Eidetic Spellcaster is a horrid ACF...

[Troacctid]

One of the effects of spell level is qualifying extra slots.

But since you're not casting it in your sanctum (or at all), the spell would count as a level lower instead.

Yeesh, I hadn't appreciated this. I'm gonna go with "No" again here just because CoI breaks the game to much. I'm not sure what other resolutions there are. Are you aware of any other items which grant the ability to cast spells? (Not spell completion or spell trigger.)

Sure. Strand of prayer beads is another example. The candle was just the only one I could think of that casts a 9th-level spell.

[Darg]

Is there a difference between effective spell level and spell level?

One of the effects of spell level is qualifying extra slots.

Spell level doesn't have an effect. It's just a constant the rules use to base calculations off of and categorize a selection of spells.

As is described in heighten spell, effective spell level is the modified constant used in calculating the effects of a spell already in effect (i.e. post casting). The effect, not the spell. As an example, almost no one would agree that heighten spell brings into existence a 9th level magic missile that wizards can copy into their spell books. Most everyone would agree that copying a heightened to 9th magic missile scroll would give you only access to the 1st level spell. Heighten Spell is not increasing the level of the spell, but rather its effect. The heightened magic missile is still a first level spell even though its effect is equivalent to a 9th.

[Scots Dragon]

The text limiting it is in RC's rules for magical writings.

No it isn't, I checked. The section I quoted above is from the section of the Rules Compendium you mentioned and has no such limitation for copied spells, only spells gained from levelling.

You can't really use the too-high-level spells copied into your book. But you can copy them into your spellbook in advance of being high level enough to cast them.

[Crake]

The text limiting it is in RC's rules for magical writings.

Having just gone and read the rules compendium section on spellbooks... no, its not. The only added specification was that the spells copied need to be on the caster's spell list, which, considering the chameleon's spell list is "any arcane spell list", isn't much of an issue for them. Under copying a spell, rules compendium does not add the requirement that the spell must be of a level you can cast.

Of course, under the section for level up spells, it still has the requirement that it must be of a level you can cast, but that's only for levelup spells.

Yeesh, I hadn't appreciated this. I'm gonna go with "No" again here just because CoI breaks the game to much. I'm not sure what other resolutions there are. Are you aware of any other items which grant the ability to cast spells? (Not spell completion or spell trigger.)

It would be kind of funny though if you carried around a CoI, dropped it one day, and then were suddenly lobotomized as a character.

Yeah, but also there's a reason people don't base builds around items you can't create yourself in some reliable manner. The DM is under no obligation to allow you to find or purchase an item. Even if we did grant that CoI allowed you to pick up extra slot (8).

Personally though, I would simply rule that the item granting you the ability to cast a spell is not the same as you having the ability to cast the spell yourself. Whether that's raw or a houserule, I don't know, but as a DM, it's the call I would make regardless of the rules.

But since you're not casting it in your sanctum (or at all), the spell would count as a level lower instead.

That's largely irrelevant. You can cast in your sanctum, and are capable of generating said effect, even if under most circumstances, you are not able to. Personally though, I just use snowcasting, it's more consistent, and it fit more with the winter fey theme that the character who used this build had.

Also, it doesn't have the prerequisite of needing another metamagic feat, so you can replace more of your other feats with extra slots. Personally, I get at least 1 extra slot of 7, 8 and 9, just to get more value out of having a high ability score bonus.

On a side note, the writers could have solved this problem by instead wording extra slot as "you gain a spell slot up to 1 level lower than the highest spell slot you have available", rather than referring to spell level you can cast.

[Anthrowhale]

But since you're not casting it in your sanctum (or at all), the spell would count as a level lower instead.

It's the capability, not the action, which matters for qualification.

Sure. Strand of prayer beads is another example. The candle was just the only one I could think of that casts a 9th-level spell.

Looking at wealth by level, the Candle of invocation provides access to the ability to cast a 9th level spell 10 levels earlier than normal. None of the others seem to provide advanced access, although they could be used in delayed access situations. Anyways, I'd say 'no' here in practice.

Spell level doesn't have an effect. It's just a constant the rules use to base calculations off of and categorize a selection of spells.

