E6 Circle Magic

[Anthrowhale]

It seems to be possible to get Faerun style circle magic in E6 (http://www.enworld.org/attachment.php?attachmentid=30010&stc=1) deeply violating the premise of E6 (Not for actual play!).

NG Female Fire-Souled Human Cloistered Cleric[Mystra](Spell,Rune,Knowledge) 1/Hathran 5
with feats:
Human: Ethran
1) Heighten Spell
Flaw: DMM[Heighten Spell]

Fire-Souled is an LA+3 template from Dragon 314 which is translated into a harsh 10-point buy in E6. With these harsh requirements, we'll go with Charisma 12, Wisdom 14, and all other stats 8.

The qualification list for Hathran is rather long, but it all checks out.


LG, LN, NG alignment. Check.
Female. Check.
Knowledge[Rashemen] 4: The knowledge domain provides access to all knowledge skills, so easily done.
Ethran. Taken.
Leadership. Fire-Souled grants leadership as a bonus feat. You can't use it at level 1 but you do have it which is what the prerequisite checks for.
Region: Rashemen. Choose the right mom.
Able to cast 4th level arcane or divine spells. We cast level 4 divine spells using DMM[Heighten] with 4 turn undead uses on a level 1 spell.
Patron Deity: Chauntea, Meilikki, or Mystra. Check


Only a few variations exist.

Not a Hathran: Impossible. Halruaan Elder and Red Wizard have significant skill requirements making entry after L1 infeasible. This means Female and Ethran are required with significant constraints on Alignment and Patron Deity.

Not Fire-Souled: Impossible. Fire-Souled is the only way I know of to legitimately gain the Leadership feat early. Shun the Dark Chaos only allows you to gain feats you qualify for so the L6 prerequisite invalidates that approach.

No Flaws: Impossible.

Not a Human: Possible. Ethran requires Human(Rashemen) so potentially half-human or human-descended races can qualify via the Human Heritage feat. The feat requirements bite hard though since moving away from human implies effectively losing 2 feats, the human bonus feat and one for human heritage. To stay within a 2 flaws paradigm you must avoid one or the other which plausibly requires humanoid(human) races such as Illumian or Azurin. Alternatively, a Silverbrow Human taking human heritage to gain the human subtype may qualify.

Not a Cleric: Possible. A Dragonlance Mystic with the Sun Domain gains Turn Undead so if they additionally take Apprentice[Philosopher] they can satisfy the skill requirements.
A Divine Spellcaster (www.d20srd.org/srd/variant/classes/genericClasses.htm#spellcaster) can get Turn or Rebuke Undead at level 1 and choose to satisfy the skill requirements.
An arcane human spellcaster could qualify via the feats (L1) Heighten Spell, (Human) Ethran, (Spellcaster 1) Easy Metamagic[Heighten], (Flaw) Sanctum Spell, (Flaw) Versatile Spellcaster.

Unlocking full use of high level circle magic is fairly tricky due to a low initial wisdom and caster level.

There are three issues (caster level, wisdom, and spell access) which are partially interlocking.

Caster level is capped at 6 by default. Circle magic directly raises caster level so 5 participants adding in L3 spells could raise caster level to 21 which is adequate for all spells.
Wisdom starts at 14, disallowing circle magic heightened spells. At level 4, this can become Wisdom 15 which is still deeply inadequate. Owl's Wisdom increases this to 19 for 21 minutes implying the ability to cast 9th level spells. Actually casting L9 spells can be gained by casting Fox's Cunning and using DMM[Heighten] on a 3rd level spell. Note that in E6 feats after 6th level are effectively unlimited.
Taking Extra Slot[8th level] and Extra Slot[5th level] provides a spell slot at 5th and 8th levels.
Using Greater Planar Binding (accessed via Hathran) from the 8th level slot while under the effect of Owl's wisdom (10 minute casting time with a 21 minute window), you can call a Nalfeshnee (14HD) or a Lilitu (14HD) and use Extract Essence to create a permanent Wisdom+3(enhance) and Charisma+5(enhance), allowing unfettered casting of 8th level spells. Note that Extract Essence has a 1 hour casting time, but since it's a 5th level spell, this is fine even after Owl's Wisdom wears off. The modified stats are now 18 Wisdom and 17 Charisma.
We're almost there. Using the special E6 feats Ability Training and Ability Advancement Charisma and Wisdom can each be permanently increased by +2 implying 20 Wisdom and 19 Charisma implying the ability cast 10th level spells.
Using Extra Slot[9th level] we can prepare Greater Visage of the deity which provides an untyped +4 to Wisdom and Charisma for 21 rounds. Combined with a casting of Owl's Wisdom, you reach Wisdom 25 and the ability to cast 15th level spells.
Using Extra Slot[14th level], Persistent Spell, and Easy Metamagic[Persistent Spell], you can prepare and cast a Persistent Greater Visage of the Deity from the 14th level slot. Hence, Wisdom is 24 all day long.
Similarly empowering circle magic participants yields much more powerful circle magic.
Miracle can be used to cast Owl's Insight granting a +20 insight bonus to wisdom for 2 hours. This allows 20th level spells to be cast.


At this point, Circle Magic is pretty much fully unlocked. You can use Extra Slot to prepare and cast any cleric spell. You can cast spells at caster level 40 and spell level 20. You can take Initiate of Mystra and Arcane Mastery to be immune to all magic not your own. And of course you can use Holy Word as a no-save instadeath spell. Potentially, you can even become an Ex-Hathran and create powerful items of the sort normally forbidden in E6.

Here's a list of assumptions.


Extra Slot works even when that slot is of a higher level than what has been progressed. This is the correct RAW as far as I know.
Cleric spell access works above 3rd level if the appropriate slots are available in E6. (E6 monsters appear to benefit from this.)
There is no cap to the number of extra feats that can be gained beyond level 6 in E6.

[ATHATH]

Nice find!

[VisitingDaGulag]

1) Heighten is the weirdest metamagic there is. DMM can't work with it because it doesn't have a set cost. Higher level spells are still otherwise doable. I think you can google a handbook for cheating prerequisites.

2) Circle magic is one of the strongest abilities in the game -- one of the few things that requires multiple nerfs. No wonder why you want it. But trying to get higher level spells via extra slot is such bad form. You don't need it. See the old jacob's ladder build if you want all 1st level casters in your campaign world (those who can't won't survive) throwing around miracle

But good job. As usual LA buyoff is too fragile for people to throw off-the-wall tweaks to it without crunching more math than PB restrictions.

