[3.5] Improved Metamagic + Arcane Thesis

[Everest]

Arcane Thesis, after errata, says that the spell being modified cannot be brought below its original spell level, but that means that all the metamagic on it could potentially equal +0. Then the Incantatrix's Improved Metamagic class feature says that each metamagic feat's increase in spell level (if any) is reduced by 1, but the minimum spell level is adjusted by +1.

First, I'm confused on if Improved Metamagic makes it so that each feat has to have a minimum of +1 spell level adjustment (would this also mean that metamagic that's initially +0 would become +1, by RAW? :smalleek:), or if the spell as a whole, after metamagic, has to be at least +1.

Second, I'm confused as to how this would work with Arcane Thesis. I've looked around, but I haven't really found much of an answer.

[hex0]

Generally if you have untyped bonuses or reductions you can choose the order of how they apply. Generally being the key word.

[Ayedi_Star]

without access to books, My memory says that the improved metamagic feature always meant that all instances of metamagic of at least +2 or more was reduced by 1, with no other changes, but the feature cannot reduce the metamagic cost below +1.

It doesn't mean that +0 metamagic is suddenly +1, just that you can't reduce a bunch of +1's to no cost.

If I'm wrong and it does allow +1's to become +0's, that's very awesome, and it just means you need to tack on a minimum of a single +2 effect for the entire thing to be valid.

Arcane thesis with the first option suffers no change, you -2 the final cost of the metamagic tally for determining the spell slot needed, but you can't take it below the original spell slot.

if it's the second, I would be inclined to suggest that the arcane thesis will stop Imp. Meta unless the tally at the VERY end is +1 or more:

In such a case, it's a prime example of needing a +4 metamagic feat or combination of feats (like quicken) in order to be used: it becomes +3 due to the reduction, -2 for thesis, and is thus only +1 slot higher and valid for use.

[Retech]

Even if that was the case, what's the problem? "Oh no, I have too many metamagic reductions. I guess I need to add on a crapload of more metamagic to make it viable."

[Ayedi_Star]

Even if that was the case, what's the problem? "Oh no, I have too many metamagic reductions. I guess I need to add on a crapload of more metamagic to make it viable."

There isn't really any problem with either case save for perhaps the feats needed;

Then again, saying to yourself that EVERY spell you thesis has to be Maximised, or silent/stilled/something to be legal is like saying "Oh no, I have to increase my efficiency to increase my effieciency, whatever shall I do!?"

EDIT:
Please, no "I heard you like efficiency" lines, as keenly :vaarsuvius: as they may be at this point.

[MesiDoomstalker]

It goes like this. Say you Arcane Thesis a Fireball spell. You put Still, Silent, Invisible, Maximized, Empowered, Quicken, and Twin on it. Thats +1,+1,+0, +3, +2, +4, +3 individually for a total of 14 adjustment. You could only cast that as an epic caster with an 17th level spell slot. Improved Metamagic reduces the cost of all the +2 and higher by one. So: +1,+1,+0, +2, +1, +3, +2 for a total of 10. You still need a 13th level spell slot. Then Arcane Thesis kicks in subtracting -1 for every metamagic applied. NOTE: it subtracts to the entire total, not each adjustment individually. You applied 7 metamagics, so thats -7. 10-7=3. 3+3=6. So in this case your Still, Silent, Invisible, Maximized, Empowered, Quicken, Twinned Fireball is only a 6th level spell instead of a 17th.

And instead of wasting all that to blow stuff up, stack it on Enervation and call it a day.

If you put in Energy Admixture, another +0 metamgaic, you'd get it down to 5th. I'm sure theres other +0's you can add. For extra fun, add widen and Fell Drain for no increase in adjustment and double the area and have a 40 ft. burst of Negative Level spreading goodness.

[Diarmuid]

It goes like this. Say you Arcane Thesis a Fireball spell. You put Still, Silent, Invisible, Maximized, Empowered, Quicken, and Twin on it. Thats +1,+1,+0, +3, +2, +4, +3 individually for a total of 14 adjustment. You could only cast that as an epic caster with an 17th level spell slot. Improved Metamagic reduces the cost of all the +2 and higher by one. So: +1,+1,+0, +2, +1, +3, +2 for a total of 10. You still need a 13th level spell slot. Then Arcane Thesis kicks in subtracting -1 for every metamagic applied. NOTE: it subtracts to the entire total, not each adjustment individually. You applied 7 metamagics, so thats -7. 10-7=3. 3+3=6. So in this case your Still, Silent, Invisible, Maximized, Empowered, Quicken, Twinned Fireball is only a 6th level spell instead of a 17th.

