Cooperative Metamagic and Scrolls

[RNightstalker]

Can the Incantatrix apply metamagic to spells cast from scrolls, cast by another player or the same incantatrix?

[Feantar]

Using a scroll is basically like casting a spell. (https://www.d20srd.org/srd/magicItems/scrolls.htm#:~:text=Using%20a%20scroll%20is%20basi cally%20like%20casting%20a%20spell.)

So, yes. On their own casting, I don't know - doesn't cooperative metamagic take a standard action? So, I'm assuming you could do it if you either used celerity (to get 2 standard actions) or if the spell in the scroll required a swift action.

[Biggus]

Cooperative Metamagic specifies "a willing allied spellcaster" so I don't think they could use it on their own spells. But I don't see anything preventing them from using it on spells cast from scrolls by other casters. As it says on the page Feantar linked "a spell successfully activated from a scroll works exactly like a spell prepared and cast the normal way".

[Feantar]

Cooperative Metamagic specifies "a willing allied spellcaster" so I don't think they could use it on their own spells. But I don't see anything preventing them from using it on spells cast from scrolls by other casters. As it says on the page Feantar linked "a spell successfully activated from a scroll works exactly like a spell prepared and cast the normal way".

Well. You are willing, as you want the cooperative metamagic to work. You are aligned with yourself. And you are a spellcaster. Since it doesn't say another willing, allied spellcaster, they conceivably could. Still, it's a stretch.

[Jay R]

If you think the rules are ambiguous, then it calls for a DM judgment call.

I would allow modifying the scroll somebody else was reading. It would be straightforward to conduct the process as described while a scroll is being read.

But I would not allow the incantatrix to use that ability to modify a spell she's casting herself, whether through a scroll or through her own magic. It's not enough to have two standard actions in the same round; they have to be simultaneous. "The incantatrix must ready an action to use cooperative metamagic when her ally begins casting and must be adjacent to the caster." You can't use a different standard action while casting a spell or reading a scroll. Besides, she can't start casting a spell, while she's holding a readied action. [Also, she isn't adjacent to herself.]

But also it's not "cooperative", which is the point of the ability.

Having said that, it seems clear to me that whoever wrote the description of the Cooperative Metamagic ability did not consider the question at all, so it would neither surprise me nor bother me if a different DM made a different judgment call.

[sreservoir]

Honestly, if you can finagle the action economy to pull it off, using it with yourself probably isn't the main problem.

Whether you can use it with scrolls seems analogous to whether you can use abilities that key off casting with magic items in general, which as far as I'm aware is ambiguous and rarely-considered in general.

[Anthrowhale]

To ready an action for your own action you could use the spell Eyes of the Oracle (level 6) or Shapechange[Chronotyryn] (level 9).

[Rebel7284]

When you are casting a spell from a scroll, you are activating a magic item with its own caster level and pre-set components, etc. Admittedly, you are allowed to make some choices for it such as targeting, but otherwise, it's clear that scrolls is not the same as actually casting a spell and in my opinion should not interact at all with Cooperative Metamagic.

[Darg]

Well. You are willing, as you want the cooperative metamagic to work. You are aligned with yourself. And you are a spellcaster. Since it doesn't say another willing, allied spellcaster, they conceivably could. Still, it's a stretch.


ally: A creature friendly to you. In most cases, references to “allies” include yourself.

The rule only works when it says "allies." You only have to look at the bard to see context of how it works.

[Vaern]

The rule only works when it says "allies." You only have to look at the bard to see context of how it works.

Side note: Is a creature that is friendly towards you treated as an ally for the purpose of spells and abilities, even if you are hostile towards it?

[Darg]

Side note: Is a creature that is friendly towards you treated as an ally for the purpose of spells and abilities, even if you are hostile towards it?

It's not normal to be hostile to some one you don't think is your opponent. Of course, if we want to define things from the perspective of others instead of how the character itself sees it, then it's too bad that characters don't get to define who their enemies and opponents are themselves. Where, oh where, did all the opponents go?

[Vaern]

It's not normal to be hostile to some one you don't think is your opponent. Of course, if we want to define things from the perspective of others instead of how the character itself sees it, then it's too bad that characters don't get to define who their enemies and opponents are themselves. Where, oh where, did all the opponents go?

I mean, the bit you quoted says an ally is "a creature friendly to you," not "a creature you are friendly to" or "a creature you consider to be friendly." The wording seems to imply that it is the perspective of others that defines whether they are an ally, and doesn't necessarily require that both characters actually be allies to each other.

Let's look at a scenario where a former opponent is now trying to help the party to right past wrongs after a whole redemption arc scenario, but the party doesn't trust him at all.
In this example, Zuko in Avatar: The Last Airbender. Eventually he decides that he must help Aang defeat the Firelord, and from then on is friendly towards the party and actively trying to help them. But, they are very hostile towards him for all of the trouble he's caused up until then. Even after they ultimately agree to let him stay Katara threatens to revoke his breathing license if she thinks he's up to something. In this case, based on our definition of "ally," Zuko would be considered an ally to them due to his friendly disposition, but they are not necessarily an ally to him as they are unfriendly to him, right?

[Darg]

I mean, the bit you quoted says an ally is "a creature friendly to you," not "a creature you are friendly to" or "a creature you consider to be friendly." The wording seems to imply that it is the perspective of others that defines whether they are an ally, and doesn't necessarily require that both characters actually be allies to each other.

Let's look at a scenario where a former opponent is now trying to help the party to right past wrongs after a whole redemption arc scenario, but the party doesn't trust him at all.
In this example, Zuko in Avatar: The Last Airbender. Eventually he decides that he must help Aang defeat the Firelord, and from then on is friendly towards the party and actively trying to help them. But, they are very hostile towards him for all of the trouble he's caused up until then. Even after they ultimately agree to let him stay Katara threatens to revoke his breathing license if she thinks he's up to something. In this case, based on our definition of "ally," Zuko would be considered an ally to them due to his friendly disposition, but they are not necessarily an ally to him as they are unfriendly to him, right?

We can split hairs. There are multiple uses of the word "to." The way you are reading is using it in place of "toward" and the contextual usage is "for." One breaks common convention and the game falls into nice little pieces and the other fits quite nicely and doesn't break anything.

What's preventing any enemy from flipping at any moment based on whether or not they don't want to be harmed by the player? Player choice of who is an ally and who is an enemy. If not, what's the point of a bard that buffs everyone?