Miracle, wish, and metamagic (quick question)

[drack]

OK, so when using Miracle, wish, or a like spell to duplicate another spell how exactly would the metamagic on the produced spell work? Would my empowered wish (which yes is a silly thing to do considering the boosted xp cost) used to create say a fireball create an empowered fireball, or a normal fireball, would the caster than be able to maximize it too since level 3 is nowhere's near the spell level produced limit? And lastly if so would the caster need to posses the metamagic feat (maximize spell in this instance)?

Yes, yes, silliness, but I'd like to hear how others interpret this since technically the spell slot was empowered, and a maximized fireball is technically the equivalent of a level 6 spell :smallbiggrin:

[Psyren]

When you Wish for a lower-level spell, the spell acts as if Heightened to 9th level. (To use your example, if you Wish for a Fireball, you'll get a fireball with a save DC of 19+casting modifier instead of 13+mod.)

The same is true of Limited Wish, except it only gets Heightened up to 7th.

If you're asking "can I wish for a metamagic version of a spell, within the spell cap allowed" - that's a question for your DM. (Technically you can Wish for anything you want, the question is will you get it.)

[drack]

:smalltongue: fare enough, thank you. :smallbiggrin:

[Emperor Tippy]

Yes and no.

No, you can not apply any metamagic to a Wish, Miracle, or similar spell that they don't qualify for. That means no maximize, no empower, no fell drain, etc.

Yes, you can Wish/Miracle for any spell at or below the specified level which can include metamagic feats. Even ones that you don't actually have and can't actually qualify for, so long as the level doesn't go above the cap on the spell.

[drack]

No, you can not apply any metamagic to a Wish, Miracle, or similar spell that they don't qualify for. That means no maximize, no empower, no fell drain, etc.

What might you mean by 'qualify'? :smallconfused: you'd need something silly to metamagic them (being level 9 spells), but I don't see what would stop you from wasting a maximize spell on them :smallbiggrin: (it maximizes dice rolls, nothing to maximize is just waste)

[Emperor Tippy]

What might you mean by 'qualify'? :smallconfused: you'd need something silly to metamagic them (being level 9 spells), but I don't see what would stop you from wasting a maximize spell on them :smallbiggrin: (it maximizes dice rolls, nothing to maximize is just waste)

You can only apply Maximize to a spell with a variable numeric effect (the same applies to Empower). Wish and Miracle lack variable numeric effects so you can't apply either meta to them.

You can only apply Fell Drain if the spell does damage, Wish and Miracle don't do damage so you can't apply it.

[Douglas]

You can only apply Maximize to a spell with a variable numeric effect (the same applies to Empower). Wish and Miracle lack variable numeric effects so you can't apply either meta to them.

You can only apply Fell Drain if the spell does damage, Wish and Miracle don't do damage so you can't apply it.
A Wish for a Fireball has a variable numeric effect. It also deals damage. I see no reason for this to not count.

Casting Wish/Miracle to duplicate a metamagiced spell should fall under the "equivalent power" clause as measured by the level of the slot needed to cast the metamagiced version of the spell. Metamagic applied to the Wish/Miracle should also carry over to the duplicated spell. Provided you find a way to pay for it or ignore the cost (there are many ways), you could cast Empowered Wish to duplicate Maximized Fireball, and the result would be a Maximized Empowered Fireball, also Heightened to 9th level because Wish and Miracle do that for free.

[Emperor Tippy]

A Wish for a Fireball has a variable numeric effect. It also deals damage. I see no reason for this to not count.
Because for a Wizard they must apply metamagic when they prepare a spell. There is no variable numeric effect in Wish until and unless it replicates a fireball. A Sorcerer could arguable meta that way, but there is no reason to as you can just replicate a metamagiced spell.


Casting Wish/Miracle to duplicate a metamagiced spell should fall under the "equivalent power" clause as measured by the level of the slot needed to cast the metamagiced version of the spell.
It does. But when you stack meta magic reducers it works out being the same level.