And instead of wasting all that to blow stuff up, stack it on Enervation and call it a day.

If you put in Energy Admixture, another +0 metamgaic, you'd get it down to 5th. I'm sure theres other +0's you can add. For extra fun, add widen and Fell Drain for no increase in adjustment and double the area and have a 40 ft. burst of Negative Level spreading goodness.

Bolded the part in question. Do you have any kind of official ruling on this? I've never understood why anyone would think that adding a +2 and +0 would come out as +0 rather than +1. If you couldnt add a +0 for a net -1 reduction, it stands to reason that adding a +0 and +2 wouldnt apply the same -1 for the +0 that you're factoring in.

[MesiDoomstalker]

Its in the erratta that I can't seem to find. Until I find it, feel free to contest it. Here (http://dnd.savannahsoft.eu/feat-104-arcane-thesis.html)is a link to the feat. I believe that is not erratta'd version and seems to only work when you apply a single metamagic which is horribly weak.

EDIT: I believe that comes from the assumption that you apply -1 per metamgaic applied, not -1 to each individual metamagic applied.

EDIT the second: Found the errata (http://members.chello.nl/a.vanderweijden/DND/rules/Player_Handbook_2.pdf). Bottom of page 1. Specifically the part about reducing the spell below its level. Adding a single +0 won't affect it. But a +1 will drop to +0. 2 +1's become +0. Though looking at it again, it isn't explicit whether the reduction is applied per metamagic individually or per metamagic after they were totaled. That may be the "apply in the most beneficial order" thing.

[Biffoniacus_Furiou]

"Choose one arcane spell that you can cast to be your thesis spell. When casting that spell, you do so at +2 caster level. When you apply a metamagic feat other than Heighten Spell to that spell, the enhanced spell uses up a spell slot one level lower than normal."

It does not modify the metamagic feats being used, it modifies the enhanced spell, i.e. the end result, just as MesiDoomstalker said.

[MesiDoomstalker]

"Choose one arcane spell that you can cast to be your thesis spell. When casting that spell, you do so at +2 caster level. When you apply a metamagic feat other than Heighten Spell to that spell, the enhanced spell uses up a spell slot one level lower than normal."

It does not modify the metamagic feats being used, it modifies the enhanced spell, i.e. the end result, just as MesiDoomstalker said.

Thank you. I couldn't seem to find the right words. With the errata, it is also obvious it applies -1 per metamagic as well.

[tyckspoon]

Should read, “When you apply any metamagic feats
other than Heighten Spell” Thus if you were to
prepare an empowered maximized magic missile
(assuming magic missile is the spell you choose for
your Arcane Thesis), it would be prepared as a 4th
level spell (+1 level for empowered, down from +2;
and +2 levels for maximized, down from +3).

There's the errata text, if you wanted to do a proper comparison.

[Diarmuid]

Should read, “When you apply any metamagic feats
other than Heighten Spell” Thus if you were to
prepare an empowered maximized magic missile
(assuming magic missile is the spell you choose for
your Arcane Thesis), it would be prepared as a 4th
level spell (+1 level for empowered, down from +2;
and +2 levels for maximized, down from +3).


There's the errata text, if you wanted to do a proper comparison.

But, using that as a comparison it's listing each MM separately. If that were to be changed to use Invisible and Still, would the last line then read "(+0 for Still, down from +1; and -1 levels for Invisble, down from +0)" ?

I dont see how that quote supports the idea that you tally up all of the mods, then apply -1 per mod when that's not how it reads at all.

[Biffoniacus_Furiou]

The example itemizes the sources of the total metamagic cost, it does not count each cost individually. The feat's original text is only modified by the portion of the errata in quotes, “When you apply any metamagic feats other than Heighten Spell,” thus its wording implying that the end result is modified by Arcane Thesis still stands.

