[3.5] Sanctum Spell and Sorcerers

[Endarire]

I'm in a 3.5 campaign. I'm a Sorcerer1. With flaws, I have the feats Fell Drain, Easy Metamagic (Fell Drain), and Sanctum Spell.

Sanctum Spell's full text is in Complete Arcane and various Googleable places. The relevant text is below.

"if not cast in the sanctum, the spell has an effective spell level 1 lower than normal. All effects dependent on spell level (including save DCs) are calculated according to the adjusted level. A sanctum spell uses a spell slot of the spell's normal level"

My rules question: Can I use a level 1 spell slot to cast Fell Drain power word pain (a level 1 spell) when I'm outside my sanctum? The passages of "has an effective spell level 1 lower than normal" and "A sanctum spell uses a spell slot of the spell's normal level" seem contradictory. I'm looking for the RAW answer here, not whether something seems reasonable or balanced.

Further confusion has happened because people use Sanctum Spell to fit higher level spells into a contingency, a War Weaver's Eldritch Tapestry, and an arcane fusion spell. Also compare this to Heighten Spell (full text listed below) and you notice the term 'effective level' to mean spell level = slot level.

A heightened spell has a higher spell level than normal (up to a maximum of 9th level). Unlike other metamagic feats, Heighten Spell actually increases the effective level of the spell that it modifies. All effects dependent on spell level (such as saving throw DCs and ability to penetrate a lesser globe of invulnerability) are calculated according to the heightened level. The heightened spell is as difficult to prepare and cast as a spell of its effective level.

[Crake]

No, sanctum spell's level adjustment is to the spell level, not the slot level. You would be casting a 1st level spell from a 1st level slot, but it would be resolved as a cantrip for purposes such as spell save DC, it's ability to be absorbed/overcome various things (such as globes of invulnerability or rods of absorption), things like that. This CAN be used for some interesting things, such as putting a 4th level spell into a spell storing weapon (because it is treated as a 3rd level spell), but it does not affect the slot the spell is cast from, so when applying it and fell drain, it will still be a +2 (or in your case +1 thanks to easy metamagic) spell slot increase.

So to put it simply, the premise behind sanctum spell is that it uses the same slot as normal, but when cast inside a sanctum it's more powerful, and when cast outside a sanctum, it's less powerful.

Also note it's the last part of the wording of heighten spell that makes it actually change slot level.

[Chronos]

And as an interesting quirk, even though the purpose of Sanctum Spell is supposed to be to make the spell more powerful in your sanctum and less outside, in practice it turns out to be a lot more useful outside of your sanctum. The biggest example is using Arcane Fusion to cast another Arcane Fusion.

[Sane]

This CAN be used for some interesting things, such as putting a 4th level spell into a spell storing weapon (because it is treated as a 3rd level spell)...

I wouldn't allow that. A Sanctum Spell doesn't become a spell of a different level. It is simply treated as one for the purpose of determining its efficacy. Spell storing specifically requires that the spell stored is of third level or lower. A fourth level Sanctum Spell cast outside your sanctum has an 'effective level' (to quote the text of the feat) of third but it's still a fourth level spell.

[Sane]

And as an interesting quirk, even though the purpose of Sanctum Spell is supposed to be to make the spell more powerful in your sanctum and less outside, in practice it turns out to be a lot more useful outside of your sanctum. The biggest example is using Arcane Fusion to cast another Arcane Fusion.

I wouldn't allow that either, because of the reason I gave above.

[Chronos]

Which is a perfectly reasonable ruling, because the feat as written is just plain broken, but it's still a houserule.

Of course, with that perfectly reasonable houserule, the feat becomes pointless, because who wants to spend a feat just to increase the save DC of your spells by 1, and that only conditionally?

[Sane]

Your calling it a house rule does not make it one. The interpretation is every bit as valid as yours. It's also hyperbole to suggest that my interpretation makes the feat 'pointless'. It's clearly intended to boost a caster who's defending his home turf. Sure, it's not great and it's likely to be of more use to a DM building an encounter with an NPC than it would be for a player building a PC but there are many such feats and skills in 3.5.