Metamagic applied to the Wish/Miracle should also carry over to the duplicated spell. Provided you find a way to pay for it or ignore the cost (there are many ways), you could cast Empowered Wish to duplicate Maximized Fireball, and the result would be a Maximized Empowered Fireball, also Heightened to 9th level because Wish and Miracle do that for free.
Meta applied to the Wish does carry over. You just can't actually apply a lot of it (if you are a wizard). If you are a sorcerer then talk with your DM, it depends on how they rule.

[Psyren]

You can only apply Maximize to a spell with a variable numeric effect (the same applies to Empower). Wish and Miracle lack variable numeric effects so you can't apply either meta to them.

You can only apply Fell Drain if the spell does damage, Wish and Miracle don't do damage so you can't apply it.

When you wish to duplicate a spell though, wish becomes that spell. (Note all the entries being "See Text.") It's not like you cast a Wish, wait for your Wish to resolve, then cast the spell you actually wanted.

So I see no reason that you can't Empower/Maximize a Wish, so long as you're Wishing for a spell those feats would apply to and have the appropriate higher-level slots.

[Emperor Tippy]

When you wish to duplicate a spell though, wish becomes that spell. (Note all the entries being "See Text.") It's not like you cast a Wish, wait for your Wish to resolve, then cast the spell you actually wanted.

So I see no reason that you can't Empower/Maximize a Wish, so long as you're Wishing for a spell those feats would apply to and have the appropriate higher-level slots.

A Sorcerer could.
A Wizard applies metamagic before they cast the spell, they can't do so on the fly. When they apply meta it won't qualify so they can't apply those meta.

[Malachei]

I think Tippy is wrong here.

IMO, you cannot duplicate a metamagically enhanced spell with a spell that duplicates a spell.


Can I apply the Innate Spell feat to a spell improved by another metamagic feat?

No. Innate Spell applies only to actual spells, not to spells affected by metamagic feats and the like. Just because you’re capable of applying, say, the Empower Spell feat to a fireball spell, that doesn’t make “empowered fireball” a spell. The spell is still “fireball” and thus Innate Spell applies only to the normal version of that spell. (emphasis mine)

Now the question is whether the other powers of Wish or Miracle would allow you to create the same result by using the more abstract powers of the wish, but that would not be duplicating a spell but the other function of the Wish.


No, you can not apply any metamagic to a Wish, Miracle, or similar spell that they don't qualify for. That means no maximize, no empower, no fell drain, etc.

IMO, you can. Silent Spell, obviously. IMO, you can also apply extend etc. to a wish spell: Duration, effect, etc. are given as "see text", and if used to emulate a spell, they are the emulated spell's values.

[Emperor Tippy]

I think Tippy is wrong here.

IMO, you cannot duplicate a metamagically enhanced spell with a spell that duplicates a spell.

(emphasis mine)
FAQ is not now, nor has it ever been, RAW.


IMO, you can. Silent Spell, obviously. IMO, you can also apply extend etc. to a wish spell: Duration, effect, etc. are given as "see text", and if used to emulate a spell, they are the emulated spell's values.
You can apply any meta that would fit on the Wish/Miracle at the time of preparation. That means nothing that mentions variable numeric effects, nothing that mentions damage, nothing that mentions a type of energy, etc.

A Sorcerer could arguably apply such meta but they have no reason to do so, Wish/Miracle can just replicate all that meta in the first place (and do so at a cheaper price than you can).

[Malachei]

FAQ is not now, nor has it ever been, RAW.

All you have is your interpretation of RAW. All I have is my interpretation of RAW + FAQ.

I don't see anything wrong in looking at, or working with FAQ. It is certainly better than having no additional information on a game system that is out of print.

And it is official.

[Emperor Tippy]

All you have is your interpretation of RAW. All I have is my interpretation of RAW + FAQ.

I don't see anything wrong in looking at, or working with FAQ. It is certainly better than having no additional information on a game system that is out of print.
No, RAW doesn't get interpretation.
By RAW, even without meta reducers, it's a spell of whatever level the unaugmented version is no matter how much meta you apply (absent Heighten and a few other that specifically change the spells level).

