[3.5] Question about Arcane Thesis +Incantrix

[Thunder Hammer]

Hey Guys,

I believe I'm spelling Incantrix correct (Prestige class from Forgotten Realms).

Here's the combo:

Incantrix at level 10 gives cheaper metamagic (all metamagic has -1 cost.)

Arcane Thesis, lower all metamagic for one spell by 1.

So if we combine them, then, would RAW, the lvl 15 caster have -2 to all metamagic costs for their Arcane Thesis spells?

Is it just me, or is this obscene?

*Note: Lets avoid sillines of negative levels and assume metamagic costs can only be reduced to +0.

[Kelpstrand]

1) Incantatrix.

2) yes, -2. Can be driven further with Easy Metamagic.

3) The silliness of negative adjustments aren't that silly. If you are using Arcane Thesis and metamagic reducers, negative levels are both allowed and encouraged by the rules.

4) Is it unqualifiably broken? Yes.

[lsfreak]

Iirc, the Incantatrix ability can't reduce a metamagicked below 0. Arcane Thesis, however, can, so long as the final modified spell doesn't go below +0. So Empower costs +0 and Energy Substitution costs -1.

Throw in Easy Metamagic or Metamagic School Focus for extra fun.

This is basically be basis of the Cindy/Mailman build, which uses metamagic reducers to turn the Orb spells into monsters (i.e. an Empowered Enervating Maximized Twinned Energy Subbed Energy Admixtured Orb does an average of 700 damage, no save, for a 7th level slot, if I did that right). Enervation is a favorite as well, more powerful earlier but negated by quite a bit at high levels.

[jiriku]

Yeah.

But from a practical, DM-won't-throw-things-at-you -if-you-try-to-use-it-in-a-real-game perspective, it's best to interpret the combo as reducing any metamagic feat by -2, to a minimum of +0, avoiding the illogical situation where spells get easier to cast the more powerful they become.

If your DM is highly conservative and strongly discourages munchkinry, you could even adopt a VERY conservative interpretation and rule that since Incantatrix can't reduce modifiers below +1, you'll still need to respect the +1 limit even in conjunction with arcane thesis. This still allows you to get full bang for your buck with powerful metamagics like persist, chain, energy admixture, maximize, quicken, repeat, and twin, but avoids the "free lunch" that some DMs might object to.

[Soras Teva Gee]

Best way to interpret this is -2 to down to +0. Because otherwise you have the D&D equivalent of dividing by zero. What with the immense cheese potential with things like free Quicken due to +0 metamagic feats being applied. Its the stinkiest brand of cheese that a DM should stomp on.

That said without that sort of cheese then Incantrix + Arcane Thesis isn't the worst. You can only use it on one spell per feat, and every feat is one less you have to spend on more metamagic, plus the combo only blossoms at lvl 15 thus medium level games need not apply.

Great way to build a blaster though. Scorching Ray+Split Ray+Twin Spell+Energy Admixture+Empower+Maximize does some obscene damage. While Orb of X series can't use Split Ray so ends up doing less but ignores SR. We're talking 1-2 hits to kill a dragon potential.

[Kelpstrand]

Great way to build a blaster though. Scorching Ray+Split Ray+Twin Spell+Energy Admixture+Empower+Maximize does some obscene damage. While Orb of X series can't use Split Ray so ends up doing less but ignores SR. We're talking 1-2 hits to kill a dragon potential.

Actually, Split Ray is mostly useless on Scorching Ray. A Twinned Energy Admixtured Orb does 60d6 damage. While a Twinned Split Rayed Admixtured Scorching Ray does 64d6 damage. Not exactly a huge change. And at the cost of a feat that could be spent on Easy Metamagic.

[Tyndmyr]

Incantrix, at least the newer version, can't go negative. It's got an explicit limit in the rules on how much it can be reduced. IIRC, there is a +1 minimum. It might be +0, but either way, the incantatrix ability will not contribute to negative modfiers on any metamagic.

