Persistent Spell, and fixed range?

[bean illus]

What qualifies as fixed?

Not touch spells ... but Divine Power can be persisted? So Range: Personal is a go? Anything else i need to know?

I'm thinking about a buffer. I've read that Chain Spell can be used with DMM Persistent Spell. Is this true?

But, would you need to take DMM twice? Or pay the Chain Spell with spell slots?

[Biggus]

Fixed means a range expressed in a set number of feet, eg 0ft or 60ft, as opposed to a range like Close, which varies depending on level.

There's a big debate as to whether touch spells count as fixed, with some evidence on both sides. Personally I'd advise against it as it makes an already awesome feat ludicrously powerful.

Yes, Divine Power is one of the classic DMM: Persist spells. Others include Divine Favor, Holy Star (SpC), Greater Visage of the Deity (SpC), Elation (BoED), Mass Lesser Vigor (SpC), Recitation (SpC) and Righteous Wrath of the Faithful (SpC). The last four affect the whole party :smallbiggrin:

Righteous Might is also eligible but not generally recommended as being Large sized all day can be inconvenient when dungeon-delving or otherwise being indoors.

If a spell is eligible to be chained it can be used in conjunction with a DMM Persisted spell, but if you want to pay for it using turn attempts rather than spell-slot increases, yes you'd need to take DMM twice.

[Kayblis]

The idea of "Fixed" here is something that doesn't change by itself. If you can look at the spell and not have to ask any questions about the range, it's treated as Fixed.

Personal range spells are fixed, you can only ever affect yourself and the range is a fixed "You". So are spells with 60ft range, 30ft, 0ft, etc. Touch spells on the other hand change range with the caster's reach, so you have to ask "what's your size?" as a baseline when determining range. This is discounting the methods of changing ranges, like the multitude of ways to channel Touch spells from bigger ranges, and looking only at the spell itself.

Do note that you'd have to talk with your DM about what happens when you change the way a spell works. If you, for example, use Spellguard of Silverymoon's "Spellguard" ability to turn a Personal-range spell into a Touch spell, you need a ruling from the DM, as the RAW can be argued both ways. Please don't derail the topic with this discussion btw.

[bean illus]

Personal range spells are fixed, you can only ever affect yourself and the range is a fixed "You". So are spells with 60ft range, 30ft, 0ft, etc. Touch spells on the other hand change range with the caster's reach, so you have to ask "what's your size?" as a baseline when determining range. This is discounting the methods of changing ranges, like the multitude of ways to channel Touch spells from bigger ranges, and looking only at the spell itself.
[/SUB]

So, if personal spells are fixed, can divine power be persistent chained? As a dm, I'd be looking for a way to say no ...

[gogogome]

So, if personal spells are fixed, can divine power be persistent chained? As a dm, I'd be looking for a way to say no ...

Just use Dispel Magic. One dispel magic and your DMM Persistent cleric is worse than a fighter. There are plenty of monsters with Dispel Magic. Add one to every encounter to also counterspell.

Use persistent spell yourself. DMM:Persistent Anti-magic Field.

In a high-magic world, it doesn't make sense to have Dispel commonplace. Just like you bring a tank to fight monsters, you bring a Dispeller to fight adventurers. And a persistent AMF to take out spellcasters.

As someone who allows DMM:Persistent spell with nightsticks, it ain't that great.

[Biffoniacus_Furiou]

So, if personal spells are fixed, can divine power be persistent chained? As a dm, I'd be looking for a way to say no ...

What do you mean chained? Used as a daily buff so that it's got 100% uptime, yes that's what most characters who use that do.

If someone is using it to meet prerequisites, simply tell them no. Even though it's effectively got 100% uptime, that's a far cry from permanent.

