Arcane Thesis: one rules question and one optimization question

[Jay R]

I know that Arcane Thesis cannot use metamagic to make a spell lower level that it is originally, but can you use +0 metamagic feats to reduce it back to the original spell level.

For instance, suppose you had Arcane Thesis (fireball). You want to cast a Fireball with Maximize Spell (+3 spell levels), Energy Substitution (+0), and Invisible Spell (+0). Normally, that would be a 6th level spell (3+3+0+0). With Arcane Thesis, do the three metamagic effects take it back down to 3rd level? This would give great value to +0 metamagic feats totally apart from their own effect.

----

Also, what spells do you recommend for Arcane Thesis?

[RNightstalker]

You can't have negative metamagic modifiers. I had one player do his arcane thesis on enervation...that combined with being an incantatrix became a huge pain in my ass.

[JNAProductions]

You can't have negative metamagic modifiers. I had one player do his arcane thesis on enervation...that combined with being an incantatrix became a huge pain in my ass.

That's a perfectly valid ruling, but is it the actual rules?
Nothing I see in Arcane Thesis states that it wouldn't work-you can't cast a second level Fireball, but unless I'm missing something, you CAN do what the OP suggested.

That being said-check with your DM and see if it fits the table before you get married to a concept using it, no matter how rules-legal it is!

[Anthrowhale]

Arcane Fusion is typically a solid choice for Arcane Thesis. That allows you to cast Twin Arcane Fusion[any L4-, any L1-] providing 4 spells out of a single action.

[AvatarVecna]

I know that Arcane Thesis cannot use metamagic to make a spell lower level that it is originally, but can you use +0 metamagic feats to reduce it back to the original spell level.

This is a common point of contention.

RAW answer: the only limitation is "a spell cannot be reduced to below its original level with the use of this feat". If you apply three +0s and three +2s to a given spell, it would cast at the same level as the unmodified spell.

RAI answer: Come on. That's silly. If you applied any of those +0s to the spell on their own, they wouldn't reduce the level below normal, but if you pair it with a single +2, suddenly it's cheaper than free? A +0 on its own doesn't get any cheaper with Arcane Thesis, only if it's paired with something with at least a +2 metamagic increase? What, is it like tetris where there's no room for a square block, but if you drop in a line piece you'll make enough room for a whole bunch of squares? That's silly, and you know it.

But then, most of the game is very silly if you think about it too much. "Being silly" isn't necessarily a flaw, it's just a matter of what's fitting for your game.

[Rebel7284]

This is a common point of contention.

RAW answer: the only limitation is "a spell cannot be reduced to below its original level with the use of this feat". If you apply three +0s and three +2s to a given spell, it would cast at the same level as the unmodified spell.

RAI answer: Come on. That's silly. If you applied any of those +0s to the spell on their own, they wouldn't reduce the level below normal, but if you pair it with a single +2, suddenly it's cheaper than free? A +0 on its own doesn't get any cheaper with Arcane Thesis, only if it's paired with something with at least a +2 metamagic increase? What, is it like tetris where there's no room for a square block, but if you drop in a line piece you'll make enough room for a whole bunch of squares? That's silly, and you know it.

But then, most of the game is very silly if you think about it too much. "Being silly" isn't necessarily a flaw, it's just a matter of what's fitting for your game.

This answer covers everything I wanted to say, so I will just +1/upvote/thumbs up it.

[Gruftzwerg]

Arcane Fusion is typically a solid choice for Arcane Thesis. That allows you to cast Twin Arcane Fusion[any L4-, any L1-] providing 4 spells out of a single action.

I agree, as long as you are playing a sorcerer, Arcane Fusion is your best bet.

Some further optimization notes here:

1: share it with your familiar. (note that the caster makes all choices while "casting" a spell, while you are sharing sole the "effect" with your familiar. Thus the desired spells are already selected by you before sharing AF).