[Jormengand]

Your calling it a house rule does not make it one. The interpretation is every bit as valid as yours.

No, that "Interpretation" is a house rule because it is in direct contradiction to the text of the feat.

[Telok]

No, that "Interpretation" is a house rule because it is in direct contradiction to the text of the feat.

I always read it that way too.

But then I read the phrases 'effective spell level' and 'All effects dependent on spell level (including save DCs) are calculated according to the adjusted level' as meaning that once cast the casting is complete then the effect of the spell is adjucated as if the spell from a 4th level spell slot was from a 3rd level spell slot. The actual level of the spell for all other purposes is unchanged because only the effect of the spell is altered. The interpretation that a 4th level spell becomes a 3rd level spell in a 4th level spell slot always seemed odd to me, sort of like a reversed Heighten Spell feat.

So in what way is this a 'houserule'?

[Jormengand]

The actual level of the spell for all other purposes is unchanged because only the effect of the spell is altered.

No, it doesn't say "The effect of the spell is one level lower" it says "The effective spell level is one lower" meaning "The spell is treated as one level lower", without specifying that it is only one level lower for some purposes and not others.

EDIT: More damningly, arcane fusion is explicitly an effect ("A spell is a one-time magical effect") and is dependent on the spell's level, so it is an effect dependent on spell level, meaning that it's calculated according to the adjusted level.

[Chronos]

Quoth Sane:

It's also hyperbole to suggest that my interpretation makes the feat 'pointless'. It's clearly intended to boost a caster who's defending his home turf.
Yes, it's clearly intended for that. And it's really bad at it, worse than a number of other feats. Thus, pointless.

[Sane]

No, that "Interpretation" is a house rule because it is in direct contradiction to the text of the feat.

You mean it's in direct contradiction to your interpretation. Sorry, but that's the way it is. It is a badly worded - and possibly, Chronos, badly gauged (but that's irrelevant and 'pointless' is hopelessly subjective) - feat; we all get that. And it is never possible to determine a rule without some degree of interpretation. My interpretation is as valid a "RAW" or "RAI" (both intellectually bankrupt terms, really) as any other so far put forth in the thread.

[Telok]

No, it doesn't say "The effect of the spell is one level lower" it says "The effective spell level is one lower" meaning "The spell is treated as one level lower", without specifying that it is only one level lower for some purposes and not others.

EDIT: More damningly, arcane fusion is explicitly an effect ("A spell is a one-time magical effect") and is dependent on the spell's level, so it is an effect dependent on spell level, meaning that it's calculated according to the adjusted level.

I quoted the text in my post, 'All effects of the spell' and so on. The feat alters the effect of the spell when the spell is cast. That's the only way I've been able to read it. I just don't see it saying that it changes the level of the spell itself, only the level of the effects at casting time.

[Jormengand]

You mean it's in direct contradiction to your interpretation. Sorry, but that's the way it is. It is a badly worded - and possibly, Chronos, badly gauged (but that's irrelevant and 'pointless' is hopelessly subjective) - feat; we all get that. And it is never possible to determine a rule without some degree of interpretation. My interpretation is as valid a "RAW" or "RAI" (both intellectually bankrupt terms, really) as any other so far put forth in the thread.

No, it is not a valid interpretation. A spell being treated as a lower level is not the same as a spell being treated as a lower level, but only when you say so. I don't get what about this is hard to understand.

[Crake]

No, it is not a valid interpretation. A spell being treated as a lower level is not the same as a spell being treated as a lower level, but only when you say so. I don't get what about this is hard to understand.

The issue with using sanctum spell and arcane fusion actually derives from the following text "If applying a metamagic feat to a spell, use the adjusted spell level and casting time for purposes of determining eligibility for arcane fusion." So a sanctumed arcane fusion may be a level lower, but the adjusted spell level is the same, and thus cannot be fusioned.

That line was added in the errata for Complete Mage, and a lot of people seem to forget about it.