If it's causing balance issues for the game, just dispel it. I've used permanent Wall of Dispel Magic and similar which is invisible but suddenly everyone's buffs are gone as they proceed. A Hallow (https://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/hallow.htm) or Unhallow can carry a Dispel Magic that automatically hits everyone that doesn't meet a certain criteria that makes it so it won't hit any of the residents. I'm pretty sure they'll be hit with a Dispel Magic every round they're in the area, which you can assume will remove one spell every 20 rounds unless the DC is higher than the max check result.

[Biggus]

So, if personal spells are fixed, can divine power be persistent chained? As a dm, I'd be looking for a way to say no ...

Chain Spell affects any spell "that specifies a single target and has a range greater than touch". Since Divine Power has a range of personal, which is not greater than touch, it can't be chained as far as I can see.

[Aracor]

Potentially there are shenanigans. Use Ocular Spell to change a spell to 60' range, and then Persist it from there because it suddenly has a fixed range. This is almost certainly not rules as intended, but it can most certainly be argued that it works.

[Darg]

Chain Spell affects any spell "that specifies a single target and has a range greater than touch". Since Divine Power has a range of personal, which is not greater than touch, it can't be chained as far as I can see.

Ocular Spell says it will break all attempts at spell discrimination for persist and chain qualification.

Edit: beaten to the punch

[bean illus]

Ocular Spell says it will break all attempts at spell discrimination for persist and chain qualification.

Edit: beaten to the punch

I think it's important to mention here:

RANGER ARCHERY ACCESS ARE NOT FEATS!
and
THEY DO NOT STACK WITH ANYTHING!
and
MARTIALS CAN'T HAVE NICE THINGS!
[/rant]

[NigelWalmsley]

So, if personal spells are fixed, can divine power be persistent chained? As a dm, I'd be looking for a way to say no ...

Honestly it's not really a big deal. A Cleric who rocks Persistent Divine Power and Righteous Might makes the Fighter sad, but it's not really breaking the game. You get decent numbers for hitting something with a stick. But so what? Hitting stuff with a stick is not very good to begin with.


Just use Dispel Magic. One dispel magic and your DMM Persistent cleric is worse than a fighter. There are plenty of monsters with Dispel Magic. Add one to every encounter to also counterspell.

Of course, most Persist-o-mancers will have some kind of counter for this in turn. Like having a really big caster level. And, frankly, if my enemies want to spend their actions trying to remove my buffs instead of killing me, more power to them.

[Biggus]

Potentially there are shenanigans. Use Ocular Spell to change a spell to 60' range, and then Persist it from there because it suddenly has a fixed range. This is almost certainly not rules as intended, but it can most certainly be argued that it works.

As Chain Spell and Persistent Spell don't specify one way or the other whether the spell originally has to have a range greater than touch/fixed range or whether they can be applied to ranges which have been changed by means such as Ocular Spell, the OP can just rule the former to be the case.

[bean illus]

As Chain Spell and Persistent Spell don't specify one way or the other whether the spell originally has to have a range greater than touch/fixed range or whether they can be applied to ranges which have been changed by means such as Ocular Spell, the OP can just rule the former to be the case.

Good point. Depending on power level at the table that's a legitimate way to regulate those feat combinations.

[Jack_Simth]

Good point. Depending on power level at the table that's a legitimate way to regulate those feat combinations.

An ocular spell is stored in your eyes when cast, and can be discharged to set it off. Spells with discharge effects aren't eligible for persistent spell.

[icefractal]

While DMM: Persist is at a power level too high for most campaigns, I find the argument that Touch inherently has a variable range to be unconvincing. All spells with range are affected (very slightly) by the caster's size, as they're measured from a corner of the caster's square. I don't see how Touch is particularly different in this regard.

Personally speaking, I'd just ban it unless the game was going to be a high-power one.

[Darg]

Personally speaking, I'd just ban it unless the game was going to be a high-power one.

Or you could simply use the minimum caster level argument. Metamagic spells are cast as a higher-level spell even though they function as a spell of the original level.


In all ways, a metamagic spell operates at its original spell level, even though it is prepared and cast as a higher-level spell.