However, while that is pure RAW that is technically accurate; it's also retardedly stupid. Using whatever the final cost of the spell is, is more RAI.


And it is official.
No, it's nothing more than officially opinion. It has absolutely no bearing at all in any RAW discussion.

The rules as written are unambiguous in this case. Stupid, yes. But not ambiguous.
Wish says "Duplicate any other spell of 5th level or lower even if it’s of a prohibited school.". Empowered Maximized Fireball is a spell, and it is technically a 3rd level spell. Ergo, Wish can duplicate it.

---
You can't apply your own meta (of certain types) because they spell doesn't qualify for it when it is prepared.

[Psyren]

A Sorcerer could.
A Wizard applies metamagic before they cast the spell, they can't do so on the fly. When they apply meta it won't qualify so they can't apply those meta.

Ah, but technically you can apply Empower/Maximize/etc to anything. It just won't have any effect unless that spell has variable and numeric effects. I could Empower Charm Person if I wanted, it would just function identically to regular Charm Person except for taking up a higher-level slot.

So yes, Wizards can Empower Wish (with the appropriate slot.) And if they use that empowered wish to duplicate a spell that Empower can affect, it will kick in.

[Emperor Tippy]

Ah, but technically you can apply Empower/Maximize/etc to anything. It just won't have any effect unless that spell has variable and numeric effects. I could Empower Charm Person if I wanted, it would just function identically to regular Charm Person except for taking up a higher-level slot.

So yes, Wizards can Empower Wish (with the appropriate slot.) And if they use that empowered wish to duplicate a spell that Empower can affect, it will kick in.
Hmm, true. Misread it the other day, thought it said you could only apply them if they could be used.

Although it does depend on the meta.

And why you would want to meta a wish to hit the spell underneath makes no sense to me, you can just get that straight out.

[Jack_Simth]

OK, so when using Miracle, wish, or a like spell to duplicate another spell how exactly would the metamagic on the produced spell work? Would my empowered wish (which yes is a silly thing to do considering the boosted xp cost) used to create say a fireball create an empowered fireball, or a normal fireball, would the caster than be able to maximize it too since level 3 is nowhere's near the spell level produced limit? And lastly if so would the caster need to posses the metamagic feat (maximize spell in this instance)?

Yes, yes, silliness, but I'd like to hear how others interpret this since technically the spell slot was empowered, and a maximized fireball is technically the equivalent of a level 6 spell :smallbiggrin:
Technically?

The answer, oddly enough, lies in the Metamagic Feat Description (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/feats.htm#metamagicFeats)
As a spellcaster’s knowledge of magic grows, she can learn to cast spells in ways slightly different from the ways in which the spells were originally designed or learned. Preparing and casting a spell in such a way is harder than normal but, thanks to metamagic feats, at least it is possible. Spells modified by a metamagic feat use a spell slot higher than normal. This does not change the level of the spell, so the DC for saving throws against it does not go up. (Emphasis added)
And again:
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.(Emphasis added)

So technically, if you take, say, Delayed Blast Fireball (Sor/Wiz-7), and duplicate it with Miracle, you could instead have it be Twinned, Empowered, Maximized, Fell Drained, Fell Animated, Energy Admixtured (Cold), Energy Admixtured (Electricity), Energy Admixtured (Acid), and Repeating ... as it's still a 7th level spell for all purposes that you're duplicating.

Silly, yes, but seems to be RAW.

Edit: However, Quicken, Silent, and Still would need to be applied to the Miracle itself to have any effect, as Miracle has it's own components line and it's own casting time.

[Douglas]

And why you would want to meta a wish to hit the spell underneath makes no sense to me, you can just get that straight out.
To get more meta than the Wish can pay for, obviously. Under any sensible interpretation (i.e. use the modified slot to determine eligibility), Wish cannot duplicate a Maximized Delayed Blast Fireball, or a Maximized Twinned Fireball. Wish can do Twinned Fireball or Delayed Blast Fireball, but adding the +3 cost of Maximized to either pushes it over Wish's limit of duplicating an 8th level slot.

[Malachei]

No, RAW doesn't get interpretation.