[Zephonim]

1) Heighten is the weirdest metamagic there is. DMM can't work with it because it doesn't have a set cost. Higher level spells are still otherwise doable. I think you can google a handbook for cheating prerequisites.

2) Circle magic is one of the strongest abilities in the game -- one of the few things that requires multiple nerfs. No wonder why you want it. But trying to get higher level spells via extra slot is such bad form. You don't need it. See the old jacob's ladder build if you want all 1st level casters in your campaign world (those who can't won't survive) throwing around miracle

Arguably... you can with gm permission but it's very unlikely a gm running an e6 game would ever allow minmax bull**** of this caliber

[Anthrowhale]

Nice find!

Thanks :smallsmile:


1) Heighten is the weirdest metamagic there is. DMM can't work with it because it doesn't have a set cost. Higher level spells are still otherwise doable. I think you can google a handbook for cheating prerequisites.


There is a long thread here (http://brilliantgameologists.com/boards/index.php?PHPSESSID=gbmcrqqbhmormi3rn36n3ok672&topic=9335.0) where one person objected (http://brilliantgameologists.com/boards/index.php?PHPSESSID=gbmcrqqbhmormi3rn36n3ok672&topic=9335.msg315086#msg315086) to DMM[Heighten] based on the theory that it increased level beyond what you could normally cast. That argument was put to bed here (http://brilliantgameologists.com/boards/index.php?PHPSESSID=gbmcrqqbhmormi3rn36n3ok672&topic=9335.msg318360#msg318360).

If you have a different argument than the one in that thread, you'll need to detail it as there is no explicit restriction against metamagic of variable level in the text for DMM, the relevant bit of which is:
You must spend one turn or rebuke attempt, plus an additional attempt for each level increase in the metamagic feat you're using.
The level increase for heighten is:
The heightened spell is as difficult to prepare and cast as a spell of its effective level. which is fully defined in application to any spell so there should be no problem with DMM[Heighten].



But trying to get higher level spells via extra slot is such bad form.

Do you have an argument against it? The wording seems pretty unambiguous about legality.


...See the old jacob's ladder build if you want all 1st level casters in your campaign world (those who can't won't survive) throwing around miracle
Jacob's ladder (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showsinglepost.php?p=7637767&postcount=1) is a trick to get 3rd level arcane spells mildly early. It does not allow access to anything like Miracle. You might be misremembering Dextercorvia's trick (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showsinglepost.php?p=10197586&postcount=9) which has a couple issues (Can you trade away the option to be a specialist wizard twice? Can you cast a 9th level spell at caster level 1?) people fight over. Regardless, that trick is incompatible with 20th level spells since an elf can't qualify for Hathran.

... minmax ...
While it's traditional to call the endeavor minimax, it's just plain max as there aren't many weaknesses left. In any case, I fully agree that this is crazy overpowered for E6. It's not even convincing for an NPC-only role as Hathran tends to be the good guy. In the end, I'm just restlessly curious.

[VisitingDaGulag]

"The heightened spell is as difficult to prepare and cast as a spell of its effective level." Exactly. This is not a cost. You're just using a higher than normal slot use (something you could already do) and actually benefiting from it. Heighten is the weirdest MM because it doesn't have a cost. All other metamagics have a set cost because they don't change effective spell level. Since heighten does, if it had a cost, it would have to state whether to use the old or new spell level and it would get even more complicated than it already is. Instead, if just allows you to do something simple that you couldn't do before: raise the effective level with the feat when you are using a higher level slot. No MM cost required. DMM only pays costs.

Jacob's ladder is the primer for extra slot abuse used in the miracle at level 1 build (I thought). It's been a while. The basic idea is that if you can extra slot beyond your casting progression, then there's no point in casting progressions besides total spell levels.


Arguably... you can with gm permission but it's very unlikely a gm running an e6 game would ever allow minmax bull**** of this caliberYou misunderstand me. I'm saying that if a player can do it, so can a DM. I doubt AW wants first level casters to be slinging 9th level spells because they abuse the extra slot feat. No one wants to play a game where you die to 8th level spells at ECL1.

[MHCD]

"The heightened spell is as difficult to prepare and cast as a spell of its effective level." Exactly. This is not a cost. You're just using a higher than normal slot use (something you could already do) and actually benefiting from it. Heighten is the weirdest MM because it doesn't have a cost. All other metamagics have a set cost because they don't change effective spell level. Since heighten does, if it had a cost, it would have to state whether to use the old or new spell level and it would get even more complicated than it already is. Instead, if just allows you to do something simple that you couldn't do before: raise the effective level with the feat when you are using a higher level slot. No MM cost required. DMM only pays costs.

DMM doesn't actually pay "costs"; it pays for the increase in spell level. I'm not trying to be pedantic or sassy - the difference matters. As Anthrowhale quoted, the text is:


You must spend one turn or rebuke attempt, plus an additional attempt for each level increase in the metamagic feat you're using.

And you left out the part of heighten where it says:


A heightened spell has a higher spell level than normal

Heighten increases the spell level, and DMM pays for increases in spell level.

The fact that sometimes heighten increases the level by 1 and somtimes by 9 is irrelevant to the text - it doesn't say "...for each level increase in the metamagic feat you're using, but only if it's always the same level increase, and that the number by which the level increases is stated explicitly and unchanging in the text of the feat, rather than based on a choice you make when casting the spell". Empower is +2. Practical/Easy Empower changes that to +1, and using it on a spell with Arcane Thesis* would further lower that to +0; but to say that heighten does not work because DMM can't retrieve an explicit and immutable number from the text of Heighten, would mean that it also would require 3 TU attempts for a DMM Empowered spell even with the above metamagic reducers.

*Geomancer, Southern Magician, Alternative Source Spell, whatever your preferred way of making this work. Arcane Thesis is not necessary for this point, just added to help demonstrate the effect the anti-DMM-Heighten stance has on metamagic reducers.



You misunderstand me. I'm saying that if a player can do it, so can a DM. I doubt AW wants first level casters to be slinging 9th level spells because they abuse the extra slot feat. No one wants to play a game where you die to 8th level spells at ECL1.

I thought it was pretty clear that this was more a "thought exercise" or "fun find" than "practical optimization".

[Bavarian itP]

I thought it was pretty clear that this was more a "thought exercise" or "fun find" than "practical optimization".

For me, it wasn't clear. Especially because the OP talks about "violating the premise of E6".