If you take the handbook literally, metamagic spells are higher level spells until they are cast. This means they have an increased minimum caster level to cast (and a higher concentration check DC).

[Kayblis]

All spells with range are affected (very slightly) by the caster's size, as they're measured from a corner of the caster's square. I don't see how Touch is particularly different in this regard.

Not really. "Range" is defined as the distance between caster and target, or the total distance the effect works on. "Starting point" is affected by caster size, but that's not Range, that's positioning. The same way "You" is a fixed range, "30ft" is fixed even if you happen to be Large+, because no matter where you position the starting point, it still affects a 30ft range from that point.

Touch, on the other hand, can be 5ft, 10ft, 15ft, etc. You can't answer the "what's the range" question without looking at the variable caster size, as a baseline.


If you take the handbook literally, metamagic spells are higher level spells until they are cast. This means they have an increased minimum caster level to cast (and a higher concentration check DC).

Again, not really. A metamagicked spell is explicitly still a spell of the original level, it just takes a higher slot. If you apply Maximize to a Fireball, it takes a 6th level slot, but it's still a 3rd level spell for all purposes, so you can use a Least Empower Rod(lvs 1~3) on it to take advantage of both MMs for considerably cheap. You wouldn't be able to do this if the spell was considered higher level.

[Darg]

Again, not really. A metamagicked spell is explicitly still a spell of the original level, it just takes a higher slot. If you apply Maximize to a Fireball, it takes a 6th level slot, but it's still a 3rd level spell for all purposes, so you can use a Least Empower Rod(lvs 1~3) on it to take advantage of both MMs for considerably cheap. You wouldn't be able to do this if the spell was considered higher level.

Where exactly does it say that metamagics are not cast as a higher level spell? I gave a quote that says it is. The operation of a spell doesn't necessarily encompass the entirety of the concept of "spell" unless specified somewhere.

Let's rewrite the quote to be grammatically the same: Despite the fact that it is prepared and cast as a higher-level spell, a metamagic spell operates at its original spell level in all ways.

To phrase it in a different way, a spell doesn't have a function to control (operate) until it is cast. Not to mention the handbook further uses the word "level" instead of "spell slot level" or "level of spell slot" to denote a not yet cast spell:


A spellcaster can apply multiple metamagic feats to a single spell. Changes to its level are cumulative.


Level limits for potions and wands apply to the spell’s higher spell level (after the application of the metamagic feat).

It's especially relevant for crafting; otherwise you end up with a situation where you can apply any metamagic feat cumulatively for free.

[icefractal]

Touch, on the other hand, can be 5ft, 10ft, 15ft, etc. You can't answer the "what's the range" question without looking at the variable caster size, as a baseline.The range is 0' from the caster's appendage. Where the appendage happens to be? Well that's not Range, that's positioning.

[Kayblis]

The range is 0' from the caster's appendage. Where the appendage happens to be? Well that's not Range, that's positioning.

That's false. Your character occupies a space in the board. Range is defined as the distance between two characters in the board. Touch being from an appendage makes no difference, and you know it. You simply can't say for sure a Touch spell works or not on an enemy 10ft away without more information, because it's a variable range.

[icefractal]

Is it defined that way? Regardless, cone effects (like Detect Magic, probably the reason why Persistent Spell allows for fixed range specifically) can originate from any corner of your square. So whether you can reach a particular foe with it requires knowing both the caster's size and what corner they choose it to start from.

Not an unreasonable amount of info to know, but neither is the caster's reach.

[NigelWalmsley]

That's false. Your character occupies a space in the board. Range is defined as the distance between two characters in the board. Touch being from an appendage makes no difference, and you know it. You simply can't say for sure a Touch spell works or not on an enemy 10ft away without more information, because it's a variable range.

That's like saying Personal is a variable range because you don't know what person is going to cast any particular spell.

[sreservoir]

Personal is expressly distinguished from fixed ranges, almost as if the writers didn't consider it to be a fixed range.

