is the point your argument breaks down.
Or an altered (different) Mage Armor, by RAW.
Or an altered version of an existing spell, altered legally through currently printed rules.Until you accept the option you never considered.
Correct. But a different mage armor than exists as printed.

If the DM so says it, then there are things in his multiverse that have not been created by any character in the game, and yet exist. For the DM doesn't exist in the game. That's a player.

So yes. Prove to me that things can't exist in the game universe that were not created by anything in the game universe.

What was created by developers, is metamagic. They created it so that people could change spells, and alter how they perform. And it was good. How is a metamagic spell born? By the existing RAW. You don't need to create it. The rules make sure that the concept is there.

Now, if you're stating that a Mage armor, modified by extend spell, is a spell...

And the only requirement for Innate spell is "choose a spell 8 levels lower than the slot you give up"

Then "Mage armor, modified by extend spell" is a valid choice, provided that you give up a slot 8 levels higher than it.

Clearly a spell is more then its title however applying a metamagic feat has not been shown to change what a spell is, only how a spell functions in a particular situation. However things such as antimagic fields can also do the same and those also did not change what a spell is.

Given that the term "a metamagic spell" is not defined one can not say what it is or what it is not. If a metamagic spell is shorthand for a spell that has had a metamagic feat applied then the spell is still the original spell.

Please provide a citation that says that when on casts mage armor modified by the extend spell feat one is casting something other then the spell mage armor.

They are both cars just how mage armor cast by a level 20 caster and mage armor cast on a null magic plane are the same spell even though they have diferent results.

Please provide a citation that says that one has a different version of an existing spell. Without this you are not arguing RAW and at this point your counterargument breaks down.

Please provide a citation that it is an "altered (different) Mage Armor" that is being cast as opposed to the spell mage armor or you are not arguing RAW and at this point your counterargument breaks down again.

Please provide a citation that it is an "altered version of an existing spell" that is being cast as oposed to the existing spell or you are not arguing RAW and at this point your counterargument breaks down again.

Please provide a citation that "the option you never considered." is actually an option by RAW or you are not arguing RAW and at this point your counterargument breaks down again.

Pleas provide a citation that it is a "a different mage armor than exists as printed" instead of just the spell mage armor or you are not arguing RAW and at this point your counterargument breaks down again.



Clearly things in the game world can exist wouldt being created in the game world. However I have not referenced a game world in my argument aside from saying that things that are undefined can not be used in a RAW fashion without a DM ruling for a specific game world.

Thus the argument about whether something can exist in a game world without being created by something in the game world is irrelevant.

However I am saying that mage armor with extend spell applied is still a spell, but I am also saying that it is the spell mage armor.

And so mage armor modified by extend spell is the same choice as mage armor since the spell being cast is the spell mage armor regardless of the number of metamagic feats and class abilities that would be applied to it (obviously barring anything that changes it from a spell into something else or making it count as something else for the purpose of the feat).

[PhoenixRivers]

Clearly a spell is more then its title however applying a metamagic feat has not been shown to change what a spell is, only how a spell functions in a particular situation. However things such as antimagic fields can also do the same and those also did not change what a spell is.Yes. That particular situation is "When it is cast". A metamagic spell changes what a spell does in all situations. There are overriding external effects, yes. AMF stops an extended spell. But that's an external effect. When you extend a Mage Armor, it lasts twice as long, unless a different effect alters it. That's not "in a particular situation", that's "in the absence of a particular situation."


Given that the term "a metamagic spell" is not defined one can not say what it is or what it is not. If a metamagic spell is shorthand for a spell that has had a metamagic feat applied then the spell is still the original spell.For purposes of the discussion, a metamagic spell is a spell which has been altered by a metamagic feat. As for it being the original spell? No. The original spell lasts 1 hour per level. The extended one lasts 2 hours per level. not the same.


Please provide a citation that says that when on casts mage armor modified by the extend spell feat one is casting something other then the spell mage armor.Prove that a mage armor, and a extended mage armor, function identically in all situations, providing all other statistics are equal, and I'll concede that they're not.


They are both cars just how mage armor cast by a level 20 caster and mage armor cast on a null magic plane are the same spell even though they have diferent results.In this instance, the null magic plane is the external force which alters the function, and prevents it from functioning as intended. Saying that every spell does the same thing when you can't cast spells? That doesn't say anything at all. Heck, by this reasoning, Time Stop and Light are the same spell, because they function identically in a null magic plane.


Please provide a citation that says that one has a different version of an existing spell. Without this you are not arguing RAW and at this point your counterargument breaks down.Sure.
www.d20srd.com
Go to mage armor. Look at the duration. 1 hour per level.
Apply extend to it. The duration is now 2 hours per level. The spell is now different from the printed version. It is a different version. Why? Because that's exactly what "different version" means.


Please provide a citation that it is an "altered (different) Mage Armor" that is being cast as opposed to the spell mage armor or you are not arguing RAW and at this point your counterargument breaks down again.
Really, man? Are you really going to say that "modify" and "alter" aren't synonyms? Because the metamagic feats state "a spell modified by XXX".

Please provide a citation that it is an "altered version of an existing spell" that is being cast as oposed to the existing spell or you are not arguing RAW and at this point your counterargument breaks down again.Sure. The existing printed Mage armor lasts 1 hour per level.
The spell, modified by Extend Spell, does not. It has been altered, and is now different from the original version.


Please provide a citation that "the option you never considered." is actually an option by RAW or you are not arguing RAW and at this point your counterargument breaks down again.Sure. First provide RAW citation that each of your options is RAW. Show that the spell is a new spell, or is the existing spell. If you cannot, you are not arguing RAW, and your own point is as invalid as what you are disproving.

Your own argument is vulnerable to this point.


Pleas provide a citation that it is a "a different mage armor than exists as printed" instead of just the spell mage armor or you are not arguing RAW and at this point your counterargument breaks down again.You're a broken record now. If you're going to do this until I'm providing a citation for what each individual word in the SRD means, then I'm going to assume that you're just trying to provoke a reaction from me, and I'm going to stop responding to what I perceive as a nonsensical argument. You've provided none of the level of RAW citation for your own points that you demand from others. Provide such in depth citation for each and every point you've made, or drop this flawed reasoning.

[olentu]

Yes. That particular situation is "When it is cast". A metamagic spell changes what a spell does in all situations. There are overriding external effects, yes. AMF stops an extended spell. But that's an external effect. When you extend a Mage Armor, it lasts twice as long, unless a different effect alters it. That's not "in a particular situation", that's "in the absence of a particular situation."
For purposes of the discussion, a metamagic spell is a spell which has been altered by a metamagic feat. As for it being the original spell? No. The original spell lasts 1 hour per level. The extended one lasts 2 hours per level. not the same.
Prove that a mage armor, and a extended mage armor, function identically in all situations, providing all other statistics are equal, and I'll concede that they're not.
In this instance, the null magic plane is the external force which alters the function, and prevents it from functioning as intended. Saying that every spell does the same thing when you can't cast spells? That doesn't say anything at all. Heck, by this reasoning, Time Stop and Light are the same spell, because they function identically in a null magic plane.
Sure.
www.d20srd.com
Go to mage armor. Look at the duration. 1 hour per level.
Apply extend to it. The duration is now 2 hours per level. The spell is now different from the printed version. It is a different version. Why? Because that's exactly what "different version" means.

Really, man? Are you really going to say that "modify" and "alter" aren't synonyms? Because the metamagic feats state "a spell modified by XXX".
Sure. The existing printed Mage armor lasts 1 hour per level.
The spell, modified by Extend Spell, does not. It has been altered, and is now different from the original version.
Sure. First provide RAW citation that each of your options is RAW. Show that the spell is a new spell, or is the existing spell. If you cannot, you are not arguing RAW, and your own point is as invalid as what you are disproving.

Your own argument is vulnerable to this point.
You're a broken record now. If you're going to do this until I'm providing a citation for what each individual word in the SRD means, then I'm going to assume that you're just trying to provoke a reaction from me, and I'm going to stop responding to what I perceive as a nonsensical argument. You've provided none of the level of RAW citation for your own points that you demand from others. Provide such in depth citation for each and every point you've made, or drop this flawed reasoning.

A metamagic feat changes what a spell does in all situations where it is applied. An antimagic field changes what a spell does in all situations where it is applied. Neither is described in the spell description and so both must be external to the spell.

If a metamagic spell is a spell that has had a metamagic feat applied it is the original spell just as a person which has had makeup applied is the original person.

Prove that one is not casting the spell mage armor when one casts the spell mage armor with the extend spell applied and I will concede the point.

In the other instance the feat is an external force in the form of a feat that alters the function of the spell and prevents it from functioning as it did originally. However you have missed my argument and concluded that I am arguing the opposite of what I am. I am saying that things that modify the spell do not change what the spell is unless they say they do. So your argument that light and time stop would be the same means that a thing that modifies the spell is changing what it is without saying that it does and that is the opposite of what I am arguing in that example.

That does not prove that it is not the spell mage armor. It only proves that an external force in the form of a feat can alter the function of the spell.

I am not saying that modify and alter are not synonyms. I am saying that modifying the spell mage armor with the extend spell metamagic feat does not change the fact that it is still the spell mage armor that is being cast.

The fact that the spell mage armor has been modified by a metamagic feat does not mean that one is casting a spell that is not the spell mage armor.

If neither of us can provide a citation that our opinions are RAW then neither of our opinions are RAW. There are not only two choices here. The choices being that my argument is RAW or that your argument is RAW. There is option that neither of our arguments are RAW and so my ability to prove my argument to be RAW has no bearing on if your argument is RAW.

So both of our arguments are equally vulnerable to the point as both could be wrong.

I am not trying to get you to provide a citation for each word. If I was I would ask for that.

I am asking in each of these cases for a citation that says that when one is casting the spell mage armor with the extend spell metamagic feat applied one is casting the spell extended mage armor rather then the spell mage armor. The lack of this citation would not prove me to be necessarily correct but without the citation you are not proven correct either.

Just to be clear a lack of a citation on my part does not change the need for a citation on anothers part as both people can be incorrect.

Edit: The reason that I have not given any citation on my point is that even though I am apparently not being very clear given you responses my point at the moment is that your argument does not have RAW support due to your lack of a citation properly supporting your point. Presumably I will later return to my previous point assuming there is any reason to after this one is worked out. This would be since I do not see the discussion going anywhere until the point I have temporarily moved to is worked out.

[PhoenixRivers]

I am not saying that modify and alter are not synonyms. I am saying that modifying the spell mage armor with the extend spell metamagic feat does not change the fact that it is still the spell mage armor that is being cast.No, you said that I needed to prove that it is altered. You contended that the spell was altered.

It is modified, by the text. That is proven. Now, when I modify/alter/change something, is it the same as it was before? Is it exactly the same, in every conceivable way? Is it perfectly identical in every last detail and aspect?

No. That means, that on some level, it is not the same. If it is not the same, then on some level, it is different.


The fact that the spell mage armor has been modified by a metamagic feat does not mean that one is casting a spell that is not the spell mage armor.But it does mean that the spell "mage armor" is altered. It is modified. It is changed. It is different. It is not the same as it was before.


If neither of us can provide a citation that our opinions are RAW then neither of our opinions are RAW. There are not only two choices here. The choices being that my argument is RAW or that your argument is RAW. There is option that neither of our arguments are RAW and so my ability to prove my argument to be RAW has no bearing on if your argument is RAW. Odd. Earlier, you stated that there were only two choices. Either it's a New spell that is unprinted, or it is the same spell. When I cited a third option, you demanded I prove it's RAW sanctity, or withdraw it, while conveniently forgetting that you never validated any of your own statements as RAW, though you represented them as such at the time.


So both of our arguments are equally vulnerable to the point as both could be wrong.Which means that this line of debate proves nothing and goes nowhere. So drop it and move to a productive one, rather than playing for a stalemate. In chess, only the player in the losing position does that.


I am not trying to get you to provide a citation for each word. If I was I would ask for that. No, just each point. So if you aren't willing to cite your points. If you aren't willing to cite. every. last. one... Then it's not fair to demand it of others. Equal and fair standards in debate, and all.


I am asking in each of these cases for a citation that says that when one is casting the spell mage armor with the extend spell metamagic feat applied one is casting the spell extended mage armor rather then the spell mage armor. The lack of this citation would not prove me to be necessarily correct but without the citation you are not proven correct either.Again with the stalemate. The reasoning you are using is to argue expressly for a point of view that proves nothing. The reasoning you are using is thus, a complete waste of time. I will not respond to any further lines of reasoning whose express purpose is to not prove or support anything.


Just to be clear a lack of a citation on my part does not change the need for a citation on anothers part as both people can be incorrect.But it does show that you are holding a double standard. Surely your own views are able to withstand the same scrutiny you place on others?


Edit: The reason that I have not given any citation on my point is that even though I am apparently not being very clear given you responses my point at the moment is that your argument does not have RAW support due to your lack of a citation properly supporting your point.
And every point you have made is equally unsupported. So this line of reasoning goes nowhere. Please try one that does, or at least let me know that you have no intent to, so that I can cease wasting my time in a discussion where you are expressly intending to state that nothing can be determined from anything.

EDIT: In fact, if you are intending to continue this argument style, please don't respond to the rest. Just tell me that you're going to, so I can make the choice to stop discussing things with you. It'll save everyone the trouble of reading an exercise in nothing, and save me a lot of frustration over pointless debate.

[olentu]

No, you said that I needed to prove that it is altered. You contended that the spell was altered.

It is modified, by the text. That is proven. Now, when I modify/alter/change something, is it the same as it was before? Is it exactly the same, in every conceivable way? Is it perfectly identical in every last detail and aspect?

No. That means, that on some level, it is not the same. If it is not the same, then on some level, it is different.
But it does mean that the spell "mage armor" is altered. It is modified. It is changed. It is different. It is not the same as it was before.

Odd. Earlier, you stated that there were only two choices. Either it's a New spell that is unprinted, or it is the same spell. When I cited a third option, you demanded I prove it's RAW sanctity, or withdraw it, while conveniently forgetting that you never validated any of your own statements as RAW, though you represented them as such at the time.
Which means that this line of debate proves nothing and goes nowhere. So drop it and move to a productive one, rather than playing for a stalemate. In chess, only the player in the losing position does that.
No, just each point. So if you aren't willing to cite your points. If you aren't willing to cite. every. last. one... Then it's not fair to demand it of others. Equal and fair standards in debate, and all.
Again with the stalemate. The reasoning you are using is to argue expressly for a point of view that proves nothing. The reasoning you are using is thus, a complete waste of time. I will not respond to any further lines of reasoning whose express purpose is to not prove or support anything.
But it does show that you are holding a double standard. Surely your own views are able to withstand the same scrutiny you place on others?

Surely your "nothing can ever be proven ever because I'm going to dispute alter versus modify versus change versus different" has an actual point to prove? Or is it to just disprove all proofs, and end up as an attempt to confuse?

And every point you have made is equally unsupported. So this line of reasoning goes nowhere. Please try one that does, or at least let me know that you have no intent to, so that I can cease wasting my time.

I do agree that my own view is equally as unsupported as yours by citations that I have currently given. However the various arguments I have made in the past have been dismissed by you saying that you are correct because you are correct by the rules as you interpret them. It would be impossible for me to make any argument (barring finding a clear and explicit statement one way or the other) without you seemingly dismissing it out of hand because you could not possibly be wrong. I would say that as long as that is the view that one or both parties hold in an argument there can be no resolution as neither side will concede (of which I seem to be as guilty as any other). Thus to avoid the same fruitless back and forth over the same things that was happening I decided to shift to a new point that would need to be worked out before anything could progress. While I do however seem to be having no more success since it looks to be again moving towards a fruitless review of the same points, I would not have been satisfied with my self if I left this avenue unexplored.

As it is I would continue the discussion even though it seems as though any resolution would likely be hopeless given that neither of us seem to be going to concede that the other is correct given the repetitive nature of the discussion. So while my line of reasoning does have a clear goal the discussion will probably end as many do, without resolution. I have however attempted to demonstrate that I am trying a line of reasoning that goes somewhere.

So while I can not decide for you if you are wasting you time or not and thus if you will decide to leave the discussion unresolved I am going somewhere. I doubt that will be enough for you to continue the discussion as you seem to be specifically looking for a way out while looking as good as possible compared to me by saying that my argument must be fruitless even though I would doubt that you understand my argument any better then I understand yours. I must however get some sleep and so would ask for my absence to be excused.

[PhoenixRivers]

I do agree that my own view is equally as unsupported as yours by citations that I have currently given. However the various arguments I have made in the past have been dismissed by you saying that you are correct because you are correct by the rules as you interpret them. It would be impossible for me to make any argument (barring finding a clear and explicit statement one way or the other) without you seemingly dismissing it out of hand because you could not possibly be wrong.Not as long as you can't have supported views. I claim an interpretation of rules. But the level of citation you were requesting... Alter versus modify, and all that? That was ridiculous. You told me to show that the spell was altered, and later that post, stated that it was modified. There is a difference between wanting to keep a discussion based in RAW, and demanding over... and over... and over... for citations for random bits of semantic. That was over the top. Frankly, I'll have no more of it.