The second sentence contradicts the first. Restated, qualification for a prestige class (for example) is an effect of the ability to cast a spell level in the normal and natural usage of the word 'effect'.

As is described in heighten spell, effective spell level is the modified constant used in calculating the effects of a spell already in effect (i.e. post casting).

The description in Heighten spell says 'All effects dependent on spell level are calculated according to the heightened level.' One of these effects is qualification for certain things.

It's really much easier to just read things in the straightforward way. Then, you don't have to explain how "all" doesn't mean actually mean all, how constants don't effect calculations, or how "has a higher spell level than normal" doesn't imply the spell has a higher level than normal.

[Darg]

The second sentence contradicts the first. Restated, qualification for a prestige class (for example) is an effect of the ability to cast a spell level in the normal and natural usage of the word 'effect'.

Spell level can "affect," not make an "effect." It's used as an adjective, not a noun, when referred by rules. The ability to cast spells of a certain level is a feature of class levels

In addition to having a high ability score, a spellcaster must be of high enough class level to be able to cast spells of a given spell level.

The description in Heighten spell says 'All effects dependent on spell level are calculated according to the heightened level.' One of these effects is qualification for certain things.

It's really much easier to just read things in the straightforward way. Then, you don't have to explain how "all" doesn't mean actually mean all, how constants don't effect calculations, or how "has a higher spell level than normal" doesn't imply the spell has a higher level than normal.

If you want it straight forward, just read the plain text. It tells you exactly how the feat works:

You can cast a spell as if it were a higher-level spell than it actually is.

It blatantly tells you that the spell you cast stays the original level. It's extremely simple and easy to understand. It's only the effect of the spell modified by the feat. You don't have to worry about all the butterfly effect ramifications causing complications, confusion, and beggaring belief.

I have to ask what you think the effects of a spell are? Because I can tell you right now that your ability to cast a spell is not an effect of the spell.

[Morphic tide]

Spell level can "affect," not make an "effect." It's used as an adjective, not a noun, when referred by rules.

By that bizarre reading, Heighten Spell does literally nothing, because it solely refers to "effects dependent on spell level", specifically referring to a spell that blocks 3rd-level and lower spells with no phrasing to separate this. Why does a spell Heightened to 4th level pierce a Lesser Globe of Invulnerability as explicitly stated in Heighten Spell, something that "excludes all spell effects of 3rd-level or lower", yet not let you take Extra Slot for a 3rd-level spell slot? Qualify for Dimensional Jaunt or Holy Warrior?

The ability to cast spells of a certain level is a feature of class levels

In addition to having a high ability score, a spellcaster must be of high enough class level to be able to cast spells of a given spell level.

This here is a solid note of support, as it means the "spell effect level=cast level" would break Snowcasting and Earth Spell used as intended, but the fact that it took several pages to get around to this point and the definition of "high enough level" is left solely to the spell slot table rather than having an explicit definition like non-Ardent psionic manifesters goes to show the morass that is D&D RAW debate and the poor wording of 3.5 driving it.

It blatantly tells you that the spell you cast stays the original level. It's extremely simple and easy to understand. It's only the effect of the spell modified by the feat.

Heighten does not render Fireball a 4th-level spell, but what makes you so certain that you have not "cast a 4th-level spell"? Fireball doesn't have DC 14+casting ability modifier, either, but Heighten has given it by making it function as if it were a 4th-level spell, so the effect that was cast is 4th level irrespective of the base spell.

You don't have to worry about all the butterfly effect ramifications causing complications, confusion, and beggaring belief.

Most TTRPGs are designed to use the DM as a garbage collector to deal with nonsense like this regardless of how well the text supports it. That's why it's called Theoretical Optimization, because it runs on smashing every ambiguity with a sledgehammer of intentionally-bizarre interpretation to see how far things could be stretched.

As I put over in the concurrent Ardent debate, my position is simply that it can be read this way due to the ambiguities of the wording, whereas yours (and Troacctid's) is that it positively cannot by insisting on specific inferences and presumptions that do not actually appear in the rules for several posts before trawling rules for something different. The underlying point of contention is that the line between "spell known", "spell cast", and "spell effect" is almost entirely undefined, and thus there is a lot of weirdness that can be conjectured for TO shenanigans which any sane DM would deny by using a different resolution to the ambiguity of the text.