It's notable that FRCS, where the feat was originally printed for 3.0 was errated to change "Spells of instantaneous duration cannot be affected by this feat, nor can spells whose effects are discharged." to "Spells of instantaneous duration, spells with a range of touch, and spells whose effects are discharged cannot be affected by this feat." No other printings received the errata, and the wording carried through to 3.5e PGtF changing only the slot adjustment (from +4 to +6).

It's hard to make any definitive claim about what that implies; you could make a case for either "the wording was intended to exclude touch range, and the errata was a clarification" or "the fact that the errata has to specify this implies that the original wording doesn't exclude touch range, so subsequent printings without the errataed text do allow touch range spells to be persisted"; certainly, the exclusions (excluding the errata's addition) are all additional exclusions.

Honestly, it's pretty likely that Persistent Spell was basically written with the idea that it'd be used for self-buffing, but in the course of checking what spells someone would want to use it for the author came upon detect magic and its ilk, which happen to be written in a weird way such that it has neither a target nor a tangible effect (I think you'd just have to catch it in an area dispel to dispel it?), and then, since the Target line was on their mind, added the "fixed range" condition without thinking very hard about it.

And really, it's just not a very well thought-out feat. How often do you see it getting used without cost substitution? How often do you see anyone even take it when they don't have some way to cheat it on in a build? (I can think of like three spells whose effect are better enough than their substitutes that they might still be worth paying sticker price to persist?)

[bean illus]

And really, it's just not a very well thought-out feat. How often do you see it getting used without cost substitution? How often do you see anyone even take it when they don't have some way to cheat it on in a build? (I can think of like three spells whose effect are better enough than their substitutes that they might still be worth paying sticker price to persist?)

A cleric with 3 turning pools, a 16 cha, and 1 extra turning feat, gets 30 TUs? That's neither difficult, nor rare in a high level game.

[NigelWalmsley]

And really, it's just not a very well thought-out feat. How often do you see it getting used without cost substitution? How often do you see anyone even take it when they don't have some way to cheat it on in a build? (I can think of like three spells whose effect are better enough than their substitutes that they might still be worth paying sticker price to persist?)

Honestly that's true of most metamagic. It's not like people are lining up to use Widen or Silent for full freight. The most common usage of non-reduced metamagic is to Extend stuff so it lasts long enough for you to refresh spells, and that barely counts for obvious reasons.

[tyckspoon]

A cleric with 3 turning pools, a 16 cha, and 1 extra turning feat, gets 30 TUs? That's neither difficult, nor rare in a high level game.

That would be a cost substitution - that's what sreservoir was talking about. It's so common that you don't even think about using Persistent Spell directly; you automatically assume you're using Divine Metamagic: Persistent Spell.

I would argue with that large a turning pool being common or easy, simply because unless you *are* using Divine Metamagic to spam an expensive metamagic (Persist, Twin, Quicken) you just don't really need that many Turn Undeads. It's not worth bending your build around to be an Azurin or be a neutral cleric that Rebukes Undead then go into one of the prestige classes that explicitly grants only Turn Undead or the other contortions you have to do to get multiple distinct pools of abilities that can power Divine feats otherwise; you won't spend the build resources on that unless it's the signature trick of your character (and if it is your signature trick it eats a majority of your build resources to do it - most of your levels and feats go to enabling it. So while the ways to do it are well known and pretty straightforward to access, they also put some severe restrictions on what your build can be and don't allow for much variety beyond it.)

[Jay R]

So, if personal spells are fixed, can divine power be persistent chained? As a dm, I'd be looking for a way to say no ...

I have bolded your way to say no.

Specifically, the answer I would give is, "The rules are not clear, so this requires a DM ruling. I am ruling that it cannot be used that way."

[bean illus]

That would be a cost substitution - that's what sreservoir was talking about. It's so common that you don't even think about using Persistent Spell directly; you automatically assume you're using Divine Metamagic: Persistent Spell.