I would say that as long as that is the view that one or both parties hold in an argument there can be no resolution as neither side will concede (of which I seem to be as guilty as any other). Thus to avoid the same fruitless back and forth over the same things that was happening I decided to shift to a new point that would need to be worked out before anything could progress. While I do however seem to be having no more success since it looks to be again moving towards a fruitless review of the same points, I would not have been satisfied with my self if I left this avenue unexplored.Every argument in a debate needs a clear goal. Every statement should be aimed at identifying a tenet of your belief. If you're still exploring the point, you're missing the focus you need to identify your stance.


As it is I would continue the discussion even though it seems as though any resolution would likely be hopeless given that neither of us seem to be going to concede that the other is correct given the repetitive nature of the discussion. So while my line of reasoning does have a clear goal the discussion will probably end as many do, without resolution.
The clear goal is not apparent, nor is the argument you make. It's detracting from a view without offering support for a view. At least, not offering the level of support you require to be satisfied.

I have however attempted to demonstrate that I am trying a line of reasoning that goes somewhere. I don't see it. I see a refusal to offer what you demand.


So while I can not decide for you if you are wasting you time or not and thus if you will decide to leave the discussion unresolved I am going somewhere. I doubt that will be enough for you to continue the discussion as you seem to be specifically looking for a way out while looking as good as possible compared to me by saying that my argument must be fruitless even though I would doubt that you understand my argument any better then I understand yours. I must however get some sleep and so would ask for my absence to be excused.I do understand your argument, as you portray it. I just disagree with it. Unless you can offer the same level of support or reasoning for your views that you insist on from mine? Then there's nothing further to discuss.

[kme]

I agree with olentu about this, and i believe that it is both RAW and RAI.

The feat says: choose any spell that you can cast.

The way i see it:
["Mage Armor"] is a spell
[Extended "Mage Armor"] is a spell (Mage Armor) that is modified by a metamagic feat extend spell.
["Extended Mage Armor"] is not a spell, and does not qualify for innate spell.

There will never be such a thing as "Extended Mage" armor in your spellbook. The fact that it is different than basic mage armor is irrelevant. If you accept that it is a spell then where does it end, what spell modifications count? What about things such as arcane spell surge, metamagic rods, incense of meditation, sudden metamagic feats or any other items/feats/spells that modify existing spells? Yes, these are temporary changes but so is normal metamagic, just in a different way.

[Foryn Gilnith]

I do understand your argument, as you portray it. I just disagree with it. Unless you can offer the same level of support or reasoning for your views that you insist on from mine? Then there's nothing further to discuss.

QFT. Just get on with the damned thread. If a DM doesn't want to allow metamagicked innate spells, that's their choice. Just post whatever. If what you post is a metamagic spell, it will be ignored by those who wish to ignore it with no harm to them.

[deuxhero]

Isn't Innate spell the feat that lets warlock into Arcane Trickster?

[JellyPooga]

Isn't Innate spell the feat that lets warlock into Arcane Trickster?

Can't see how it could be...it turns a spell slot into a Spell-Like Ability. Warlocks don't have spell slots so can't use the feat at all, let alone qualify for a PrC with it.

[deuxhero]

I know some feat gave you infinite mage hand and let you qualify for the class.

As for the feat it's self, isn't a magic item that can replicate the effects something like 8000 gold (assuming it has a duration of rounds/instantious, otherwise it's much lower) ?

[Grumman]

As for the feat it's self, isn't a magic item that can replicate the effects something like 8000 gold (assuming it has a duration of rounds/instantious, otherwise it's much lower) ?
Only if your DM is foolish enough to use the guidelines in the DMG.

[olentu]

Not as long as you can't have supported views. I claim an interpretation of rules. But the level of citation you were requesting... Alter versus modify, and all that? That was ridiculous. You told me to show that the spell was altered, and later that post, stated that it was modified. There is a difference between wanting to keep a discussion based in RAW, and demanding over... and over... and over... for citations for random bits of semantic. That was over the top. Frankly, I'll have no more of it.
Every argument in a debate needs a clear goal. Every statement should be aimed at identifying a tenet of your belief. If you're still exploring the point, you're missing the focus you need to identify your stance.

The clear goal is not apparent, nor is the argument you make. It's detracting from a view without offering support for a view. At least, not offering the level of support you require to be satisfied.
I don't see it. I see a refusal to offer what you demand.
I do understand your argument, as you portray it. I just disagree with it. Unless you can offer the same level of support or reasoning for your views that you insist on from mine? Then there's nothing further to discuss.

I never said that I can not have supported views. I only said that currently my original position is unsupported. However since I have explicitly said that at the moment I am not talking about that part of my original position you are evading my point by trying to shift the discussion away from the problem that you are using an interpretation of the rules and claiming that it is the RAW without support. And then again you try to shift the discussion away from the fact that your argument is only your interpretation of the rules that you are trying to pass off as the RAW without sufficient support. While I can not say why you are doing this (as I can not read minds) I would assume that it is to hide or distract from the fact that your position is not supported even though you are adamant that it is the RAW and that nothing can change that.


Clearly a part of my belief is that your position is wrong and so me arguing that you are wrong is obviously aimed at supporting this part of my belief. So saying that I am not pursuing my goal is missing the current point completely. And of course if both sides can not admit that they might be wrong the discussion will never be resolved.


Perhaps the goal is not clear to you but it seems that you have not determined that one part of my position is that your position is wrong. If you did not understand that part of my position is that your position is wrong then I can see how one might be confused as to how the discussion supports my goals. However I believe that I have clearly put forth my reason for trying to prove your position unsupported as your position being unsupported is a necessary part of my position.


As I am only working on a step to my goal offering evidence would be useless as unless I can get the point that your position is sufficiently unsupported then to anything that I can say you can answer "however since I am already proven correct you are wrong". This would get nowhere but I can see why you might want to draw attention away from this fact as if it is not addressed you can say that you are correct because you are. So that would again explain why you are seemingly trying to draw attention away from the fact that you are using an interpretation of the rules and claiming that it is the RAW without sufficient support.


So in the end you seem to again try to draw attention away from the fact that you are using an interpretation of the rules and claiming that it is the RAW without sufficient support by changing the subject from how your position is unsupported to how mine is supported. I must again protest this because as stated earlier one part of my argument is that your position is unsupported and so anything that demonstrates that your position is unsupported supports my position.

While you desire citations for my position that seems to me to be primarily just a ploy to draw attention away from where you may be wrong. I would seek to support the other part of my position better but to do so at the moment would be to play into your hands and I see no reason to do so. After the question of if your position is sufficiently supported to be the correct RAW interpretation is worked out the discussion could then turn to if my position is sufficiently supported to be the correct RAW interpretation (though it is possible that neither is) if your position is found to be lacking support.

To shift subjects now would probably mean that you would use your as of yet unsupported position as a fact to disprove my position as you have done so before. And then for a counter argument I must try and demonstrate that your position is unsupported which leads back the point that is being discussed currently. So as I see no reason to move away form this point only to likely return immediately while my doing so distracts from where I contend that you are wrong.

[Kelpstrand]

Only if your DM is foolish enough to use the guidelines in the DMG.

No, it's 900gp, and it's not using the guidelines, it's a specific item: Hand of the Mage (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/magicItems/wondrousItems.htm#handoftheMage)

[Foryn Gilnith]

No, he was talking about an item to generally simulate Innate Spell.

[PhoenixRivers]

Clearly a part of my belief is that your position is wrong and so me arguing that you are wrong is obviously aimed at supporting this part of my belief. So saying that I am not pursuing my goal is missing the current point completely. And of course if both sides can not admit that they might be wrong the discussion will never be resolved.But argument solely on the view that another position is wrong isn't pro-anything. It's all con. And I will not get involved any longer in a naysaying discussion that 90% of the playground are just going to page past without reading anyway. It serves no purpose. It doesn't entertain me. I won't do it. If you don't like that? Find someone who does enjoy such banter.


Perhaps the goal is not clear to you but it seems that you have not determined that one part of my position is that your position is wrong. If you did not understand that part of my position is that your position is wrong then I can see how one might be confused as to how the discussion supports my goals. However I believe that I have clearly put forth my reason for trying to prove your position unsupported as your position being unsupported is a necessary part of my position.A man who believes that pie is the best does also believe that cake is worse than pie.

But if he spends all of his time arguing against cake, he is not supporting the position that pie is good. Just that cake is worse. Either practice what you preach, or move on. Don't exempt yourself from the standards you demand from me. If you do so, I will neither listen to your demand, nor respect your view.


As I am only working on a step to my goal offering evidence would be useless as unless I can get the point that your position is sufficiently unsupported then to anything that I can say you can answer "however since I am already proven correct you are wrong". This would get nowhere but I can see why you might want to draw attention away from this fact as if it is not addressed you can say that you are correct because you are. So that would again explain why you are seemingly trying to draw attention away from the fact that you are using an interpretation of the rules and claiming that it is the RAW without sufficient support.At this point, all I'm interested in claiming is that further discussion on my views is no longer in my interest to discuss, until you are willing to cite RAW reference on every last point you've made here. If you do this, I'll happily admit that I'm wrong, as you have proven yourself right. Until you do this, don't expect me to honor your lopsided demands for information or citings. I am not willing to follow any guideline that you set, but do not follow. End of discussion.

So in the end you seem to again try to draw attention away from the fact that you are using an interpretation of the rules and claiming that it is the RAW without sufficient support by changing the subject from how your position is unsupported to how mine is supported. I must again protest this because as stated earlier one part of my argument is that your position is unsupported and so anything that demonstrates that your position is unsupported supports my position.I am not seeking to draw attention away from anything. I am calling attention to the fact that you demand a differing level of proof from your opposing view than you offer. Live to the standard you set. If you do not, don't expect me to. End of discussion.


While you desire citations for my position that seems to me to be primarily just a ploy to draw attention away from where you may be wrong.
No, I've stated my view several times. I've cited until I was sick and tired of going to dictionaries and SRD entries. As you say, part of my view lies in the belief that yours is contradictory. So disproving yours is but a step on the path of validating mine...

At least, that's what you said. So tell me, why is it a valid tactic when you do it, and a smokescreen when I do? I'm really getting tired of double standards, Olentu.


I would seek to support the other part of my position better but to do so at the moment would be to play into your hands and I see no reason to do so. After the question of if your position is sufficiently supported to be the correct RAW interpretation is worked out the discussion could then turn to if my position is sufficiently supported to be the correct RAW interpretation (though it is possible that neither is) if your position is found to be lacking support. So... your position is to invent an arbitrarily impossible standard of RAW citation that requires your opponent do so much work that they give up, then you have no need to, as you're uncontested. Sorry, not gonna bite.

If you want to debate the differences between "alter" and "modify", then start with your own views. For every logical premise you've made here, I want RAW citations, or admissions that they are unsupported by RAW. At the time I receive this, I will consider you justified in the demands you've made.


To shift subjects now would probably mean that you would use your as of yet unsupported position as a fact to disprove my position as you have done so before.I concede that I won't (and haven't) done that. Something that you cannot claim.


And then for a counter argument I must try and demonstrate that your position is unsupported which leads back the point that is being discussed currently.Again, when you demand citation, it's a valid tactic. When I do, it's a diversion, or some other unscrupulous ploy. Enough with the double standards. Practice what you preach, or move on.


So as I see no reason to move away form this point only to likely return immediately while my doing so distracts from where I contend that you are wrong.Because someone else's position being wrong is more important than yours being sound?

Thank you for demonstrating the chief rule of internet argument, which has no basis or founding in coherent argument.

Coherent argument is a discussion between multiple supported views, and is an examination for what is more compelling.

Until you see fit to support your view, I have no interest in examining it.

If you think that means that I'm wrong? So be it. I'm sick and tired of the double standards, and will play that game no longer.

And so I tell you. I openly admit that my views, having not yet been proven or disproven (by RAW), are still in contention. I further certify that I will lend no weight to any request to further investigate those views by you, Olentu, until you see fit to measure your own views by the standard you have set for mine. Anything less would be a double standard.

Good day.

[PhoenixRivers]

I agree with olentu about this, and i believe that it is both RAW and RAI.

The feat says: choose any spell that you can cast.

The way i see it:
["Mage Armor"] is a spell
[Extended "Mage Armor"] is a spell (Mage Armor) that is modified by a metamagic feat extend spell.
["Extended Mage Armor"] is not a spell, and does not qualify for innate spell.

There will never be such a thing as "Extended Mage" armor in your spellbook. The fact that it is different than basic mage armor is irrelevant. If you accept that it is a spell then where does it end, what spell modifications count? What about things such as arcane spell surge, metamagic rods, incense of meditation, sudden metamagic feats or any other items/feats/spells that modify existing spells? Yes, these are temporary changes but so is normal metamagic, just in a different way.

When you cast a mage armor, that has been extended, you are indeed casting "a spell". That it has no listing that bears its exact stats is irrelevant.

"Choose any spell." That's the base requirement we're looking at. So, what we choose must be a spell. There's no listing stating that it must be a spell that is unmodified. Only that you must be able to cast it.

What you are saying is like saying you can't apply the Ghost dragon template to a (half dragon, half fiend dragon), because the dragon is modified. After all, that half dragon half fiend dragon has no listed entry anywhere! That means that it's not really a dragon, and when you add Ghost Dragon, it loses half-fiend. Because "Red Dragon" is a dragon. "Half Dragon Half-Fiend Red Dragon" is not. You'll never see a listing in any monster manual for a "Half Dragon Half Fiend Red Dragon".

That's what metamagic is, essentially. It's a modification of an existing entry, unique to that specific example. It's essentially a template that applies to a spell.

If a Mage Armor that has been modified with extend spell is still a spell, then it is a valid choice for any occurance that requires you choose a spell.

As for where it ends? Accepting that a spell that has been modified by metamagic is still a spell? That begins, and ends, at RAW. That part is RAW, and Olentu has conceded that. Whether the spell is a "different" spell is his contention.

[Myrmex]

What you are saying is like saying you can't apply the Ghost dragon template to a half fiend dragon, because the dragon is modified.

That is precisely why you cannot apply the ghost dragon template to a half fiend dragon. The half fiend dragon is an outsider, which is no longer eligible for the ghost dragon template, since the dragon is no longer of the dragon type.

[PhoenixRivers]

That is precisely why you cannot apply the ghost dragon template to a half fiend dragon. The half fiend dragon is an outsider, which is no longer eligible for the ghost dragon template, since the dragon is no longer of the dragon type.

Very well, then a half dragon, half fiend red dragon. I'm AFB, and the point once corrected, stands.

And yes, it's RAW legal.

[olentu]

But argument solely on the view that another position is wrong isn't pro-anything. It's all con. And I will not get involved any longer in a naysaying discussion that 90% of the playground are just going to page past without reading anyway. It serves no purpose. It doesn't entertain me. I won't do it. If you don't like that? Find someone who does enjoy such banter.
A man who believes that pie is the best does also believe that cake is worse than pie.

But if he spends all of his time arguing against cake, he is not supporting the position that pie is good. Just that cake is worse. Either practice what you preach, or move on. Don't exempt yourself from the standards you demand from me. If you do so, I will neither listen to your demand, nor respect your view.
At this point, all I'm interested in claiming is that further discussion on my views is no longer in my interest to discuss, until you are willing to cite RAW reference on every last point you've made here. If you do this, I'll happily admit that I'm wrong, as you have proven yourself right. Until you do this, don't expect me to honor your lopsided demands for information or citings. I am not willing to follow any guideline that you set, but do not follow. End of discussion.
I am not seeking to draw attention away from anything. I am calling attention to the fact that you demand a differing level of proof from your opposing view than you offer. Live to the standard you set. If you do not, don't expect me to. End of discussion.

No, I've stated my view several times. I've cited until I was sick and tired of going to dictionaries and SRD entries. As you say, part of my view lies in the belief that yours is contradictory. So disproving yours is but a step on the path of validating mine...

At least, that's what you said. So tell me, why is it a valid tactic when you do it, and a smokescreen when I do? I'm really getting tired of double standards, Olentu.
So... your position is to invent an arbitrarily impossible standard of RAW citation that requires your opponent do so much work that they give up, then you have no need to, as you're uncontested. Sorry, not gonna bite.

If you want to debate the differences between "alter" and "modify", then start with your own views. For every logical premise you've made here, I want RAW citations, or admissions that they are unsupported by RAW. At the time I receive this, I will consider you justified in the demands you've made.
I concede that I won't (and haven't) done that. Something that you cannot claim.
Again, when you demand citation, it's a valid tactic. When I do, it's a diversion, or some other unscrupulous ploy. Enough with the double standards. Practice what you preach, or move on.
Because someone else's position being wrong is more important than yours being sound?

Thank you for demonstrating the chief rule of internet argument, which has no basis or founding in coherent argument.

