Arcane Thesis - errata

[jaybird]

So I notice a lot of people on this forum using Arcane Thesis to apply -1 to each metamagic applied to a spell...

http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/er/20040125a

Relevant quote:
Arcane Thesis reduces the total spell level of a metamagic affected spell by one, regardless of the number of metamagic feats applied. An empowered (+2 levels), still (+1 level), silent (+1 level) fireball would be 6th level.

Page 38 of the PHB update.

[Marthinwurer]

And where, exactly, was this found? Can you tell me which thing at that link to download?

[Douglas]

That's funny, the PHB2 errata - from the page you linked - says this when I download it:

Page 74– Arcane Thesis [Substitution]
Should read, “When you apply any metamagic feats
other than Heighten Spell” Thus if you were to
prepare an empowered maximized magic missile
(assuming magic missile is the spell you choose for
your Arcane Thesis), it would be prepared as a 4th
level spell (+1 level for empowered, down from +2;
and +2 levels for maximized, down from +3).

Where, exactly, is your example from, and why should your source trump the errata file?

[Eldonauran]

Arcane Thesis appears in the Player's Handbook II. Any relevant errata would be in that update. I checked and did not see such an errata in the PHB2 or the PHB (as specified by the OP) anywhere that stated what was quoted above.

[Venger]

And where, exactly, was this found? Can you tell me which thing at that link to download?

arcane thesis was originally printed in PHB2, so download the PHB2 update. here's the relevant text: (mods, if this isn't okay to post, go ahead and strike it. I think since WotC is putting it up free it's ok, but if I'm wrong, redact it)


Page 74– Arcane Thesis [Substitution]
Should read, “When you apply any metamagic feats
other than Heighten Spell” Thus if you were to
prepare an empowered maximized magic missile
(assuming magic missile is the spell you choose for
your Arcane Thesis), it would be prepared as a 4th
level spell (+1 level for empowered, down from +2;
and +2 levels for maximized, down from +3).

Page 74 – Arcane Thesis [Omission]
Add the following text to the end of the “Benefit”
section: “A spell cannot be reduced to below its
original level with the use of this feat.”

[NoldorForce]

That opening text is actually from the FAQ, around the time when WotC started using it to push stealth errata into the game with mixed results. (Regardless of its disputed position in the rules hierarchy, some of it was outright wrong.) It does in fact appear on page 38 of that document (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/er/20030221a), but shortly after its inclusion the errata was released to clarify how it actually worked. Kind of a "shut up, you imbecile" from the designers to CustServ.

[Venger]

That opening text is actually from the FAQ, around the time when WotC started using it to push stealth errata into the game with mixed results. (Regardless of its disputed position in the rules hierarchy, some of it was outright wrong.) It does in fact appear on page 38 of that document (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/er/20030221a), but shortly after its inclusion the errata was released to clarify how it actually worked. Kind of a "shut up, you imbecile" from the designers to CustServ.

I'm sorry, I am a little confused. Is the text I posted about arcane thesis incorrect? I was relatively certain that that was how it worked. if so, how does it, in fact, work?

[NoldorForce]

I'm sorry, I am a little confused. Is the text I posted about arcane thesis incorrect? I was relatively certain that that was how it worked. if so, how does it, in fact, work?The text you posted was correct, it's just that with the passing of years and the lack of timestamps, the progression of events has been a bit obscured:
PHB2 was published in May '06. Among other things, people notice Arcane Thesis and theorize how it can be used with loads of metamagic at once.
In reaction to some particularly abusive builds, Customer Service decides to make a stealth nerf to the feat. By this point The Sage had generally become a mouthpiece for this sort of thing, so of course it gets published as a "question" and gets tossed in the FAQ. (jaybird posted this text.)
Perhaps annoyed at bureaucratic meddling, PHB2's own designers explicitly define and correct how the feat worked in the errata published in October '07. As above, it contradicts the FAQ and (being the primary rules source) has precedent. (Everyone else who posted text, posted this text.)

This method of using the FAQ to stealthily alter or tweak the rules was one of the two things that got people so riled up over its use in the first place. (The other was the inconsistency of responses you could produce from CustServ by rewording the question.) It smacked of intellectual dishonesty to use a side channel not intended for this purpose (Sage responses and the FAQ), especially when there was a separate channel that was intended for this kind of thing (errata documents).