[Anthrowhale]

MHCD's argument is sound: DMM talks about level increase not cost.


...violating the premise...

That was meant to signal "not for actual play", but I edited to add that explicitly.

[Raxxius]

This does break down to the argument do level 4+ spells exist in E6.

Short answer is not possible for E6 characters unless using lean up philosophy.

So while an exercise in rule bending/etc I think the fundamental 'there are no level 4 spell slots' takes precidence. Much like you can't snag 10th level spells without becoming epic, you can't get 4th level spell slots by any means bar Epic feats (even then with limits).

[Anthrowhale]

My understanding from the document linked at the beginning of the post is that L4+ spells exist routinely when cast by NPCs/monsters of CR 7-12 which are suggested as advanced E6 challenges. Obviously, the DM matters here as E6 is just a formalized set of house rules.

[MHCD]

For me, it wasn't clear. Especially because the OP talks about "violating the premise of E6".

Fair enough; I can see how it could be interpreted that way - I don't mean to come across as condescending or jerk-ish.


This does break down to the argument do level 4+ spells exist in E6.

Short answer is not possible for E6 characters unless using lean up philosophy.

So while an exercise in rule bending/etc I think the fundamental 'there are no level 4 spell slots' takes precidence. Much like you can't snag 10th level spells without becoming epic, you can't get 4th level spell slots by any means bar Epic feats (even then with limits).

I may have misread the "official" E6 rules, but I don't think the standard, un-houseruled houserules make any statement that 4th level spells do not exist or that they cannot be obtained "by any means bar Epic feats". All I can find is "GMs who like the Lean Upward approach might have feats to bring BAB to +8, or to gain 4th level spells, or 8th level class features, additional hit dice, and so on."

Granted the "standard" rules are a relatively bare framework, but I still don't see anything denying the existence of 4th level spells, especially, as Anthrowhale said, there is no inherent denial of the existence of monsters with 4th level magic.

[The_Jette]

DMM doesn't actually pay "costs"; it pays for the increase in spell level. I'm not trying to be pedantic or sassy - the difference matters. As Anthrowhale quoted, the text is:


And you left out the part of heighten where it says:


Heighten increases the spell level, and DMM pays for increases in spell level.

The fact that sometimes heighten increases the level by 1 and somtimes by 9 is irrelevant to the text - it doesn't say "...for each level increase in the metamagic feat you're using, but only if it's always the same level increase, and that the number by which the level increases is stated explicitly and unchanging in the text of the feat, rather than based on a choice you make when casting the spell". Empower is +2. Practical/Easy Empower changes that to +1, and using it on a spell with Arcane Thesis* would further lower that to +0; but to say that heighten does not work because DMM can't retrieve an explicit and immutable number from the text of Heighten, would mean that it also would require 3 TU attempts for a DMM Empowered spell even with the above metamagic reducers.

*Geomancer, Southern Magician, Alternative Source Spell, whatever your preferred way of making this work. Arcane Thesis is not necessary for this point, just added to help demonstrate the effect the anti-DMM-Heighten stance has on metamagic reducers.



I thought it was pretty clear that this was more a "thought exercise" or "fun find" than "practical optimization".

A lot of people argue that you can or cannot use Divine Metamagic along with Heighten Spell. It's up to individual interpretation. The way you see it you have spell level x + MM increase y to equal the final spell level of z. So, using the following examples we see:
-Magic Missile and Still Spell comes out to 1+1=2
-Magic Missile and Quicken Spell comes out to 1+4=5
And, that makes perfect sense. Each of those MM feats spells out exactly what it does, and how it adds to the spell level. The problem with Heighten Spell is there isn't a +y to throw into the equation. So, you can see the feat as adding a (+1 to +9) variable to the spell, or you can see it as Heighten Spell changes the equation to (x->X) which is meant to visually show the changing of levels. If you see Heighten Spell as simply raising the level by a variable set at the time of casting/memorizing, then there isn't a problem using Divine Metamagic in order to negate the +y spell increase, as you do normally. If you see Heighten Spell as not an increase of spell level, but rather a straight up change of spell level, then you can't do it, because there's no +y to negate. To illustrate:
-Magic Missile heightened to 4th level: 1+3-3(Divine Metamagic 4)= 1
-Magic Missile heightened to 4th level: 1->4
In the first case, you use Divine Metamagic to mitigate the effects of the spell increase. In the second case, there's no ability to mitigate, because the spell level is changing. It is no longer a first level spell with a stronger ability attached to it. It's now a fourth level spell, and thus, there's nothing to be negated. If you view it one way, the other way sounds wrong no matter which side you're on. So, neither the OP, nor the people saying he's wrong, are going to be able to win the argument. I would just say that as a mental exercise it's an interesting but ultimately futile exercise. It's mental ice cream... just empty calories.

[Gullintanni]

Fair enough; I can see how it could be interpreted that way - I don't mean to come across as condescending or jerk-ish.



I may have misread the "official" E6 rules, but I don't think the standard, un-houseruled houserules make any statement that 4th level spells do not exist or that they cannot be obtained "by any means bar Epic feats". All I can find is "GMs who like the Lean Upward approach might have feats to bring BAB to +8, or to gain 4th level spells, or 8th level class features, additional hit dice, and so on."

Granted the "standard" rules are a relatively bare framework, but I still don't see anything denying the existence of 4th level spells, especially, as Anthrowhale said, there is no inherent denial of the existence of monsters with 4th level magic.

Two approaches are posited in the draft rules for E6:

One - The Lean-Up approach

This approach to E6 allows the PCs to transcend typical mortal limits by using combinations of feats and class features to expand vertically beyond abilities normally available to level 6 characters.

Two - The Limited approach

This is presented as the author's default assumption for E6, and states simply that all abilities, spells, and enchantments beyond those of a 6th level character, including magic items that require spells of 4th level or higher to create are beyond the realm of mortal magic. The bolded text is actually included in the original E6 documentation almost verbatim. Under this approach, monsters still have access to 4th level magic, but the PCs do not - under any circumstances. This has the amusing consequence of rendering Sovereign Glue one of the most dangerous items in the game, as Universal Solvent requires Disintegrate as part of its creation criteria, rendering it an Artifact level item in any E6 game :smalltongue:

That said, the same document also suggests that spells such as Lesser Restoration, Stone to Flesh and Raise Dead be made available in universe somehow, regardless of playstyle, either by ritual, Capstone feat, or some other mechanism. Regardless, the author recommends that such important, utility spells be read into the E6 game on a case-by-case basis as adjudicated by the DM.