Arcane Thesis explicitly says that applying a metamagic to a spell makes it take up a slot one lower than it otherwise would. That definitely allows for a negative cost. This is only really abusable with +0 metamagics, though. Keep in mind that it only works on a single spell.

Metamagic School Focus is definitively better than arcane thesis. It basically does the same thing, to an entire school. However, I need to check the precise wording, as the summary implies that the reduction only applies to the metamagic cost itself, not the entire spell. Of course, it's the feat description itself that matters, not the summary, so this one is probably arguable, I'd need to look it over carefully to be sure.

Easy Metamagic applies only to one metamagic, if Im not mistaken. Useful, and not school restricted, but only really good if you're only using one expensive metamagic.

The way in which Arcane thesis is written makes me think it stacks with absolutely everything, since it changes the spell cost as a whole, not just the metamagic modifier. However, I believe most metamagic reducers do not allow going negative. Still powerful, sure, but not so broken.

[Thunder Hammer]

Incantrix, at least the newer version, can't go negative. It's got an explicit limit in the rules on how much it can be reduced. IIRC, there is a +1 minimum. It might be +0, but either way, the incantatrix ability will not contribute to negative modfiers on any metamagic.

Arcane Thesis explicitly says that applying a metamagic to a spell makes it take up a slot one lower than it otherwise would. That definitely allows for a negative cost. This is only really abusable with +0 metamagics, though. Keep in mind that it only works on a single spell.

Metamagic School Focus is definitively better than arcane thesis. It basically does the same thing, to an entire school. However, I need to check the precise wording, as the summary implies that the reduction only applies to the metamagic cost itself, not the entire spell. Of course, it's the feat description itself that matters, not the summary, so this one is probably arguable, I'd need to look it over carefully to be sure.

Easy Metamagic applies only to one metamagic, if Im not mistaken. Useful, and not school restricted, but only really good if you're only using one expensive metamagic.

The way in which Arcane thesis is written makes me think it stacks with absolutely everything, since it changes the spell cost as a whole, not just the metamagic modifier. However, I believe most metamagic reducers do not allow going negative. Still powerful, sure, but not so broken.

Thanks for the reminders about Easy MetaMagic. The issue with Metamagic School focus is that it applies a -1 modifer 3 times a day only.

But from a practical, DM-won't-throw-things-at-you -if-you-try-to-use-it-in-a-real-game perspective, it's best to interpret the combo as reducing any metamagic feat by -2, to a minimum of +0, avoiding the illogical situation where spells get easier to cast the more powerful they become.

This is what I meant in my first post. I have to agree, esp the bold part.

[Tyndmyr]

Good point on the limit. I should note that all the sudden metamagics have a +0 level cost, but are limited to 1x a day as well.

So yes, you can design an uber-damage spell, but if you do, it does suffer certain limitations, and such a build does eat feats like candy.

[FMArthur]

Taking the Spontaneous Divination ACF from CC lets a dragonblooded wizard qualify for Practical Metamagic as well, for another -1 to one particular metamagic feat. Arcane Thesis, Metamagic School Focus, Practical Metamagic, and Incantrix adds up to quite a lot. If you're allowing Dragon Magazine material you can get Easy Metamagic, too.

[Thunder Hammer]

What book is Practical Metamagic in?

[Tyndmyr]

So, how does Practical Metamagic(which Im not familiar with) differ from Easy Metamagic?

[Thunder Hammer]

So, how does Practical Metamagic(which Im not familiar with) differ from Easy Metamagic?

I have a feeling they are the same feat.

http://crystalkeep.com/d20/

You can find the feat Easy Metamagic in the above links.

anyhow, I really can see how once you factor in all of these meta-magic bits how wizards/casters in general become disgustingly OP compared to standard melee classes.