Ahhh, i see. By "cost substitute" I thought he meant night sticks.

[sreservoir]

Honestly that's true of most metamagic. It's not like people are lining up to use Widen or Silent for full freight. The most common usage of non-reduced metamagic is to Extend stuff so it lasts long enough for you to refresh spells, and that barely counts for obvious reasons.

I'll grant that a lot of the core +1 metamagics are overcosted because the spell level quantum is just that wide, but even then you get solid utility out of most of them if, say, you're a spontaneous caster and don't have a lot of good feat picks in core anyway. And moving up from there, empower is not totally uncompetitive even when comparing blasting, but absolutely worth using even at full price on more exotic effects like mirror image or enervation.

Quicken you could make perhaps reasonably argue only gets non-reduced usage because, unlike Persistent, it's available in Core games where the options aren't available. Despite that, there are a number of low-to-mid-level effects that are distinct enough that having them in addition to your standard action can compete with spells four levels higher, even if they get overshadowed by natively swift-action spells when you open the books. Even at full cost, it's still a strong enough effect that even at full cost, there are situations where you'd take the option.

Persistent ... could be used like that. But it's not very good. For er, most of the spells you could apply it to, it's kind of like getting an extra quickened-but-actually-free-action copy of a short-duration spell at the beginning of every encounter (and by short duration, we're talking rounds/level, maybe minutes/level, since by the levels that persistent comes online, 10 min/level lasts long enough that you can just extend/recast it long enough to last the whole day, hours/level will flat-out get better duration out of being extended than being persisted). But at those levels, you have plenty of control over when encounters take place, so it's probably not worth quite as much as ~four quickened slots, but even if it were it'd still not necessarily a great deal at +6, plus the restricted spell selection (and the prereq!).

So instead we only really use it when the cost can be made orthogonal to spellcasting progression, and then it turns out that, to begin with, tripling the value of one of your highest-level spells is incredibly powerful even before accounting for the actions you save and all the effects that were written assuming that they would expire within roughly the order of magnitude of their duration line.

In retrospect, it's probably not a coincidence that Persistent Spell's printings keep putting it alongside things like deities with epic spell slots and spelldancers and incantatrices, but I can't for the life of me imagine what they thought were reasonable things to persist. Aside from detect magic, obviously.


Ahhh, i see. By "cost substitute" I thought he meant night sticks.

Being able to use nightsticks to DMM persist more things is a bit like being able to use a pearl of power, 1st level to cast more power word pains. The problem is that the effect exists at all, not the number of times you can use it!

[CasualViking]

The intent of "fixed range" is spells like Detect Magic, Detect Evil that have 60' ranges, but really only affect the caster.

[ShurikVch]

The intent of "fixed range" is spells like Detect Magic, Detect Evil that have 60' ranges, but really only affect the caster.
And what's about the Holy Aura (https://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/holyAura.htm)? Its range is clearly fixed, but it protects not just the caster...

[Darg]

I highly doubt DMM was meant to allow someone to be able to cast illegal spells. Metamagic increases the level of the spell you are casting while having it function at its original level. Minimum caster level would require 13 caster levels to use a persisted mage armor regardless of the slot used.


When you take this feat, choose a metamagic feat that you have. This feat applies only to that metamagic feat. As a free action, you can take the energy from turning or rebuking undead and use it to apply a metamagic feat to divine spells that you know. You must spend one turn or rebuke attempt, plus an additional attempt for each level increase in the metamagic feat you're using. For example, Jozan the cleric could sacrifice three turn attempts to empower a holy smite he's casting. Because you're using positive or negative energy to augment your spells, the spell slot for the spell doesn't change.


An echoing spell is first cast as normal. After 1 hour, the spell then returns to you as if it had been prepared an additional time, and can be cast again at any time. However, the second time the echoing spell is cast, you treat your caster level as four lower for the purpose of effect, area, range, duration, and overcoming spell resistance. This process repeats itself every time the spell is cast, reducing your effective caster level by four until your effective raster level is no longer high enough to cast the original spell (at which point the spell is not regained).