[Anthrowhale]

I'm comfortable with the concept of two ambiguous parsings in general, but I just don't see it here.


..If you see Heighten Spell as not an increase of spell level, but rather a straight up change of spell level ...

Shortening, "not an increase of spell level but a change of spell level" only makes sense if the spell level stays the same or decreases. Neither is the case for Heighten Spell which starts with: "A heightened spell has a higher spell level..." So, this is unreadable to me.

I think it's important to distinguish spell slot level and spell level because often this is only distinguished by context in the text. Most metamagic increases the spell slot level while leaving the spell level unchanged. In the case of Heighten Spell, both the spell slot level and the spell level increase. These happen to increase by the same amount, but that isn't relevant to the text of Divine Metamagic. Divine Metamagic's "level increase" refers to the spell _slot_ level increase.

Maybe what you are trying to say above is "not an increase of spell slot level but a change of spell level". But that's also just wrong, because the spell slot level increases as well.

Or maybe you are trying to say "not an increase in spell slot level relative to the spell level but a change of spell level". That's correct, but Divine Metamagic has no clause saying that it stops working when the spell level happens to increase along with the spell slot level. As far as Divine Metamagic is concerned, the true spell level could half, double, be set to 10, etc... and it would only use the increase in the spell slot level to determine cost and applicability.

Obviously, people are free to use whatever house rules they want, but if you want to claim something is ambiguous a better argument seems in order.

[The_Jette]

I'm comfortable with the concept of two ambiguous parsings in general, but I just don't see it here.



Shortening, "not an increase of spell level but a change of spell level" only makes sense if the spell level stays the same or decreases. Neither is the case for Heighten Spell which starts with: "A heightened spell has a higher spell level..." So, this is unreadable to me.

I think it's important to distinguish spell slot level and spell level because often this is only distinguished by context in the text. Most metamagic increases the spell slot level while leaving the spell level unchanged. In the case of Heighten Spell, both the spell slot level and the spell level increase. These happen to increase by the same amount, but that isn't relevant to the text of Divine Metamagic. Divine Metamagic's "level increase" refers to the spell _slot_ level increase.

Maybe what you are trying to say above is "not an increase of spell slot level but a change of spell level". But that's also just wrong, because the spell slot level increases as well.

Or maybe you are trying to say "not an increase in spell slot level relative to the spell level but a change of spell level". That's correct, but Divine Metamagic has no clause saying that it stops working when the spell level happens to increase along with the spell slot level. As far as Divine Metamagic is concerned, the true spell level could half, double, be set to 10, etc... and it would only use the increase in the spell slot level to determine cost and applicability.

Obviously, people are free to use whatever house rules they want, but if you want to claim something is ambiguous a better argument seems in order.

I'm saying there isn't a hanging modifier, as in +1, +2, +3, which is what a normal Metamagic feat has. It can be seen as as stating that the spell level is changed, in the statement that the spell is treated in all respects as a spell of the level that it is being increased to. A first level spell is turned into a second level spell by heightening it, versus adding Still Spell to it, which keeps it as a first level spell with a +1 modifier. Since it's no longer a first level spell, you can't use Divine Metamagic, or any other Metamagic enhancement reduction, to lower the spell slot back to first because the spell is already at its "base" level.
I'm not saying that way of viewing it is correct or incorrect, RAW or RAI, etc. All I'm saying is that it's one way of looking at it. Also, my claim of ambiguity seems just fine to me. My wording may not have been the best, but it's solid logic. You don't see it as ambiguous, obviously. But, if you did, you wouldn't be arguing it one way or the other, at least not without admitting that the other side has a genuine point and you simply don't agree with their way of interpreting the rules. In my games, you can't mitigate a spell enhanced with Heighten Spell, because I view it as the base spell level being adjusted up. But, I see that the people who judge it the other way are saying, and would not be upset if I played in a game with a DM who saw it that way.

[Anthrowhale]

... It can be seen as as stating that the spell level is changed, in the statement that the spell is treated in all respects as a spell of the level that it is being increased to.

Agreed.



... Since it's no longer a first level spell, you can't use Divine Metamagic...

Disagreed in two ways. DMM does not work by applying metamagic and then reducing it---instead it applies the metamagic directly. Second, DMM doesn't have an "unless the actual spell level increases" clause. It states exactly how many turn undeads are needed as a function of the spell slot increase.

I'm trying to be superexplicit here because I'd like to understand your view. Yet, it still looks you are inventing rules that don't exist ("DMM first applies metamagic and then reduces the cost" "DMM doesn't work when the spell level is changed by the metamagic".). Maybe some hypotheticals would help? If there was an "Unheighten" metamagic which reduced the spell level while increasing the spell slot by the number of levels unheightened, what would you do? What if there was a "Heighten-to-L10" metamagic that increased the spell slot by 6 applied to a spell of level 1? In both cases, the text of DMM is clear: you pay turn undeads according to the spell slot level increase + 1. I can't guess your interpretation though---maybe you pay twice the spell slot increase+1 in the first case? And maybe you pay -2 turn undeads in the second case? Or maybe you just forbid DMM when the metamagic changes the spell level?


...you can't use ... any other Metamagic enhancement reduction

A house rule saying Heighten spell cannot be mitigated in any way isn't the end of the world, but this is a houserule because it is directly contradicted by circle magic itself which allows you to heighten a 0th level spell in a 0th level slot to 20th level.

[The_Jette]

Agreed.



Disagreed in two ways. DMM does not work by applying metamagic and then reducing it---instead it applies the metamagic directly. Second, DMM doesn't have an "unless the actual spell level increases" clause. It states exactly how many turn undeads are needed as a function of the spell slot increase.

I'm trying to be superexplicit here because I'd like to understand your view. Yet, it still looks you are inventing rules that don't exist ("DMM first applies metamagic and then reduces the cost" "DMM doesn't work when the spell level is changed by the metamagic".). Maybe some hypotheticals would help? If there was an "Unheighten" metamagic which reduced the spell level while increasing the spell slot by the number of levels unheightened, what would you do? What if there was a "Heighten-to-L10" metamagic that increased the spell slot by 6 applied to a spell of level 1? In both cases, the text of DMM is clear: you pay turn undeads according to the spell slot level increase + 1. I can't guess your interpretation though---maybe you pay twice the spell slot increase+1 in the first case? And maybe you pay -2 turn undeads in the second case? Or maybe you just forbid DMM when the metamagic changes the spell level?