[Jalor]

So, how does Practical Metamagic(which Im not familiar with) differ from Easy Metamagic?

It requires ranks in Spellcraft, spontaneous casting, and dragonblood subtype. However, you can stick it on the same spell you got Easy Metamagic for. Toss it and Easy on Twin Spell, be an Incantatrix, and take Arcane Thesis (Enervation) for Empowered Twinned Enervation as a 4th level spell. The average roll on a d4 is 2.50, and 50% of that is 1.25. 3.75 x 2.00 = 7.50 negative levels. You can cast it out of Arcane Fusion, too.

[Soras Teva Gee]

Actually, Split Ray is mostly useless on Scorching Ray. A Twinned Energy Admixtured Orb does 60d6 damage. While a Twinned Split Rayed Admixtured Scorching Ray does 64d6 damage. Not exactly a huge change. And at the cost of a feat that could be spent on Easy Metamagic.

Scorching Ray has the quasi-advantage of being a core and not dubiously ignoring SR spell, thus is less likely to get the DM up in arms. Plus it is two levels lower for the similar damage, though that's a give and take all around. I'd say that if you for example, don't have Incantrix available..

Though I'll give you Split Ray isn't a beneficial here as it is with base single ray spells. I'd might sack Empower or Max before it though since those have core metamagic rods.

[Tyndmyr]

It requires ranks in Spellcraft, spontaneous casting, and dragonblood subtype. However, you can stick it on the same spell you got Easy Metamagic for. Toss it and Easy on Twin Spell, be an Incantatrix, and take Arcane Thesis (Enervation) for Empowered Twinned Enervation as a 4th level spell. The average roll on a d4 is 2.50, and 50% of that is 1.25. 3.75 x 2.00 = 7.50 negative levels. You can cast it out of Arcane Fusion, too.

As long as you're at it, maximize and fell drain it? You're going to be level 15 by the time you get the incanatrix capstone anyhow, and fell drain won't even add any levels to the spell at that point. Maximize is only +4, so that'd end up being what, +1 most likely?

I presume fell drain would work since it merely says damage, not a specific type of damage, and level drain would count as damage, no?

Im just curious as to how many negative levels you could deal in a single turn. Quickening one is probably more efficient, but hey...if you've got the feats to burn, it could be interesting.

[SurlySeraph]

3) The silliness of negative adjustments aren't that silly. If you are using Arcane Thesis and metamagic reducers, negative levels are both allowed and encouraged by the rules.

I believe the errata removed this.

[Kelpstrand]

I believe the errata removed this.

You are wrong.

It specifically did not touch negative adjustments, only insisted that the final spell level be equal or greater than the original spell level.

[Tyndmyr]

Which is a pretty reasonable solution, and avoids silliness like "How many level nine spells can we cast today?" becoming a very easy and entertaining game.

(Someone will undoubtedly point out other fun ways to play that game, but hey...I wont claim wizards fixes everything right...just this spot)

[Lamech]

It requires ranks in Spellcraft, spontaneous casting, and dragonblood subtype. However, you can stick it on the same spell you got Easy Metamagic for. Toss it and Easy on Twin Spell, be an Incantatrix, and take Arcane Thesis (Enervation) for Empowered Twinned Enervation as a 4th level spell. The average roll on a d4 is 2.50, and 50% of that is 1.25. 3.75 x 2.00 = 7.50 negative levels. You can cast it out of Arcane Fusion, too.

Your doing it wrong. Empower multiplies a spell by 1.5, but then halves are rounded off. That means you now have this for your results 1,3,4,6. That translates into 3.5 average per die or 7 total. NOT 3.75 per die for 7.5 total.

[SurlySeraph]

You are wrong.

It specifically did not touch negative adjustments, only insisted that the final spell level be equal or greater than the original spell level.

Ah, I thought reducing a spell below its original level was what you meant. I'm aware that you can still use it to make a +0 metamagic count as -1, silly as that is.