Coherent argument is a discussion between multiple supported views, and is an examination for what is more compelling.

Until you see fit to support your view, I have no interest in examining it.

If you think that means that I'm wrong? So be it. I'm sick and tired of the double standards, and will play that game no longer.

And so I tell you. I openly admit that my views, having not yet been proven or disproven (by RAW), are still in contention. I further certify that I will lend no weight to any request to further investigate those views by you, Olentu, until you see fit to measure your own views by the standard you have set for mine. Anything less would be a double standard.

Good day.

Ah now that you openly admit that your view as of yet unproven it can not be used to dismiss my arguments out of hand by taking your unproven conclusion as fact.

So onwards to the other part of my position.

First off I will make it clear that I accept the possibility that there may not be sufficiently clear rules for there to be a RAW solution to be proven. That being said a part of my position is that when one is casting a spell such as mage armor and is modifying the spell through the external agency (external to the spell) of a metamagic feat such as extend spell one is still casting the spell mage armor instead of casting some other spell that is not mage armor. And so the application or not of a metamagic feat does not change what spells can be chosen for the purposes of the innate spell feat as one is still casting the spell to which the metamagic feat is applied and not a spell that is not the spell.


I will now attempt to present my reasoning as to why this would be.

Assume that a character is casting a mage armor spell and is applying the extend spell feat. I believe that people would agree that the character is casting the spell.

I am taking as given that all spells are either published by wizards of the coast or are not published by wizards of the coast (WotC).

I am also taking as given that a spell can not be both published by WotC and not published by WotC.

So the spell that is being cast must be an element of the set of all spells that could exist. Mage armor is also an element of this set of spells.

Now then I am also taking as given that a spell can not both be be mage armor and at the same time be a spell that is not mage armor.

Now then the spell being cast must must either be the spell mage armor or not the spell mage armor.

So in the condition where the spell is mage armor then my position is correct as the spell remains mage armor even though the extend spell feat has been applied.

On the other hand consider the situation that the spell is not mage armor. If this is the case then the spell is either a spell published by Wotc or not publihed by WotC.

I believe that it can be agreed that the spell being cast is not a spell published by WotC. In other words applying a metamagic feat to a published spell does not change it to any other published spell.

However as the opposing side has already agreed that they "have never tried to prove that it makes it a new spell". I am taking new spell to mean one that has not been published by WotC.

And so the spell is neither published by WotC nor is is Noe published by Wotc.

However there is a contradiction with the given that "that all spells are either published by wizards of the coast or are not published by wizards of the coast (WotC)".

And so since the case of the spell not being the spell mage armor results in a contradiction the case of the spell not being mage armor must be false.

And thus the only viable case is that the spell must be mage armor.



I next present the fact that in the rules I find the position that "since the rules don't say it doesn't then it does" to be nonsensical as that leads to situations such as one saying that all 2' 9" tall halflings gain 32 divine ranks beacause the rules do not say that they don't. I then contend that since metamagic feats do not say that they change the spell into a spell that is not the spell then they don't.
It could be argued that since they talk about a metamagic spell they mean that the spell is changed into someting that is not the spell. However since the metamagic spell is just shorthand for the spell being cast while having metamagic feats applied it is still the same spell being cast. For example a metamagic mage armor spell is a mage armor spell that has had metamagic feats applied. So a metamagic mage armor spell is a mage armor spell. And so since I can present a viable interpretation of the term a metamagic spell that supports my view the term is too undefined to be taken as proof by either side.




I also present the case of the arcane fusion errata. I am taking sorcerer spell to mean a spell on either the sorcerer/wizard spell list that can be taken by a sorcerer or a spell on the list of sorcerer exclusive spells. The errata says



Page 96 – Arcane Fusion
[Addition]
Include clause, “If applying a
metamagic feat to a spell, use the
adjusted spell level and casting time
for purposes of determining eligibility
for Arcane Fusion.”


Now then this says nothing about using the original spell list for the purposes of qualifying for arcane fusion. I point out that I can not find a spell such as "Extended Heroism" on any of the qualifying lists for it to count as a sorcerer spell. So if the application of a metamagic feat makes the spell into something that is not the spell then the errata is completely unnecessary since a spell modified by a metamagic feat could not possibly qualify for arcane fusion. While this does seem to support my position it could be circumstantial as WotC could have issued the errata for no reason at all.



I next say that clearly the spell mage armor can produce different results due to the application of an external agency and remain the same spell. For example the spell mage armor cast on a null magic plane does not cease to be the spell mage armor even though it has a different result from the spell mage armor cast on a normal magic plane. Now then I see nothing in the rules to say that any one external agency should act differently from any other (barring ofcourse a specific exception in a specific agency). So since the metamagic feats are not given special treatment they would act the same as any other external agency and the spell remains the spell instead of something that is not the spell.

That is as far as I can get at the moment as I need to sleep due to schedule and have been concentrating on another part of my position until recently. I do however ask that my absence be excused.


Edit: Clearly the spell mage armor with a metamagic feat applied is still a spell because it is still the spell mage armor.

[Starbuck_II]

What you are saying is like saying you can't apply the Ghost dragon template to a (half dragon, half fiend dragon), because the dragon is modified. After all, that half dragon half fiend dragon has no listed entry anywhere! That means that it's not really a dragon, and when you add Ghost Dragon, it loses half-fiend. Because "Red Dragon" is a dragon. "Half Dragon Half-Fiend Red Dragon" is not. You'll never see a listing in any monster manual for a "Half Dragon Half Fiend Red Dragon".


Let me check Draconomicon:
Ghost Dragons, check.

Wait, Ghost or Ghost Dragon template?
Ghost doesn't care about whether it is as dragon; only Ghost Dragon template does.

[Sliver]

Was this argument really containing one side that said "No, you're wrong, you have nothing to support you'r claims" and then claiming something he can not support with facts himself?

[PhoenixRivers]

Ah now that you openly admit that your view as of yet unproven it can not be used to dismiss my arguments out of hand by taking your unproven conclusion as fact.I have never contended this.


I will now attempt to present my reasoning as to why this would be.

Assume that a character is casting a mage armor spell and is applying the extend spell feat. I believe that people would agree that the character is casting the spell.
Proposal 1: A character casting a Mage Armor spell, modified by the Extend spell feat, is casting a spell. For all purposes, the above qualifies as a spell.

Proposal accepted.

I am taking as given that all spells are either published by wizards of the coast or are not published by wizards of the coast (WotC).
Wizards of the Coast can (and has) provided RAW methods by which spells may be created. Such spells are not published, and yet, are still RAW supported.
That said, yes, each individual spell is either published by WotC or not.


I am also taking as given that a spell can not be both published by WotC and not published by WotC.Correct, though it may be an altered spell, altered through methods published by WotC.


So the spell that is being cast must be an element of the set of all spells that could exist. Mage armor is also an element of this set of spells.Correct.


Now then I am also taking as given that a spell can not both be be mage armor and at the same time be a spell that is not mage armor.I contend this point. Many spells count as other spells for some, but not all purposes. In this case, the spell could be Mage Armor in some instances, and not be, in others.


Now then the spell being cast must must either be the spell mage armor or not the spell mage armor.Correct.


So in the condition where the spell is mage armor then my position is correct as the spell remains mage armor even though the extend spell feat has been applied.Correct. However, via the very first premise, even when modified, it is still a spell.


On the other hand consider the situation that the spell is not mage armor. If this is the case then the spell is either a spell published by Wotc or not publihed by WotC.Correct.


I believe that it can be agreed that the spell being cast is not a spell published by WotC. In other words applying a metamagic feat to a published spell does not change it to any other published spell.With the possible exception of Lightning Bolt and Chain Lightning, in which case, altering a lightning bolt with the Chain metamagic feat makes it identical, in all respects but name, to a Chain Lightning Spell.


However as the opposing side has already agreed that they "have never tried to prove that it makes it a new spell". I am taking new spell to mean one that has not been published by WotC.Flaw in logical premise. I have never tried to prove it is not either. In other words, you are accepting as fact something that is not proven. You are accepting my personal opinion, or a misguided interpretation thereof, as fact. It is not published by WotC, and so suffers the burden of proof, same as anything else.


And so the spell is neither published by WotC nor is is Noe published by Wotc.

The result is based on a flawed premise, and is similarly flawed.


However there is a contradiction with the given that "that all spells are either published by wizards of the coast or are not published by wizards of the coast (WotC)".Conflict avoided via showing you that because I have not contested that it is a new spell, your premise assumes that it must not be. Insufficient evidence is presented to show that the spell is not new. Thus, the conclusion is based, in part, on unproven data.


And so since the case of the spell not being the spell mage armor results in a contradiction the case of the spell not being mage armor must be false.

And thus the only viable case is that the spell must be mage armor.See above for flaw in logical reasoning.



I next present the fact that in the rules I find the position that "since the rules don't say it doesn't then it does" to be nonsensical as that leads to situations such as one saying that all 2' 9" tall halflings gain 32 divine ranks beacause the rules do not say that they don't. I then contend that since metamagic feats do not say that they change the spell into a spell that is not the spell then they don't.
Very well. By this rule, I contend the following.

FACT 1: The text of Innate Spell instructs you to "Select any spell you can cast."

Premise A: This is taken to mean that there are two criteria for selecting. The choice must be a spell, and it must be one that the caster may cast.

Premise B: "Any spell" is all-inclusive, allowing all spells not explicitly prohibited. In other words, if this ability does not expressly forbid it, then the allowing term "any spell" means that the choice is legal, provided that it is, in fact, a spell.

By your premise 1 (a Mage Armor spell modified by Extend Spell is still a spell), it meets the first criteria.

Therefore, the only remaining legal issue for this section of the choice is "can the caster cast it?" If yes, then it is legal.

Note that the ability does not require the spell to be unmodified. And since if the rules don't mention that the spell must be unmodified, by your most recent argument, then that must not be a restriction that applies.

Conclusion: A modified spell is still a legal choice for selection via innate spell, provided it meets all casting and level requirements set by the feat.


Edit: Clearly the spell mage armor with a metamagic feat applied is still a spell because it is still the spell mage armor.
By your statement here, I take that you agree with premise A. Do you wish to dispute any of my other premises?

[PhoenixRivers]

Was this argument really containing one side that said "No, you're wrong, you have nothing to support you'r claims" and then claiming something he can not support with facts himself?

Yes.

Though I'll do him one step better.

Even if I assume your argument is true, Olentu, and a Mage Armor, modified by Extend Spell, is still considered Mage Armor, for all intents and purposes.

Premise 1: Mage Armor is a spell.

Premise 2: Even when modified by metamagic, Mage Armor is still Mage Armor.

Premise 3: For any given caster level, an unmodified Mage armor will have a differing duration than a Mage Armor that has been modified by Extend Spell.

Conclusion 1: The same spell can have differing effects, based on metamagic applied.

FACT 1: Innate spell allows the selection of any spell that the caster may cast, provided that the caster must give up a slot 8 levels higher than the spell selected.

Premise 5: Modified Spells are still spells.

Premise 6: "Any Spell" does not exclude modified spells.

Conclusion 2: Innate spell's text allows for modified spells to be selected.

FACT 2: Innate spell makes no provision for making modified spells perform as if they had not been modified.

Conclusion 3: When a modified spell is selected for Innate spell, it performs, when used, by RAW for all effects currently modifying it. This includes the metamagic feat.

[kme]

When you cast a mage armor, that has been extended, you are indeed casting "a spell". That it has no listing that bears its exact stats is irrelevant.It is relevant for defining what spell means.

"Choose any spell." That's the base requirement we're looking at. So, what we choose must be a spell. There's no listing stating that it must be a spell that is unmodified. Only that you must be able to cast it. Modified spell is not a new spell, it's still a modified existing spell. The modifying aspect is not a part of the spell, its a circumstance. Mage armor with extend spell applied does not become "extended mage armor", it becomes extended "mage armor". The word extended is there to describe a circumstance.


What you are saying is like saying you can't apply the Ghost dragon template to a (half dragon, half fiend dragon), because the dragon is modified. After all, that half dragon half fiend dragon has no listed entry anywhere! That means that it's not really a dragon, and when you add Ghost Dragon, it loses half-fiend. Because "Red Dragon" is a dragon. "Half Dragon Half-Fiend Red Dragon" is not. You'll never see a listing in any monster manual for a "Half Dragon Half Fiend Red Dragon". Why did you make this comparison? The rules for advancing monsters are completely different set of rules, that have nothing to do with spells and metamagic. Yes there are some similarities but those rules are much more clear and better defined, and as such are of no use here.

That's what metamagic is, essentially. It's a modification of an existing entry, unique to that specific example. It's essentially a template that applies to a spell. No, template is better defined and the only similarity it has with metamagic is that it modifies something.

If a Mage Armor that has been modified with extend spell is still a spell, then it is a valid choice for any occurance that requires you choose a spell. Yes it is a spell, more specifically the "mage armor" spell. The fact that it is currently modified does not make it a new spell "modified mage armor". And the feat says choose any spell, not choose any spell with all its modifications.

As for where it ends? Accepting that a spell that has been modified by metamagic is still a spell? That begins, and ends, at RAW. That part is RAW, and Olentu has conceded that. Whether the spell is a "different" spell is his contention.That part is RAW. But it's a simplified statement. And this is your disagreement, in his opinion (and mine too) for a modified spell to be a legal target it must be different (new spell), otherwise it does not receive any benefit from the modifications. Why? Because then it's just a spell(that you can choose) under some kind of effect(while closely connected,it's not a true part of the spell). And metamagic is no different then any other effect. The fact that it uses higher level spell slot is just a cost, that happens to be the same as for using higher level spells, it does not make them new higher level spells.

I suppose someone can argue that a spell does become "different", but I see no reason to assume that. Why should modification and spell be somehow combined into something new and inseparable called "modified spell" that it also considered a new spell? The only reason I see is a confusion created by the cost of metamagic in higher level slots.

Spells automatically maximized with incense of meditation, spells automatically quickened on astral plane, spells with casting time reduced with arcane spell surge, spells enhanced by spell enhancer etc. These are all spells and you can cast them. Yes they are currently modified (just as with metamagic), but so what, they are still those old spells. By your interpretation these are all legal candidates for innate spell.

[PhoenixRivers]

Yes it is a spell, more specifically the "mage armor" spell. The fact that it is currently modified does not make it a new spell "modified mage armor". And the feat says choose any spell, not choose any spell with all its modifications.


Yes. And when you prepare a mage armor spell using the extend spell feat, and then cast it, it is extended. Why? Because the RAW for the spell indicates that when prepared with Extend spell, the duration is doubled.

And it does not state that modifications are left. If Mage Armor, when modified, is still Mage Armor, then a spell may be modified and still be a spell.

If that spell, when modified, is still a spell, then it is still a legal choice.

The ability does not exclude modifications. Other abilities do. For example, Maximize Spell and Empower Spell explicitly exclude one another. One's modification does not affect the other. No such limiting text applies here, and, no matter how much you may want to, you cannot arbitrarily add additional restrictions on RAW. At least, not if you want it to be RAW.

The description says "any spell". If the spell "Magic Missile", when modified by Maximize Spell is still a spell, castable by you, and you have a spell slot 8 levels higher to sacrifice, then by the rules, as they are written (RAW), you may.

If you would refute this, then refute it by RAW. Show me a contradictory statement anywhere in official RAW. Show me text stating that this feat may not use spells with metamagic feats applied. You have an opportunity.

RAW does not prohibit the action. RAW includes the option in the subset of allowed options (any spell that you may cast). The only way this would not be legal is if the spell were uncastable with a metamagic feat applied.

If you wish to state that RAW, or even RAI, excludes the modifications, then please. Show me something to support that.

There's not.

For further evidence, when you're told to make a jump check, do you leave out your Strength modifier, because the rules didn't explicitly tell you to include it? No. Because, by RAW, when modifiers are applied, they apply unless explicit text excludes them. Show me such.


Spells automatically maximized with incense of meditation, spells automatically quickened on astral plane, spells with casting time reduced with arcane spell surge, spells enhanced by spell enhancer etc. These are all spells and you can cast them. Yes they are currently modified (just as with metamagic), but so what, they are still those old spells. By your interpretation these are all legal candidates for innate spell.

Actually, no. They run afoul of an entirely different interpretation. You can't cast such a spell without aid. Only with the aid of an external enhancement are those spells castable. As it stands, with no modifiers, a person may not quicken a spell without a Quicken Spell feat (internal to the character).

If a character can, independently of modifiers external to the character, cast the spell, then it applies. We don't determine that a fighter can't select Power Attack if he levels up while strength damaged. Qualification is off base stats, independent of external modification.

So a spell that is automatically quickened in a specific location only, and otherwise, cannot be cast in that state by a character, is not eligible. The character cannot cast the spell, as it exists. He or she needs help.

[olentu]

I have never contended this.

Proposal 1: A character casting a Mage Armor spell, modified by the Extend spell feat, is casting a spell. For all purposes, the above qualifies as a spell.

