new free metamagic shenanigans (RAW/TO)?

[Gruftzwerg]

While working on a build with metamagic cost reducers i stumbled over a sentence..

I haven't seen it been suggested so far and think that it is new RAW TO (tell me if you did already know this).

So far I have found it in all meta feats that don't increase the spell lvl (Energy Substitution, Invisible Spell, Cooperative Spell)
The sentence regarding the spell slot ends with:

...spell uses a spell slot of the spell's normal level.

compare it with the 3.0 text for one of those feats (energy substitution):

...uses a spell slot zero levels higher than (the same as) the spell's actual level.

Imho by RAW the older version is technically the more correct one. The 3.5 causes the spell to use the spell's normal level.

If you should still question why this is important by RAW: You can line up effects in the most favorable order if no order is set by the rules.

Thus a strict RAW reading would imply that I can overload a spell with metamagic and use one of the meta feats above as last one to ignore all the metamagic costs.... o.0

Sure, this is never gonna fly at any table I guess. But this is nuts, what have the editors been smoking to make this change.^^

This is so stupid that I'm even afraid to use it in a TO build (but who knows^^). But I still wanted to mentioned it at least for some laughs (or flying rulebooks^^) in the forum.


Thoughts are welcome :smallbiggrin:

[Rebel7284]

Depends on how you define "normal" no? It's pretty normal for a quickened fireball to use a 7th level slot. :smallbiggrin:

Otherwise, this is great for raising your dexterity IRL due to all the flying rulebooks!

[Gruftzwerg]

Depends on how you define "normal" no? It's pretty normal for a quickened fireball to use a 7th level slot. :smallbiggrin:

Otherwise, this is great for raising your dexterity IRL due to all the flying rulebooks!

Sure, what is "normal"? (no, this is not the start of a philosophical debate^^)

Imho normal refers to unmodified base stats. As reference one could take the "normal form" term used in transformation abilities.
"normal form != recent form"
The same could be said here.
"spell's normal level != the modified level before applying this feat"

But really, why did the editors thought it was a good idea to change this part? They had a perfect clear understandable sentence and thought, "naaahh.. screw this.. we can do it worse!" :smallconfused:

[loky1109]

As I said before this isn't TO. RAW? Maybe, but I can't see any optimization in this.
Nice catch (wow, wotc did so stupid mistakes!), but totally useless.

[gijoemike]

Normal in this context can and should probably be read as the expected level.

I normally expect a quickened fireball to be level 7.
It is normal to only have 1 arm after 1 arm has been chopped off.
After 8 hours of not eating it is normal to be hungry.


The phrase normal form is average expected form/shape/condition among a group. That context clearly doesn't apply here.

The 3.0 phrasing is the worse phrasing due to mentioning the ACTUAL Level. You can apply any metamagic to Fireball ( minus heighten) and the actual level is still 3. But the NORMAL level of a metamag fireball could be 3 to 9. The entire trick you provided here relies on abusing the 3.0 language of the rule.


WotC was correct to update the language of the rule and this doesn't even remotely work specifically due to that rule update.

[Twurps]

Nice catch (wow, wotc did so stupid mistakes!), but totally useless.

I have a question... What?!?

We can debate the RAW-ness of this, but the usefulness if/when it works is certainly not 'totally useless'. night-stick stacking shenanigans can't hold a candle to this trick.


Normal in this context can and should probably be read as the expected level.

I normally expect a quickened fireball to be level 7.
It is normal to only have 1 arm after 1 arm has been chopped off.
After 8 hours of not eating it is normal to be hungry.


The phrase normal form is average expected form/shape/condition among a group. That context clearly doesn't apply here.

The 3.0 phrasing is the worse phrasing due to mentioning the ACTUAL Level. You can apply any metamagic to Fireball ( minus heighten) and the actual level is still 3. But the NORMAL level of a metamag fireball could be 3 to 9. The entire trick you provided here relies on abusing the 3.0 language of the rule.

WotC was correct to update the language of the rule and this doesn't even remotely work specifically due to that rule update.