It actually doesn't matter at all if it's applied to each individual metamagic application or to the total end result. You can apply your own bonuses and penalties in the most beneficial order, and abilities that have a limitation only have to fulfill that limitation at the time they're applied. You can have Practiced Spellcaster and a Ring of Arcane Might and have a caster level equal to your character level +1. Similarly, you can use Empower on a Thesis spell and Incantatrix will reduce Empower from +2 to +1, thus staying within its limitation, and then Arcane Thesis can reduce the metamagic cost to +0.

[Diarmuid]

The errata does two things, it changes how the official wording is written....but then it goes on to explain in an example how that should be interpreted.

If it said "+3 and +4 added up are +7, -2 for each MM mod" I'd agree with you, but it doesnt, the official errata example lists each one out separately.

As for the combination of other modifiers, sure I get that but that's not what I was discussing. Applying a +0 MM should never reduce the level of the spell you're trying to cast in any way shape or form.

I'll aquiesce that RAW allows it, and simply houserule that would not work for any games I run. Not that any of my players would go for that kind of loophole, but just in case I've got it covered.

[MesiDoomstalker]

Niether the orginal nor the errata say that the reduction can't reduce an individaul metamagic adjustment below 0, only the spell its self. So theres no reason that a +0 turns into -1. If it was just the +0 metamagic, it wouldn't do anything. But combo'ed with something like empower, the combined -1 and +1 would be 0, within the range of the feat.

[Gandariel]

Metamagicked spells are obviously stronger than regular ones, and in fact they take up a higher level slot. That's ok.
There are ways to make metamagics easier. that's ok.

people keep talking about twinned split ray maximized INVISIBLE enervations (did i miss something?)
The point is, the fact that the spell has the "invisible spell" metamagic applied to it gives a -1 to the overall spell level.

Now, why on EARTH would it be easier to add this metamagic?
I can understand, bringing stuff to +1, or even +0... but it really makes no sense that a (helpful)metamagic could in any way DEcrease the spell level.

So, even if people will cling to this feat (it gives a great bump in power, after all), and the rule is vague enough to kind of support this interpretation.. well, it makes no sense.
Oh, i'm so good at casting fireball that making it also invisible is EASIER!??

[Diarmuid]

Gandariel,

That's exactly the logic I'm working under. Thank you for the voice of reason.

[MesiDoomstalker]

Metamagicked spells are obviously stronger than regular ones, and in fact they take up a higher level slot. That's ok.
There are ways to make metamagics easier. that's ok.

people keep talking about twinned split ray maximized INVISIBLE enervations (did i miss something?)
The point is, the fact that the spell has the "invisible spell" metamagic applied to it gives a -1 to the overall spell level.

Now, why on EARTH would it be easier to add this metamagic?
I can understand, bringing stuff to +1, or even +0... but it really makes no sense that a (helpful)metamagic could in any way DEcrease the spell level.

So, even if people will cling to this feat (it gives a great bump in power, after all), and the rule is vague enough to kind of support this interpretation.. well, it makes no sense.
Oh, i'm so good at casting fireball that making it also invisible is EASIER!??

It only becomes easier for 1 spell you spent a feat on. To benefit from the -1, you need another +2 metamgic. Thats 3 feats just to cast a single metamagiced spell spell without adjustment. Invisible spell does not make the casting of the spell easier, Arcane Thesis does.

[Biffoniacus_Furiou]

Maybe having multiple metamagic feats on your thesis spell creates some sort of synergy which makes the end result easier to cast. It doesn't matter why it does that, only that this is how the rules work. There are plenty of examples of game mechanics that some people don't think make any sense, but that doesn't make them any less legitimate.

[Everest]

Sure, my thread gets a good deal of replies two days after I make it. :smalltongue:

Thanks, everyone. It looks like RAW would support the side that says that a +0 combined with other stuff that adds +1 or more comes out to a -1, as long as the spell slot, in the end, does not go below the original slot.

[Gandariel]

It only becomes easier for 1 spell you spent a feat on. To benefit from the -1, you need another +2 metamgic. Thats 3 feats just to cast a single metamagiced spell spell without adjustment. Invisible spell does not make the casting of the spell easier, Arcane Thesis does.