A house rule saying Heighten spell cannot be mitigated in any way isn't the end of the world, but this is a houserule because it is directly contradicted by circle magic itself which allows you to heighten a 0th level spell in a 0th level slot to 20th level.

You lost me on the "Unheighten" metamagic. I genuinely have no idea what you're trying to say with it. And, the part you quoted from me was a statement going off the assumption that the level changes, instead of just getting an enhancement, not a catch-all for every interpretation of it. I'm not trying to make a houserule, or tell anyone they're wrong. All I'm trying to do is point out the disparity in interpretation, and how the arguments back and forth on how it works is based entirely on ones interpretation of how the Heighten metamagic feat works. As I said before, your interpretation is that Heighten spell works as a bonus to the spell level, which is a perfectly valid interpretation. Other's, including myself, have the interpretation that it changes the spell in a more fundamental way. Essentially it comes down to a question of whether or not the DM will let a spell that is in all ways a higher level spell be cast using a lower level spell slot. And, yes, I know that there are feats that let you use two of the level lower to cast the higher, or various other spell slot combinations in order to get that higher level spell. I'm not contesting those here. I'm only talking about Heighten Spell.

[The_Jette]

Let me try this another way. Can you cast Heal with a 1st level spell slot using Divine Metamagic and paying 5 uses of Turn Undead? No, obviously not. Why? Because it's a 5th level spell, not a 1st level spell. An interpretation of Heighten spell is that it changes the spell level to the level that you're casting it at. Therefore, it's not a 1st level Light being buffed to 5th. It's a 5th level Light spell. The difference is subtle, but there. You still see the spell as a 1st level spell enhanced to a higher level, where others will see it as actually being the higher level spell, so DMM, or any other reduction, would actually be a negative modifier instead of reducing a positive modifier, which MM feats aren't supposed to do. I can think of one that reduces the spell level, but it's detrimental to the spell, too.

[Anthrowhale]

Let me try this another way. Can you cast Heal with a 1st level spell slot using Divine Metamagic and paying 5 uses of Turn Undead? No, obviously not.

Agreed


Why? Because it's a 5th level spell, not a 1st level spell.

Disagreed. DMM only allows you discounted metamagic use, and there is no metamagic which adds 4 spell slot levels and converts the spell to a Heal effect.

If a metamagic existed which added 4 spell slot levels and converted the effect to Heal, then DMM would work.



An interpretation of Heighten spell is that it changes the spell level to the level that you're casting it at. Therefore, it's not a 1st level Light being buffed to 5th. It's a 5th level Light spell. The difference is subtle, but there.

I'm fine with calling Heighten[4] Light a 5th level spell. The spell level is irrelevant for the application of DMM as DMM depends on the spell slot level. Can you agree the required spell slot increases by 4?

Perhaps this is a decisive question: Is Heighten[4] Light a different spell from Light? It sounds like your answer is "yes". But that's a terrible answer for game balance reasons as it allows evasion of the stacking rules (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/magicOverview/castingSpells.htm#combiningMagicalEffects). Essentially, every spell with an untyped bonus suddenly stacks with itself under Heighten because the general rule:
Except in special cases, a spell does not affect the way another spell operates. is no longer superceded by the specific rule.
Spells that provide bonuses or penalties on attack rolls, damage rolls, saving throws, and other attributes usually do not stack with themselves.



You still see the spell as a 1st level spell enhanced to a higher level, where others will see it as actually being the higher level spell, ...

Regarding Heighten[4] Light as a different spell from Light is a house rule because nothing in the Heighten description indicates you are creating a new spell. And that houserule seems unwise as Spellcasters are powerful enough without making their spells self-stacking.

In contrast, "a 1st level spell enhanced to a higher level" seems well supported by the repeated discussion of "effective level" in Heighten Spell.

[The_Jette]

Agreed

Disagreed. DMM only allows you discounted metamagic use, and there is no metamagic which adds 4 spell slot levels and converts the spell to a Heal effect.

If a metamagic existed which added 4 spell slot levels and converted the effect to Heal, then DMM would work.

You just completely ignored what I was saying in order to argue a completely different point. The point was that if the spell affected by Heighten Spell is now for all intents and purposes a 5th level spell, then using Divine Metamagic to reduce the spell slot down to a first level spell would be adding a negative modifier to the spell level, not that it's a completely different spell.



I'm fine with calling Heighten[4] Light a 5th level spell. The spell level is irrelevant for the application of DMM as DMM depends on the spell slot level. Can you agree the required spell slot increases by 4?

The spell level is certainly not irrelevant for the application of DMM, since it determines the amount of turning spent to handle the Metamagic being applied. Also, my point isn't about the mechanics of DMM, but the mechanics of Heighten Magic. Which part of my posts have been unclear on that point?


Perhaps this is a decisive question: Is Heighten[4] Light a different spell from Light? It sounds like your answer is "yes". But that's a terrible answer for game balance reasons as it allows evasion of the stacking rules (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/magicOverview/castingSpells.htm#combiningMagicalEffects). Essentially, every spell with an untyped bonus suddenly stacks with itself under Heighten because the general rule: is no longer superceded by the specific rule.

In this, we're going to have to simply disagree. I would never agree that Light(1) is a completely different spell than Light(5) simply because the spell level is increased. What I would say is that it's a more powerful version of the same spell. More powerful, not different. Fireball heightened to 5th level isn't going to let you break the max 10d6 damage, because it's the same spell, with all the same limitations, except more powerful. And, since it's the same spell, you can't bypass the like not-stacking with like rule.



Regarding Heighten[4] Light as a different spell from Light is a house rule because nothing in the Heighten description indicates you are creating a new spell. And that houserule seems unwise as Spellcasters are powerful enough without making their spells self-stacking.

In contrast, "a 1st level spell enhanced to a higher level" seems well supported by the repeated discussion of "effective level" in Heighten Spell.