Amusing how different people can come to very different conclusions reading the same text. Upon reading the OP's post I was in agreement that the 3.0 wording was better.
After considering this post, it seems to come down to 'normal' vs 'actual' and actually (pun intended) there's not much of a difference.
-The actual number of arms one has after chopping off 1 arm is 1.
-The actual level of a quickened fireball is lvl 7.

So both are equally susceptible to be exploited by an obtuse reading of RAW, and both are equally sufficiently worded to make it clear to both you, me, and the OP how this was meant to work.

[loky1109]

I have a question... What?!?

We can debate the RAW-ness of this, but the usefulness if/when it works is certainly not 'totally useless'. night-stick stacking shenanigans can't hold a candle to this trick.

I have an answer. )

This trick is totally useless because every optimizer who'll try to use it other than: "Look at this strange, stupid, funny thing!" should be burned to ashes by the shame.
Using this in real build... Even TO build. It can't happened. No, no, no, no, no.

[Troacctid]

If you should still question why this is important by RAW: You can line up effects in the most favorable order if no order is set by the rules.

Thus a strict RAW reading would imply that I can overload a spell with metamagic and use one of the meta feats above as last one to ignore all the metamagic costs.... o.0
I realize this philosophy is bandied around a lot, but it's not RAW. Add far as I'm aware, there isn't actually any text in the rules that tells you what order to apply your modifiers in. Feel free to correct me if you have a citation, of course, but otherwise, this premise is incorrect.


Thus a strict RAW reading would imply that I can overload a spell with metamagic and use one of the meta feats above as last one to ignore all the metamagic costs.... o.0
This is also incorrect, because you've forgotten the general rules for metamagic. Changes to a spell's level are always cumulative.

A spellcaster can apply multiple metamagic feats to a single spell. Changes to its level are cumulative. A stilled, silent version of charm person, for example, would be prepared and cast as a 3rd-level spell (a 1st-level spell, increased by one spell level for each of the metamagic feats).
Silent Spell and Still Spell both say "one level higher than the actual level," but when you apply them both, they combine to make it two levels higher, not because of their individual texts but because of this general rule that governs how they interact. The rules are clear: you add the adjustments together. You don't pick one to override the others.

Sorry to be the bearer of disappointing news! No new TO trick here—the writers already covered their mules.

[Gruftzwerg]

I have an answer. )

This trick is totally useless because every optimizer who'll try to use it other than: "Look at this strange, stupid, funny thing!" should be burned to ashes by the shame.
Using this in real build... Even TO build. It can't happened. No, no, no, no, no.I get it, you dislike it and don't won't to belive it. Nothing wrong with that.

But if you want to to insist that this doesn't work, you should back up your statement with rules pls.


I realize this philosophy is bandied around a lot, but it's not RAW. Add far as I'm aware, there isn't actually any text in the rules that tells you what order to apply your modifiers in. Feel free to correct me if you have a citation, of course, but otherwise, this premise is incorrect.
As you said, there is no rule that dictates the order in which you apply modifiers. Thus you are free to choose the order. As long as my order doesn't contradict any rules, I'm free to do it. The rules only demand that I'll calculate all given modifiers for a stat/value.



This is also incorrect, because you've forgotten the general rules for metamagic. Changes to a spell's level are always cumulative.
Sure, as long as they demand to add, subtract, (even multiply or divide) you can accumulate em. But in the 3.5 examples given, the value "spell slot" gets set to the spells normal level. It's not like the 3.0 versions, where your argument would fully apply, since they add zero levels. Due to this, you can use em as last metamagic after everything that you accumulated to set the level to the spell's normal level.



Silent Spell and Still Spell both say "one level higher than the actual level," but when you apply them both, they combine to make it two levels higher, not because of their individual texts but because of this general rule that governs how they interact. The rules are clear: you add the adjustments together. You don't pick one to override the others.

Sorry to be the bearer of disappointing news! No new TO trick here—the writers already covered their mules.
Notice that all these spells use the "actual (most recent) level" of the spell that gets adjusted. This is how it should look like. Whereas the 3 feats mentioned by me tell you that "the spell uses a spell slot of its normal spell level".
One adjusts the most recent value, the other resets the value to the normal level.