Proposal accepted.
Wizards of the Coast can (and has) provided RAW methods by which spells may be created. Such spells are not published, and yet, are still RAW supported.
That said, yes, each individual spell is either published by WotC or not.
Correct, though it may be an altered spell, altered through methods published by WotC.
Correct.
I contend this point. Many spells count as other spells for some, but not all purposes. In this case, the spell could be Mage Armor in some instances, and not be, in others.
Correct.
Correct. However, via the very first premise, even when modified, it is still a spell.
Correct.
With the possible exception of Lightning Bolt and Chain Lightning, in which case, altering a lightning bolt with the Chain metamagic feat makes it identical, in all respects but name, to a Chain Lightning Spell.
Flaw in logical premise. I have never tried to prove it is not either. In other words, you are accepting as fact something that is not proven. You are accepting my personal opinion, or a misguided interpretation thereof, as fact. It is not published by WotC, and so suffers the burden of proof, same as anything else.

The result is based on a flawed premise, and is similarly flawed.
Conflict avoided via showing you that because I have not contested that it is a new spell, your premise assumes that it must not be. Insufficient evidence is presented to show that the spell is not new. Thus, the conclusion is based, in part, on unproven data.
See above for flaw in logical reasoning.


Very well. By this rule, I contend the following.

FACT 1: The text of Innate Spell instructs you to "Select any spell you can cast."

Premise A: This is taken to mean that there are two criteria for selecting. The choice must be a spell, and it must be one that the caster may cast.

Premise B: "Any spell" is all-inclusive, allowing all spells not explicitly prohibited. In other words, if this ability does not expressly forbid it, then the allowing term "any spell" means that the choice is legal, provided that it is, in fact, a spell.

By your premise 1 (a Mage Armor spell modified by Extend Spell is still a spell), it meets the first criteria.

Therefore, the only remaining legal issue for this section of the choice is "can the caster cast it?" If yes, then it is legal.

Note that the ability does not require the spell to be unmodified. And since if the rules don't mention that the spell must be unmodified, by your most recent argument, then that must not be a restriction that applies.

Conclusion: A modified spell is still a legal choice for selection via innate spell, provided it meets all casting and level requirements set by the feat.

By your statement here, I take that you agree with premise A. Do you wish to dispute any of my other premises?

Well perhaps you have not but as it seemed that you had to me and I can not make decisions based on something that I do not know.


Now at the point that you contend when I say at the same time I seem to be using the same time to mean the same instance. So to use your terminology a spell can not both be the spell mage armor and not the spell mage armor in the same instance.

Well as I recall since lightening bolt is not a spell that specifies a single target it would not be a valid spell for chain lightening to have an effect on. And so they would not be the same spell.


So then do you agree that applying a metamagic feat to a spell makes it a new spell or do you agree that applying a metamagic feat to a spell does not make it a new spell. If you agree with the second then the argument stands as agreed upon by both parties.




In the next section I do agree that the spell is still a spell and it can be cast. However if, as I contend, the spell is still mage armor then when on picks a spell that they can cast they are picking the spell mage armor. And so that would mean that the innate spell feat gives one the ability to use the spell mage armor once per round as a spell like ability. Thus making the application of metamagic feats to the spell when chosen to have no effect.


Yes.

Though I'll do him one step better.

Even if I assume your argument is true, Olentu, and a Mage Armor, modified by Extend Spell, is still considered Mage Armor, for all intents and purposes.

Premise 1: Mage Armor is a spell.

Premise 2: Even when modified by metamagic, Mage Armor is still Mage Armor.

Premise 3: For any given caster level, an unmodified Mage armor will have a differing duration than a Mage Armor that has been modified by Extend Spell.

Conclusion 1: The same spell can have differing effects, based on metamagic applied.

FACT 1: Innate spell allows the selection of any spell that the caster may cast, provided that the caster must give up a slot 8 levels higher than the spell selected.

Premise 5: Modified Spells are still spells.

Premise 6: "Any Spell" does not exclude modified spells.

Conclusion 2: Innate spell's text allows for modified spells to be selected.

FACT 2: Innate spell makes no provision for making modified spells perform as if they had not been modified.

Conclusion 3: When a modified spell is selected for Innate spell, it performs, when used, by RAW for all effects currently modifying it. This includes the metamagic feat.

I will respond to you in this case since you seem to be responding to me to some degree here.

Again since the spell is mage armor then innate spell gives one the ability to use mage armor once per round as a spell like ability. Would you say that that means that one can choose any specific instance of the spell mage armor that has ever been cast and by extension would you say that for all spell like abilities where a creature is said to be able to use a spell as a spell like ability is it valid for the creature to choose that the spell like ability produces the results of any specific instance where the spell has been cast. For example if a paragnostic apostle with the Mind over Matter knowledge is power special ability has ever cast mage armor would you find it to be true that when using the spell mage armor as a spell like ability could I choose it to give an additional 2 AC since in one instance the result of the spell was as such.

If that is your stance (as it appears to be given the argument) then I would suggest arguing for that, as opposed to something similar but not quite the same, as it would remove the need for a caster to have the extend spell feat to have their usage of the spell mage armor as a spell like ability last for two hours per level so long as someone anywhere has ever cast a mage armor that had such a result. This would be much better from an optimization standpoint as one would merely need to get someone who can stack as many bonuses on a spell to cast it once for one to take full advantage of said spell when using it as a spell like ability.



I suppose that I shall not respond to your last post as the person to which you are replying should have the first crack at it.

[PhoenixRivers]

So then do you agree that applying a metamagic feat to a spell makes it a new spell or do you agree that applying a metamagic feat to a spell does not make it a new spell. If you agree with the second then the argument stands as agreed upon by both parties.I contend that RAW doesn't state clearly enough to determine one way or the other, and so, cannot be a supported premise.

If you wish to attempt to support the premise, by all means, do so. But as it stands, RAW isn't clear enough on the matter to use it as fact, or even a granted assumption.



In the next section I do agree that the spell is still a spell and it can be cast. However if, as I contend, the spell is still mage armor then when on picks a spell that they can cast they are picking the spell mage armor. And so that would mean that the innate spell feat gives one the ability to use the spell mage armor once per round as a spell like ability. Thus making the application of metamagic feats to the spell when chosen to have no effect.
Support this.

You contend that Mage Armor, modified by metamagic feat "Extend Spell", is still "Mage Armor". I'll go along with that, for the sole purpose of debate (this is not to be construed as agreeing with this point, merely that I'll argue it on its own terms)

You then state that this means that there is no effect to the mage armor when it is selected.

It's already been shown that seperate castings of mage armor can have different attributes, based on variables chosen at preparation time (metamagic). So, while it is Mage Armor, the characteristics of the spell do not match the Mage Armor spell, as printed. They are modified.

Now, what makes you think that innate spell removes other modifications placed upon a spell? Where in the description does it state that it does so?



Again since the spell is mage armor then innate spell gives one the ability to use mage armor once per round as a spell like ability. Would you say that that means that one can choose any specific instance of the spell mage armor that has ever been cast and by extension would you say that for all spell like abilities where a creature is said to be able to use a spell as a spell like ability is it valid for the creature to choose that the spell like ability produces the results of any specific instance where the spell has been cast.No. I would say that it would allow the caster to use exactly the Mage Armor that was selected when the feat was selected. If the Mage armor was extended when it was selected, the caster MUST choose the extended mage armor every single time. He/she may not choose any other option. The choice was made at the time the feat was selected, and is thereafter immutable, by the text of the feat. The feat specifies you select a spell that you can cast. You thereafter may use that spell (That spell referencing the earlier selected spell). You are not granted the ability to use any other spell, so you may not. The feat does not say you can, so you cannot.

By the same token, I contend that the spell is not required to be free of legal modifications. Support for this: The feat does not say as such. It is a restriction that is being added without text permitting. I further contend that Innate spell does not remove modifications to the selected spell. Support for this: The feat does not say as such. It is an additional step that is being added without text support.



For example if a paragnostic apostle with the Mind over Matter knowledge is power special ability has ever cast mage armor would you find it to be true that when using the spell mage armor as a spell like ability could I choose it to give an additional 2 AC since in one instance the result of the spell was as such.If that was the precise exact version of the spell you originally selected? Yes, provided the casting is entirely possible to cast by the caster, and only the caster. In this instance I read "the caster must be able to cast the spell" as a requirement, independent of aid from outside sources. A friendly caster casting "Imbue with Spell Ability" is not enough, nor is a metamagic rod. In this instance, the caster does not have the ability to cast said spell. The item or spell is providing some of the ability.

If that is not the precise spell selected, modifications and all, then no. You may not alter the spell, once selected. The feat refers back to the original spell selected, so all castings must be identical to that.


If that is your stance (as it appears to be given the argument) then I would suggest arguing for that, as opposed to something similar but not quite the same, as it would remove the need for a caster to have the extend spell feat to have their usage of the spell mage armor as a spell like ability last for two hours per level so long as someone anywhere has ever cast a mage armor that had such a result. This would be much better from an optimization standpoint as one would merely need to get someone who can stack as many bonuses on a spell to cast it once for one to take full advantage of said spell when using it as a spell like ability.Except that it is not my stance. Your belief that it is demonstrates a lack of understanding of my position. While I place no fault on either side for that misunderstanding, I'd appreciate if you make your points, and let me make mine, rather than guess at what I'm thinking.

[olentu]

I contend that RAW doesn't state clearly enough to determine one way or the other, and so, cannot be a supported premise.

If you wish to attempt to support the premise, by all means, do so. But as it stands, RAW isn't clear enough on the matter to use it as fact, or even a granted assumption.


Support this.

You contend that Mage Armor, modified by metamagic feat "Extend Spell", is still "Mage Armor". I'll go along with that, for the sole purpose of debate (this is not to be construed as agreeing with this point, merely that I'll argue it on its own terms)

You then state that this means that there is no effect to the mage armor when it is selected.

It's already been shown that seperate castings of mage armor can have different attributes, based on variables chosen at preparation time (metamagic). So, while it is Mage Armor, the characteristics of the spell do not match the Mage Armor spell, as printed. They are modified.

Now, what makes you think that innate spell removes other modifications placed upon a spell? Where in the description does it state that it does so?

No. I would say that it would allow the caster to use exactly the Mage Armor that was selected when the feat was selected. If the Mage armor was extended when it was selected, the caster MUST choose the extended mage armor every single time. He/she may not choose any other option. The choice was made at the time the feat was selected, and is thereafter immutable, by the text of the feat. The feat specifies you select a spell that you can cast. You thereafter may use that spell (That spell referencing the earlier selected spell). You are not granted the ability to use any other spell, so you may not. The feat does not say you can, so you cannot.

By the same token, I contend that the spell is not required to be free of legal modifications. Support for this: The feat does not say as such. It is a restriction that is being added without text permitting. I further contend that Innate spell does not remove modifications to the selected spell. Support for this: The feat does not say as such. It is an additional step that is being added without text support.

If that was the precise exact version of the spell you originally selected? Yes, provided the casting is entirely possible to cast by the caster, and only the caster. In this instance I read "the caster must be able to cast the spell" as a requirement, independent of aid from outside sources. A friendly caster casting "Imbue with Spell Ability" is not enough, nor is a metamagic rod. In this instance, the caster does not have the ability to cast said spell. The item or spell is providing some of the ability.

If that is not the precise spell selected, modifications and all, then no. You may not alter the spell, once selected. The feat refers back to the original spell selected, so all castings must be identical to that.
Except that it is not my stance. Your belief that it is demonstrates a lack of understanding of my position. While I place no fault on either side for that misunderstanding, I'd appreciate if you make your points, and let me make mine, rather than guess at what I'm thinking.

Ah that would be the point. So that would mean that if your position is correct then the argument comes to a stalemate as neither side is sufficiently proven. So thus if you continue responding I shall take it as a sign that you must have made decision on this topic since would knowint if applying a metamagic feat to a spell makes the spell into another spell that is not the spell would mean that all your talk about versions can not make sense as a version of a spell would mean that the spell has not changed into another spell that is not the spell. This would be because a version of a spell is the spell and therefor not another spell that is not the spell.


Applying a metamagic feat to a spell does not change the spell. And clearly as nothing says that the modifications actually change the spell then they do not. Or are you arguing that when a particular spellcaster applies a metamagic feat to a spell then the spell actually changes instead the spell functioning differently in this situation similarly to how it functions differently depending on the plane the spell is cast on. This would have quite disastrous implications as things such as mage armor changing to use a spell slot one level higher. And as I said since the spell is still mage armor when one chooses a spell one chooses mage armor and so since any paritcular situations are external to the spell mage armor they are not also chosen as they are not a part of the spell since a spell like ability works just like the spell of the same name. And so only an actual change in the spell will cause the spell like ability to act differently and not external agencies unless external agencies change the spell into a spell that is not the spell seeing as the new spell has a different name.





Now then in this part I am going to consider the implication of what would happen if the various different results of a spell due to outside agencies, or as you term them versions, were an actual intrinsic part of a spell. As such this will probably seem at odds to the previous parts of the post.
Like I said one does not select the spell mage armor modified by the extend spell feat one selects mage armor. I say this since any version of the spell mage armor is the spell mage armor then selecting mage armor would by default select all versions. And as a version of the spell mage armor is not a separate spell it can not be selected separately from selecting mage armor. So either all versions of the spell are available to one who selects said spell or only a subset is however as the feat does not say which versions are or are not available I would think the default would be either all versions or just the default version. However there is a specific restriction on some versions of a spell places there by the nature of being a spell like ability but that should not matter for mage armor as it does not act differently based upon the list on which it exists.


Again taking the previous hypothetical one is selecting a spell and that would by default come with all versions since all versions are the spell.



The fact that I am asking would mean that I am trying to pin down your position and as such in this particular instance I would therefor not understand your position on this particular point. Would you instead prefer that we talk past each other and thus get nowhere in the argument as I could oblige you in that way if you wish.

[kme]

Yes. And when you prepare a mage armor spell using the extend spell feat, and then cast it, it is extended. Why? Because the RAW for the spell indicates that when prepared with Extend spell, the duration is doubled.
Yes it is doubles by special circumstance, but the spell didn't change, it is still a mage armor as defined in PHB.

And it does not state that modifications are left. If Mage Armor, when modified, is still Mage Armor, then a spell may be modified and still be a spell. They are not left out, they are ignored because they are not a true part of the spell. You cannot choose "extended mage armor" as there is no such spell, you can only choose a "mage armor" part of the extended mage armor. And when "mage armor" is chosen, it works as a mage armor described in PHB as it is the only description of "mage armor".


If that spell, when modified, is still a spell, then it is still a legal choice.
Yes, but the modification aspect is not a true part of the spell, so you cannot choose it along with a spell itself.

The ability does not exclude modifications. Other abilities do. For example, Maximize Spell and Empower Spell explicitly exclude one another. One's modification does not affect the other. No such limiting text applies here, and, no matter how much you may want to, you cannot arbitrarily add additional restrictions on RAW. At least, not if you want it to be RAW. When you apply a metamagic feat you are always applying it to a spell, not a modified spell. There cannot be empowered "maximized fireball", there can only be empowered, maximized "fireball"(or fireball(empowered, maximized)). How are metamagic feats/other modifications resolved is not clearly specified (except for maximized and empower), but it is of no real consequence for innate spell.
Innate spell is not applied to spell that you choose, nor is it stored inside of it. You also don't choose a spell that is currently prepared, or the possible effect of a castable spell, you choose a spell that you can cast. And since the spell will always be "fireball", not "empowered, maximized fireball", the possible modifying aspects are simply irrelevant (they are not a part of the spell fireball) since you have chosen "fireball".

The description says "any spell". If the spell "Magic Missile", when modified by Maximize Spell is still a spell, castable by you, and you have a spell slot 8 levels higher to sacrifice, then by the rules, as they are written (RAW), you may. Yes, by your interpretation of RAW, not by mine, and this is what we are arguing. "Magic missile" is a legal target, "maximized magic missile" is not, because it does not exist. You are not choosing the effect of a spell, you are choosing a spell. All modifying aspect that you apply to a spell only change the effect of that current spell, they do not change the spell in it's basic form (as it is in PHB).


If you would refute this, then refute it by RAW. Show me a contradictory statement anywhere in official RAW. Show me text stating that this feat may not use spells with metamagic feats applied. You have an opportunity. This is not based on fact, it's based on your interpretation of RAW. Is your interpretation basically this:
Effect of a spell is still considered a spell and so it is a valid target for innate spell? I do not agree with this, effect of a spell does not exist before a spell is being cast, it is determined once the spell is cast. The effect of a magic missile is not "5d4+5 damage"(this is only a method for its determination), the effect is the amount of damage that you rolled (for example 17). This is obviously problematic, all the various effects have a potential to be cast so how do you determine which one is used for innate spell?

Lets see what RAW we have:
Choose any spell you can cast
This can be interpreted in various ways:

any spell: ok, so what is a spell? There is no real definition in RAW, so we must assume that it is everything that can be called a spell at some point. But for you to choose it, it must exist in some way. So what are the ways for a spell to exist:

1) In the rules - This includes all spells that are written, and it is their purest form. The rules for modifying spells exist, but they do not happen in the rules they happen either in the game or the metagame.