As I never metioned anything about higher level spells being completely different from the original spell, simply being a higher level version of the exact same spell, the house rule here is yours. But, since you insist on going the "you're making a house rule and it's bad" route of this discussion, let's try something else. Regarding Heighten Spell, to raise the level of a spell to whatever you want simply by spending more uses of Turn Undead is a House Rule because nothing in Heighten's description indicates that you can elevate a spell past the level that you're normally able to cast at. What you're indicating is that a first level cleric with DMM could raise the level of their spell to tenth level if they have the ten uses. And, that houserule seems unwise as Spellcasters are powerful enough without making them able to randomly increase their spell levels to Epic level.
In contrast, setting Heighten spell as a unique metamagic that can't work in conjunction with DMM seems well supported in the description of Heighten Spell, which says the spell has a higher spell level than the original spell, not just that it's prepared with a higher spell slot.
Now, for the last time, this isn't about how DMM works. This is a statement that not all DMs agree on RAW regarding Heighten Spell and how it would interact with literally every single ability that lets you reduce the spell slot needed to cast a spell affected by a metamagic feat. That's it. If you can't understand that at this point, then I do not know what I can say to make it any clearer.

[MHCD]

Two approaches are posited in the draft rules for E6:

One - The Lean-Up approach

This approach to E6 allows the PCs to transcend typical mortal limits by using combinations of feats and class features to expand vertically beyond abilities normally available to level 6 characters.

Two - The Limited approach

This is presented as the author's default assumption for E6, and states simply that all abilities, spells, and enchantments beyond those of a 6th level character, including magic items that require spells of 4th level or higher to create are beyond the realm of mortal magic. The bolded text is actually included in the original E6 documentation almost verbatim. Under this approach, monsters still have access to 4th level magic, but the PCs do not - under any circumstances. This has the amusing consequence of rendering Sovereign Glue one of the most dangerous items in the game, as Universal Solvent requires Disintegrate as part of its creation criteria, rendering it an Artifact level item in any E6 game :smalltongue:

That said, the same document also suggests that spells such as Lesser Restoration, Stone to Flesh and Raise Dead be made available in universe somehow, regardless of playstyle, either by ritual, Capstone feat, or some other mechanism. Regardless, the author recommends that such important, utility spells be read into the E6 game on a case-by-case basis as adjudicated by the DM.

I've searched all the official E6 documentation I know of, and the only thing close to "beyond the realm of mortal magic" is below:


If, as a result of the restrictions on items, an item cannot be created, then it should not be distributed as normal treasure. Like high-level monsters, such items should be placed carefully and built to make sense in the context of your game. For example, a +4 sword is an amazing artifact in this setting, perhaps even made by the gods: It's a sword no mortal could make.
And I haven't found anything close to saying that the PCs cannot "under any circumstances" gain access to 4th level magic.

I am aware of the "The Lean Upward Approach" and "The Cautious Approach" (I assume that's what you meant here by the "limited approach"), as well as options such as capstone feats and ritual spellcasting. Objections to this build might be obviated by recalling that it is a "fun find" "not for actual play", like a 1d2 crusader, for example - an interesting idea, and there's nothing by RAW that shuts it down, but it's not meant to actually see time at a table, so "I wouldn't allow it" rulings, while certainly reasonable, don't have relevance.

Regarding that sovereign glue and universal solvent: that's beautiful. Thank you for making me aware of that, and it is full of potential hilarity and even serious optimization or story-driven problem-solving potential.

[VisitingDaGulag]

DMM doesn't actually pay "costs"; it pays for the increase in spell level.'cost' = "level increase in the metamagic feat you're using". So yes, it pays the cost.


Heighten increases the spell levelHeighten is the only metamagic that actually allows an increase in the spell's level. By your logic you are saying that only DMM+heighten works to pay costs while DMM+extend does not, because after all, extend doesn't actually increase a spell's "level". This is foolishness.

Allow me to see your argument more clearly than you do so we can get you back on track. As usual WotC does a bad job of finding a thesaurus for "level". Let's use the terms "Effective Spell Level" and "Required Spell Slot Level" to differentiate how you used "level" as a mixed logical term.

The "level increase" that DMM refers to is the 'cost', or "Required Slot Level". This is what allows it to pay the +1 cost for extend.

But Heighten does not have a "required slot level". If it did, then you'd have a Dragon Disciple loop where you Require x spell slots higher than the Effective Spell Level. But then the Effective Spell Level actually changes with heighten (where it doesn't for Extend Metamagic) ... so then you'll need to be x higher to pay the Heighten cost again. And on and on it goes.

So again, I point out that Heighten doesn't have a slot cost/increase. Thus the loop/contradiction is removed. Consider how a sorc can decide to use, for instance, a 2nd level spell slot for a 1st level spell (this happens when all 1st level slots are exhausted). But if you're said sorc and you've got the action points and the heighten feat, you'll just say to yourself, "Why not actually make this 1st level spell have an effective spell level of 2nd?" Heighten allows exactly that and makes your 1st level spell into a 2nd level one. It doesn't force you into some integer-defined level cost.

A cleric with a cure spell in the above situation couldn't use DMM because the spell was already cast from a 2nd level slot so there was no cost for DMM to cover. Heighten could have been part of the base spellcasting ability, really. Everyone just gets thrown off by the fact that its a feat in feat-bloated core.

@PO vs TO, I was pointing out why grabbing higher level spells / breaking spell progressions is bad form. Otherwise (and assuming circle magic were otherwise fixed) the build would work in a PO game for me...



@Jette Bingo!
@OP, you are right that DMM does the MM feat's action if it has a cost. But you've got the order wrong on heighten. Its spell -> slot -> heighten, not spell -> heighten -> slot. You can only use the "which slot do I cast out of rules" and then use heighten's exception to change the Effective Spell Level based off the feat's text. Remember that heighten has no cost (with a stated integer or otherwise).

Don't spew the "you're using house rules!" finger when someone is discussing how they read the rules, please. You're a better optimizer than that. His "you can't reduce a spell below its base" is a solid argument that you'll hear from any sensical DM. The reason why this applies to DMM is that it only covers the cost, not more than the cost.

You can PM me if you need examples, AW. I'll reiterate that this is a good build and if it didn't use 1st level casters throwing 9th level spells via (non-RAW heighten+MM reducers) and was in a campaign world that balanced circle magic, it would deserve to see play (even in E6).

[Anthrowhale]

Specifying the result of applying a rule (e.g. DMM Heighten doesn't work) doesn't help when the correctness of the application is in doubt. Working through the text of DMM:


...choose a metamagic feat that you have. Heighten Spell is a metamagic feat so we can choose it.

...As a free action, you can take the energy from turning or rebuking undead and use it to apply a metamagic feat... Heighten spell can be applied using Turn Undead.