For example, a 9th-level wizard has an echoing Melfs Acid Arrow prepared. She casts the spell the first time at 9th level, giving her maximum long range and dealing acid damage for 4 rounds (1 round + 1 round per three levels). After 1 hour, she can cast the spell again as a 5th-level caster, reducing its range and dealing acid damage for 2 rounds. The spell cannot be regained a third time, however, because her effective caster level of 1st would be below the minimum level needed to cast the spell.

This makes Sudden Metamagic make a lot more sense:


Once per day, you can apply the effect of the Maximize Spell feat to any spell you cast without increasing the level of the spell or specially preparing it ahead of time. You can still use Maximize Spell normally if you have it.

The player handbook specifically mentions that you cast metamagic at a higher level, when you stack metamagics the changes in level are cumulative, and metamagics effect the level limit for magic items made with a metamagic spell based on the increased spell level.

[Elkad]

A cleric with 3 turning pools, a 16 cha, and 1 extra turning feat, gets 30 TUs? That's neither difficult, nor rare in a high level game.

I don't give them multiple turning pools. It just expands the types of creatures they can turn.

[sreservoir]

This makes Sudden Metamagic make a lot more sense:

That's ... an interesting reading, but it's a bit of a stretch to infer that "level of the spell" means "minimum caster level" rather than "spell level"—which, granted, isn't generally affected by metamagic in the first place, but is often confused with the (adjusted) spell slot the spell takes up ... including by the PHB feat section's discussion of metamagic itself:


The cost of doing so, however, is that in preparing the spell, she must use up a spell slot one spell level higher than the spell actually is. Thus, if she prepares charm person as a silent spell, it takes up one of her 2nd-level slots. It is still only a 1st-level spell, so the DC for the Will save against it does not go up.


A spellcaster can apply multiple metamagic feats to a single spell. Changes to its level are cumulative.

So it's pretty clear that the "level of a spell" is generally used to indicate the spell slot it takes up, since that's the only kind of level metamagic feats generally change, and also because assuming this line refers to some other level basically implies that metamagic spell slot level changes don't stack, and that would be a stupid reading.


It's true there's a lot of rules text which implies that spells have minimum caster levels to cast them, not the least of which is


You can cast a spell at a lower caster level than normal, but the caster level you choose must be high enough for you to cast the spell in question, and all level-dependent features must be based on the same caster level.

Minimum caster levels are, however, rather poorly defined in the rules. We know that they exist, since rules keep talking about them, and we get lots of specific examples. We get a few hints that imply that they're related to the class level at which they're gained. Indeed, we can infer minimum caster levels by spell level for the core classes based on the scroll price tables, which claim that they "assume that the scroll was made at the minimum caster level"—and there's a typo on 6th level with no errata, oops??

But since the only solid source we have for minimum caster levels links them to spell levels (whether or not they're confused with spell slots), and DMM doesn't increase either, there's not much basis for inferring a change to the minimum caster level anyway.

And even if it did, well, turns out there's this particular line in ELH:
Spells with an effective level of 10th or higher are possible at epic levels. Because these spell slots aren’t automatically gained at a particular level like 0- to 9th-level spells are, they don’t have a minimum caster level. For this reason, the minimum caster level for any spell of 10th level or higher is set at 11 + spell level.

So if you can boost your caster level to to 25th (where did you puts your beads of karma?), you're definitely clear to persist those 9ths!

[Darg]

That's ... an interesting reading, but it's a bit of a stretch to infer that "level of the spell" means "minimum caster level" rather than "spell level"—which, granted, isn't generally affected by metamagic in the first place, but is often confused with the (adjusted) spell slot the spell takes up ... including by the PHB feat section's discussion of metamagic itself:

So it's pretty clear that the "level of a spell" is generally used to indicate the spell slot it takes up, since that's the only kind of level metamagic feats generally change, and also because assuming this line refers to some other level basically implies that metamagic spell slot level changes don't stack, and that would be a stupid reading.