2) In the game - This includes all instances where something in the game world can be called a spell. There are three types:
a. Spells as formulas that allow you to use your spell slots to cast them. This includes lists of spells known, lists of effective spells known, spells in spellbook and those learned with spell mastery and similar.
b. Spells in their prepared form. This are spells that are not currently formulas and are not yet "cast". This includes spells prepared in spell slots and spells stored in items. Those from items are not available for innate spell.
c. Spells as effects. These are the direct results of a spell. Effects can be truly modified but they defined before they happen. Once they happen they are fixed. Allowing them as targets for innate spell would be very non standard.

3) In the metagame - All spells fall in this category. This includes all hypothetical spells that do not currently exist in the game. It can be argued that these spells do not truly exist and so they are not a valid choice.


you can cast: Casting a spell means expending a spell slot which results in spell taking effect. No matter what modified it, it was still cast by you.

So what type(s) of spell existence is valid for choosing a spell for innate spell?

The most logical and the most default IMO is 1st (as they are defined in the rules), but some others can be easily assumed:
3) - Simply all spells. This is easy and lazy option. If you allow it, the effects are also valid and this is just very strange.

2) a. - This is basically option 1, but from the game point of view, and it would be chosen for the same reasons. This can be argued to be RAI.

2) a. b. c. - This is almost the same as option 3 and has the same problems.

2) a. b. - This is somewhat inelegant, why would you allow option a. and b. but not c? Possibly convenience or due to confusion caused by slot mechanics. Or you can say that it expands your options. But this is not really true, you options remain the same, since the spell cannot be truly modified, only its effect.

RAW does not prohibit the action. RAW includes the option in the subset of allowed options (any spell that you may cast). The only way this would not be legal is if the spell were uncastable with a metamagic feat applied.

If you wish to state that RAW, or even RAI, excludes the modifications, then please. Show me something to support that.

There's not.
I believe that this is now also covered with above.

For further evidence, when you're told to make a jump check, do you leave out your Strength modifier, because the rules didn't explicitly tell you to include it? No. Because, by RAW, when modifiers are applied, they apply unless explicit text excludes them. Show me such. When you are making jump check you are using you jump modifier, not your jump ranks. And it is separately defined how to get your jump modifier. Anyway, this is a different mechanic and does not apply here.

Actually, no. They run afoul of an entirely different interpretation. You can't cast such a spell without aid. Only with the aid of an external enhancement are those spells castable. You definitely can. It won't be modified but you can certainly cast it. You can never cast "modified spells", only modified "spells" which have "modified effects". The fact that a modification comes from internal source does not change this, since it is still external from the spell.
As it stands, with no modifiers, a person may not quicken a spell without a Quicken Spell feat (internal to the character). This is not true, he can quicken it with a metamagic rod of quicken for example.

If a character can, independently of modifiers external to the character, cast the spell, then it applies. We don't determine that a fighter can't select Power Attack if he levels up while strength damaged. Qualification is off base stats, independent of external modification.

So a spell that is automatically quickened in a specific location only, and otherwise, cannot be cast in that state by a character, is not eligible. The character cannot cast the spell, as it exists. He or she needs help. Why are modifications from internal modifiers getting special treatment? As for fighter qualifying for power attack, i remember reading that you can qualify for feats using stat boosters, this implies that a fighter indeed cannot qualify for a power attack then. But this is a different mechanic and is not really relevant here.

[PhoenixRivers]

First, I had to read this about 6 times to actually decipher what you were trying to say. Please phrase your comments in a way that's more easily readable. If for nothing else, then for the sake of my headache.

Ah that would be the point. So that would mean that if your position is correct then the argument comes to a stalemate as neither side is sufficiently proven.

Incorrect. If my position is correct then the Feat's lack of prohibition of metamagic construes that it is not prohibited, and thus allowed.

So thus if you continue responding I shall take it as a sign that you must have made decision on this topic

And what decision would that be? I assure you, that if you assume I've made a decision without actually verifying that I've made that decision, there is a very good chance you'll have made a false assumption.


since would knowint if applying a metamagic feat to a spell makes the spell into another spell that is not the spell would mean that all your talk about versions can not make sense as a version of a spell would mean that the spell has not changed into another spell that is not the spell.

Which is why I said, for the sake of the discussion, we'll follow this line of reasoning. NOT that I agreed with this line of reasoning.


This would be because a version of a spell is the spell and therefor not another spell that is not the spell.

When CTR modifies a porshe, it maintains many of the characteristics of a porshe. However, it's not a porshe any longer. Sometimes different versions of something can be different. Sometimes they are the same. Regardless, I see no point in this line of reasoning, so unless you can show how this is relevant, no further discussion on "same spell" versus "different spell" will be made. It's wasteful and nonproductive, and not relevant to the issue at hand.


Applying a metamagic feat to a spell does not change the spell.

Per text of metamagic feats:
Effects of Metamagic Feats on a Spell

In all ways, a metamagic spell operates at its original spell level, even though it is prepared and cast as a higher-level spell. Saving throw modifications are not changed unless stated otherwise in the feat description.

The modifications made by these feats only apply to spells cast directly by the feat user. A spellcaster can’t use a metamagic feat to alter a spell being cast from a wand, scroll, or other device.
Per the SRD (and thus RAW), metamagic feats DO modify spells.

Dictionary Definition of modify:to change somewhat the form or qualities of; alter partially; amend: to modify a contract.

Modify and Change are synonymous in meaning. Thus, Metamagic feats DO change spells.

This is now supported and proven by RAW.

RAW Fact 1: Metamagic feats modify spells (source spoilered above).
Fact 2: To modify is to change. (source spoilered above).

If A=B and B=C then A=C.

Conclusion: Metamagic Feats do change spells.

Concede this point before we go any farther.

[olentu]

First, I had to read this about 6 times to actually decipher what you were trying to say. Please phrase your comments in a way that's more easily readable. If for nothing else, then for the sake of my headache.

Incorrect. If my position is correct then the Feat's lack of prohibition of metamagic construes that it is not prohibited, and thus allowed.
And what decision would that be? I assure you, that if you assume I've made a decision without actually verifying that I've made that decision, there is a very good chance you'll have made a false assumption.

Which is why I said, for the sake of the discussion, we'll follow this line of reasoning. NOT that I agreed with this line of reasoning.

When CTR modifies a porshe, it maintains many of the characteristics of a porshe. However, it's not a porshe any longer. Sometimes different versions of something can be different. Sometimes they are the same. Regardless, I see no point in this line of reasoning, so unless you can show how this is relevant, no further discussion on "same spell" versus "different spell" will be made. It's wasteful and nonproductive, and not relevant to the issue at hand.

Per text of metamagic feats:
Effects of Metamagic Feats on a Spell

In all ways, a metamagic spell operates at its original spell level, even though it is prepared and cast as a higher-level spell. Saving throw modifications are not changed unless stated otherwise in the feat description.

The modifications made by these feats only apply to spells cast directly by the feat user. A spellcaster can’t use a metamagic feat to alter a spell being cast from a wand, scroll, or other device.
Per the SRD (and thus RAW), metamagic feats DO modify spells.

Dictionary Definition of modify:to change somewhat the form or qualities of; alter partially; amend: to modify a contract.

Modify and Change are synonymous in meaning. Thus, Metamagic feats DO change spells.

This is now supported and proven by RAW.

RAW Fact 1: Metamagic feats modify spells (source spoilered above).
Fact 2: To modify is to change. (source spoilered above).

If A=B and B=C then A=C.

Conclusion: Metamagic Feats do change spells.

Concede this point before we go any farther.

I can easily understand my own comments. Please do not ask that I gain the ability tor read minds as it would be unlikely to happen and therefor useless.

That is not in any way what I am saying in that section. What I was talking about there had nothing to do in the particular with innate spell. Well at least in a direct fashion.


I was going to try and verify what said decision was by asking said position in the next post. I would not necessarily know what it was just that if the track of discussion was continued then for it to mean anything a decision would need to be made one way or the other assuming that terms are being used in a way that is consistent in a particular situation. I do of course assume that you would not make an argument without properly defining terms in particular instances.


So you are saying that the term version depends on the situation I thought that you were the one against doing things like that. In any case what matters is how it works in the situation being discussed.


However the question of being the same spell or being a different spell is important since baring the exceptions (as spell like abilities obviously do not function exactly the same as spells) a spell like ability works just like the spell with the same name. And so since one must know what the spell with the same name is, whether any particular spell is the spell in question or not will determine what spell the spell like ability will function just like.


Oh it seems like it goes back to the fundamental differences in our positions and possibly a difference in terms being that in mine the spell mage armor remains the spell mage armor even if external factors cause a difference in its results. However from what I understand of your position I can see where the problem lies. And so I will say that due to the fundamental difference in our positions I can not concede the point as that would mean conceding that the application of a metamagic feat makes that spell to which it was applied into a spell that is not the spell to which it was originally applied. And as such this would mean conceding the argument.


However as it seems that you support the position that spells that have had metamagic feats applied are not the spell to which they were applied then that would mean to me that it is your position that applying a metamagic feat to a spell makes it into a spell that is not the spell to which the feat was applied. And thus we are back to this.


Though interestingly enough your position would seem to mean that one could capture some of the magic traits of planes. For example on the elemental plane of water all spells that use or create water cast are extended and enlarged. So if your position was correct then since one can cast a spell that is extended and enlarged (obviously assuming the correct type of spell) one can grab those for free.

So perhaps that explains what I mean or perhaps it does not. If it does not then I will see if I can try to describe my position better. Or even possibly I will come up with a better description before there is a response and be able to save time by editing it into this post. Hopefully the lack of understanding of my position (as evidenced by the dismissal of part of said position) will not bring this discussion to a premature end. Also I do hope that my deciding not to concede the entire argument to you as you had asked would not prematurely end the discussion.

[PhoenixRivers]

However as it seems that you support the position that spells that have had metamagic feats applied are not the spell to which they were applied then that would mean to me that it is your position that applying a metamagic feat to a spell makes it into a spell that is not the spell to which the feat was applied. And thus we are back to this.It seems that you do not know what I support, nor is this relevant.

Though interestingly enough your position would seem to mean that one could capture some of the magic traits of planes. For example on the elemental plane of water all spells that use or create water cast are extended and enlarged. So if your position was correct then since one can cast a spell that is extended and enlarged (obviously assuming the correct type of spell) one can grab those for free.Can the caster independently modify the spell with Extend and enlarge at that slot? If so, then yes. If the caster cannot, without influence external to his own personal abilities, then no.

I have said this before.

All I require from you is exactly what I stated before. Before we continue farther, I want you to actually say that Metamagic Feats change spells. I don't need you to support new spell versus still the same spell; I honestly don't care how you rationalize it in that regard. But I want you to acknowledge that, according to the SRD, RAW of the matter is that Metamagic makes modifications and alterations to spells. This is a supported and cited position, and it needs to be acknowledged. If your next post does not contain said acknowledgement, it will not be replied to.

That way, I don't see any more of this nonsense about it not changing spells in the future.

[olentu]

It seems that you do not know what I support, nor is this relevant.
Can the caster independently modify the spell with Extend and enlarge at that slot? If so, then yes. If the caster cannot, without influence external to his own personal abilities, then no.

I have said this before.

All I require from you is exactly what I stated before. Before we continue farther, I want you to actually say that Metamagic Feats change spells. I don't need you to support new spell versus still the same spell; I honestly don't care how you rationalize it in that regard. But I want you to acknowledge that, according to the SRD, RAW of the matter is that Metamagic makes modifications and alterations to spells. This is a supported and cited position, and it needs to be acknowledged. If your next post does not contain said acknowledgement, it will not be replied to.

That way, I don't see any more of this nonsense about it not changing spells in the future.

Well due to the requirement that concede or you will quit, inadvertent or not, I will likely not get an answer to this question. In any case the question is from where are you getting the requirement that only feats known to the caster count.

By your own definition of the word same I can not say that metamagic feats change the spell that is being cast without also saying that the spell that is being cast is not the spell to which the feat was applied since it is a different spell. So clearly I can not say what you wish without supporting one side of the same spell different spell argument. Thus as I am trying to use your definitions in this case (as to do otherwise would make me answer meaningless) even though I have not always done so elsewhere, and as I must assume that you are using your own definitions,, to do so would be to concede the argument. So as I do not believe that applying a metamagic feat to a spell makes the spell into a spell that is not the spell to which the feat was applied then I can not agree since I do not believe that the opposing position is sufficiently supported for me to concede my position.

While I am disappointed that the discussion seems to have come to an en over your requirement that I concede or you will stop discussing it may be for the best as, although this could have changed at any moment, it did not seem to be going anywhere and while I would be fine with that I would not want to inconvenience others.

[PhoenixRivers]

Dictionary.com Definition of modify:
to change somewhat the form or qualities of; alter partially; amend: to modify a contract.

SRD, Metamagic Feats:

Effects of Metamagic Feats on a Spell

In all ways, a metamagic spell operates at its original spell level, even though it is prepared and cast as a higher-level spell. Saving throw modifications are not changed unless stated otherwise in the feat description.

The modifications made by these feats only apply to spells cast directly by the feat user. A spellcaster can’t use a metamagic feat to alter a spell being cast from a wand, scroll, or other device.

Bolded text shows that metamagic feats make modifications.
It further shows that these modifications are applied to spells.

When you make a modification to something, you modify it.
When you modify it, you change somewhat the form or qualities of it.

This isn't an unreasonable ultimatum. This is telling you that unless you can open your eyes enough to agree when the RAW is explicit and clear, then there is no further point in talking. The Text entry of the description of metamagic feats in the SRD explicitly states that it makes modifications.

This is no longer opinion. As far as RAW is concerned, it's law.

Now, if you can't even concede a proven and documented point....

What point is there to discuss the more esoteric ones? Your mind is made up. If you cling to every single point so fiercely, even the tertiary ones, that the rules outright contradicting you don't change the rhetoric, then there's no point. There's no open mind.

I'm not asking you to concede that it's a brand new spell. I don't care on that point. Heck, there's reasonable enough support for comparing it to laws. When they modify a bill, it's still the same bill. Some things changed, but the meat and potatoes is still the same.

All I'm asking you do, is acknowledge that RAW explicitly contradicts you when you say that metamagic does not make modifications, alterations, changes, or show me concrete RAW that outright contradicts the above. I need consensus on this RAW-documented and proven point, or this discussion can go no farther.

This is a search for truth. Here it is. You gonna turn a blind eye?

[oxinabox]

For a Gish:
Critical strike, it's a swift action +1d6 damage, doubles your crit range, (and maybe some other benifit tou you attack i can't remember)

Although by that stage you've got a lot of things you could be doing with your swift action.

Though it does let you prepare more shields with the free slots

[olentu]

Dictionary.com Definition of modify:

SRD, Metamagic Feats:


Bolded text shows that metamagic feats make modifications.
It further shows that these modifications are applied to spells.

When you make a modification to something, you modify it.
When you modify it, you change somewhat the form or qualities of it.

This isn't an unreasonable ultimatum. This is telling you that unless you can open your eyes enough to agree when the RAW is explicit and clear, then there is no further point in talking. The Text entry of the description of metamagic feats in the SRD explicitly states that it makes modifications.

This is no longer opinion. As far as RAW is concerned, it's law.

Now, if you can't even concede a proven and documented point....

What point is there to discuss the more esoteric ones? Your mind is made up. If you cling to every single point so fiercely, even the tertiary ones, that the rules outright contradicting you don't change the rhetoric, then there's no point. There's no open mind.

I'm not asking you to concede that it's a brand new spell. I don't care on that point. Heck, there's reasonable enough support for comparing it to laws. When they modify a bill, it's still the same bill. Some things changed, but the meat and potatoes is still the same.

All I'm asking you do, is acknowledge that RAW explicitly contradicts you when you say that metamagic does not make modifications, alterations, changes, or show me concrete RAW that outright contradicts the above. I need consensus on this RAW-documented and proven point, or this discussion can go no farther.

This is a search for truth. Here it is. You gonna turn a blind eye?

I am intentionally turning no more of a blind eye then you are as you obviously do not even understand what I am saying and at the least I am attempting to understand your position while you have as far as I can tell have made no attempt. I will try to explain my position again and then perhaps you will understand what I mean or perhaps not. Take a set of conditions including but not limited to the following; feats, spells, class abilities, and planar traits. Now then consider a spell that will be called the spell A. At any time that the spell A is cast under a set of conditions that act on the spell A it will act in an equal fashion. While those conditions may change the results and attributes that a spell expresses under that particular set of external conditions the spell A consistently acts in a way wherein it is equal to itself. That being said unless one of those conditions is said to convert the spell A into another spell then the spell is acting in an consistent fashion. And so I must find that the spell being cast remains the spell A as in all situations it is equal to itself and has the same name and so since the spell being cast is the spell A the spell being cast has not changed. However as you are asking that I concede that metamagic feats in particular are a condition that for some reason changes the spell A. Now I would have to say that the spell A must either be changed into itself or something that is not itself and as I can not in good faith with myself conclude from your words that you mean that the spell has changed into itself I must take from your post that you mean that the spell A would be changed into a spell that is not the spell A. So since the spell remains consistent and as far as I can tell the name of the spell does not change I can not conclude that the spell has changed as two elements in one class with the same name are as near as I can tell the not really two elements but rather one element under the rules and two things that remain consistently equal given consistent conditions would remain equal to each other.