Every text you work with gets interpreted by you, when you work with it. It also matters, because people have different understanding of text.


However, while that is pure RAW that is technically accurate; it's also retardedly stupid. Using whatever the final cost of the spell is, is more RAI.

Of course.


No, it's nothing more than officially opinion. It has absolutely no bearing at all in any RAW discussion.

It is official. It is not RAW, but it is an official rules explanation issued by the publisher.

In this particular case, it also makes a lot of sense. Everything else would be a cheesy way to use Metamagic feats without actually having them, IMO.


The rules as written are unambiguous in this case. Stupid, yes. But not ambiguous.
Wish says "Duplicate any other spell of 5th level or lower even if it’s of a prohibited school.". Empowered Maximized Fireball is a spell, and it is technically a 3rd level spell. Ergo, Wish can duplicate it.

IMO, "Empowered Maximized Fireball" is not a spell, Fireball is, and can be modified by the Empower Spell and Maximize Spell feats. A spell has an entry in the RAW's spell section.


You can't apply your own meta (of certain types) because they spell doesn't qualify for it when it is prepared.

I'm not sure. The RAW don't use qualify. The wording of the feats say a spell without random variables (for Empower and Maximize) is "not affected". Quicken is worded slightly differently, explicitly saying a spell with a 1-round casting time "cannot be quickened."

Otherwise, wizards couldn't apply metamagic on spells that have multiple optional effects or have see text entries.

[Aharon]

Technically?

The answer, oddly enough, lies in the Metamagic Feat Description (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/feats.htm#metamagicFeats) (Emphasis added)
And again: (Emphasis added)

So technically, if you take, say, Delayed Blast Fireball (Sor/Wiz-7), and duplicate it with Miracle, you could instead have it be Twinned, Empowered, Maximized, Fell Drained, Fell Animated, Energy Admixtured (Cold), Energy Admixtured (Electricity), Energy Admixtured (Acid), and Repeating ... as it's still a 7th level spell for all purposes that you're duplicating.

Silly, yes, but seems to be RAW.

Edit: However, Quicken, Silent, and Still would need to be applied to the Miracle itself to have any effect, as Miracle has it's own components line and it's own casting time.

Yes, but this also leads to sillyness like 1st level pearls of power used on Twinned, Empowered, Maximized, Fell Drained, Fell Animated, Energy Admixtured (Cold), Energy Admixtured (Electricity), Energy Admixtured (Acid), and Repeating Lesser Orbs of Fire or Spell Storing Weapons with a Twinned, Empowered, Maximized, Fell Drained, Fell Animated, Energy Admixtured (Cold), Energy Admixtured (Electricity), Energy Admixtured (Acid), and Repeating Vampiric Touch stored, and so on.

(I didn't check the legality of these metamagic feats used on these spells, but I think you get my point.)
While it is certainly RAW, I have never heard of any group that uses RAW in that case.

[candycorn]

It is official. It is not RAW, but it is an official rules explanation issued by the publisher.

Point: FAQ is officially not a rule. No matter what it is, that is what it is not. It is an interpretation of a rule, issued by an official source. But that is not the same thing as a rule.

If you're entering a discussion of RAW, the FAQ is not official rules. At best, it's a respected opinion. At worst, it contradicts itself in more than one place.

As such, it has no place in a RAW discussion, as opinions and contradictions are not rules and facts.

[drack]

While we're at it could someone please point out to me where in

Maximize Spell [Metamagic]
Benefit

All variable, numeric effects of a spell modified by this feat are maximized. Saving throws and opposed rolls are not affected, nor are spells without random variables. A maximized spell uses up a spell slot three levels higher than the spell’s actual level.

An empowered, maximized spell gains the separate benefits of each feat: the maximum result plus one-half the normally rolled result. for instance it says that this may not be applied to spells without variable numeric effects? Certainly it may be wasted, but I don't see why you can't... :smallconfused:

[Jack_Simth]

Yes, but this also leads to sillyness like 1st level pearls of power used on Twinned, Empowered, Maximized, Fell Drained, Fell Animated, Energy Admixtured (Cold), Energy Admixtured (Electricity), Energy Admixtured (Acid), and Repeating Lesser Orbs of Fire or Spell Storing Weapons with a Twinned, Empowered, Maximized, Fell Drained, Fell Animated, Energy Admixtured (Cold), Energy Admixtured (Electricity), Energy Admixtured (Acid), and Repeating Vampiric Touch stored, and so on.