And that's perfectly ok.
Arcane thesis makes it easier to metamagic your spells.

but it makes no sense that adding INVISIBLE should make it easier.
it's like...
you have to lift a 100-lbs iron plate.
You can add to the plate some smaller 10, 20, 30-lbs plates, but it becomes more difficult to lift the plate, obviously.
OF COURSe you can train, train, train, until even adding more smaller plates the difficulty of lifting the plate rises only a little.
But for how much you train, there's NO WAY adding a weigh (even something weighless, like a feather) would make the plate easier to lift.

[MesiDoomstalker]

And that's perfectly ok.
Arcane thesis makes it easier to metamagic your spells.

but it makes no sense that adding INVISIBLE should make it easier.
it's like...
you have to lift a 100-lbs iron plate.
You can add to the plate some smaller 10, 20, 30-lbs plates, but it becomes more difficult to lift the plate, obviously.
OF COURSe you can train, train, train, until even adding more smaller plates the difficulty of lifting the plate rises only a little.
But for how much you train, there's NO WAY adding a weigh (even something weighless, like a feather) would make the plate easier to lift.

But your not making it easier. Arcane Thesis is. You've admitted that it doesn't make sense. Doesn't change the fact it works that way. You don't have to use Invisible spell if you don't think it should work that way.

[SaintRidley]

Think of Arcane Thesis and its interaction with +0 slot metamagic feats this way.

You've focused in on this spell (let's just go with Fireball for a simple example) so much that you basically have a PhD in Fireball. You understand the intricacies of Fireball to the point where +0 slot metamagics, which were already to you a merely a cosmetic effect, now actually are easier than simply sitting back and looking at Fireball on its own.

In studying Fireball so much you've removed yourself from the layperson's view of Fireball. An English professor might be able to look at a short story and discuss it on a mechanical level, apply Marxist, feminist, psychoanalyitcal, or new historicist critiques to understand subtext, etc. The training an English professor undergoes makes it very difficult, especially with a text they've worked in depth, to simply look at it as a story for enjoyment.

You, Mr. Fireball mage with a thesis on Fireball, are a professor of Fireball. Not only do you have the insight to more easily look at things from the perspective of a twinned, repeated, enlarged sense but the most basic ways you can play with Fireball (or, for the English professor, the most basic methods of analyzing a text such as noticing plot arcs and being able to figure out where and when the text is set as compared to where and when it was written and what that information means about the text) are so easy to you that they actually occur to you before simply taking the spell as it is. Admixing your fireball with cold for the value juxtaposition or simply making it invisible are actually easier than stepping back from your training and simply casting regular fireball.


In short, Arcane Thesis basically makes sense by virtue of becoming an expert in an intensely focused subject causing a difficulty in stepping back and looking at the spell [or text] in its original state rather than through the various basic [+0] metamagics [or critical lenses] which you have been drilled to understand as second nature.

[Tar Palantir]

Think of Arcane Thesis and its interaction with +0 slot metamagic feats this way.

You've focused in on this spell (let's just go with Fireball for a simple example) so much that you basically have a PhD in Fireball. You understand the intricacies of Fireball to the point where +0 slot metamagics, which were already to you a merely a cosmetic effect, now actually are easier than simply sitting back and looking at Fireball on its own.

In studying Fireball so much you've removed yourself from the layperson's view of Fireball. An English professor might be able to look at a short story and discuss it on a mechanical level, apply Marxist, feminist, psychoanalyitcal, or new historicist critiques to understand subtext, etc. The training an English professor undergoes makes it very difficult, especially with a text they've worked in depth, to simply look at it as a story for enjoyment.

You, Mr. Fireball mage with a thesis on Fireball, are a professor of Fireball. Not only do you have the insight to more easily look at things from the perspective of a twinned, repeated, enlarged sense but the most basic ways you can play with Fireball (or, for the English professor, the most basic methods of analyzing a text such as noticing plot arcs and being able to figure out where and when the text is set as compared to where and when it was written and what that information means about the text) are so easy to you that they actually occur to you before simply taking the spell as it is. Admixing your fireball with cold for the value juxtaposition or simply making it invisible are actually easier than stepping back from your training and simply casting regular fireball.


In short, Arcane Thesis basically makes sense by virtue of becoming an expert in an intensely focused subject causing a difficulty in stepping back and looking at the spell [or text] in its original state rather than through the various basic [+0] metamagics [or critical lenses] which you have been drilled to understand as second nature.

I was going to say something along these lines, but after this, anything I could contribute would pale in comparison, so I'll merely lend my support to this theory.