[Darg]

By that bizarre reading, Heighten Spell does literally nothing, because it solely refers to "effects dependent on spell level", specifically referring to a spell that blocks 3rd-level and lower spells with no phrasing to separate this. Why does a spell Heightened to 4th level pierce a Lesser Globe of Invulnerability as explicitly stated in Heighten Spell, something that "excludes all spell effects of 3rd-level or lower", yet not let you take Extra Slot for a 3rd-level spell slot? Qualify for Dimensional Jaunt or Holy Warrior?

I did state that it modifies the level of the effect which would in fact allow it to pierce the globe. The effect is a spell after all. If a summoned creature is roaming in front of you, you'd say the "spell" is still active. Or would you only refer to it as the "effect" instead of "spell effect?"

This here is a solid note of support, as it means the "spell effect level=cast level" would break Snowcasting and Earth Spell used as intended, but the fact that it took several pages to get around to this point and the definition of "high enough level" is left solely to the spell slot table rather than having an explicit definition like non-Ardent psionic manifesters goes to show the morass that is D&D RAW debate and the poor wording of 3.5 driving it.

It's on page 7 of the PHB. It's one of the earliest rules a player should have learned if they've read the PHB. If not, it's under the basic rules in the SRD which is still very close to the front.

Heighten does not render Fireball a 4th-level spell, but what makes you so certain that you have not "cast a 4th-level spell"? Fireball doesn't have DC 14+casting ability modifier, either, but Heighten has given it by making it function as if it were a 4th-level spell, so the effect that was cast is 4th level irrespective of the base spell.

The key word here in your statement is the past tense of you having cast the fireball. The fireball is not a 4th level spell before it takes effect, but when it takes effect.

As metamagic modifies the effect of a spell when cast, the present tense of the first line of heighten makes sense in the chronological state of when it takes effect. Just to reiterate what I have said before, regardless of the metamagic used, all metamagic increase the level of the spell for the purpose of preparation and casting. So if "ability to cast" is so open that anytime a spell is treated as a higher level spell than it actually is that it qualifies as casting a higher level spell, any metamagic fits the bill from the very start in the metamagic rules before you even look at the individual feats.

Most TTRPGs are designed to use the DM as a garbage collector to deal with nonsense like this regardless of how well the text supports it. That's why it's called Theoretical Optimization, because it runs on smashing every ambiguity with a sledgehammer of intentionally-bizarre interpretation to see how far things could be stretched.

As I put over in the concurrent Ardent debate, my position is simply that it can be read this way due to the ambiguities of the wording, whereas yours (and Troacctid's) is that it positively cannot by insisting on specific inferences and presumptions that do not actually appear in the rules for several posts before trawling rules for something different. The underlying point of contention is that the line between "spell known", "spell cast", and "spell effect" is almost entirely undefined, and thus there is a lot of weirdness that can be conjectured for TO shenanigans which any sane DM would deny by using a different resolution to the ambiguity of the text.

You can read anything as anything, that doesn't make it true. There is structure to the rules; so within that structure the way things can be read must be limited in scope to fit within the structure. I agree that RAW can get out of hand. But much of the "RAW" conjecture is easily thrown out the window by simply putting it in the context of the rules environment it should exist in. It's only when it can't be thrown out that it is actually RAW.

[Crake]

Spell level can "affect," not make an "effect." It's used as an adjective, not a noun, when referred by rules. The ability to cast spells of a certain level is a feature of class levels

In addition to having a high ability score, a spellcaster must be of high enough class level to be able to cast spells of a given spell level.

To me this has always read as being high enough level to have a spell slot. Theres no actual text in any of the classes specifying which level enables which level of spells, so the only determining factor left is spell slots, and other external capabilities.

If, on the other hand, classes had specified maximum spell levels by class level, the same way that psion does, this would be less of an issue. Unfortunately, they do not, and without any actual supporting text in the class descriptions, I cant reasonably give this rule precedence over more specific rules in feat descriptions.