Yes, it does. But one of the first steps in determining how you want to house-rule something for game balance at your table is determining what RAW is.


(I didn't check the legality of these metamagic feats used on these spells, but I think you get my point.)
While it is certainly RAW, I have never heard of any group that uses RAW in that case.
Pretty much, yeah.

Things would have gone so much more smoothly if instead of saying that a metamagic'd spell was it's original level except for certain purposes (namely magic item creation and spell slot used), they said it was the adjusted level for all purposes except save DC. So much less abusable (divine metamagic, Sudden metamagic, Incantatrix class features, et all don't adjust the spell level...).

[Malachei]

Point: FAQ is officially not a rule. No matter what it is, that is what it is not. It is an interpretation of a rule, issued by an official source. But that is not the same thing as a rule.

If you're entering a discussion of RAW, the FAQ is not official rules. At best, it's a respected opinion. At worst, it contradicts itself in more than one place.

As such, it has no place in a RAW discussion, as opinions and contradictions are not rules and facts.

1) Where in the OP said the thread starter he was only interested in RAW? Also, as an official opinion, it is official material. Not in the books you buy, but still official material (not RAW) issued by the publisher.

2) We're all interpreting RAW. The way the rules are worded is difficult sometimes. Hence interpretation. Your opinion, mine, other people's opinion.

I don't see anything bad in bringing another, official opinion into the discussion. I also wouldn't know why an official opinion of game designers paid by the publisher of the rules system we are talking about would be anything less qualified than my opinion, or yours, or anybody else's.

I'm not citing CustServ here, after all. These are clarifications by professional game designers. We're trying to find answers to questions regarding. I think we should all use whatever sources we find. People are citing other people's opinions (linking old threads, for instance), how would it be any less valid to cite official opinion?

The thread starter then has to decide if his question is answered and what to take from it. It's his question, his game. And everybody else reading the thread can do the same. Their games.

[drack]

Ah thank ye, I kinda knew this was shenanigans waiting to happen, and I did ask for everyone's opinions/interpretations. Thank you everyone for your input :smallbiggrin: Personally this was just me seeing something and going for how everyone else interpreted it before jumping on it. I think for balance's sakes I'd limit it to the equivalent spell slot, but again that's just me as I'm sure everyone will walk away with their own take. :smallbiggrin:

Though I'm still curious why a light spell for instance can't be maximized. Sure it would be the exact same as an um-maximized light spell, but all the same isn't it the player's decision weather or not they with to maximize it? :smallconfused:

[olentu]

Though I'm still curious why a light spell for instance can't be maximized. Sure it would be the exact same as an um-maximized light spell, but all the same isn't it the player's decision weather or not they with to maximize it? :smallconfused:

So wait who is still arguing for this position in this thread.

[drack]

I believe tippy said it... :smallbiggrin:

[olentu]

I believe tippy said it... :smallbiggrin:


Hmm, true. Misread it the other day, thought it said you could only apply them if they could be used.

Although it does depend on the meta.

And why you would want to meta a wish to hit the spell underneath makes no sense to me, you can just get that straight out.

While I would not want to put words in someone's mouth it does not look that way to me.

[Malachei]

Now let's not start this all over again. :smallbiggrin:

[drack]

While I would not want to put words in someone's mouth it does not look that way to me.

Ahh, missed that one, thank you :smallbiggrin:

[Psyren]

Yes, you can Wish/Miracle for any spell at or below the specified level which can include metamagic feats. Even ones that you don't actually have and can't actually qualify for, so long as the level doesn't go above the cap on the spell.

I reread the spells (Wish and LW) and now I definitely think this conclusion is RAW. Here's why:



- Duplicate any sorcerer/wizard spell of 6th level or lower, provided the spell is not of a school prohibited to you.
...
Produce any other effect whose power level is in line with the above effects.