[Twurps]

Notice that all these spells use the "actual (most recent) level" of the spell that gets adjusted. This is how it should look like. Whereas the 3 feats mentioned by me tell you that "the spell uses a spell slot of its normal spell level".
One adjusts the most recent value, the other resets the value to the normal level.

Which brings us back to 'normal' vs 'actual' and what both of those mean. And this is a problem with many a RAW discussion. We try to leave out interpretation because somehow "interpretation will lead to RAI, and RAI is badwrong in RAW discussions." However: Some form of judgement is often required. (random recent example (https://forums.giantitp.com/showsinglepost.php?p=25282065&postcount=16))

So if you ask me: RAW this trick shouldn't work. Because RAW that's not what this feat states. (3.0 being better worded than 3.5, but only barely and with no effect on the outcome) BUT: others will read this differently, and still call it RAW (and rightly so). So all one can do is either make up ones own mind, or hold some kind of vote-count. Though on that last one: Few people will change their mind once it's been made up, regardless of the outcome of such a vote. So we're back to going in circles. If it's any consolation:
More obtuse RAW claims (https://forums.giantitp.com/showthread.php?634368-VoP-and-doorhandles) have been made and Vehemently defended. So this is by far not the worst RAW argument ever made.

[loky1109]

I get it, you dislike it and don't won't to belive it. Nothing wrong with that.
But if you want to to insist that this doesn't work, you should back up your statement with rules pls.

No, no. I believe it. And this even maybe work.
I dislike that you diminish point of TO. TO, as I understand it, isn't quest for bad wordings, it is quest for unexpected combos. Maybe combos of some bad wordings, but combos at first. This trick, does it work or doesn't, isn't smart, isn't combo. Too simple and straight to be TO in my opinion. So, no, "healing by drawing" isn't TO itself. It can be part of TO combo, however.

[Gruftzwerg]

No, no. I believe it. And this even maybe work.
I dislike that you diminish point of TO. TO, as I understand it, isn't quest for bad wordings, it is quest for unexpected combos. Maybe combos of some bad wordings, but combos at first. This trick, does it work or doesn't, isn't smart, isn't combo. Too simple and straight to be TO in my opinion. So, no, "healing by drawing" isn't TO itself. It can be part of TO combo, however.

I guess our opinion on the topic seems to differ. For me what you describe is Practical Optimization (PO). PO is still way over the scale what most tables play and will overshadow the rest of the party (since most tables have low system mastery / no offense here / just pointing out what we can see here in the forum).
TO takes it to the next step by fishing for max RAW abuse. Because you have no intention to play the build, there will never be a real DM with personal preferences. As such, a pure RAW reading is required for this discipline. TO and RAW are things that are (at least imho) sole meant for forum purposes. Either to just have fun with RAW abuse (TO), or as starting point for rule discussions (start with RAW and if the outcome is to silly for you, look for good RAI alternatives).

PS: "healing by drowning" TO reminds me that I've seem a revers diving helmet combo somewhere..^^
Dunno where, it's been s few years I guess.

[loky1109]

No. You don't understand my point. This trick isn't optimization at all. Not PO, not TO. You can't take fighter 20 with weapon focuses and toughnesses and name it PO build. It isn't.
Plus, I strongly dislike any "TO tricks" based on author's bad word selection. I look on optimization as an engineering task, not lawyer. Both TO and PO.

[Gruftzwerg]

No. You don't understand my point. This trick isn't optimization at all. Not PO, not TO. You can't take fighter 20 with weapon focuses and toughnesses and name it PO build. It isn't.
Plus, I strongly dislike any "TO tricks" based on author's bad word selection. I look on optimization as an engineering task, not lawyer. Both TO and PO.

sorry but that is not a fair comprehension you are making there.

I'm fine if you don't like TO tricks like these.

But I still don't see where you are draw a line between TO and PO.

