Metamagic and Permanency

[maruahm]

This is a bit of a long shot, but I was thinking about how I'd permanency an arcane sight on a Wizard without making his eyes permanently glow blue. I realized that I could apply the Metamagic feat Invisible Spell to get rid of the visual effect, and by RAW the Metamagic'd arcane sight is still a valid target of permanency, since the original spell text mentions it's a valid target for permanency.

So now I'm thinking about weird crap I can do with Metamagic to stack unintended effects on RAW-permanency-valid spells. For example, if I put Fell Drain on greater magic fang, each punch deals one negative level. Well, that's with a permissive reading of the qualifier "a spell that deals damage to foes," so I'm looking for other applications of Metamagic to permanency-valid spells which are more mechanically unambiguous.

For the purposes of my optimization exercise, assume there's no Metamagic adjustment reducers available, and slots 10th-level or higher aren't accessible, so the native Metamagic adjustment of a spell can't bring it up to more than 9th-level.

Also, I'm not only asking about spells to buff the Wizard. If you can think of funky Metamagic to apply to, say, a wall of force, be my guest.

[Psyren]

Magic Fang doesn't deal any damage, the weapon you're attacking with does. You'd require a pretty permissive DM to let that kind of reading fly.

[maruahm]

Magic Fang doesn't deal any damage, the weapon you're attacking with does. You'd require a pretty permissive DM to let that kind of reading fly.

I agree, that's why I gave it as an example but noted that it's not as mechanically unambiguous as what I'm looking for.

In this case, I happen to be the DM, but I'm certainly not permissive enough to allow something this ambiguous. But I think it'd apply to wall of fire unambiguously, so I should've given that example instead.

[Jack_Simth]

Do a Locate City Bomb, using Detect Magic for the base, perhaps?

[Kalkra]

It's a minor thing, but I think making Grace invisible removes the Hide penalty. Also, Persisting swift version of spells (Haste, Fly, etc.) Also, it's not clear what happens when you make Polymorph and the like invisible.

[Feantar]

It's a minor thing, but I think making Grace invisible removes the Hide penalty. Also, Persisting swift version of spells (Haste, Fly, etc.) Also, it's not clear what happens when you make Polymorph and the like invisible.

I think you cannot make a light source invisible. Well, you can, but it still shed's light. So, you'd still shed light, you just wouldn't exhibit any other characteristics of the spell (If you assume, fluff wise, that grace manifests as a halo for example, you'd glow but you'd get no halo).

[Thedez]

I think you cannot make a light source invisible. Well, you can, but it still shed's light. So, you'd still shed light, you just wouldn't exhibit any other characteristics of the spell (If you assume, fluff wise, that grace manifests as a halo for example, you'd glow but you'd get no halo).

Given the light-based nature of sight, I'd not only argue the opposite, I'd say it'd be impossible for invisible spell to work if it didn't prevent the spell from shedding light.

[Fizban]

Well if you're the type that likes Fell Animate Shenanigans, Fell Animated Wall of Fire ought to be pretty rad. Hmm, not so much with the HD limit actually.

Personally I'm more interested in the fact that with a bit of boosting you can have a permanent Wall of Fire that will easily liquefy steel.

Purified Wall of Fire is a handy defense for goodies.

[Segev]

The various sensory spells could benefit from Enlarge Spell. Double the range of Darkvision, for instance.

Wall of Fire and Prismatic Wall/Sphere do damage. Fell Drain and Fell Animate on them would be effective.

I’m not positive it would work, but Alarm might be a valid base for effects similar to the ingredients of the Locate City Bomb.

[Troacctid]

Spell templates from Dragon #311, perhaps?


Do a Locate City Bomb, using Detect Magic for the base, perhaps?
Problem with that is it's really hard to add damage to a spell that doesn't already deal damage.

[Jack_Simth]

Spell templates from Dragon #311, perhaps?


Problem with that is it's really hard to add damage to a spell that doesn't already deal damage.

The Locate City Bomb already does that. It's feat-intensive, granted.

Edit: Ah, here we go:

1. apply snowcasting (FB) - spell now has the cold descriptor
2. apply flash frost feat (PHB2) - spell now deals 2 points of cold damage to all in area (and makes area slippery but we don't care about that)
3. apply energy substitution (electricity) (CArc) - spell now deals electricity damge
4. apply born of three thunders (CArc) - spell deals half electric, half sonic, but what is important is that it now requires a reflex save, allowing us to...
5. apply explosive spell (CArc) - all creatures/things in area that fail their reflex saves are shunted to the outside of the area of effect (10 miles/level) and take 1d6 damage per 10' moved!

Note that you could replace 3-5 with Fell Drain (Libris Mortis) to deal negative levels to living folks who take the cold damage, and Widen Spell to make it a bigger area. Maybe Fell Animate, too, although the giant mass of humanoid zombies made from commoner-1's you'll get aren't very useful.

[ExLibrisMortis]

Uttercold Born of Three Thunders Electricity-Admixtured Cold-Substituted wall of fire?