The PHB also has this line:


Effects of Metamagic Feats on a Spell

In all ways, a metamagic spell operates at its original spell level, even though it is prepared and cast as a higher-level spell.

The spell is prepared and cast as a higher level spell and operates (can't operate until after casting) at it's original spell level. Why bother saying something other than simply uses higher level spell slots in a section explaining rules if that isn't the case.

Another line under the Metamagic feats header:


Magic Items and Metamagic Spells

With the right item creation feat, you can store a metamagic version of a spell in a scroll, potion, or wand. Level limits for potions and wands apply to the spell’s higher spell level (after the application of the metamagic feat). A character doesn’t need the metamagic feat to activate an item storing a metamagic version of a spell.

Emphasis mine. If metamagic feats did not change the level of the spell, there would not need to be a mention of level limits for potions and wands. Heighten is unique and would be a lot less confusing to mention Heighten as it is the only one that actually increases spell level (after casting) if it was the reason for the clause. Without metamagic increasing spell level, you end up with people able to pile on a large amount of metamagic on magic items for literally no extra cost and no extra value (doesn't logically make sense that a higher quality version of something wouldn't be worth more).

The only thing that contradicts this that I can find is in the Metamagic Feats description in the SRD before any rules text:


As a spellcaster’s knowledge of magic grows, she can learn to cast spells in ways slightly different from the ways in which the spells were originally designed or learned. Preparing and casting a spell in such a way is harder than normal but, thanks to metamagic feats, at least it is possible. Spells modified by a metamagic feat use a spell slot higher than normal. This does not change the level of the spell, so the DC for saving throws against it does not go up.

Version in the PHB:


As a spellcaster’s knowledge of magic grows, she can learn to cast spells in ways slightly different from the ways in which the spells were originally designed or learned. For example, a spellcaster can learn to cast a spell without having to say its verbal component, to cast a spell for greater effect, or even to cast it with nothing but a moment’s thought. Preparing and casting a spell in such a way is harder than normal but, thanks to metamagic feats, at least it is possible.

For instance, at 3rd level, Mialee chooses to gain Silent Spell, the feat that allows her to cast a spell without its verbal component. The cost of doing so, however, is that in preparing the spell, she must use up a spell slot one spell level higher than the spell actually is. Thus, if she prepares charm person as a silent spell, it takes up one of her 2nd-level slots. It is still only a 1st-level spell, so the DC for the Will save against it does not go up. Mialee cannot prepare a 2nd-level spell as a silent spell because she would have to prepare it as a 3rd-level spell, and she can’t use 3rd-level spell slots until she reaches 5th level.


But since the only solid source we have for minimum caster levels links them to spell levels (whether or not they're confused with spell slots), and DMM doesn't increase either, there's not much basis for inferring a change to the minimum caster level anyway.

DMM does indeed mention the level increase. It just doesn't change the slot being used. In general spell slot and spell level doesn't de-sync like it does with DMM. The reason that is is that it isn't changing anything. It's only substituting the cost of spell slots for turn undead uses. I personally view it this way as I think metamagic cost reduction also reduces the spell level in conjunction.

[sreservoir]

The spell is prepared and cast as a higher level spell and operates (can't operate until after casting) at it's original spell level. Why bother saying something other than simply uses higher level spell slots in a section explaining rules if that isn't the case.

That pretty much is what says; the contortion basically accommodates the fact that some spellcasters do and don't prepare spells.

You could argue, I suppose, that you need the minimum caster level to cast the spell because it's being cast at the higher spell level, but this at least contradicts the example given for Echoing Spell, because the acid arrow would still be prepared with Echoing; a 5th-level caster could not cast a a 5th-level spell. So that at least can't be how the later author understood the rule.