To me as said, TO is defined by abuse of technically RAW legal things. Anything else is PO. Remind you, most PO builds here are still way to strong for the average table (who doesn't spent so much time, if at all, on the giantitp forums^^). They are just less likely to be banned by the DM. The "practical" in PO doesn't always equal to "these are usable for the average table". They are just more likely to see light at a few tables maybe.

Take pun-pun as example. He is totally rule legal, but any sane DM would never allow any infinite loops. Nor Wish abuse at level 1. This is what makes him TO imho. He relies on an imaginary 100% RAW DM.

edit: and as example for PO, take a wizard with sole an optimized spell selection that plays the class on T1 level. It is the simplest form of PO but barely gets played. Either because the player lacks the skill/interest to play it like that or because it would break the game balance if not the entire game. And we are just talking about a base class with base options here. Just to show how problematic even simple PO can be. Most DMs/tables can't even handle a T1 wizard played to their fully "PHB only" strength.

[loky1109]

But I still don't see where you are draw a line between TO and PO.

My line is between optimization and not optimization.
"Right" rules reading isn't. It is cheating.

Example.
Planes. Which flying. Engineers worked. Centuries. They optimized construction. And now come you and say something like: "It all is garbage! I read physics handbook and can build plane ten times lighter that all yours. Because there are comma one sign to the left. I know this is typo, but I don't care." Of course you'll be beaten. You even didn't do some new creative based on this typo, only take aluminum that weighs 0.27 g/cm3 and try to draw old "plane" with it.

[Troacctid]

Cheese is when you push the boundaries of RAW to try and inflate the power level of your build in ways that are clearly against RAI. TO is when you use the RAW as a sandbox to do things that are silly or broken as an interesting thought experiment. They often overlap, but they're not the same. The best TO is the TO that follows RAW and RAI, like Pazuzu, Jumplomancy, and Psionic Sandwiches.

This isn't really TO. It's just a dysfunctional reading of a rule that arises when you don't know about the other rule that resolves it in a sensible fashion. Very much not the same thing. "An audience member in a theatre can't see the stage even though it's lit up by a spotlight because the intervening areas of darkness between them provide total concealment" isn't TO either.

[Gruftzwerg]

My line is between optimization and not optimization.
"Right" rules reading isn't. It is cheating.

Example.
Planes. Which flying. Engineers worked. Centuries. They optimized construction. And now come you and say something like: "It all is garbage! I read physics handbook and can build plane ten times lighter that all yours. Because there are comma one sign to the left. I know this is typo, but I don't care." Of course you'll be beaten. You even didn't do some new creative based on this typo, only take aluminum that weighs 0.27 g/cm3 and try to draw old "plane" with it.
I'll try to give you imho better fitting example. Rules are like a program- or game-code that runs on your computer. First there is the intended way to use the code. Like the developers had it envisioned (RAI) when creating the code. And then there is the real code (RAW), that what the developers have delivered as finished product. The best possible outcome would be that the intended way the code works matches the reality how the code works. But sadly this is not always the chase. It can produce minor bugs, security issues and whatnot. While most people will try to avoid these things, others are actively looking for em. And if they find any bad code, they will try to exploit it as much as possible.

TO does the same thing. I look at the rules as written (real code) and try to abuse it as much as I can. I don't care for the original purpose.

Imagine any kind of payed internet service site (e.g. IP TV). A hacker might look out security holes on the code to get the personal information of the other users to sell em later. What that the original purpose of the code? Hell no, but the code did nothing to prevent this kind of action.

I hope I could provide a good example why RAW doesn't care for such things. It only cares for the pure rule mechanics presented and looks what interactions are possible and not what interactions where intended.


Cheese is when you push the boundaries of RAW to try and inflate the power level of your build in ways that are clearly against RAI. TO is when you use the RAW as a sandbox to do things that are silly or broken as an interesting thought experiment. They often overlap, but they're not the same. The best TO is the TO that follows RAW and RAI, like Pazuzu, Jumplomancy, and Psionic Sandwiches.
I agree here for the most part. :)


This isn't really TO. It's just a dysfunctional reading of a rule that arises when you don't know about the other rule that resolves it in a sensible fashion. Very much not the same thing. "An audience member in a theatre can't see the stage even though it's lit up by a spotlight because the intervening areas of darkness between them provide total concealment" isn't TO either.