[Sam K]

And that's perfectly ok.
Arcane thesis makes it easier to metamagic your spells.

but it makes no sense that adding INVISIBLE should make it easier.
it's like...
you have to lift a 100-lbs iron plate.
You can add to the plate some smaller 10, 20, 30-lbs plates, but it becomes more difficult to lift the plate, obviously.
OF COURSe you can train, train, train, until even adding more smaller plates the difficulty of lifting the plate rises only a little.
But for how much you train, there's NO WAY adding a weigh (even something weighless, like a feather) would make the plate easier to lift.

Unless you add grips to the 100lbs plate, then it might actually become easier to lift, even if the grips add weight.

Besides, you know what else doesn't make sense?

Magic!

That being said, if I was DMing and anyone argued that they should be allowed to use arcane thesis and +0 metamagic to lower the cost of a metamagiced spell, I would start a company named "Rule zero". The company would make chainsaws. I think you can see where I'm going with this, and I think I know why I'm not being invited to any games anymore...

[WeyrleaderZor]

It goes like this. Say you Arcane Thesis a Fireball spell. You put Still, Silent, Invisible, Maximized, Empowered, Quicken, and Twin on it. Thats +1,+1,+0, +3, +2, +4, +3 individually for a total of 14 adjustment. You could only cast that as an epic caster with an 17th level spell slot. Improved Metamagic reduces the cost of all the +2 and higher by one. So: +1,+1,+0, +2, +1, +3, +2 for a total of 10. You still need a 13th level spell slot. Then Arcane Thesis kicks in subtracting -1 for every metamagic applied. NOTE: it subtracts to the entire total, not each adjustment individually. You applied 7 metamagics, so thats -7. 10-7=3. 3+3=6. So in this case your Still, Silent, Invisible, Maximized, Empowered, Quicken, Twinned Fireball is only a 6th level spell instead of a 17th.

And instead of wasting all that to blow stuff up, stack it on Enervation and call it a day.

If you put in Energy Admixture, another +0 metamgaic, you'd get it down to 5th. I'm sure theres other +0's you can add. For extra fun, add widen and Fell Drain for no increase in adjustment and double the area and have a 40 ft. burst of Negative Level spreading goodness.

I disagree with that reading entirely. The text of the feat does seem to nearly imply what you're saying, however reading the text entirely proves that it does not support this at all. The example given in the text of the feat clearly shows that the -1 is being applied PER FEAT, and there is no logical argument for a +0 feat being reduced to -1.

[eggynack]

I disagree with that reading entirely. The text of the feat does seem to nearly imply what you're saying, however reading the text entirely proves that it does not support this at all. The example given in the text of the feat clearly shows that the -1 is being applied PER FEAT, and there is no logical argument for a +0 feat being reduced to -1.
The first thing, about it being feat based rather than total spell based, is as others have said, irrelevant. As in, completely so. I have no idea why it became a thing. As for -1 adjustments on a per-spell basis, I can't see any logical argument for that not being the case. It says that, if you apply one metamagic, then the spell takes up a slot one lower than normal. Thus, if you were to use invisible fireball, the spell would take up a slot one lower than normal, and be a 2nd level spell.

However, when you actually try to do that, the spell ends up lower than its original level, so it doesn't work, and just stays at its normal adjustment if you try to prepare it that way. So, you apply a second metamagic, and make it a +2 one, like say empower. Now you have your 2nd level fireball, and empower would ordinarily take the spell up to 4th level, but because of arcane thesis, it takes up a slot one level lower than normal, and becomes a 3rd level fireball. The spell isn't being reduced to below its original level, so everything works out fine.

So, there ya go. Logical argument. The exact process here honestly doesn't matter all that much, but the truth of the matter is that this is how the feat works. There's nothing in the game stopping an individual metamagic from applying a -1 adjustment, and while the reductions might be checked per feat or at the end state, one thing that definitely is checked at the end state is whether you've reduced the spell below a +0. Moreover, even if you want to check this stuff on a feat by feat basis, we can just start with empower, follow it up with invisible, and the spell level will never even dip below +0 during the process. The ultimate goal is for the reductions and increasers to balance perfectly to a +0, or to hit a lesser positive number, so you can do this for any example setup, and it works just fine.