[Darg]

To me this has always read as being high enough level to have a spell slot. Theres no actual text in any of the classes specifying which level enables which level of spells, so the only determining factor left is spell slots, and other external capabilities.

If, on the other hand, classes had specified maximum spell levels by class level, the same way that psion does, this would be less of an issue. Unfortunately, they do not, and without any actual supporting text in the class descriptions, I cant reasonably give this rule precedence over more specific rules in feat descriptions.

At each new wizard level, she gains two new spells of any spell level or levels that she can cast (based on her new wizard level) for her spellbook. For example, when a wizard attains 5th level, she can cast 3rd-level spells.

For instance, upon reaching 4th-level, a sorcerer could trade in a single 0-level spell (two spell levels below the highest-level sorcerer spell he can cast, which is 2nd) for a different 0-level spell. At 6th level, he could trade in a single 0-level or 1st-level spell (since he now can cast 3rd-level sorcerer spells) for a different spell of the same level.

she can’t cast fireball with a caster level lower than 5th (the minimum level required for a wizard to cast fireball).

The minimum level to cast fireball is 5th, therefore you can't reduce the caster level below 5th. There's all this evidence for it even if it doesn't come out and say it directly in the class descriptions. Who knows, it could be based on spell slots. The problem is that there isn't any evidence for that. It's quite obvious that the game was never designed to give you spell slots above your maximum (ability scores not adding them is a big sign). And the only way to get new spell slots above your maximum is to cheese it. So there isn't precedence for casting spells above your level except for epic levels.

[Morphic tide]

I did state that it modifies the level of the effect which would in fact allow it to pierce the globe. The effect is a spell after all. If a summoned creature is roaming in front of you, you'd say the "spell" is still active. Or would you only refer to it as the "effect" instead of "spell effect?"

You drew a very specific line stating that a spell's level does not have any "effect", but instead "affects" things... A term that means "to have an effect", making this a bizarrely specific terminology complaint that seems to come from obsessively over-extending this line in "Spell Description":

A spell’s level affects the DC for any save allowed against the effect.

Unless you can find something declaring an ontological separation between Heighten Spell's text and feat constraints like Extra Spell's Benefit, this is "you have good grounds to ban it as a DM", not "solid TO counterargument". TO counterarguments need to demonstrate active logical contradiction, showing that it truly cannot be the case without changing the words that were written or needing mutually-exclusive interpretations of a single line.

It's on page 7 of the PHB. It's one of the earliest rules a player should have learned if they've read the PHB. If not, it's under the basic rules in the SRD which is still very close to the front.

There are piles and piles of mechanical minutia that exist in single sentances inside stretches of a dozen paragraphs which matter for a very scarce few interactions. Expecting people to memorize the exact phrasing of every line and immediately refer to it, especially when you take multiple posts to refer to any such thing yourself, is rather unreasonable. This is doubly strange given your responses on the Ardent matter, where you seem to completely miss that there's a "Maximum Power Level known" column and it has its own heading on every other Psionic class, considering you think that "Maximum Power Level known" is poorly defined yet this limit on maximum spell level is somehow clear.

The key word here in your statement is the past tense of you having cast the fireball. The fireball is not a 4th level spell before it takes effect, but when it takes effect.

What makes you so certain about the tenses involved? How is this separate from the constraint on the Benefit of Extra Slot, which is an effect of the feat just like Lesser Globe of Invulnerability's Spell Level check? Malicious interpretation of tenses is rather low on the list of defilement of designer intent.

So if "ability to cast" is so open that anytime a spell is treated as a higher level spell than it actually is that it qualifies as casting a higher level spell, any metamagic fits the bill from the very start in the metamagic rules before you even look at the individual feats.

The metamagic rules specifically note that "This does not change the level of the spell", it's just harder to cast. Then Heighten Spell makes specific note that it does so anyways, an example of the rather vital "Specific Trumps General" interpretation responsible for how enormous swaths of the game mechanics are worded, including feats often having Normal sections to remind people what the feat is overruling.

You can read anything as anything, that doesn't make it true. There is structure to the rules; so within that structure the way things can be read must be limited in scope to fit within the structure. I agree that RAW can get out of hand. But much of the "RAW" conjecture is easily thrown out the window by simply putting it in the context of the rules environment it should exist in. It's only when it can't be thrown out that it is actually RAW.