'Course, while WotC learned their lesson from this (monthly updates!) in 4E...Paizo's still had its share of like SNAFUs (such as Monk flurry).

[jaybird]

Huh, interesting...okay. So the PHB2 errata takes priority over the PHB FAQ, then?

[Venger]

Huh, interesting...okay. So the PHB2 errata takes priority over the PHB FAQ, then?

Yes. Primary source always trumps a secondary source (text trumps table or sample character, for example) the FAQ is a secondary source, whereas errata are primary, so go with errata, which is essentially, subtract 1 from every metamagic lvl adjuster you apply to the spell.

[jaybird]

Right, thanks for the clarification!

[Roguenewb]

As the saying goes, FAQs aren't RAW. My understanding is that if FAQ changes the functionality of something (which techincally it shouldn't) then it's not official, just like the Sage's answers aren't RAW.

[holywhippet]

Yes. Primary source always trumps a secondary source (text trumps table or sample character, for example) the FAQ is a secondary source, whereas errata are primary, so go with errata, which is essentially, subtract 1 from every metamagic lvl adjuster you apply to the spell.

Where exactly is this spelled out?

[mattie_p]

Where exactly is this spelled out?

It is at the start of pretty much every posted errata:


Errata Rule: Primary Sources
When you find a disagreement between two D&D® rules
sources, unless an official errata file says otherwise, the
primary source is correct. One example of a
primary/secondary source is text taking precedence over
a table entry. An individual spell description takes
precedence when the short description in the beginning
of the spells chapter disagrees.

Another example of primary vs. secondary sources
involves book and topic precedence. The Player's
Handbook, for example, gives all the rules for playing
the game, for playing PC races, and for using base class
descriptions. If you find something on one of those
topics from the DUNGEON MASTER's Guide or the
Monster Manual that disagrees with the Player's
Handbook, you should assume the Player's Handbook is
the primary source. The DUNGEON MASTER's Guide is the
primary source for topics such as magic item
descriptions, special material construction rules, and so
on. The Monster Manual is the primary source for
monster descriptions, templates, and supernatural,
extraordinary, and spell-like abilities. Note: The most
recent updates are shaded like this.

[holywhippet]

Ah, thanks. I rarely have to look at the errata so I never noticed it.

Funny that, since it means classes like the sacred fist get full spell progression which more or less makes them better than a straight up cleric.

[Hiro Protagonest]

Ah, thanks. I rarely have to look at the errata so I never noticed it.

Funny that, since it means classes like the sacred fist get full spell progression which more or less makes them better than a straight up cleric.

You still lose a couple caster levels to monk.

[prufock]

You still lose a couple caster levels to monk.

If you want to get into it asap, that is. You don't actually need any monk levels to qualify, though you use up 4 feats to do so.

[dragonmage_88]

I know this is an old thread, and this reply will likely never be seen, but I don't understand the confusion with this feat, or why it needed errata at all.
Let's look at the original text regarding metamagic:
"When you apply a metamagic feat other than Heighten Spell, the enhanced spell uses up a spell slot one level lower than normal."

This means that the total spell-level adjustment is reduced by one, not that you take one level off of every metamagic feat applied.

Am I missing something? Why was this ever a point of contention, when it clearly states that the "enhanced spell" uses up a spell slot one level lower?

[eggynack]

I know this is an old thread, and this reply will likely never be seen, but I don't understand the confusion with this feat, or why it needed errata at all.
Let's look at the original text regarding metamagic:
"When you apply a metamagic feat other than Heighten Spell, the enhanced spell uses up a spell slot one level lower than normal."

This means that the total spell-level adjustment is reduced by one, not that you take one level off of every metamagic feat applied.

Am I missing something? Why was this ever a point of contention, when it clearly states that the "enhanced spell" uses up a spell slot one level lower?
When you apply one metamagic feat, the enhanced spell uses a slot one level lower than normal. When you apply a second feat, the enhanced spell uses yet a lower spell level. The feat doesn't apply its reduction to the other metamagic feats, but each metamagic feat has the reduction effect on the end result. This interpretation is backed up by the very conclusive errata (http://archive.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/errata), as was noted in this thread. There is thus no point of contention, but in the opposite direction of your claim.

[Renen]

Damn necromancers! Away with you! *Rebuke undead*

[Haruki-kun]

The Winged Mod: Thread Necromancy.