Admixture adds electricity damage to the spell (equal to its base damage), Uttercold turns half the damage to negative energy damage, and Born of Three Thunders makes half the damage sonic (and forces Fort vs. stun, and Ref vs. prone if that one fails). You'd get a wall that undead can walk through pretty harmlessly (being immune to stun and healing from negative energy), but is pretty damaging to other creatures, and quite hard to pass for living creatures. Still only an 8th-level spell, too.

Edit: Actually, wall of fire deals double damage to undead. Does that mean they get double the negative energy damage (i.e. healing) too?

[Feantar]

Given the light-based nature of sight, I'd not only argue the opposite, I'd say it'd be impossible for invisible spell to work if it didn't prevent the spell from shedding light.

Your logic is sound, and yet, in the invisibility spell it actually specifies "Light, however, never becomes invisible, although a source of light can become so (thus, the effect is that of a light with no visible source)". Of course, that's the spell, and the metamagic might be completely different, but it's the closest thing I could find.

[Thedez]

Your logic is sound, and yet, in the invisibility spell it actually specifies "Light, however, never becomes invisible, although a source of light can become so (thus, the effect is that of a light with no visible source)". Of course, that's the spell, and the metamagic might be completely different, but it's the closest thing I could find.

Which actually makes invisibility either confusing or useless, by RAW. Because getting rid of the 'source' of the light, if it doesn't stop the light, means that the 'source' looks exactly the same. And I don't mean like a person. I mean like a fire. When we're looking at a fire, an invisible fire would still look functionally identical to a regular fire, because what we're seeing is the burst of light of each particle as it undergoes a chemical fusion. We're not actually seeing the particles themselves, because those are actually relatively few and far between. Similarly, if you're looking at a lightbulb, you would even see the *glass*, because the light would still be refracted by the glass which would result in it looking identical, and in addition, you're not really seeing the copper wire when you see your typical lightbulb. An invisible lightbulb would look exactly like a visible lightbulb, by RAW.

Or, it wouldn't, in which case, you have to wonder--When does light start being a 'source,' rather than just 'light.'

[ExLibrisMortis]

In D&D, there's light, which affects Spot checks, and there are objects, which is everything without Charisma and Wisdom scores. Invisibility works fine on a lantern, but it won't negate the ability to Spot things within its radius, just like an Invisible Spell sunbeam still hurts undead.

...Wait, you wanted to know what it'd actually look like in-universe? Sorry, you need at least 28 in each mental ability score to be able to figure that one out... Before you ask, no, I don't get it either.

[Troacctid]

The Locate City Bomb already does that. It's feat-intensive, granted.

Edit: Ah, here we go:


Note that you could replace 3-5 with Fell Drain (Libris Mortis) to deal negative levels to living folks who take the cold damage, and Widen Spell to make it a bigger area. Maybe Fell Animate, too, although the giant mass of humanoid zombies made from commoner-1's you'll get aren't very useful.
Flash Frost's extra damage doesn't apply to non-damaging spells, since you have to deal damage in order to deal extra damage. Same as how you don't deal sneak attack damage on the touch attack used to initiate a trip attempt.

[Jack_Simth]

Flash Frost's extra damage doesn't apply to non-damaging spells, since you have to deal damage in order to deal extra damage. Same as how you don't deal sneak attack damage on the touch attack used to initiate a trip attempt.

I don't think I've ever had a rogue engage in combat manuevers at a table I've been in. I've also never done a detailed analysis of the LCB. Let's see...

Flash Frost's benefits line:


Benefit: This metamagic feat can be applied only to spells that have the cold descriptor and that affect an area. A flash frost spell deals an extra 2 points of cold damage per level of the spell to all targets in the area. When you cast such a spell, the area of the spell is covered with a slippery layer of ice for 1 round. Anyone attempting to move through this icy area must make a DC 10 Balance check or fall prone. A creature that runs or charges through the area must make a DC 20 Balance check to avoid falling. A flash frost spell uses up a spell slot one level higher than the spell's actual level.
So basically, your choice of "it doesn't work" hinges on the definition of "extra" as being in the mathematical sense, so that the other bits in the rules - namely adding to something that doesn't exist - cause it to not work. Am I correct in understanding your argument?

[Segev]

In D&D, there's light, which affects Spot checks, and there are objects, which is everything without Charisma and Wisdom scores. Invisibility works fine on a lantern, but it won't negate the ability to Spot things within its radius, just like an Invisible Spell sunbeam still hurts undead.

...Wait, you wanted to know what it'd actually look like in-universe? Sorry, you need at least 28 in each mental ability score to be able to figure that one out... Before you ask, no, I don't get it either.

The easiest way to envision how it would look is to imagine a photo or video of a torch illuminating a room, and then editing the torch itself out. The light bouncing off other things is still visible, but you can't see the torch. Any painting or drawing of a room you can see everything in with no drawn-in light source is similar.

The difference would be that you'd actually be present in said space, as opposed to looking at a picture or video of it.

[Albions_Angel]

In D&D, there's light, which affects Spot checks, and there are objects, which is everything without Charisma and Wisdom scores. Invisibility works fine on a lantern, but it won't negate the ability to Spot things within its radius, just like an Invisible Spell sunbeam still hurts undead.