There is no dysfunction. A dysfunction leaves you with no outcome/resolve. This is just a mismatch between RAW and RAI. Because those feats create specific exception for themselves compared to the general rule for metamagic. Technically speaking totally legal. Sure the outcome breaks the game balance (why I don't advice to abuse this), but that is on another page for which RAW doesn't show any interest.

[loky1109]

TO does the same thing. I look at the rules as written (real code) and try to abuse it as much as I can. I don't care for the original purpose.

First - no. TO isn't about only abusing.
Second - you even don't abuse this loophole.

RAW? Maybe. T? Of course yes. O? Not even close.


Rules are like a program- or game-code that runs on your computer.
Very bad example. And very good simultaneously.
Bad because program code will not work in 99,9% mistake case. Program language isn't natural language, but formally language and this helps much against ambiguity, which unavoidable in natural languages.
Good because there are some cases when mistakes happens. People who using it named cheaters. They are most hated people.


There is no dysfunction. A dysfunction leaves you with no outcome/resolve. This is just a mismatch between RAW and RAI.
Look. I found your main mistake. You think RAW exists. Rules is text. Any text has meaning only for subjects. And only via interpretation. There are no inherent objective meaning in rules.

[Gruftzwerg]

First - no. TO isn't about only abusing.
Second - you even don't abuse this loophole.

RAW? Maybe. T? Of course yes. O? Not even close.
As said our opinion on what TO is or not seem to differ. And I wanted to point out the abuse potential here for TO, not showing an entire build around it (which would have been pointless imho). The main point of the thread is to showcase the bad editing here.



Very bad example. And very good simultaneously.
Bad because program code will not work in 99,9% mistake case. Program language isn't natural language, but formally language and this helps much against ambiguity, which unavoidable in natural languages.
Good because there are some cases when mistakes happens. People who using it named cheaters. They are most hated people.
Sorry but your assumption ain't fully true. If you have code from a real tiny program, your assumption that it wouldn't work in 99% of the chases with a bug is true. But as soon as you start to have real complex code, thing differ immensely. I mean, I assume that you constantly update your programs and electronic devices. Most updates are just bug fixes and security patches nowadays. Those programs and devices still work for the most part as expected. But that doesn't change that those bugs and security holes where there and thus the exploit/abuse potential. Further anything what you said about program languages also apply to rule- and law-language.


Look. I found your main mistake. You think RAW exists. Rules is text. Any text has meaning only for subjects. And only via interpretation. There are no inherent objective meaning in rules.

If RAW wouldn't exist, we wouldn't be able to come to the same conclusion in most chases. Just because we might argue about some parts of the rules don't change that we come to the same results for the most parts (95%+ imho). So there seems to be some kind of logic involved that leads us to the same interpretation.

It RAW woudn't exist, customer care, sage advice and other official sources wouldn't be so consistent with their responses. (and yeah, they ain't perfect neither. I know^^).

If RAW (or maybe better LAW in chase of laws) wouldn't exist, laws wouldn't sometimes produce unwanted outcomes due to bad law wording/editing or the procedure not being followed correctly (e.g. police did something wrong). If the baddy gets away because of things like this, it's because the court handles the laws as written (LAW/RAW).

The mechanics behind RAW exist, even in the real world. And this is imho the reason why I think it's a good idea to be able to read things RAW. (not saying that you should play things RAW! don't get me wrong here^^).

[GoodbyeSoberDay]

Is there rules text which implies that, for any given hole in the rules (in this case, the massive hole which is order of operations), the player gets to dictate what happens mechanically?

[Elves]

Metamagic effects aren't added in an order if they're all applied at once. I guess there's incantatrix metamagic spell effect but at that point you've already cast the spell.