[Jormengand]

the adjusted spell level

Right, and the adjusted spell level is one down, because sanctum spell specifically lowers the spell level by 1. That's the only part of Sanctum Spell that mentions adjusting the spell's level.

If it were an empowered sanctum spell, it would be one above if cast out of the sanctum and three above if cast in it, for that specific purpose.

[Crake]

Right, and the adjusted spell level is one down, because sanctum spell specifically lowers the spell level by 1. That's the only part of Sanctum Spell that mentions adjusting the spell's level.

If it were an empowered sanctum spell, it would be one above if cast out of the sanctum and three above if cast in it, for that specific purpose.

If you want to interpret it that way, I suppose maximize has no spell level adjustment, right? Don't be facetious, you know it means the adjusted spell slot level.

[Jormengand]

If you want to interpret it that way, I suppose maximize has no spell level adjustment, right? Don't be facetious, you know it means the adjusted spell slot level.

But sanctum does not adjust the spell slot level at all. There is no mention anywhere in sanctum spell's text of it adjusting the spell level at all. I'm not being facetious in the slightest and I'll thank you not to accuse me of it.

[Crake]

But sanctum does not adjust the spell slot level at all. There is no mention anywhere in sanctum spell's text of it adjusting the spell level at all. I'm not being facetious in the slightest and I'll thank you not to accuse me of it.

Yes, so it's level for arcane fusion is it's adjusted level, which is the same as it's normal level, thus it's not possible to arcane fusion with a sanctumed arcane fusion, though you could use a sanctumed spell in a sanctum for a 4th level spell (and thus treat it like a 5th level spell), because the adjusted spell level is 4th.

For metamagic feats arcane fusion uses spell slot, not actual spell level.

[Jormengand]

For metamagic feats arcane fusion uses spell slot, not actual spell level.

O RLY?

"If applying a metamagic feat to a spell, use the adjusted spell level and casting time for purposes of determining eligibility for arcane fusion."

The spell level is adjusted. How? It's adjusted down, by one. It's also adjusted nowhere, by zero, but it still ends up at its starting level, plus zero, minus one. Again, a spell being treated as a lower level is not the same as a spell being treated as a lower level, but only when you say so.

[Glimbur]

Coming at it the other way, what happens if I heighten a third level spell and use metamagic reducers to still cast it from a third level slot? Can I put it into a spell storing weapon?

[Crake]

O RLY?

"If applying a metamagic feat to a spell, use the adjusted spell level and casting time for purposes of determining eligibility for arcane fusion."

The spell level is adjusted. How? It's adjusted down, by one. It's also adjusted nowhere, by zero, but it still ends up at its starting level, plus zero, minus one. Again, a spell being treated as a lower level is not the same as a spell being treated as a lower level, but only when you say so.

By that same logic, since maximise does not actually adjust the spell level, just the level of the slot that the spell is prepared in, you should stll be able to arcane fusion a level 4 maximised spell. A maximised fireball is still a 3rd level spell after all, it just takes up a 6th level slot. That would make that line literally pointless if it was only talking about the effective level of the spell, and not the spell slot level. You can't have it both ways, either it's the way you interpret it, and you can load all sorts of other metamagic on the spells for free, or it's my way and you can't do either.


Coming at it the other way, what happens if I heighten a third level spell and use metamagic reducers to still cast it from a third level slot? Can I put it into a spell storing weapon?

This is specifically for arcane fusion, spell storing does not have the added clause, meaning the trick still applies, letting you put a sanctumed 3rd level spell into a spell storing weapon, or hell, even loading up a 3rd level spell with a bunch of metamagic and storing that.

[Jormengand]

the way you interpret it, and you can load all sorts of other metamagic on the spells for free

Except the part where I not only never said that, but flatly contradicted it.

The spell slot is adjusted by zero because that's the adjustment on sanctum spell, and then by -1 because that's the effect of sanctum spell. In fact, with the explicit intention of preventing you from making that exact misinterpretation of my argument that you just made, I even gave an example:


If it were an empowered sanctum spell, it would be one above if cast out of the sanctum and three above if cast in it, for that specific purpose.