It is obvious that you ascribe some special significance to metamagic feats that set them apart from any other possible conditions but as of yet I have not been able to glean from your postings what that is. Perhaps if I knew I would agree that all applications of metamagic feats convert the spell to which they are applied into a different spell then the one to which they were applied. Until such a time that such reasoning is made clear I must work with what I have and while that is clearly not complete as I can see several misunderstandings between us I can not really know something that I don't know. Perhaps a different method of explanation on your part would help or perhaps it would not but without new information as you seem to be asking me to concede the argument because metamagic feats are special for some reason that I do not understand and you do not seem to have explained.

It would certainly help if in this so called search for truth you were not being so vague.

[PhoenixRivers]

It is obvious that you ascribe some special significance to metamagic feats that set them apart from any other possible conditions but as of yet I have not been able to glean from your postings what that is.I do not. So evidently what is "obvious"... isn't. I am explicitly NOT claiming that metamagic alters it to the extent that it is a "new" spell. I have explicitly said that is another argument entirely, and that "new" versus "same" has NO bearing on this point.

I've said this. This is the THIRD time I've said it.

The only significance I ascribe to metamagic feats is explicitly what RAW ascribes to them. By RAW, metamagic makes modifications to spells. Whether or not that makes them new spells?

I don't honestly care. Keep whatever view you want.

What is explicitly stated is that metamagic feats make modifications to spells. RAW explicitly states this. You have twice now, ducked, dodged, or otherwise avoided this, out of some paranoid delusion that it's some insidious argument by me. It's not. It's a simple check to see if you can concede a point that RAW supports. A point that twice now, you've failed.


Perhaps if I knew I would agree that all applications of metamagic feats convert the spell to which they are applied into a different spell then the one to which they were applied.This is NOT what I have asked you to concede. I did NOT ask you to concede that it "converts a spell into a different spell". I asked you to concede that metamagic makes modifications to a spell. This is in accordance with the explicit RAW text I've provided. During this ultimatum, I never asked you to agree that it makes it a different spell. Never. So please, PLEASE, stop inferring things that I do not apply. You are strawmanning my position.


Perhaps a different method of explanation on your part would help or perhaps it would not but without new information as you seem to be asking me to concede the argument because metamagic feats are special for some reason that I do not understand and you do not seem to have explained.Special? No. All I'm saying is that RAW explicitly states that metamagic modifies spells. Explicitly. Any attempt to say otherwise is WRONG, by RAW. I'm not saying it's a different spell. I'm not saying it's the same spell. All I'm saying is precisely what the RAW says on that position. That any spell with metamagic applied is modified. Any position you support which is against that one truth is in opposition to RAW. Any position which is in opposition to RAW, without another section of RAW support, is wrong. So cite your RAW supporting that metamagic makes no changes to the spell, or yield the point.

There is now RAW explicitly stating that metamagic alters a spell. (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/feats.htm#metamagicFeats) It is in the linked section here, listed under "effects of metamagic feats on a spell".

So this is what I want.


Effects of Metamagic Feats on a Spell

In all ways, a metamagic spell operates at its original spell level, even though it is prepared and cast as a higher-level spell. Saving throw modifications are not changed unless stated otherwise in the feat description.

The modifications made by these feats only apply to spells cast directly by the feat user. A spellcaster can’t use a metamagic feat to alter a spell being cast from a wand, scroll, or other device.

Metamagic feats that eliminate components of a spell don’t eliminate the attack of opportunity provoked by casting a spell while threatened. However, casting a spell modified by Quicken Spell does not provoke an attack of opportunity.

Metamagic feats cannot be used with all spells. See the specific feat descriptions for the spells that a particular feat can’t modify.

1) Certify that the above quote is SRD.
2) Certify that the SRD is RAW.
3) Certify that the phrase "The modifications made by these feats only apply to spells cast directly by the feat user" means that the feats in question do make modifications to spells.
4) Certify that modifications made to spells are changes made to spells.

That's it. I'm not asking you agree that they are different spell. I'm not asking that. Just agree that the above 4 statements are all correct.

If you can't do that in your next post, then I have no choice but to assume that it's more important to you for you to "not lose" than for you to "discover what is correct". If you can't cede direct RAW without disagreeing out of fear of some further implication... Then I don't know.

Multiple times, you have stated that metamagic does not change spells. That is, above, explicitly contradicted by RAW. I'm attempting to issue a correction, to clear up a minor misconception, and you are fighting direct RAW.

In a RAW discussion, there is no fighting RAW, unless there is explicit RAW that contradicts it. In that case, primary source applies, which, in almost all cases for metamagic spells, will be the direct description of metamagic. This is RAW, and about as "primary source" as you can get. Show me a basis for the disagreement you've stated, or please drop it.

I'm not asking for you to insinuate an ulterior motive. I'm not asking you to imply that I'm scheming something, or misdirecting, or being vague.

I'm asking that you either agree to the above RAW, or show RAW basis for your disagreement. That's all. I don't need any other dissertations. I don't need a long speech. I understand your view. I'm not discussing your view or my view right now. I'm discussing direct RAW.

So agree. Or disagree. But no more diversions. No more platforming your view. I'm not. This is all RAW. Either agree with RAW, or disagree. But if you disagree, don't insult me by asking me "why" I want this. The answer to that is "I want RAW to be the primary factor in deciding what is correct and what is incorrect". My personal opinions have no bearing on the RAW above. If you disagree, tell me why you disagree. And bring something to the table beyond what you think. Bring an RAW fact to the table that supports you.

[olentu]

I do not. So evidently what is "obvious"... isn't. I am explicitly NOT claiming that metamagic alters it to the extent that it is a "new" spell. I have explicitly said that is another argument entirely, and that "new" versus "same" has NO bearing on this point.

I've said this. This is the THIRD time I've said it.

The only significance I ascribe to metamagic feats is explicitly what RAW ascribes to them. By RAW, metamagic makes modifications to spells. Whether or not that makes them new spells?

I don't honestly care. Keep whatever view you want.

What is explicitly stated is that metamagic feats make modifications to spells. RAW explicitly states this. You have twice now, ducked, dodged, or otherwise avoided this, out of some paranoid delusion that it's some insidious argument by me. It's not. It's a simple check to see if you can concede a point that RAW supports. A point that twice now, you've failed.

This is NOT what I have asked you to concede. I did NOT ask you to concede that it "converts a spell into a different spell". I asked you to concede that metamagic makes modifications to a spell. This is in accordance with the explicit RAW text I've provided. During this ultimatum, I never asked you to agree that it makes it a different spell. Never. So please, PLEASE, stop inferring things that I do not apply. You are strawmanning my position.

Special? No. All I'm saying is that RAW explicitly states that metamagic modifies spells. Explicitly. Any attempt to say otherwise is WRONG, by RAW. I'm not saying it's a different spell. I'm not saying it's the same spell. All I'm saying is precisely what the RAW says on that position. That any spell with metamagic applied is modified. Any position you support which is against that one truth is in opposition to RAW. Any position which is in opposition to RAW, without another section of RAW support, is wrong. So cite your RAW supporting that metamagic makes no changes to the spell, or yield the point.

There is now RAW explicitly stating that metamagic alters a spell. (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/feats.htm#metamagicFeats) It is in the linked section here, listed under "effects of metamagic feats on a spell".

So this is what I want.



1) Certify that the above quote is SRD.
2) Certify that the SRD is RAW.
3) Certify that the phrase "The modifications made by these feats only apply to spells cast directly by the feat user" means that the feats in question do make modifications to spells.
4) Certify that modifications made to spells are changes made to spells.

That's it. I'm not asking you agree that they are different spell. I'm not asking that. Just agree that the above 4 statements are all correct.

If you can't do that in your next post, then I have no choice but to assume that it's more important to you for you to "not lose" than for you to "discover what is correct". If you can't cede direct RAW without disagreeing out of fear of some further implication... Then I don't know.

Multiple times, you have stated that metamagic does not change spells. That is, above, explicitly contradicted by RAW. I'm attempting to issue a correction, to clear up a minor misconception, and you are fighting direct RAW.

In a RAW discussion, there is no fighting RAW, unless there is explicit RAW that contradicts it. In that case, primary source applies, which, in almost all cases for metamagic spells, will be the direct description of metamagic. This is RAW, and about as "primary source" as you can get. Show me a basis for the disagreement you've stated, or please drop it.

I'm not asking for you to insinuate an ulterior motive. I'm not asking you to imply that I'm scheming something, or misdirecting, or being vague.

I'm asking that you either agree to the above RAW, or show RAW basis for your disagreement. That's all. I don't need any other dissertations. I don't need a long speech. I understand your view. I'm not discussing your view or my view right now. I'm discussing direct RAW.

So agree. Or disagree. But no more diversions. No more platforming your view. I'm not. This is all RAW. Either agree with RAW, or disagree. But if you disagree, don't insult me by asking me "why" I want this. The answer to that is "I want RAW to be the primary factor in deciding what is correct and what is incorrect". My personal opinions have no bearing on the RAW above. If you disagree, tell me why you disagree. And bring something to the table beyond what you think. Bring an RAW fact to the table that supports you.

Well this first bit would seem to be a contradiction as said before by your definitions any alteration no matter how small or meaningless would mean that it is not the same spell and thus a different spell (the different spell being said new spell). But this goes into how clearly you do not understand my position if you believe that it has no bearing on the same spell different spell point. This would probably be the fourth time I have said this. If this is true then does the fact that I have said it four times make me more correct then you as you have only said three times. I must reiterate that if metamagic changes a spell then unless it changes the spell into something that is itself then it must change the spell into something that is not itself. And by you definition of same I can not conclude that you believe that the spell is changed into something that is itself and thus I must conclude that you are saying that the spell is not changed into a spell that the same spell that it was. If you wish propose different definitions that you will be using pleas do so, but until you do I will continue to interpret what you are saying and what I can conclude that you could conclude from what you are saying using what I believe to be your definitions.

Again from what you said I can conclude that that is what I would be conceding to you by conceding such a point under your terms. Perhaps you have not directly asked me to agree that it it makes the spell a different spell but one does not always ask directly what one wants and while I do not think that such a ploy is being used in the future you could conclude from my concession under your terms that such a thing follows from what I have said. And so by giving your position as presented in your terms legitimacy I would be conceding the argument by conceding under your terms.

You are saying that they are special as while you are being consistent in your choice of treating them differently then, for example, planar traits you have not given any reason that I can even understand enough to realize that you are trying to give a reason. Well excepting of course my beaing able to possible gather that they do because they are.

Again as I have just tried to say in the last post a metamagic feat is a condition that can cause a spell to function differently from the way that it does in the default case. However as said spell functions equally under equal conditions and as the name does not seem to be changed the spell must not be changed into a spell that is not itself. Names being the way of differentiating things of category or a way of concluding that they are the same. I suppose that if you some right out and say that you are proposing that while metamagic feats change a spell into something that is itself then I could agree but without saying that and contradicting previous definitions proposed by you I can only conclude the opposing case of a spell being changed into something but not being changed into something that is itself. This opposing case being such that I would have conceded the argument.

1) To lazy to check at the moment so for the moment I shall take it as a yes.
2) Well while they are rules as they are written they can be superseded. However in this case I do not recall such a thing happening.
3&4) And back to the point of contention as do to the way in which you have defined terms and taken things as given three and 4 are really the same even though splitting them apart does hide such a fact and thus again as I have said above you are asking me to concede.

However since you do not seem to realize this and as it seems to be more important for you to declare this a draw or your self the winner then anything else, including even trying to understand other points of view, I see no reason to agree to you request of concession as whatever I choose you seem likely to declare this a draw or yourself as the winner.

I absolutely do not care more about being correct. What I care most about in this argument is that a position that is not sufficiently supported be kept from being presented as the truth without someone pointing out the lack of support and the alternatives. While I must care somewhat about presenting my argument as possibly correct or else I would not do so it is not what I would consider the most pressing.

Multiple times you have asked me to concede that a metamagic feat (funlike other similar things for no stated reasons) does changes a spell and by doing so must either change it into something that is itself or not change it into something that is itself (as previously stated only the latter can I believe you are proposing).

Clearly as you are arguing against the RAW by your definitions and requests of concession It is possible to argue against the RAW. Or at least that is what I could and probably would say if I was, as you seem to be, unable to even consider the possibility that I could be interpreting something incorrectly or even that my interpretation is just that, an interpretation. While such a mindset would have benefits I would not consider a discussion to be such a case. And while it is possible that I am misjudging in this instance that is what it seems to be to me.

I have tried to demonstrate many things however as you have not understood many if any at all of them reiterating earlier parts of this post would be meaning less. Perhaps I could repeat in another post and should it come to that I probably will (with any changes I think might help) but as the previous parts of the post are probably still on screen I shall not.

I am clearly disagreeing and have given my reasons in a variety of different ways. However I can only assume that I am getting them across as clearly as you are getting across why you believe that metamagic feats are a special case. And so while I have presented my reasons I am apparently seeming only to get across that it is my opinion. However unlike you I am giving you the benefit of the doubt.

Clearly you wish as I do that the rules be the primary factor in deciding this disagreement. However such a viewpoint does make discussion a bit hard when one side also believe they they absolutely and completely know what the RAW is and that the other side does not in any way shape or form. The problem would arise from the fact that personal opinions do have an effect on peoples judgments of a situation and while they can probably be mitigated it is unlikely to happen if their existence is not acknowledged and even explicitly denied.

In other things were you not the one that said that every "statement should be aimed at identifying a tenet of your belief" which I very well can not do without talking in some part about a tenant of my belief and this is clearly an argument in a debate.

In the end it seems I can not possibly bring something that is a RAW fact if it would contradict what you think. However you do not need to ask me to do so as, even though I seem to have done so at least as well as it would seem that you have, I am unlikely do stop regardless of how well it has worked in the past as I shall continue to attempt to change my presentation to foster understanding, even though that has not worked yet. This is of course all reliant on the slim possibility that you are not going to leave and call this a draw or perhaps, as while I would consider doing such a thing at this point premature I am apparently not a good judge of your thought process, call yourself the winner.

While I would, as I said, consider taking either side as a winner at this point, in either case I do give my thanks for the participation in the discussion while it lasted in such as case that you wish to stop the discussion.

[Darrin]

No idea what the argument is about, but I've been thinking about the whole innate thing...

Mount! That's like 14400 3HD large creatures (with bit and bridle) every hour, pretty much an army right there. You could do a lot of damage with that many horses.

[PhoenixRivers]

Well this first bit would seem to be a contradiction as said before by your definitions any alteration no matter how small or meaningless would mean that it is not the same spell and thus a different spell (the different spell being said new spell). Misdirection. That is not what I am arguing now, with this point.

But this goes into how clearly you do not understand my position if you believe that it has no bearing on the same spell different spell point. This would probably be the fourth time I have said this.This RAW fact has multiple interpretations. Including one that supports your "same spell" theory, and one that supports a "different spell" theory. That is why I say it has no bearing. Because it does not conclusively answer that question. Not because I think it irrelevant.


And by you definition of same I can not conclude that you believe that the spell is changed into something that is itself and thus I must conclude that you are saying that the spell is not changed into a spell that the same spell that it was.I am saying nothing of the sort. Those words are ones you are inserting into my mouth.

All I'm interested in, then, is this. I am not responding to the remainder of your distraction. But I will ask you this.

In regards to this SRD entry (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/feats.htm#metamagicFeats), also known as RAW.

More specifically, in regards to this paragraph:
Effects of Metamagic Feats on a Spell

In all ways, a metamagic spell operates at its original spell level, even though it is prepared and cast as a higher-level spell. Saving throw modifications are not changed unless stated otherwise in the feat description.

The modifications made by these feats only apply to spells cast directly by the feat user. A spellcaster can’t use a metamagic feat to alter a spell being cast from a wand, scroll, or other device.

Metamagic feats that eliminate components of a spell don’t eliminate the attack of opportunity provoked by casting a spell while threatened. However, casting a spell modified by Quicken Spell does not provoke an attack of opportunity.

Metamagic feats cannot be used with all spells. See the specific feat descriptions for the spells that a particular feat can’t modify.
I would like your personal interpretation of the above RAW. In your opinion, what does this section mean when it states that metamagic feats modify spells?

By all means, tell me.

[jseah]

Innate Spell: Silent Image

+ Shadowcraft Gnome

Does this work?

EDIT: for the record on the debate, you can scribe a metamagiced version of a spell into a scroll.