What you're missing is that the "structure" only holds for the tautological cases due to the system's reliance on very small parts overriding the baseline. Filling in the definitions for maximum available spell level through the class's highest-level slot is at least close, but because the game relies on exceptions it only takes one thing that says you can do otherwise to horribly torture even the most obvious of conclusions, if only in that case.

[RandomPeasant]

The minimum level to cast fireball is 5th, therefore you can't reduce the caster level below 5th.

It says that's the minimum level to cast fireball. How do you know it's the minimum level to cast stinking cloud or major image or summon undead III?

So there isn't precedence for casting spells above your level except for epic levels.

Sure there is. Consider a Binder 5/Ur-Priest 3. Such a character has an Ur-Priest caster level of 3, and gets 3rd level spell slots. In the absence of an explicit rule that says they can't use them, I would say that an approach to understanding the rules that reads in such a restriction creates dysfunction, and is therefore less suitable than one which does not.

The rules don't work by implication. They work by text. If there is not text that explicitly says you must have a particular caster level to cast spells of a particular level, you do not need it.

[Troacctid]

It says that's the minimum level to cast fireball. How do you know it's the minimum level to cast stinking cloud or major image or summon undead III?

It says so in the class.

The notion that your minimum caster level for a spell restricts the heighten tricks you can get away with may be almost as controversial as the heighten tricks themselves, but that's not because the rules don't tell you how to calculate the minimum caster level. The text on it is actually refreshingly transparent in comparison to something like e.g. how the heck multiclass spellcasters work. The DMG lists minimum caster levels for every spell level for all of the core classes (in the chapter on magic items), and the PHB gives a general rule for how to determine what level is too low (in that bit where it tells you how to read the class tables), and then of course for more context, there are examples like the one that was just cited.

That part isn't really ambiguous. The interesting discussion comes when you ask to what extent minimum caster levels apply to effects that ought to allow you to cast above what you normally could. Does the heighten effect take precedence because it's more specific? Or does the general rule win out because it was never contradicted in the first place? And does the answer change depending on which interaction you're looking at? Those are the proper crunchy bits where the text is vague and open to interpretation. Yessirree, I bet you could have a pretty robust debate on that.

...But just to be clear, Eidetic Spellcaster is still a bad trade regardless of which side you land on.

[Anthrowhale]

Consider a Binder 5/Ur-Priest 3. Such a character has an Ur-Priest caster level of 3, and gets 3rd level spell slots.

My present understanding is that minimum caster levels is always a function of spell and a class, so for Ur-Priest a 3rd level spell would have a minimum caster level of 3. I don't know any rules which states a general minimum caster level independent of class.

[Darg]

You drew a very specific line stating that a spell's level does not have any "effect", but instead "affects" things... A term that means "to have an effect", making this a bizarrely specific terminology complaint that seems to come from obsessively over-extending this line in "Spell Description":



Unless you can find something declaring an ontological separation between Heighten Spell's text and feat constraints like Extra Spell's Benefit, this is "you have good grounds to ban it as a DM", not "solid TO counterargument". TO counterarguments need to demonstrate active logical contradiction, showing that it truly cannot be the case without changing the words that were written or needing mutually-exclusive interpretations of a single line.


There are piles and piles of mechanical minutia that exist in single sentances inside stretches of a dozen paragraphs which matter for a very scarce few interactions. Expecting people to memorize the exact phrasing of every line and immediately refer to it, especially when you take multiple posts to refer to any such thing yourself, is rather unreasonable. This is doubly strange given your responses on the Ardent matter, where you seem to completely miss that there's a "Maximum Power Level known" column and it has its own heading on every other Psionic class, considering you think that "Maximum Power Level known" is poorly defined yet this limit on maximum spell level is somehow clear.


What makes you so certain about the tenses involved? How is this separate from the constraint on the Benefit of Extra Slot, which is an effect of the feat just like Lesser Globe of Invulnerability's Spell Level check? Malicious interpretation of tenses is rather low on the list of defilement of designer intent.