An extended 5th-level spell is one of the few things we can conclusively say "has a power level in line with" a 6th-level spell, by the game's own rules. Ditto for an Empowered 4th-level spell, a Maximized 3rd-level spell etc.

Similarly, Wish-ing for a metamagicked lower-level spell (e.g. Extended 7th-level spell) has a power level equivalent to an 8th-level spell; it therefore will not trip the "greater than" DM-screw clause.

And I think paying XP every time to use a feat you don't have is perfectly fine, so long as you stay within the level guidelines.


Where this gets messy though is with metamagic reducers, which I don't think should be allowed.

Now, to apply it to psionics... you could use this to get around the "two foci per power" metapsionics soft cap.

[Malachei]

I reread the spells (Wish and LW) and now I definitely think this conclusion is RAW.
(...) equivalent (...)


I think that the "in line" clause can work has been consensus all the time. IMO, the debated question was another.

[Jack_Simth]

I reread the spells (Wish and LW) and now I definitely think this conclusion is RAW. Here's why
It's a bulleted list of separated items; the "Produce any other effect whose power level is in line with the above effects" clause isn't needed for the cheddar discussed here. The way the cheddar works is by pointing out that no matter how much metamagic (other than Heighten and related) you stack on a spell, it is still, by RAW, treated as a spell of it's original level for all purposes other than a small handful of purposes (such as scroll creation, and the spell slot needed).

Or to put it another way: If Limited Wish had a clause that said "Auto kill one opponent, with no save and no SR", would the bullet point of "Produce any other effect whose power level is in line with the above effects" negate that clause?

[Psyren]

It's a bulleted list of separated items; the "Produce any other effect whose power level is in line with the above effects" clause isn't needed for the cheddar discussed here. The way the cheddar works is by pointing out that no matter how much metamagic (other than Heighten and related) you stack on a spell, it is still, by RAW, treated as a spell of it's original level for all purposes other than a small handful of purposes (such as scroll creation, and the spell slot needed).

Yeah yeah, I got that part, and I wasn't even dignifying it with a separate consideration. Limited Wish for Twinmaxed Fell Drain Repeating Orbs of Force isn't even something you have a discussion about.

[olentu]

Yeah yeah, I got that part, and I wasn't even dignifying it with a separate consideration. Limited Wish for Twinmaxed Fell Drain Repeating Orbs of Force isn't even something you have a discussion about.

I don't see why one would not have a discussion about it.

[Psyren]

I don't see why one would not have a discussion about it.

There's no middle ground and no convincing. Either you think stuff like that should be allowed or you don't. If you do, no amount of FAQ entries will convince you, and if you don't, all the abusive RAW readings in the world won't change your mind.

[Jack_Simth]

Yeah yeah, I got that part, and I wasn't even dignifying it with a separate consideration. Limited Wish for Twinmaxed Fell Drain Repeating Orbs of Force isn't even something you have a discussion about.Oh, it's worth discussing - mostly for the amusement value - but I do agree it is blatantly much too high of optimization for most gaming tables.

I'm not saying that the interpretation that lets Limited Wish do a Twinned, Maximized, Empowered, Split Ray, Repeating Enervation isn't going to break many DM's if permitted at their tables.

I'm not saying that the interpretation that lets Limited Wish do a Twinned, Maximized, Empowered, Split Ray, Repeating Enervation is suitable for most gaming tables.

I'm not saying that the interpretation that lets Limited Wish do a Twinned, Maximized, Empowered, Split Ray, Repeating Enervation was intended by the designers of the game.

I'm not saying that the interpretation that lets Limited Wish do a Twinned, Maximized, Empowered, Split Ray, Repeating Enervation isn't ridiculously overpowered for most groups.

I'm not saying that the interpretation that lets Limited Wish do a Twinned, Maximized, Empowered, Split Ray, Repeating Enervation should be.

I'm disagreeing with your assertion that the interpretation that limits Limited Wish (and Miracle's, and Wish's) spell duplication clause limits metamagic on top of spells to a spell slot expense of 6th level Sor/Wiz spells is RAW.