[taltamir]

There is little you can do with it that is worth a 9th level slot.

Take truestrike for example... +20 on attack, seems nice, can be used on ray attacks... however you are level 17+, you can easily get as many level 1 scrolls of true strike as you want.. heck in real combat you can't waste 6 seconds on this, you would use a quickened true strike + non quickened ray instead.

An example of a spell it will be useful with:
Scholar’s Touch(RoD p167)
<Div, VSM(parchment, tinder)F(thin crystal disk), 1StdAct, Personal, Concentration up to 1 rnd/lvl>
– The caster can “read” one touched book per round. His/her understanding is the same as if time had been spent doing a single reading.
If the caster does not know the language/code the book is written in, this spell does not translate it. The spell does not help with magic books and scrolls.

So, you can "read" (as if spending the time reading the entire book once from cover to cover) 14400 books per day. You would have to find some magic library with unlimited book supply or a whole organization dedicated to bringing you books you haven't read yet...


Mount or unseen servant can actually do something... but not much use there.
Unseen servant would have been useful if not for the range issue. build fortifications in a day, castles, etc...
Mount can actually mobilize armies... but they already have natural mounts anyways.

Tensers floating disk can be used for bombing runs, but shrink item and bags of holding can do so better.

[PhoenixRivers]

Limited, but possible good for an adventurer, perhaps...

A scholar? Well, one with that many slots should have no problem devoting say, 15 slots to that spell, a day. Regular, and extended.

Say 8 reg, and 7 extended. Caster level 17 (minimum to have the ability).
374 books per day. For a resident wizard, without much need for those slots to begin with? 350+ books is a nice amount to have. Better yet? He still has a 9th level slot, arguably better in most cases than 15 level 1 and 2 spells.

In a month, the scholar would have 11220 books. In a short span of a couple months, all but the most ambitious libraries would be studied.

Yes, it's not as fast as the other, but how long would one spend in the library? I assume less than 40 minutes per day, leaving much opportunity for other studies as well... And sleep.

[taltamir]

Oh, I didn't think of it before... but for less feats (extend and persistant) you can use a +6 slot to make something with duration (it has duration) last all day.

[PhoenixRivers]

Oh, I didn't think of it before... but for less feats (extend and persistant) you can use a +6 slot to make something with duration (it has duration) last all day.

Indeed, but that's dispellable, and not renewable if it is.

[taltamir]

Indeed, but that's dispellable, and not renewable if it is.

Prepare it twice?
How much combat do you intend to do in the library? if you have to fight things for every few books, then you will run out of combat spells and have to call it a day before you run out of castings of level 1 spell to read said books in seconds.

[PhoenixRivers]

Prepare it twice?
How much combat do you intend to do in the library? if you have to fight things for every few books, then you will run out of combat spells and have to call it a day before you run out of castings of level 1 spell to read said books in seconds.

For scholar's touch? I though duration Concentration couldn't persist?

If so, then it only lasts to the first interruption.

I was more referring to "in general", though yes, I do love me some Persist. I mean, from a 7th-9th level slot, many solid buffs can persist.

[taltamir]

i thought duration is 1 round per CL. during which you can read one book a round.

Oh, concentration up to 1 round to CL... i see now, oops. I don't know how to handle that.

[Aharon]

In case that the "Is a Metamagic'd spell still the same spell" discussion is still going on:

3.0 allowed sorcerers and bards to add metamagic'd spells to their "spells known" list. I would say that indicates it is a different spell. I think that indicates that a modified spell is different enough to be considered another spell, as you shouldn't be able to know the same spell twice. As non-updated material is still valid, we should include this fact in the discussion.

I stopped reading at page 3, so if the discussion already ended, please ignore.

[PhoenixRivers]

In case that the "Is a Metamagic'd spell still the same spell" discussion is still going on:

3.0 allowed sorcerers and bards to add metamagic'd spells to their "spells known" list. I would say that indicates it is a different spell. I think that indicates that a modified spell is different enough to be considered another spell, as you shouldn't be able to know the same spell twice. As non-updated material is still valid, we should include this fact in the discussion.

I stopped reading at page 3, so if the discussion already ended, please ignore.

Actually, I'd be inclined to agree, based on further research that I've been doing, that it's the same spell, just modified. Which is why Olentu's insistence that I think otherwise is so maddening.

After all, a Maximized Fireball is countered by any Fireball (when you ready an action to counter), or empowered Fireball, or any other flavor. So, a spell's identity may hinge more on the name of the spell, than the effects of the spell, whether or not they're modified.

[Kylarra]

Dunno if it actually has relevance to the current discussion, but the archmage's spell-like ability which is similar to innate spell, explicitly allows you to use metamagic'd spells.

http://www.d20srd.org/srd/prestigeClasses/archmage.htm

[PhoenixRivers]

Dunno if it actually has relevance to the current discussion, but the archmage's spell-like ability which is similar to innate spell, explicitly allows you to use metamagic'd spells.

http://www.d20srd.org/srd/prestigeClasses/archmage.htm

It's been brought up. The counter argument is that archmage's explicitly allows it, whereas Innate Spell does not.

Whether Archmage is listing it as a "hey, this is an option too for these kinda effects" or "this is an allowed feature of this ability, and means that similar abilities without it cannot" is a matter of interpretation.

Basically, the Archmage's similarities don't particularly show anything conclusive, though it can be used as a possible source to try to determine RAI, were you so inclined.

[Kylarra]

It's been brought up. The counter argument is that archmage's explicitly allows it, whereas Innate Spell does not.

Whether Archmage is listing it as a "hey, this is an option too for these kinda effects" or "this is an allowed feature of this ability, and means that similar abilities without it cannot" is a matter of interpretation.

Basically, the Archmage's similarities don't particularly show anything conclusive, though it can be used as a possible source to try to determine RAI, were you so inclined.Fair enough, I only backread a little bit since wall of texting isn't my style.

[PhoenixRivers]

Exactly why I'm trying to cut out most of the points and be concise. Nobody reads that much.

[Kylarra]

Just to throw another weird thing onto the table I guess, the wu jen ability "spell secret" allows you to permanently modify a spell of your choice as if affected by enlarge, extend, still or silent spell.

so if you picked a spell secret-ed spell for innate spell, would that one be still modified as such?

Also, wu jen 3 gets you spell secret, which qualifies you to take the extra spell secret feat. The feat does not explicitly require you to choose one of your wu jen spells, so in theory you could still apply it to non wu jen spells.

enjoy. :smalltongue:

[olentu]

It basically all comes down to your definition of the word same. By the definition you proposed earlier in the thread the word same means identical in every way. By that definition something that is changed could not be the same as it would then not be identical in every way.


In the end, while this is a bit rough and so might not be stated properly, my stance would probably end up with saying metamagic feats or other external agencies can change a spell insomuch as it changes the way that a spell works in those circumstances while the spell remains the same spell (obviously not using the identical in every way definition). That being said I would then lead it back to my original position.

[PhoenixRivers]

My current stance is that spells aren't their stat block.

They're defined by the base spell.

Regardless of modifications, any casting of "Dispel Magic" is subject to effects which affect "Dispel Magic".

However, Innate Spell does not specify that the spell be unmodified. Only that the caster be able to cast it.

My interpretation of this is that the caster must be able to cast the exact version of the spell in question, with no external assistance. This means that temporary effects from planar qualities, items, other spells, and the like do not qualify. These are all aids. Now, if the caster, with just his feats and class features, can cast that spell in the slot it occupies, then it qualifies for Innate spell.

This requirement that the caster be able to cast the spell without assistance prevents temporary effects from altering a permanent ability. Only a caster's inherent abilities can qualify them.

Can this make the spell effective? Yes. Should it? Yes. To gain a 1st level SLA, the caster must forever lose a 9th level spell slot. Thus, with the investment of a feat, you trade something powerful for something less powerful.

Common sense would dictate that the return should at least equal the investment, or it's a losing trade. So, what you get, must be able to have a reasonable shot at making the effect = 1 (feat) + 1 (9th level spell per day).

Thus, when multiple interpretations exist, and one places the ability in violation of this common sense, and the other, less so... It stands to reason that the better interpretation is the one that brings it closer to being possible to effectively use.

[olentu]

My current stance is that spells aren't their stat block.

They're defined by the base spell.

Regardless of modifications, any casting of "Dispel Magic" is subject to effects which affect "Dispel Magic".

However, Innate Spell does not specify that the spell be unmodified. Only that the caster be able to cast it.

My interpretation of this is that the caster must be able to cast the exact version of the spell in question, with no external assistance. This means that temporary effects from planar qualities, items, other spells, and the like do not qualify. These are all aids. Now, if the caster, with just his feats and class features, can cast that spell in the slot it occupies, then it qualifies for Innate spell.

This requirement that the caster be able to cast the spell without assistance prevents temporary effects from altering a permanent ability. Only a caster's inherent abilities can qualify them.

Can this make the spell effective? Yes. Should it? Yes. To gain a 1st level SLA, the caster must forever lose a 9th level spell slot. Thus, with the investment of a feat, you trade something powerful for something less powerful.

Common sense would dictate that the return should at least equal the investment, or it's a losing trade. So, what you get, must be able to have a reasonable shot at making the effect = 1 (feat) + 1 (9th level spell per day).

Thus, when multiple interpretations exist, and one places the ability in violation of this common sense, and the other, less so... It stands to reason that the better interpretation is the one that brings it closer to being possible to effectively use.

And of course since we are back where we started my position is that as the spell is the same metamagic and other effects would make no difference since in both cases the same spell is being cast and chosen.

That being said I do not believe that I have found anyone who shares an identical definition of common sense as I do and so my common sense would support my interpretation. But being as common sense changes from person to person that in the end does not really mean much.

Though in passing I am still unclear on where you are getting the unaided part. I am mostly wondering if there was some phrase that is making you lean the way you do assuming there is nothing explicit.

[PhoenixRivers]

It says that you must be able to cast it.

I take a very hardline stance on this particular phrasing.

If I post a job opening, and I state that you "must be able to lift 35 pounds", and you bring a friend along who helps you? You didn't meet the qualification.

In other words, the ability does not mention the allowance of assistance in meeting this goal, but instead limits it to you. Thus, I assume that the intent is that the caster be capable of casting the spell selected. Not the caster + the plane of shadow. Not the caster + his trusty metamagic rod. Just the caster.

So I disallow assistance. My view is that the caster's ability is defined by his spellcasting ability from class and race selection, plus any template and level-based choices he's made that impact that ability. Part of that is feat selection.

On a side note...

Further, while it's not listed in the requirement section, the feat does require you be able to cast the spell selection. If you fail to meet a feat's requirements, you lose the benefit of the feat. While this normally applies to things like Power Attack, where, when Str drops below 13, you can't use the feat.

However, in this case, it could apply to when you cannot cast the spell. So, even if it was allowed to select a Maximized Burning Hands, while on the plane of fire...

As soon as you left, you would not meet the feat's requirements (unless you can cast a maximized burning hands out of a level 1 slot). No more SLA. The major implication I see is that this could cause Feeblemind to also take Innate spell away (since it prevents casting).

[olentu]

It says that you must be able to cast it.

I take a very hardline stance on this particular phrasing.

If I post a job opening, and I state that you "must be able to lift 35 pounds", and you bring a friend along who helps you? You didn't meet the qualification.

In other words, the ability does not mention the allowance of assistance in meeting this goal, but instead limits it to you. Thus, I assume that the intent is that the caster be capable of casting the spell selected. Not the caster + the plane of shadow. Not the caster + his trusty metamagic rod. Just the caster.

So I disallow assistance. The caster's ability is defined by his spellcasting ability, plus any level-based choices he's made that impact that ability. Part of that is feat selection.

On a side note...

Further, while it's not listed in the requirement section, the feat does require you be able to cast the spell selection. If you fail to meet a feat's requirements, you lose the benefit of the feat. While this normally applies to things like Power Attack, where, when Str drops below 13, you can't use the feat.

However, in this case, it could apply to when you cannot cast the spell. So, even if it was allowed to select a Maximized Burning Hands, while on the plane of fire...

As soon as you left, you would not meet the feat's requirements (unless you can cast a maximized burning hands out of a level 1 slot). No more SLA. The major implication I see is that this could cause Feeblemind to also take Innate spell away (since it prevents casting).

Ah that does clear things up a bit.

[PhoenixRivers]

And of course since we are back where we started my position is that as the spell is the same metamagic and other effects would make no difference since in both cases the same spell is being cast and chosen.


When no other version is specified, you refer to the base spell. I think that's the communication break. I refer to the specific spell chosen. While yes, they are the same spell, they have different properties.

Very few properties of a spell are truly set in stone. Let's take fireball.

Range? Can be extended.
Damage? Maximize, Empower.
Saving Throw? Twin, Repeat, Heighten.
Spell Level? Heighten.
Damage Type? Energy Substitution.
Casting Time? Quicken.
Area? Sculpt Spell, Widen Spell, Extraordinary Spell Aim
Damage Cap? Energy Admixture, Empower, Twin, Repeat.

But no matter what we do above? It's still a Fireball.

I cast fireball one round.
Next round, I energy substitute a fireball to cold, empower it, and twin spell it.

Both were fireball. Both would be countered by a Fireball spell. But each casting is different. No, they are the same spell. But the individual castings have different parameters.

Now, the question is, when innate spell references a spell, what does it reference? The spell chosen. That is what is cast.

If you chose the first fireball, you'd get 10d6 fire damage, reflex half.
If you chose the second, you'd get (10d6 x 1.5 cold damage, reflex half) x2.

Same spell, different parameters. Not every Magic Missile has the same characteristics as the one printed in the PHb. Choosing a specific spell gives you freedom (IMO) to set those parameters, subject to the restrictions.

1) You gotta be able to cast it.
2) You gotta give up a slot 8 levels higher than the spell you choose.

So, if you've made the character investment in 3 feats, a class feature, Innate spell, and a 9th level slot? Yeah, you may be able to empower or maximize a magic missile from a 1st level slot.

But in that case? You'd have been able to empower or maximize a meteor swarm from a 9th level slot. With less feats, to boot. What has innate spell added to this? It swaps out a metacheesed 9th level spell for metacheese low level spells. The power level doesn't severely alter, even on a good day.

[olentu]

When no other version is specified, you refer to the base spell. I think that's the communication break. I refer to the specific spell chosen. While yes, they are the same spell, they have different properties.

Very few properties of a spell are truly set in stone. Let's take fireball.

Range? Can be extended.
Damage? Maximize, Empower.
Saving Throw? Twin, Repeat, Heighten.
Spell Level? Heighten.
Damage Type? Energy Substitution.
Casting Time? Quicken.
Area? Sculpt Spell, Widen Spell, Extraordinary Spell Aim
Damage Cap? Energy Admixture, Empower, Twin, Repeat.

But no matter what we do above? It's still a Fireball.

I cast fireball one round.
Next round, I energy substitute a fireball to cold, empower it, and twin spell it.

Both were fireball. Both would be countered by a Fireball spell. But each casting is different. No, they are the same spell. But the individual castings have different parameters.

Now, the question is, when innate spell references a spell, what does it reference? The spell chosen. That is what is cast.

If you chose the first fireball, you'd get 10d6 fire damage, reflex half.
If you chose the second, you'd get (10d6 x 1.5 cold damage, reflex half) x2.

Same spell, different parameters. Not every Magic Missile has the same characteristics as the one printed in the PHb. Choosing a specific spell gives you freedom (IMO) to set those parameters, subject to the restrictions.

1) You gotta be able to cast it.
2) You gotta give up a slot 8 levels higher than the spell you choose.

So, if you've made the character investment in 3 feats, a class feature, Innate spell, and a 9th level slot? Yeah, you may be able to empower or maximize a magic missile from a 1st level slot.

But in that case? You'd have been able to empower or maximize a meteor swarm from a 9th level slot. With less feats, to boot. What has innate spell added to this? It swaps out a metacheesed 9th level spell for metacheese low level spells. The power level doesn't severely alter, even on a good day.

Well in the end I do not really see any resolution without new information given that otherwise it will just be the same old arguments tossed back and forth. Well since I see no reason to repeat myself at the moment as I doubt it would get anywhere I think my time would be better spent looking for new information to present. Who knows perhaps I will get lucky and find an answer or perhaps I will get nothing.

[PhoenixRivers]

Well in the end I do not really see any resolution without new information given that otherwise it will just be the same old arguments tossed back and forth. Well since I see no reason to repeat myself at the moment as I doubt it would get anywhere I think my time would be better spent looking for new information to present. Who knows perhaps I will get lucky and find an answer or perhaps I will get nothing.

My general view on the spells is that Fireball is a lot like a box. Two Fireball spells are like two identical boxes. Now, when you add metamagic, you put something in the box. Now, one box weighs more. It's the same box. But one is easier to hold and carry... And the other is heavier, and contains more.

Assume someone points at the filled box and says, "I want that one".

You give him the empty one.
Did you give the person what he asked for?

See, they're the same box. But they have different properties.