The metamagic rules specifically note that "This does not change the level of the spell", it's just harder to cast. Then Heighten Spell makes specific note that it does so anyways, an example of the rather vital "Specific Trumps General" interpretation responsible for how enormous swaths of the game mechanics are worded, including feats often having Normal sections to remind people what the feat is overruling.


What you're missing is that the "structure" only holds for the tautological cases due to the system's reliance on very small parts overriding the baseline. Filling in the definitions for maximum available spell level through the class's highest-level slot is at least close, but because the game relies on exceptions it only takes one thing that says you can do otherwise to horribly torture even the most obvious of conclusions, if only in that case.

The fact that you're arguing that a feat has benefit before it's actual use is the most mind boggling part here. I have to explain these things as they come up because they apparently aren't something people take into consideration that I automatically do. I don't know what you don't know until it becomes clear. I've also quoted page 7 another time in this thread before the quote you quoted. So it's not like I'm bringing it up out of no where.

I have to ask, where does it say in the rules that a feat has an effect prior to its use? Where does it say that metamagic modifies the source of the spell at all? The PHB states twice that heighten does not actually modify the level of the spell regardless of how it is cast. The first is in the metamagic feat rules and the second is in the plain text of the feat itself. You have nothing to support you except for the benefit text in the feat which has explanatory text afterward stating exactly how it works on the effect itself.

Again, heighten specifically increases the level of the spell WHEN it comes into effect, not in the spell list. There is no conflict with the general rules at all except when the spell's effect is manifest. It's illogical (tortured) extrapolation to say that a heightened spell is a higher level spell in all ways spell levels matter mechanically.

[Anthrowhale]

...You have nothing to support you except for the benefit text in the feat ...

Agreed here at least :-) Traditionally, that's what you use when interpreting the rules.

Again, heighten specifically increases the level of the spell WHEN it comes into effect...

And here we disagree.

The text of heighten is quite short. The first sentence contradicts the scope limitation of "when it comes into effect". The second sentence makes it explicit that Heighten spell violates the normal rules for metamagic. The third sentence reiterates the first and again contradicts the limited scoping. The fourth sentence is immaterial to the claim.

[Darg]

Agreed here at least :-) Traditionally, that's what you use when interpreting the rules.


And here we disagree.

The text of heighten is quite short. The first sentence contradicts the scope limitation of "when it comes into effect". The second sentence makes it explicit that Heighten spell violates the normal rules for metamagic. The third sentence reiterates the first and again contradicts the limited scoping. The fourth sentence is immaterial to the claim.

The SRD has text missing. It shouldn't be used as an authoritative source.

You can cast a spell as if it were a higher-level spell than it actually is.

It's clearly stating that it isn't actually increasing the level of the spell, just like how the rules for metamagic state they aren't actually increasing the level of the spell either and yet still several times mention increasing the level of the spell. As if it were, but actually isn't.

The feat itself uses the word "heightened," or the past tense of the word heighten. Metamagic as a baseline treats spells as a higher level for the purpose of preparation and casting. The first sentence of the benefit is making a declaration of what happens when applying the feat to a spell. The second sentence is telling you what makes it different because all metamagic feats do the same thing to a degree already. The third sentence explains it in a mechanically relevant way. No where does it allow you to actually increase the level of the spell, just the spell effect. The statement "heightened magic missile cast from a 3rd level slot is a 1st level spell with a 3rd level effect" is a true statement.

Metamagic cannot apply to a spell before the preparation/casting phase. All metamagic modify the level of the spell for the purpose of preparation and casting. What's left for heighten to do? Declare which slot it takes up (first sentence) and modify the effect of the spell. Other than those two things there is nothing left for the feat to influence. There is a reason "effective level" is used instead of just "level." It doesn't actually increase the level of the spell, but it's "effectively" a higher level spell when cast because it ticks all the boxes of what a higher level spell would.

[Crake]

Do you believe a fireball spell prepared as a heightened 5th level spell would make the fiery burst feat do 3d6 or 5d6 damage?

For reference, the FAQ says it would do 5d6 damage. For me, that's evidence enough that a heightened spell is simply considered a spell of it's heightened level, and not some weird hybrid schrodinger's state of "not a spell of that level, but an effect of that level, but not actually, but actually".