[olentu]

There's no middle ground and no convincing. Either you think stuff like that should be allowed or you don't. If you do, no amount of FAQ entries will convince you, and if you don't, all the abusive RAW readings in the world won't change your mind.

I suppose although that sounds like almost everything discussed on the net.

Oh huh now that I think about it you could always take the the rules are not sufficiently clear side and add a third side to the discussion. It has the benefit of arguing at both sides while being at least as and perhaps even more impossible to be convinced then either side.

[Psyren]

I'm disagreeing with your assertion that the interpretation that limits Limited Wish (and Miracle's, and Wish's) spell duplication clause limits metamagic on top of spells to a spell slot expense of 6th level Sor/Wiz spells is RAW.

I'm not limiting Wish and Miracle at all. Technically, nothing limits them; you can wish (or beg) for anything you want, even more wishes.

(Or perhaps it is more accurate to say that their limits are not clearly defined.)

[Malachei]

There's no middle ground and no convincing. Either you think stuff like that should be allowed or you don't. If you do, no amount of FAQ entries will convince you, and if you don't, all the abusive RAW readings in the world won't change your mind.

I agree, but I also think the important point of the discussion is whether RAW (or, if you allow, RAW + FAQ) allow for the first and second function of the spell (duplicating spells) to do this.

Because the fourth function, the "in line" clause is clearly ultimately under DM control.

IMO, it is clear you need the fourth function. I think it had also been worked out above.

(I'm using miracle here).

[Jack_Simth]

I'm not limiting Wish and Miracle at all. Technically, nothing limits them; you can wish (or beg) for anything you want, even more wishes.

(Or perhaps it is more accurate to say that their limits are not clearly defined.)
Ah, but you are - at least sort of. You're putting spells with metamagic effects applied into a separate category from spells without metamagic effects, and effectively requiring that they be handled by a different clause in Limited Wish (and Wish, and Miracle), when by my reading, the rules exactly as they're written put them into the safe list - duplicating spells - based on the metamagic feat subtype header that specifies that they're treated as spells of the original spell level (with a small handful of exceptions).

Don't get me wrong: I'm not saying that this does not very easily get absurd - I'm saying that exactly as written, the rules say Limited Wish permits duplicating spells with arbitrarily high metamagic adjustment stacked on under the explicit safe list.

[Malachei]

Ah, but you are - at least sort of. You're putting spells with metamagic effects applied into a separate category from spells without metamagic effects, and effectively requiring that they be handled by a different clause in Limited Wish (and Wish, and Miracle), when by my reading, the rules exactly as they're written put them into the safe list - duplicating spells - based on the metamagic feat subtype header that specifies that they're treated as spells of the original spell level (with a small handful of exceptions).

Don't get me wrong: I'm not saying that this does not very easily get absurd - I'm saying that exactly as written, the rules say Limited Wish permits duplicating spells with arbitrarily high metamagic adjustment stacked on under the explicit safe list.

You are ignoring FAQ. You're absolutely free to do it, but is is usually a personal preference. Some people ignore FAQ entirely, some ignore only parts of it, some use it. I'd say why not look at FAQ, because I think it is really, really adamant on this case:


Just because you’re capable of applying, say, the Empower Spell feat to a fireball spell, that doesn’t make “empowered fireball” a spell. The spell is still “fireball” and thus Innate Spell applies only to the normal version of that spell.

I think this is so wonderfully clear in addressing that a metamagically enhanced spell is not a spell. A spell is listed in the spell list.

All of us can still ignore it, of course, because it is not RAW.

Still, all of us here are interpreting RAW. Because RAW is ambiguous and working with text is always interpreting text -- the same text can mean two different things to two people, both smart, just with a different interpretation. People are actually linking old threads, asking others for their opinion, and so on. Why not look at FAQ?

The problem about saying RAW is clear is that it is obviously not. If RAW was clear, 99% of the discussions on this site would not be happening at all. And the rest 1%, where you can just cite from RAW and everything is really clear to everyone, these questions are usually answered with "go read your books."