This is because the modifiers are:


+2 because that's the modifier on Empowered.
+0 because that's the effect of Empowered.
+0 because that's the modifier on Sanctum.
-1 because that's the effect of Sanctum.


For a total of +1 if cast out of the sanctum, or:


+2 because that's the modifier on Empowered.
+0 because that's the effect of Empowered.
+0 because that's the modifier on Sanctum.
+1 because that's the effect of Sanctum.


For a total of +3 if cast in the sanctum.

How much clearer can I make this? Okay, let's break this down. Empowered DOES mention affecting the spell slot, but does NOT mention affecting the spell's actual level. It adds 2, because that's the effect on the spell slot. Sanctum does NOT mention affecting the spell slot, but DOES mention affecting the spell's actual level. It either adds or subtracts one, because that's what the metamagic itself actually does. Energy substitution does NOT mention affecting the spell slot, and does NOT mention affecting the spell level either, so it does NOTHING if applied. Heighten DOES mention affecting the spell slot, and DOES mention that the spell's actual level is increased by the same amount. However, because it's part of the same effect, it only affects once (but if you manage to get rid of the spell slot adjustment, it still counts as a higher-level spell).

[Ruethgar]

The only things that actually modify spell level and not just slot are Heighten, Sanctum, and Whispering Way if PF is available. None of the others modify spell level, only slot.

[Crake]

Except the part where I not only never said that, but flatly contradicted it.

The spell slot is adjusted by zero because that's the adjustment on sanctum spell, and then by -1 because that's the effect of sanctum spell. In fact, with the explicit intention of preventing you from making that exact misinterpretation of my argument that you just made, I even gave an example:



This is because the modifiers are:


+2 because that's the modifier on Empowered.
+0 because that's the effect of Empowered.
+0 because that's the modifier on Sanctum.
-1 because that's the effect of Sanctum.


For a total of +1 if cast out of the sanctum, or:


+2 because that's the modifier on Empowered.
+0 because that's the effect of Empowered.
+0 because that's the modifier on Sanctum.
+1 because that's the effect of Sanctum.


For a total of +3 if cast in the sanctum.

How much clearer can I make this? Okay, let's break this down. Empowered DOES mention affecting the spell slot, but does NOT mention affecting the spell's actual level. It adds 2, because that's the effect on the spell slot. Sanctum does NOT mention affecting the spell slot, but DOES mention affecting the spell's actual level. It either adds or subtracts one, because that's what the metamagic itself actually does. Energy substitution does NOT mention affecting the spell slot, and does NOT mention affecting the spell level either, so it does NOTHING if applied. Heighten DOES mention affecting the spell slot, and DOES mention that the spell's actual level is increased by the same amount. However, because it's part of the same effect, it only affects once (but if you manage to get rid of the spell slot adjustment, it still counts as a higher-level spell).

Ok, so using that logic, heighten has double the cost, because it increases the spell slot AND the spell level?

[Jormengand]

Ok, so using that logic, heighten has double the cost, because it increases the spell slot AND the spell level?

No, because I literally just wrote something to the contrary (again). Heighten spell makes a single adjustment, both to the spell slot and to the real level. Arcane fusion makes all spell slot adjustments count as real adjustments, but the heighten spell adjustment is a real adjustment anyway, so that doesn't matter.

[Segev]

I personally like to use Sanctum Spell to stuff 4th level spells into Arrows of Spell Storing.

*ducks and runs*

[Chronos]

I, for one, have been ignoring that rule because I didn't know it existed, as I haven't read all of the errata. I'm glad and mildly surprised to see that that particular rules abuse was actually fixed.

[Crake]

I personally like to use Sanctum Spell to stuff 4th level spells into Arrows of Spell Storing.

*ducks and runs*

I actually had a player who did this with a spellslinger, and, using words of power, stuffed 10d6 electricity damage into all her bullets, as well as applying fell drain to it, making all her shots deal 10d6 damage and apply a negative level in addition to whatever damage the gun did, haha. Her shots ended up costing something like 500gp each.