Alternatively: would said prepared fireball be able to be converted into a scrying spell (4th level spell) via spontaneous divination?

[Zanos]

Yeah, I don't know how you can possibly read the benefit of heighten spell and come away with the conclusion that people saying a heighten spell is treated as a higher level is the "tortured" interpretation. The text says three times that spell is treated as the heightened level, and the last sentence is even that the spell is treated as the higher level in "all ways."

[Darg]

Do you believe a fireball spell prepared as a heightened 5th level spell would make the fiery burst feat do 3d6 or 5d6 damage?

For reference, the FAQ says it would do 5d6 damage. For me, that's evidence enough that a heightened spell is simply considered a spell of it's heightened level, and not some weird hybrid schrodinger's state of "not a spell of that level, but an effect of that level, but not actually, but actually".

Alternatively: would said prepared fireball be able to be converted into a scrying spell (4th level spell) via spontaneous divination?

The FAQ isn't conflicting with my interpretation. I guess if I boil it down, it just means that you can't use earth spell, sanctum spell, or snowcasting to say you have the ability to cast higher level spells than normal because the actual level of the spell hasn't gone up. According to the PHB any metamagic spell with an increase in slot level counts as a higher level spell for reserve feats because it is asking for spells you can cast not your ability to cast spells.

Yeah, I don't know how you can possibly read the benefit of heighten spell and come away with the conclusion that people saying a heighten spell is treated as a higher level is the "tortured" interpretation. The text says three times that spell is treated as the heightened level, and the last sentence is even that the spell is treated as the higher level in "all ways."

It's about context. It's metamagic so it must work in the context of the metamagic rules unless explicitly stated otherwise. You aren't going to say copying a heightened level 9th magic missile to your spell book is going to take up 9 pages and allow you to cast a 9th level magic missile without the heighten spell feat are you?

[Crake]

. According to the PHB any metamagic spell with an increase in slot level counts as a higher level spell for reserve feats because it is asking for spells you can cast not your ability to cast spells.

The FAQ says ONLY heighten works to increase the effect of reserve feats, because it actually increases the spell level of spells, wheras the other metamagic do not

[Darg]

The FAQ says ONLY heighten works to increase the effect of reserve feats, because it actually increases the spell level of spells, wheras the other metamagic do not

Sure, but that's the FAQ. It's not like it's the most reliable source of information either. Both the metamagic rules and the Heighten Spell feat say otherwise. The FAQ can be taken as RAI, but never as RAW. And when the rules and the feat itself says it isn't actually increasing the level of the spell, it's really hard to say the FAQ is following RAW.

[Crake]

Sure, but that's the FAQ. It's not like it's the most reliable source of information either. Both the metamagic rules and the Heighten Spell feat say otherwise. The FAQ can be taken as RAI, but never as RAW. And when the rules and the feat itself says it isn't actually increasing the level of the spell, it's really hard to say the FAQ is following RAW.

Explain to me how normal metamagic feats will affect a reserve feat, when they do not adjust a spell’s spell level? So far youve just made such a claim twice without backing it up

[bean illus]

... you aren't going to say copying a heightened level 9th magic missile to your spell book is going to take up 9 pages and allow you to cast a 9th level magic missile without the heighten spell feat are you?

I know this isn't what you asked, and has nothing to do with eidetic spellcaster, but what would be the worst thing that could happen?

[Morphic tide]

You aren't going to say copying a heightened level 9th magic missile to your spell book is going to take up 9 pages and allow you to cast a 9th level magic missile without the heighten spell feat are you?

The underlying interpretation is that "ability to cast an Nth level spell" occurs after Heighten Spell applies, because it's checking for "a spell that has been cast at 9th level", not "a spell that is 9th level". Essentially, a spell's level has three "stages" in the mechanics:

1. Spell level as known (affects ability to learn, "base" price for items)
2. Spell level as prepared (affects minimum slot level, benefits for expending containing it)
3. Spell level as effect produced (affects save DC and after-cast interactions)

Only "War Spells" from Dragon #309 and off-list access affect stage 1, to my recollection. All metamagic affects stage 2 partially, which we typically call "metamagic adjustment". Heighten Spell (especially with Earth Spell improvemnet) and Sanctum Spell are the two mainstays for changing stage 3, which is the stage that a spell that "has been" cast at. Heighten is also feature-complete for stage 2 to determine what level a spell "is" cast at, unlike other metamagic adjustment.