...spend one turn or rebuke attempt, plus an additional attempt for each level increase in the metamagic feat you're using... This might be the source of the problem? It is ambiguous in isolation because it could mean (a) "spell level increase" or (b) "spell slot level increase". Is the argument for (c) "level increase above spell level" instead? Let's throw that in. Under interpretation (a), DMM[Heighten[3]] requires 4 turn undeads, (b) requires 4 turn undeads, and (c) requires 1 turn undead.
The example kills interpretation (a) while leaving (b) and (c) intact.
...sacrifice three turn attempts to empower a holy smite...

...the spell slot for the spell doesn't change. So DMM[Heighten[3]] does not change the spell slot and in particular DMM[Heighten[3]] Light is a 4th level spell from a 1st level spell slot.

The only ambiguous bit is whether interpretation (b) or (c) from (3) applies to DMM[Heighten]. I chose interpretation (b) as that is both simpler and more conservative.

Somehow, a different conclusion is being reached but I see no flaw in the application of the rules here. Is there any step in the above where I apply the rules wrong? Are there any other salient rules which we should consider? If not, a ruling that DMM[Heighten] does not work is a house rule.

[Anthrowhale]

You just completely ignored what I was saying in order to argue a completely different point.
Sorry, I'm actively trying to understand your reasoning.


The point was that if the spell affected by Heighten Spell is now for all intents and purposes a 5th level spell, then using Divine Metamagic to reduce the spell slot down to a first level spell would be adding a negative modifier to the spell level, not that it's a completely different spell.

This was addressed previously: "DMM does not work by applying metamagic and then reducing it---instead it applies the metamagic directly." If you believe otherwise, then provide the reference.


The spell level is certainly not irrelevant for the application of DMM, since it determines the amount of turning spent to handle the Metamagic being applied.

The application of DMM[Heighten[3]] Light is done in excessive detail in the previous post. The conclusion reached depends only on the spell slot level increase. If there is a flaw in the logic, then please point it out.


Also, my point isn't about the mechanics of DMM, but the mechanics of Heighten Magic. Which part of my posts have been unclear on that point?

I have explicitly agreed that Heighten Spell increases the spell level and explicitly considered it's impact in applying DMM[Heighten]. Is there some other aspect of Heighten Spell mechanics which is relevant?


In this, we're going to have to simply disagree. I would never agree that Light(1) is a completely different spell than Light(5) simply because the spell level is increased.

Actually, I think we agree here then.


But, since you insist on going the "you're making a house rule and it's bad" route of this discussion

I haven't assessed any particular value good or bad to a house rule that DMM[Heighten] does not work. It seems reasonable consider the RAW-correctness of this build as evidence such a house rule is good.


Regarding Heighten Spell, to raise the level of a spell to whatever you want simply by spending more uses of Turn Undead is a House Rule because nothing in Heighten's description indicates that you can elevate a spell past the level that you're normally able to cast at.
This argument was addressed earlier (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showsinglepost.php?p=21919590&postcount=5).


What you're indicating is that a first level cleric with DMM could raise the level of their spell to tenth level if they have the ten uses.
No, that is forbidden by Heighten Spell.
...up to a maximum of 9th level...


In contrast, setting Heighten spell as a unique metamagic that can't work in conjunction with DMM seems well supported in the description of Heighten Spell, which says the spell has a higher spell level than the original spell, not just that it's prepared with a higher spell slot.

The rules for applying DMM[Heighten] are specified in the previous post in great detail. There is no contradiction so there is no support for DMM being incompatible with Heighten Spell. Furthermore, I've already noted that Circle Magic explicitly allows achieving the same effect (4th level spell in a 1st level slot) so this isn't even a unique effect in the game.


This is a statement that not all DMs agree on RAW regarding Heighten Spell and how it would interact with literally every single ability that lets you reduce the spell slot needed to cast a spell affected by a metamagic feat. That's it.
It's clear that not all DMs agree on the RAW here (I'm assuming you are a DM). What's unclear is whether or not they are right to disagree about the RAW. Can you provide a similarly precise parsing which comes to a different conclusion? Or can you find a flaw in mine?




But Heighten does not have a "required slot level"... So again, I point out that Heighten doesn't have a slot cost/increase...Remember that heighten has no cost
This seems to be contradicted by the text of Heighten Spell?
The heightened spell is as difficult to prepare and cast as a spell of its effective level. For example, a cleric could prepare hold person as a 4th-level spell (instead of a 2nd-level spell), and it would in all ways be treated as a 4th-level spell.
So a 4th level slot is required to prepare Heighten[2] Hold Person. 4th level is larger than 2nd level so the required slot level increases by 2.


But you've got the order wrong on heighten. Its spell -> slot -> heighten, not spell -> heighten -> slot.

I don't follow this. The order of what exactly?


Don't spew the "you're using house rules!" finger when someone is discussing how they read the rules, please.
MHCD and I have been superexplicit about how to apply DMM[Heighten] and eliminated several arguments advanced in multiple iterations of discussion. At some point, it really does start to look like a house rule. I'm open to being convinced otherwise---find a flaw in the application I did or come up with your own similarly explicit rule application so that we have the opportunity to do likewise. Lacking that, an opinion that this is a house rule seems well justified.


His "you can't reduce a spell below its base" is a solid argument that you'll hear from any sensical DM.

This is a reason for a house rule, but it does not contradict DMM[Heighten] RAW since specific rules always have precedence over general rules.


...if it didn't use 1st level casters throwing 9th level spells
Note that one variation does not use DMM[Heighten].

[Jowgen]

This is me doing my usual thing of pointing to the Ghostwalk version of Circle Magic, which is Divine caster worshipping a certain deity specific and only goes up to CL 20, but is otherwise no trouble to qualify for and perfectly workable for most purposes.

[MHCD]

Edit: every time I'm about to post, Anthrowhale has already done so and in a more articulate manner. Oh well, maybe this helps.


'cost' = "level increase in the metamagic feat you're using". So yes, it pays the cost.

Heighten is the only metamagic that actually allows an increase in the spell's level. By your logic you are saying that only DMM+heighten works to pay costs while DMM+extend does not, because after all, extend doesn't actually increase a spell's "level". This is foolishness.

Allow me to see your argument more clearly than you do so we can get you back on track. As usual WotC does a bad job of finding a thesaurus for "level". Let's use the terms "Effective Spell Level" and "Required Spell Slot Level" to differentiate how you used "level" as a mixed logical term.

The "level increase" that DMM refers to is the 'cost', or "Required Slot Level". This is what allows it to pay the +1 cost for extend.