[Malphegor]

Honestly if someone pulled this in a game out of nowhere I ran I’d probably go ‘honestly that’s funny, you get to do this on one character, your character is special like that and I want to see how broken this will get, but all future characters work in a more reasonable way’

[Troacctid]

Is there rules text which implies that, for any given hole in the rules (in this case, the massive hole which is order of operations), the player gets to dictate what happens mechanically?
DMG p6 says outright that the DM dictates what happens in this scenario, not the player.

[loky1109]

Sorry but your assumption ain't fully true. If you have code from a real tiny program, your assumption that it wouldn't work in 99% of the chases with a bug is true.

I even used too few nines. It should looks like 99,9999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999% . And I still think I used too few nines. Bugs in a big code exists because it is BIG code.


Further anything what you said about program languages also apply to rule- and law-language.
Totally no. Program code is formal language, and all bugs have root not in vagueness interpretation, but in wrong instruction that accidentally does something not totally wrong. Issues in rules and laws have root in natural vagueness of natural languages.


The mechanics behind RAW exist, even in the real world.
It's funny. I try to told you that in real world doesn't exists mechanics. And laws. And you told me exact opposite as an argument. )))
All rules and laws are unreal, they exists only in collective fiction, suggestion - culture. Not in real world.
Rules that exists in real world nobody can broke. Nobody can broke gravitation. But game rules or crime laws another matter, they are broking thousands time every second.


If RAW wouldn't exist...
Because we have suggestion. And give some people power and confidence to take decisions and interpretations.
But some rule's systems are so complicated that can't always work good and right. They are vulnerable to abuse, lack of information, incompetence, and more other things. Can you imagine gravity that is vulnerable to abuse, lack of information, or incompetence?

There are no RAW*. Only two RAI: Rules As Intended and Rules As Interpreted.

Of course literally RAW exists: it is ink on the paper. No more.

[Gruftzwerg]

DMG p6 says outright that the DM dictates what happens in this scenario, not the player.
The 3.5 main FAQ (https://www.d20pfsrd.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/12/2017/01/Main35FAQv06302008.pdf) uses the term "most beneficial to X" 4 times to explain what happens. Another argument to be made here is that the order is set by the nature of language when I declare the action. Nothing in the 3.5 rules redefines this aspect of language. Thus the user can declare the order.


I even used too few nines. It should looks like 99,9999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999% . And I still think I used too few nines. Bugs in a big code exists because it is BIG code.
And what do you think what a d&d rule book or the entire 3.5 rules are? tiny code/rules? 3.5 is complex, I think we should be agreeing here.



Totally no. Program code is formal language, and all bugs have root not in vagueness interpretation, but in wrong instruction that accidentally does something not totally wrong. Issues in rules and laws have root in natural vagueness of natural languages.
Rules and laws also face the problem of "wrong instruction" when they are set up. This is why they sometimes get altered to produce more accurate results. It's still a question of how well it is "formulated" (formal language).


It's funny. I try to told you that in real world doesn't exists mechanics. And laws. And you told me exact opposite as an argument. )))
All rules and laws are unreal, they exists only in collective fiction, suggestion - culture. Not in real world.
Rules that exists in real world nobody can broke. Nobody can broke gravitation. But game rules or crime laws another matter, they are broking thousands time every second.
yeah Aristoteles I get it^^.
But that is not the way we resolve laws and rules. Philosophical debates only occur with laws due to ethics and not because laws require a PHD in philosophy to understand them. ;)
So lets try to avoid that and get back to our RAW discussion pls. Otherwise a nice philosophical point of view.



Because we have suggestion. And give some people power and confidence to take decisions and interpretations.
But some rule's systems are so complicated that can't always work good and right. They are vulnerable to abuse, lack of information, incompetence, and more other things. Can you imagine gravity that is vulnerable to abuse, lack of information, or incompetence?
IRL we have some jokes that are funny because we take the wording literary. The TO and RAW disciplines are based on the same urge. Just having a good laugh because you take the rules as written.

But on the other side you want a more practical and sane interpretation. And there it's best advised to first look if you can find indicators or responses about the intention of the designers. For this the RAI discipline is required.

This is the reason why the collective mind of the 3.5 nerds had the desire to create such theoretical constructs like RAW and RAI to differentiate between to different kind of views on the same thing.