Therefore, I am really making a case for not ignoring FAQ and every other source of information we have.

[Psyren]

I agree, but I also think the important point of the discussion is whether RAW (or, if you allow, RAW + FAQ) allow for the first and second function of the spell (duplicating spells) to do this.

Because the fourth function, the "in line" clause is clearly ultimately under DM control.

IMO, it is clear you need the fourth function. I think it had also been worked out above.

(I'm using miracle here).

Agreed 100%.



Don't get me wrong: I'm not saying that this does not very easily get absurd - I'm saying that exactly as written, the rules say Limited Wish permits duplicating spells with arbitrarily high metamagic adjustment stacked on under the explicit safe list.

Good for you! I'm saying there's nothing for us to discuss based on that conclusion. :smallsmile:

[candycorn]

You are ignoring FAQ. You're absolutely free to do it, but is is usually a personal preference. Some people ignore FAQ entirely, some ignore only parts of it, some use it. I'd say why not look at FAQ, because I think it is really, really adamant on this case:I don't consider your opinion when I look at the rules to figure out how things work. I might consider your reasoning behind that opinion, but the opinion itself? Nope.

Things are complex enough bringing one person's logical baggage into interpretation. Including multiple people's opinions, without reasoning and justification, creates a situation where we are not ruling on what things are, but rather on "what that guy over there said".


I think this is so wonderfully clear in addressing that a metamagically enhanced spell is not a spell. A spell is listed in the spell list.

All of us can still ignore it, of course, because it is not RAW. Exactly. It's not a rule at all.

Still, all of us here are interpreting RAW. Because RAW is ambiguous and working with text is always interpreting text -- the same text can mean two different things to two people, both smart, just with a different interpretation.Support bolded text.

As for non-bolded? Not always. "Entangled creatures get -4 to strength and dexterity". That's a non-ambiguous statement of fact. There is one valid interpretation. Just because everyone has to interpret things, doesn't mean the guy who interprets "hat" to mean "thing with 4 legs that people sit in" isn't a bloomin' idiot. There are invalid interpretations.


People are actually linking old threads, asking others for their opinion, and so on. Why not look at FAQ?Because all it is? Is opinion. Not fact.


The problem about saying RAW is clear is that it is obviously not. If RAW was clear, 99% of the discussions on this site would not be happening at all. And the rest 1%, where you can just cite from RAW and everything is really clear to everyone, these questions are usually answered with "go read your books."Just because something is clear, doesn't mean people won't make mistakes.


Therefore, I am really making a case for not ignoring FAQ and every other source of information we have.I'm not saying you should ignore it.

You just should never, EVER assume that FAQ is a valid premise in a logical debate on rules, unless that FAQ entry is itself a sound conclusion, supported by premises that are grounded in RAW.

It's the difference between opinion and fact.

[Psyren]

Because all it is? Is opinion. Not fact.


Some opinions are worth more than others. Bill Gates' opinion is newsworthy and can affect numerous markets.

In the absence of fact - i.e. when the RAW fails to adequately cover a situation, as it so very often does - the intent of the designers is important.

One very obvious example of this is Mike Mearl's opinion of the Factotum's Cunning Strike.

[Malachei]

I don't consider your opinion when I look at the rules to figure out how things work. I might consider your reasoning behind that opinion, but the opinion itself? Nope. (...) it is opinion, not fact. (...)

Actually, the human mind is very rarely able to separate reasoning from opinion. Look here (Optical Illusion) (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Optical_illusion), here (Mere Exposure Effect) (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mere_exposure_effect) or here (Selective Perception) (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Selective_perception).

This applies to facts. Two people can perceive the same fact in two entirely different ways and be 100% convinced to be right.

I don't see anything bad in bringing another, official reasoning opinion into the discussion. I also wouldn't know why an official reasoning opinion of game designers paid by the publisher of the rules system we are talking about would be anything less qualified than my reasoning opinion, or yours, or anybody else's.

I also think we're probably mostly in agreement here. It is a slightly different use of terms, and perhaps of sources.