But Heighten does not have a "required slot level". If it did, then you'd have a Dragon Disciple loop where you Require x spell slots higher than the Effective Spell Level. But then the Effective Spell Level actually changes with heighten (where it doesn't for Extend Metamagic) ... so then you'll need to be x higher to pay the Heighten cost again. And on and on it goes.

If the situation requires getting particular with wording, it's better to keep as closely to the text as possible. I wasn't being snarky when I talked about cost - in this context, that wording matters, especially to prevent assuming things that were not written (see below). Once the rules are understood, one can use whatever synonyms one desire, but until then, anything but RAW is potentially problematic.

There seems to be a misunderstanding in regards to what I meant about level increases, so allow me to explain again. I am aware that WotC uses "level" differently and sometimes inconsistently, so let's examine the text again. I did not say that DMM only works if the "effective spell level" (Heighten's wording) changes. I quoted the text of the feat that says, "You must spend one turn or rebuke attempt, plus an additional attempt for each level increase in the metamagic feat you’re using."

Let's see how that applies to the relevant metamagic feats:



An extended spell uses up a spell slot one level higher than the spell’s actual level.

Extend has no increase in "effective spell level", but it does have an increase in "spell slot...level". DMM does not specify an increase in "effective spell level", merely "level", so that should work, right? To clarify, Complete Divine included the example of the feat working with Empower, as Anthrowhale referenced. So in this context, "level" can refer to "spell slot level". Let's continue.



A heightened spell has a higher spell level than normal (up to a maximum of 9th level). [...information on the additional change in "effective spell level"...] The heightened spell is as difficult to prepare and cast as a spell of its effective level.

If DMM only worked for changes in "effective spell level", it works for heighten. If DMM worked for any change in "level", it works for heighten. If DMM only works for change in "spell slot level", it still works for heighten, as casting Bane heightened to 9th level requires a 9th level slot. Bane is normally a 1st level spell. Through the use of heighten, its effective level has now been increased to 9th. It normally takes up a 1st level spell slot. Through the use of heighten, its spell slot level has been increased to 9th. There's your "spell slot level" increase. There's your "effective level increase". There's your "level" increase.

My point is no matter how you look at it, the wording of DMM still works with heighten, since no matter what, you still have that "level increase". So one can argue about the word "cost" and say that heighten doesn't work, but if that's the case, screw DMM - all my clerics are now shadowcraft mages who enjoy their "cost"-free heighten.

[The_Jette]

I haven't assessed any particular value good or bad to a house rule that DMM[Heighten] does not work. It seems reasonable consider the RAW-correctness of this build as evidence such a house rule is good.

This argument was addressed earlier (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showsinglepost.php?p=21919590&postcount=5).

The RAW-correctness of this build is in question here. You can't really use the build that's being questioned as evidence that it's correct. It's an interesting build, but works or doesn't work entirely off the interpretation of the DM as to how DMM interacts with Heighten Spell, i.e. if he's of the mindset that Heighten spell can't interact with DMM then it's not RAW-legal.


The rules for applying DMM[Heighten] are specified in the previous post in great detail. There is no contradiction so there is no support for DMM being incompatible with Heighten Spell. Furthermore, I've already noted that Circle Magic explicitly allows achieving the same effect (4th level spell in a 1st level slot) so this isn't even a unique effect in the game.

It's clear that not all DMs agree on the RAW here (I'm assuming you are a DM). What's unclear is whether or not they are right to disagree about the RAW. Can you provide a similarly precise parsing which comes to a different conclusion? Or can you find a flaw in mine?


Are you questioning whether or not DMs have the right to interpret RAW? Because that seems silly. And, as to your request, check out this thread regarding a metamagic rod of Heighten spell. Spoiler: it leads to an argument over whether or not you can arbitrarily increase a spells level with Heighten Spell via a Metamagic rod, mostly over if RAW supports casting a spell heightened to a higher level using the original spell slot.
http://paizo.com/threads/rzs2qw67?Metamagic-Rod-of-Heighten-Does-it-exist
It literally took me three seconds of Googling to find an argument over Heighten Spell being used to cast a spell with a lower spell slot than the spell's new effective spell level. I understand that your interpretation is that they interact. I'm not even telling you that you're wrong. I'm simply telling you that my interpretation of the feat as written in the book is different than yours, and not everybody agrees with your view of it. So, in this situation the OP definitely needs to discuss the build with his DM before ruling it legal, or not. It would be legal in your game. It would not be legal in my game. And, that's without house ruling anything. It's because RAW in this situation is not cut and dry. And, as far as I'm aware, there is no Errata regarding Heighten Spell interacting with Metamagic cost reducing abilities.

[Anthrowhale]

This is me doing my usual thing of pointing to the Ghostwalk version of Circle Magic, which is Divine caster worshipping a certain deity specific and only goes up to CL 20, but is otherwise no trouble to qualify for and perfectly workable for most purposes.
Yep (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showsinglepost.php?p=21349577&postcount=2) :smallsmile:


The RAW-correctness of this build is in question here.
You need to find a flaw in this logic (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showsinglepost.php?p=21936490&postcount=24) to create a question.


if he's of the mindset that Heighten spell can't interact with DMM then it's not RAW-legal.

RAW means "Rules as Written". What is written is not a matter of 'mindset'.


Are you questioning whether or not DMs have the right to interpret RAW?

Absolutely. RAW is the one thing that everyone should agree on. In practice, that sometimes doesn't happen because it is ambiguous or conflicting, but that doesn't seem to be the case as you haven't found any flaw here (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showsinglepost.php?p=21936490&postcount=24).


Because that seems silly. And, as to your request, check out this thread regarding a metamagic rod of Heighten spell.
A pathfinder thread where someone advances the same assertions and you without explanation and loses the argument doesn't seem particularly relevant?


I'm simply telling you that my interpretation of the feat as written in the book is different than yours, and not everybody agrees with your view of it.
"My interpretation" is not a compelling argument about RAW because RAW should not be subject to interpretation. This (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showsinglepost.php?p=21936490&postcount=24) is a compelling argument.

Overall, my best guess is that you are confusing the order of precedence between specific and general rules. As a general rule, you cannot cast an L4 spell from an L1 spell slot. As an exception, DMM[Heighten] and Circle Magic allow this.

[Endarire]

Since this seemed like a guide/handbook, it seemed safe to reply.

Item familiar (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/variant/magic/itemFamiliars.htm) can get you a scaling bonus slot, even to level 18 with full Circle Magic!