When innate spell is asking for the full box, you're giving it the empty one.

[olentu]

My general view on the spells is that Fireball is a lot like a box. Two Fireball spells are like two identical boxes. Now, when you add metamagic, you put something in the box. Now, one box weighs more. It's the same box. But one is easier to hold and carry... And the other is heavier, and contains more.

Assume someone points at the filled box and says, "I want that one".

You give him the empty one.
Did you give the person what he asked for?

See, they're the same box. But they have different properties.

When innate spell is asking for the full box, you're giving it the empty one.

While I don't really think of them as boxes let me try to interpret my position into something similar though I don't hold out hope for it turning out so well.

Assuming that I would consider a spell like a box I would consider metamagic feats or the like as sort changes in the environment in which the box is placed. In the default environment said box functions in a particular way. However if one were to change something such as changing the local gravitational force, changing the color or intensity of the light, changing the temperature, varying the surface it rests on, or so forth the box will express different features from in the default environment. It may fall faster, change the amount of reflected light, change temperature, be easier or harder to slide, and so forth. But those are all dependent on the environment and disregarding the time for the temperature to reach equilibrium and the like they do not travel with the box from situation to situation.

So when one chooses a box then just because it is not in the default environment when it is first seen does not mean that that is the way it will be in another situation.

Er something like that is what I view the situation as. It is not a perfect match but I think I did a reasonable job of getting my position across.

[PhoenixRivers]

While I don't really think of them as boxes let me try to interpret my position into something similar though I don't hold out hope for it turning out so well.

Assuming that I would consider a spell like a box I would consider metamagic feats or the like as sort changes in the environment in which the box is placed. In the default environment said box functions in a particular way. However if one were to change something such as changing the local gravitational force, changing the color or intensity of the light, changing the temperature, varying the surface it rests on, or so forth the box will express different features from in the default environment. It may fall faster, change the amount of reflected light, change temperature, be easier or harder to slide, and so forth. But those are all dependent on the environment and disregarding the time for the temperature to reach equilibrium and the like they do not travel with the box from situation to situation.

So when one chooses a box then just because it is not in the default environment when it is first seen does not mean that that is the way it will be in another situation.

Er something like that is what I view the situation as. It is not a perfect match but I think I did a reasonable job of getting my position across.

I can see that for external changes. Things such as Metamagic rods, environmental traits, Sudden metamagic feats, spontaneous casting, and the like. It's like putting the box down on Icy ground or somesuch. It'll slide easier, but the reason for that doesn't lie in the spell or its preparation. The reason lies in an external impetus.

However, metamagic feats that the caster actually possess are applied at preparation. They actually are prepared with the modifications imbued into them. That's more like attaching wheels to the box.

Both make the box move easier... One's external, the other isn't.

Everything else is altered when the spell is cast. The other is altered at preparation. That's shows that you can actually prepare a spell that functions in an altered capacity in all conditions which allow spells to function.

The main difference lies in preparation, and sustainability. When a caster prepares metamagic, the only thing that limits him is the number of spell slots he possesses (the same as when he prepares spells without metamagic). With all other examples, the caster is limited by usage limits, locations, or some other external restriction that artificially restricts how, where, or how often he may alter his spells.

Basically, we still fall back on:

Innate spell allows any spell to be chosen.

Magic Missile, when modified by Quicken Spell, is a spell.

Thus, Magic Missile, when modified by Quicken Spell, is a legal choice, provided the caster can give up a spell slot 8 levels higher.

Yes, modifications to a spell don't change what the spell is. But they do change how the spell works.

Everything else is the properties, but it's already been shown that even when magic missile is the only spell looked at, its properties can be varied. And even when those properties are varied, it's still magic missile. Thus, while each casting of magic missile is the same spell, it can have different properties, and can be prepared with those properties.

The only other restriction, that the caster be able to cast the spell, restricts external alterations, (in your example, the gravity, wind, etc), as the caster can't do that, without additional external assistance.

There has, as of yet, been no compelling RAW evidence presented to support the view that Innate Spell disallows spells which have been modified.

[PhoenixRivers]

For reference, Innate Spell's fluff:
You have mastered a spell so thoroughly that you can now use it as a spell-like ability.

Does an ability described as this seem like it should have, "can't pick that variation on the casting"?


Choose any spell you can cast. You can now cast this spell at will as a spell-like ability once per round.

Does it seem restricted? Any spell. Any spell at all.

[olentu]

I can see that for external changes. Things such as Metamagic rods, environmental traits, Sudden metamagic feats, spontaneous casting, and the like. It's like putting the box down on Icy ground or somesuch. It'll slide easier, but the reason for that doesn't lie in the spell or its preparation. The reason lies in an external impetus.

However, metamagic feats that the caster actually possess are applied at preparation. They actually are prepared with the modifications imbued into them. That's more like attaching wheels to the box.

Both make the box move easier... One's external, the other isn't.

Everything else is altered when the spell is cast. The other is altered at preparation. That's shows that you can actually prepare a spell that functions in an altered capacity in all conditions which allow spells to function.

The main difference lies in preparation, and sustainability. When a caster prepares metamagic, the only thing that limits him is the number of spell slots he possesses (the same as when he prepares spells without metamagic). With all other examples, the caster is limited by usage limits, locations, or some other external restriction that artificially restricts how, where, or how often he may alter his spells.

Basically, we still fall back on:

Innate spell allows any spell to be chosen.

Magic Missile, when modified by Quicken Spell, is a spell.

Thus, Magic Missile, when modified by Quicken Spell, is a legal choice, provided the caster can give up a spell slot 8 levels higher.

Yes, modifications to a spell don't change what the spell is. But they do change how the spell works.

Everything else is the properties, but it's already been shown that even when magic missile is the only spell looked at, its properties can be varied. And even when those properties are varied, it's still magic missile. Thus, while each casting of magic missile is the same spell, it can have different properties, and can be prepared with those properties.

The only other restriction, that the caster be able to cast the spell, restricts external alterations, (in your example, the gravity, wind, etc), as the caster can't do that, without additional external assistance.

There has, as of yet, been no compelling RAW evidence presented to support the view that Innate Spell disallows spells which have been modified.

Anything that is not part of the spell description can reasonably said to be external to the spell. While the analogue is not perfect let me extend it in any case (and hopefully not make things more confused by doing so). So a metamagic feat would be an external impetus and assuming that metamagic feats apply to a spell before it has been cast preparing the spell would involve choosing some features of the environment into which one places it.

So taking the previous assumption a metamagic feat would involve choosing among the various places or in the various conditions one could put said box. Some places are closer or easier to create and thus take less effort to get while some require more effort and yet give various benefits.



And of course we are then back to the same thing again. where you put forth your position and I put forth mine. Mine being that as the spell is the same spell metamagic and other effects would make no difference since in both cases the same spell is being cast and chosen.

See this is why I was a bit concerned about developing such an analogue. In my explanation the caster can choose some to the conditions. However this is obviously not apparent and is probably due to the imperfect nature of the example.


And in the end there has not been any compelling RAW evidence in opposite direction either. Of course what one finds compelling is a matter of opinion and so this also means quite little in either case.


However in the second post while the actual arguments presented by you are still just the same old thing where you put forth your interpretation and I would then present mine (which I see no reason to do again in the same post) there is something that suggests, perhaps, a different approach.

[PhoenixRivers]

Anything that is not part of the spell description can reasonably said to be external to the spell. While the analogue is not perfect let me extend it in any case (and hopefully not make things more confused by doing so). So a metamagic feat would be an external impetus and assuming that metamagic feats apply to a spell before it has been cast preparing the spell would involve choosing some features of the environment into which one places it.Can be. Can just as reasonably be stated that we're going off what is internal to the caster, and not the spell. Could just as easily be said that Innate spell references a specific preparation of a spell. So this is in opinion territory now, And there's room for multiple interpretations that don't violate RAW.


See this is why I was a bit concerned about developing such an analogue. In my explanation the caster can choose some to the conditions. However this is obviously not apparent and is probably due to the imperfect nature of the example.Example works fine for me. Box was used as it is a delivery mechanism. Spells are the same. They are a mechanism for delivering an effect to the target.


And in the end there has not been any compelling RAW evidence in opposite direction either. Of course what one finds compelling is a matter of opinion and so this also means quite little in either case.

However in the second post while the actual arguments presented by you are still just the same old thing where you put forth your interpretation and I would then present mine (which I see no reason to do again in the same post) there is something that suggests, perhaps, a different approach.
Indeed. However, now even if we have 2 valid interpretations... One renders the ability practically useless. No caster in his right mind will swap out a 9th level spell for unlimited 1st level spells, given that action economy in battle is the only economy. You need to make the biggest effect on the battle in the shortest time possible.

So, unless that 1st level spell can provide utility in unlimited use matching the flexibility of a 9th level spell slot, then it's a losing transaction. When you spend a feat to lose power, this is worse than feats like Dodge and Toughness.

In other words, by restricting the ability as you suggest, it may as well not be printed at all. Given that someone is giving up one of their only high level feat slots for this (level 18 feat slot, most likely... 15th if you're a wizard, and innate a level 0 spell), you should expect to see a positive return, especially since, in non-epic play, you see no more than 3 levels of use.

This is the primary impetus behind the ability. I want to see it useful, and the interpretation is a valid and legal one. I typically support valid rules that increase the diversity of effective options for players.

[olentu]

Can be. Can just as reasonably be stated that we're going off what is internal to the caster, and not the spell. Could just as easily be said that Innate spell references a specific preparation of a spell. So this is in opinion territory now, And there's room for multiple interpretations that don't violate RAW.
Example works fine for me. Box was used as it is a delivery mechanism. Spells are the same. They are a mechanism for delivering an effect to the target.

Indeed. However, now even if we have 2 valid interpretations... One renders the ability practically useless. No caster in his right mind will swap out a 9th level spell for unlimited 1st level spells, given that action economy in battle is the only economy. You need to make the biggest effect on the battle in the shortest time possible.

So, unless that 1st level spell can provide utility in unlimited use matching the flexibility of a 9th level spell slot, then it's a losing transaction. When you spend a feat to lose power, this is worse than feats like Dodge and Toughness.

In other words, by restricting the ability as you suggest, it may as well not be printed at all. Given that someone is giving up one of their only high level feat slots for this (level 18 feat slot, most likely... 15th if you're a wizard, and innate a level 0 spell), you should expect to see a positive return, especially since, in non-epic play, you see no more than 3 levels of use.

This is the primary impetus behind the ability. I want to see it useful, and the interpretation is a valid and legal one. I typically support valid rules that increase the diversity of effective options for players.

Oh yes it could certainly go either way.

Well as it was originally yours that would be the reason why when I presented it it was not perfect as I was trying to use something not originally intended to fit my position.

In the end even in the situation where two or more positions are still possibly valid I would, when choosing a position to support, choose the position that I interpret as more likely to be correct even though it may make an ability practically or even completely useless. The flip side would of course be that I could also choose a position that makes an ability rather excessively powerful.

[sambo.]

my $0.02 and how I would rule on this if I was the DM and it came up.....

a Quickened Magic Missile (to pick an example at random) is not a first level spell, it's a fifth level spell.

so to get a quickened magic missile as an Innate Spell, you would need to give up a 13th level spellslot.

since 13th level spells don't exist, you cannot have a Quickened Magic Missile as an innate spell.

however, i see no reason why "Sudden Maximise" feats (or similar) or Metamagic rods can't be used with an Innate Spell.

[PhoenixRivers]

Oh yes it could certainly go either way.

Well as it was originally yours that would be the reason why when I presented it it was not perfect as I was trying to use something not originally intended to fit my position.

In the end even in the situation where two or more positions are still possibly valid I would, when choosing a position to support, choose the position that I interpret as more likely to be correct even though it may make an ability practically or even completely useless. The flip side would of course be that I could also choose a position that makes an ability rather excessively powerful.

I tend to find that severe imbalances damage active participation around the table, and tend to work for balance, while remaining within the rules.

Ultimately, it seems, both views are correct, even though they conflict. It's all based on how tightly you look at Innate Spell's requirement.

And Sambo? There are ways to mitigate that. Say I have Easy Metamagic, Arcane Thesis (Magic Missile), Incantatrix, and apply Quicken and Silent spell. Final spell slot it goes in? Level 1.

As for sudden metamagics? Those are chosen when the spell is cast. If you're choosing a spell that you can cast, it must be a spell that you have not cast yet. If you have not cast it yet, then the Sudden metamagic feats cannot apply. Same with Metamagic Rods. They apply at casting.

[sambo.]

And Sambo? There are ways to mitigate that. Say I have Easy Metamagic, Arcane Thesis (Magic Missile), Incantatrix, and apply Quicken and Silent spell. Final spell slot it goes in? Level 1.
fine and dandy then. it's cost you a BOMB in feats, but you now have a quickened, silent magic missile as an innate spell.

there's still a limit on just how powerful a spell you can get as an innnate spell, even with those kinds of feat selections.

if someone wanted to try and get a quickened, maximised Disintegrate as an innate spell, i'd probably knock it on the head.


As for sudden metamagics? Those are chosen when the spell is cast. If you're choosing a spell that you can cast, it must be a spell that you have not cast yet. If you have not cast it yet, then the Sudden metamagic feats cannot apply. Same with Metamagic Rods. They apply at casting.

huh?

I Choose To Cast My Innate Magic Missile Spell And As I Cast My Spell I Choose To Apply My Sudden Maximise Feat Use For The Day And Also Use My Rod Of Quicken Spell (Lesser).

how is that not possible? your casting your spell and using applicable feats/itamz to help you on your way.

no problem that i can see with that.

[olentu]

I tend to find that severe imbalances damage active participation around the table, and tend to work for balance, while remaining within the rules.

Ultimately, it seems, both views are correct, even though they conflict. It's all based on how tightly you look at Innate Spell's requirement.

Ah well, this is what it would seem to be, but then again things have turned out no different then what I would generally expect.

[PhoenixRivers]

fine and dandy then. it's cost you a BOMB in feats, but you now have a quickened, silent magic missile as an innate spell.

there's still a limit on just how powerful a spell you can get as an innnate spell, even with those kinds of feat selections.

if someone wanted to try and get a quickened, maximised Disintegrate as an innate spell, i'd probably knock it on the head.Agreed.

That said, metamagic abuse is the strongest way to build a direct damage caster.


I Choose To Cast My Innate Magic Missile Spell And As I Cast My Spell I Choose To Apply My Sudden Maximise Feat Use For The Day And Also Use My Rod Of Quicken Spell (Lesser).

how is that not possible? your casting your spell and using applicable feats/itamz to help you on your way.

no problem that i can see with that.
Other than the fact that those apply to spells cast, not Spell like abilities?

For that, you'd want Maximize Spell-Like Ability (Monster Manual) and Quicken Spell-Like Ability (Monster Manual).

[sambo.]

Agreed.

That said, metamagic abuse is the strongest way to build a direct damage caster.
yuh.

i don't see why Blast-O-Mancy is so frowned upon.

it can work a treat when done properly.


Other than the fact that those apply to spells cast, not Spell like abilities?

For that, you'd want Maximize Spell-Like Ability (Monster Manual) and Quicken Spell-Like Ability (Monster Manual).

again, we're firmly into the realms of What An Individual DM Will Allow And What (s)He Won't.

if i had a player whose just spent that ridiculous godwad of feats to get himself a worthwhile Innate Spell, i'm not about to turn around and say "oh, btw, you need these other feats instead of the ones you've already taken...."

besides, by my rational (which no-one else needs agree with) in the example mentioned, you have already met all the requisits for having that Maximised, Quickened Magic Missile as an Innate Spell. you have "Innated" a Maxed/Quickened Magic Missile, NOT a standard Magic Missile. so needing the extra feats isn't necessary.

in any event, the whole object of the exercise is To Have Fun(tm)

i'm an olde tyme Paranoia GM.

Be entertaining, amuse the crew around the table and have a ton of fun, chances are you'll succeed. or at least succeed in getting me to let you get away with things you probably shouldn't be able to get away with (within reason).

be dull and die.

(being an anal retentive rules lawyer who spends most of the session with his nose buried in a mountain of splatbooks looking to trip the DM up counts as being "dull" at my table)

[PhoenixRivers]

again, we're firmly into the realms of What An Individual DM Will Allow And What (s)He Won't.

if i had a player whose just spent that ridiculous godwad of feats to get himself a worthwhile Innate Spell, i'm not about to turn around and say "oh, btw, you need these other feats instead of the ones you've already taken...."When you choose the spell, you choose one with meta applied, and it works.

When you Use Innate spell, it generates that exact effect as a spell-like ability.

Which means that godwad will apply to the choosing side, not the using side.

This does present an interesting ability.

I Empower a Magic Missile, with Arcane Thesis and Incantatrix, and select that for my innate spell.

damage is (5d4)x1.5 + 5.

I then use empower spell-like ability on it.

3 times a day, I get:

(5d4)x2 + 5

Empower is now applied twice, by 2 different feats.

That's where things start getting creative and weird.