Emphasis mine. If metamagic feats did not change the level of the spell, there would not need to be a mention of level limits for potions and wands. Heighten is unique and would be a lot less confusing to mention Heighten as it is the only one that actually increases spell level (after casting) if it was the reason for the clause. Without metamagic increasing spell level, you end up with people able to pile on a large amount of metamagic on magic items for literally no extra cost and no extra value (doesn't logically make sense that a higher quality version of something wouldn't be worth more).

Your conclusion is backwards. If metamagic feats did change the level of the spell, there would not need to be a mention of level limits for potions and wands. It is only because they do not that this is specified separately in the case of magic items.


DMM does indeed mention the level increase. It just doesn't change the slot being used. In general spell slot and spell level doesn't de-sync like it does with DMM. The reason that is is that it isn't changing anything. It's only substituting the cost of spell slots for turn undead uses. I personally view it this way as I think metamagic cost reduction also reduces the spell level in conjunction.


You must spend one turn or rebuke attempt, plus an additional attempt for each level increase in the metamagic feat you’re using. For example, Jozan the cleric could sacrifice three turn attempts to empower a holy smite he’s casting. Because you’re using positive or negative energy to augment your spells, the spell slot for the spell doesn’t change.

The level increase DMM refers to is whatever level increase is mentioned in the metamagic feat you're using. Now let's take a look at a metamagic feat, shall we?


All variable, numeric effects of an empowered spell are increased by one-half.

Saving throws and opposed rolls are not affected, nor are spells without random variables. An empowered spell uses up a spell slot two levels higher than the spell’s actual level.

The level increases specified by metamagic feats are to the spell slot, not to the spell.

[Darg]

That pretty much is what says; the contortion basically accommodates the fact that some spellcasters do and don't prepare spells.

You could argue, I suppose, that you need the minimum caster level to cast the spell because it's being cast at the higher spell level, but this at least contradicts the example given for Echoing Spell, because the acid arrow would still be prepared with Echoing; a 5th-level caster could not cast a a 5th-level spell. So that at least can't be how the later author understood the rule.

Echoing spell says to keep going until your modified caster level can't cast the original spell aka minimum caster level, but it doesn't actually reduce your caster level:


However, the second time the echoing spell is cast, you treat your caster level as four lower for the purpose of effect, area, range, duration, and overcoming spell resistance. This process repeats itself every time the spell is cast, reducing your effective caster level by four until your effective raster level is no longer high enough to cast the original spell (at which point the spell is not regained).



Your conclusion is backwards. If metamagic feats did change the level of the spell, there would not need to be a mention of level limits for potions and wands. It is only because they do not that this is specified separately in the case of magic items.

I'm only saying it is cast as a higher level spell, not that it is a higher level spell. The fact that level limitations inherent to wands and potions are triggered by metamagic simply means that the level a spell is cast at is modified. A fireball is cast at the time of creation of a wand of maximized fireballs. A maximized fireball is a 3rd level spell, however it is cast as a 6th level spell triggering the level clause preventing the creation of the item as wands can only be 4th level or lower. It might be better to say that spell levels represent the difficulty in casting a spell? The requirement of a higher level spell slot represents the increased difficulty in casting the metamagic spell. Wands and potions can only take spells up to a certain difficulty. The only 2 things affected by this is minimum caster level and concentration checks.


The level increase DMM refers to is whatever level increase is mentioned in the metamagic feat you're using. Now let's take a look at a metamagic feat, shall we?



The level increases specified by metamagic feats are to the spell slot, not to the spell.

Exactly. DMM is applying a metamagic feat to a spell. It isnt removing the cost/increase in difficulty in casting the spell. It is simply substituting turn undead attempts for the spell slot. It's still being cast as a higher level spell as you still have the cost associated with metamagic. It's the reason I brought up sudden metamagic as it literally tells you there is no cost to using the metamagic. No increase in level for difficulty in casting the spell and there is no need for special preparation which equates to not needing to prepare the spell or increase the cast time by one step. This makes it one of the few ways around the level limit.