You seem to be insisting that Heighten Spell does not affect spell level for the benefit constraint of Extra Slot, despite official confirmation it does for Reserve feats' not meaningfully different rules text and a lot of consensus on all sorts of items and feats and features using the Heighten level.

[Troacctid]

The underlying interpretation is that "ability to cast an Nth level spell" occurs after Heighten Spell applies, because it's checking for "a spell that has been cast at 9th level", not "a spell that is 9th level".

No, it's checking for "the size and complexity of the spells that can be encompassed within a character's mind." Those are the exact words used by the book.

Beyond the limits of magical power, a spellcasting level requirement measures the size and complexity of the spells that can be encompassed within a character’s mind. As spells increase in level, they become exponentially more complicated, requiring a discipline of thought and an understanding of principles impossible for low-level characters to learn. Wizards master these advanced principles through careful study; sorcerers and other spontaneous arcane casters intuit what they need to know as their spellcasting experience grows.

Simply being able to produce a 5th-level spell effect is explicitly not sufficient to meet an "Able to cast 5th-level spells" requirement.

[Crake]

Simply being able to produce a 5th-level spell effect is explicitly not sufficient to meet an "Able to cast 5th-level spells" requirement.

Except that it does for reserve feats.

[Troacctid]

Except that it does for reserve feats.

Reserve feats have two separate requirements: able to cast (prerequisite for the feat), and available to cast (prerequisite for the reserve effect). A spell can fulfill one without fulfilling the other. The latter prerequisite is similar, but different, and is described in detail on page 37 of Complete Mage. If you are a prepared caster, only the spell as it exists in its prepared form is relevant to what its characteristics are for the purpose of a reserve effect. If you are a spontaneous caster, only the spell as it exists in its known form is relevant. So in fact, Heighten Spell does not, by RAW, allow a spontaneous caster to trivially power reserve feats at their highest level. And regardless of the type of caster you are, Snowcasting will never help you power a reserve effect.

[Crake]

Reserve feats have two separate requirements: able to cast (prerequisite for the feat), and available to cast (prerequisite for the reserve effect). A spell can fulfill one without fulfilling the other. The latter prerequisite is similar, but different, and is described in detail on page 37 of Complete Mage. If you are a prepared caster, only the spell as it exists in its prepared form is relevant to what its characteristics are for the purpose of a reserve effect. If you are a spontaneous caster, only the spell as it exists in its known form is relevant. So in fact, Heighten Spell does not, by RAW, allow a spontaneous caster to trivially power reserve feats at their highest level. And regardless of the type of caster you are, Snowcasting will never help you power a reserve effect.

Correct, so you agree then, heighten spell does in fact increase a spell’s given level and allow it to actually qualify as a spell of its boosted level rather than the lower level. Given that, it means that spell level boosters do actually count for meeting qualifications.

Reserve feats specifically look at prepared spells “loaded” and ready to cast, which is why, and we agree on this point, feats like snowcasting and sanctum spell do not count for reserve feats, however, when merely looking at what a caster is CAPABLE of casting, snowcasting and sanctum spell both would count. To disqualify them would be tantamount to saying “you dont meet the qualification because you’re out of spell slots for the day”

[Troacctid]

Correct, so you agree then, heighten spell does in fact increase a spell’s given level and allow it to actually qualify as a spell of its boosted level rather than the lower level.

Uh...well, for prepared casters, yes, for spontaneous casters, no. But Darg was the one you were replying to earlier about this, not me.

Given that, it means that spell level boosters do actually count for meeting qualifications.

No, this does not follow. Like I said, "able to cast" and "available to cast" are different requirements.

To disqualify them would be tantamount to saying “you dont meet the qualification because you’re out of spell slots for the day”

No it wouldn't, because, again, "able to cast" and "available to cast" are not the same thing. This goes back again to the passage I quoted earlier from CAr, as well as that passage from PHB p23 which I'm sure has probably been cited upthread at some point.