...Wait, you wanted to know what it'd actually look like in-universe? Sorry, you need at least 28 in each mental ability score to be able to figure that one out... Before you ask, no, I don't get it either.

I mean, its not actually that hard to imagine basic things like making the source (yes, even fire) disappear, while retaining the light itself. Our ancestors couldnt have understood it, but we can, because we have LEDs and thus can make tiny light sources with massive light radii. So, for now, lets ignore that in D&D, sight works backwards (in reality, light reflected off stuff or emitted from stuff enters our eyes, and our brains tell us the direction based on how "central" that source was, while in D&D, your eyes emit a CONE of "sight" which sees things that are illuminated in some way). Lets instead turn our attention to an example. A candle. A nice, flickering candle, with a flame on top, emitting light. We can see the candle. We can see the flame. We can see the halo of illumination it casts, right? We can all see that? If its a little foggy, you could even see the "sphere" of "bright light" and then the "sphere" of "dim light" and then darkness. But we can see the flame, and we know thats where the light comes from. Our brains handle the input.

Ok, now, in D&D, lets imagine that same candle, but instead of a regular flame its a continual flame. Ok, no issue there. Behaves the same (assuming you scale continual flame down to candle sized).

Now apply invisible spell to continual flame. What happens? Well, by RAW, it still emits light, but the "flame" is invisible. Its just a candle, with a wick. So how does it look?

Well, now back to the real world. Anyone got one of those fake candles where there is a flickering LED buried inside the "wax"? Yeah, that. Thats how invisible continual flame looks. It emits light. It still even flickers. The little halo of light grows and shrinks. But there is no flame. No "source" of light. In D&D, it simply isnt there. In the real world, its buried under translucent material. And you know what, your brain is actually ok with that. Because now the light is simply emitted from the candle, rather than the flame. Its not much of a stretch to imagine making the whole candle invisible. Now its just a bright patch of light, centred on the air, but go back to adding the fog and its easy enough to visualise.

[Rijan_Sai]

Flash Frost's extra damage doesn't apply to non-damaging spells, since you have to deal damage in order to deal extra damage. Same as how you don't deal sneak attack damage on the touch attack used to initiate a trip attempt.


So basically, your choice of "it doesn't work" hinges on the definition of "extra" as being in the mathematical sense, so that the other bits in the rules - namely adding to something that doesn't exist - cause it to not work. Am I correct in understanding your argument?

I think this one is going to have to be firmly in "DM's Call."
Flash Frost itself does not specify one way or the other, only that it can be added to "any spells that deal cold damage and affect an area...", which at that step Locate City Bomb certainly qualifies.

I believe the difference is similar to Bear's Endurance (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/bearsEndurance.htm) cast on an undead, and Barkskin (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/barkskin.htm) cast on a human.
The first one does not work, not because the creature can't be targeted, but because undead specifically have "No constitution score" (read: CON -), and adding "x" to "-" still = "-".
The second works, because of this line:
The enhancement bonus provided by barkskin stacks with the target’s natural armor bonus, but not with other enhancement bonuses to natural armor. A creature without natural armor has an effective natural armor bonus of +0.

So the question is: Does a Cold Locate City deal "-" damage, or an effective damage of "+0"? This is where the DM Call comes in, and as we can see just in this topic, different people will answer in different ways.

[Troacctid]

I'm sure it is the DM's call, but however you rule, you should rule consistently, and the "extra" wording in Flash Frost is the same standard template used for sneak attack.

The rogue’s attack deals extra damage any time her target would be denied a Dexterity bonus to AC (whether the target actually has a Dexterity bonus or not), or when the rogue flanks her target.
So if you don't need to deal damage to deal extra damage, one of the implications is that rogues deal sneak attack damage on every successful attack, even attacks that don't normally deal damage, like touch attacks to initiate trip attacks. The same would be true for a fighter with a +1 flaming guisarme ("A flaming weapon deals an extra 1d6 points of fire damage on a successful hit.") or a warblade in Punishing Stance ("While you are in this stance, you deal an extra 1d6 points of damage with all melee attacks.") and so on.

I think the vast majority of the DMs would rule that those interactions don't work that way, and a natural consequence of that ruling is that Flash Frost Spell doesn't work that way either.

[Segev]

I'm sure it is the DM's call, but however you rule, you should rule consistently, and the "extra" wording in Flash Frost is the same standard template used for sneak attack.

So if you don't need to deal damage to deal extra damage, one of the implications is that rogues deal sneak attack damage on every successful attack, even attacks that don't normally deal damage, like touch attacks to initiate trip attacks. The same would be true for a fighter with a +1 flaming guisarme ("A flaming weapon deals an extra 1d6 points of fire damage on a successful hit.") or a warblade in Punishing Stance ("While you are in this stance, you deal an extra 1d6 points of damage with all melee attacks.") and so on.

I think the vast majority of the DMs would rule that those interactions don't work that way, and a natural consequence of that ruling is that Flash Frost Spell doesn't work that way either.

If I recall correctly, I often find myself disagreeing with you, but in this case, I find your analysis of what "extra damage" means and its applicability to spells that don't natively deal damage to be quite persuasive. Thanks!