Truenamer: Law or Resistance

[Yogibear41]

So I was reading and old truenamer handbook (don't ask me why) and it mentioned that using the rule found on page 233 of Tome of Magic: Effective spell level, in which you can increased the effective level of an utterrance by 1 by adding 4 to the truespeak dc (2 for +8 to dc, 3 for +12, etc, etc.) similar to a heighten spell metamagic.

The Suggestion was made that if you spam say a normally 1st level utterrance over and over until the Law or Resistance makes the DC to high to ever use, that you could "reset" the Law of Resistance by adding +4 to the base DC and start using the utterrance as a 2nd level utterrance over and over until the DC was to high to use, then add +8 to the original DC to cast it as a 3rd level uterrance, and so on and so forth.

Is this correct or was the guy who wrote that seriously confused?

[Tzardok]

So I was reading and old truenamer handbook (don't ask me why) and it mentioned that using the rule found on page 233 of Tome of Magic: Effective spell level, in which you can increased the effective level of an utterrance by 1 by adding 4 to the truespeak dc (2 for +8 to dc, 3 for +12, etc, etc.) similar to a heighten spell metamagic.

The Suggestion was made that if you spam say a normally 1st level utterrance over and over until the Law or Resistance makes the DC to high to ever use, that you could "reset" the Law of Resistance by adding +4 to the base DC and start using the utterrance as a 2nd level utterrance over and over until the DC was to high to use, then add +8 to the original DC to cast it as a 3rd level uterrance, and so on and so forth.

Is this correct or was the guy who wrote that seriously confused?

I don't see why that should be possible. The text of Tome of Magic certainly doesn't mention it. It also sounds like the opposite of how metamagic is handled. A Heightened Fireball is still a Fireball for purposes of counterspelling etc. So why should an "improved" (there certainly isn't a term for that) Utterance of Archer's Eye suddenly not be an Archer's Eye anymore?

[Aharon]

I don't see why that should be possible. The text of Tome of Magic certainly doesn't mention it. It also sounds like the opposite of how metamagic is handled. A Heightened Fireball is still a Fireball for purposes of counterspelling etc. So why should an "improved" (there certainly isn't a term for that) Utterance of Archer's Eye suddenly not be an Archer's Eye anymore?

Since I am the person who originally found this trick:
It relies on the exact wording:
“It's also okay to use a higher-level version of an utterance while a lower-level version is still active, or vice versa, because these constitute different utterances.”

This means that unlike a heightened fireball being a fireball, an heightened Archer's eye isn't the same as an Archer's eye. I believe this to be RAW, but I agree that it probably wouldn't fly on most tables, on account of radically changing how the class works.

[Tzardok]

Since I am the person who originally found this trick:
It relies on the exact wording:
“It's also okay to use a higher-level version of an utterance while a lower-level version is still active, or vice versa, because these constitute different utterances.”

This means that unlike a heightened fireball being a fireball, an heightened Archer's eye isn't the same as an Archer's eye. I believe this to be RAW, but I agree that it probably wouldn't fly on most tables, on account of radically changing how the class works.

Could you direct me at the page that quote is from? I must have missed it when I looked it up.

[Aharon]

Could you direct me at the page that quote is from? I must have missed it when I looked it up.

pg. 234 of Tome of Magic. The sentence is under the “Law of Sequence” paragraph, started on the previous page.

The example makes it extremely clear that RAI, this refers to stuff like "Wings of Zephir" and "Greater Wings of Zephir", but RAW doesn't match RAI.

[Zaq]

It’s stupid. I hate it. It’s PROBABLY RAW.

I recommend instead talking to your GM about just relaxing the Law(s) in other ways. I know we like RAW when possible, but I’ve never met a GM who’s so into RAW-at-all-costs that they WOULD be cool with this kind of BS but they WOULDN’T be cool with achieving a similar effect without contorted interpretations of bad wording.

For the record, I’ve played several truenamers who did just fine without trying this. The Laws do indeed chafe, but you’re still playable even without circumventing them.

[Psyren]

If you just fix the math as a whole (see my sig for one example) then you won't need to resort to shaky tricks like this, so that's my preferred solution.