2: Greater Arcane Fusion says that it "works like Arcane Fusion", which from a mechanical point of view should include compatibility with anything that works with "Arcane Fusion". If you have picked Arcane Thesis: Arcane Fusion, you have an argument that it should also work for Greater Arcane Fusion. Cheesy, RAW, but your DM might still disagree (due to balance reasons).

_________________________

And if you are looking for real broken Metamagic cheese that will make rulebooks fly...

... pick any of the so called +0 meta feats and call it a day:

e.g. Energy Substitution:

An energy substituted spell uses a spell slot of the spell's normal level.

They changed the sentence structure with 3.5 for no reason, to make it totally broken by a strict RAW reading.

The trick is to just use Energy Substitution (or any other "+0 meta") as last in order of operation:
The spell now uses "a spell slot of the spell's normal level"...

Don't try this at home ;)

[Darg]

This is a common point of contention.

RAW answer: the only limitation is "a spell cannot be reduced to below its original level with the use of this feat". If you apply three +0s and three +2s to a given spell, it would cast at the same level as the unmodified spell.

RAI answer: Come on. That's silly. If you applied any of those +0s to the spell on their own, they wouldn't reduce the level below normal, but if you pair it with a single +2, suddenly it's cheaper than free? A +0 on its own doesn't get any cheaper with Arcane Thesis, only if it's paired with something with at least a +2 metamagic increase? What, is it like tetris where there's no room for a square block, but if you drop in a line piece you'll make enough room for a whole bunch of squares? That's silly, and you know it.

But then, most of the game is very silly if you think about it too much. "Being silly" isn't necessarily a flaw, it's just a matter of what's fitting for your game.

Your "RAI answer" is RAW too. It's not often that the reasonable reading isn't RAW itself. To explain, "changes to it's level are cumulative." This implies that each individual metamagic changes the level and then are added together as a general rule.

[Chronos]

I know that this isn't the typical interpretation of the feat, but...

When you apply a metamagic feat other than Heighten Spell to that spell, the enhanced spell uses up a spell slot one level lower than normal

It modifies the spell, not the metamagic feat, and it doesn't say "one level lower than normal per metamagic feat", or the like. So I would interpret that, no matter how many metamagic feats you stack on the spell, it only reduces the total level by 1.

[Darg]

I know that this isn't the typical interpretation of the feat, but...

It modifies the spell, not the metamagic feat, and it doesn't say "one level lower than normal per metamagic feat", or the like. So I would interpret that, no matter how many metamagic feats you stack on the spell, it only reduces the total level by 1.

The errata changed the wording and the example:

Page 74– Arcane Thesis [Substitution]
Should read, “When you apply any metamagic feats other than Heighten Spell” Thus if you were to prepare an empowered maximized magic missile (assuming magic missile is the spell you choose for your Arcane Thesis), it would be prepared as a 4th level spell (+1 level for empowered, down from +2; and +2 levels for maximized, down from +3).

Thus it reduces the level modification for each feat, not just one feat.

[Crake]

2: Greater Arcane Fusion says that it "works like Arcane Fusion", which from a mechanical point of view should include compatibility with anything that works with "Arcane Fusion". If you have picked Arcane Thesis: Arcane Fusion, you have an argument that it should also work for Greater Arcane Fusion. Cheesy, RAW, but your DM might still disagree (due to balance reasons).

This is just straight up false. Arcane fusion specifies you pick one spell, and it only works for that spell. Spells that work the same, but with a few choice differences, are still not the same spell. For your interpretation to work, arcane thesis would need wording along the line of “this spell, or similar effects”. Otherwise, it is a limited list of 1, because arcane thesis is not a function of the spell, and so greater arcane fusion does not inherit any outside effects.

[Gruftzwerg]

This is just straight up false. Arcane fusion specifies you pick one spell, and it only works for that spell. Spells that work the same, but with a few choice differences, are still not the same spell. For your interpretation to work, arcane thesis would need wording along the line of “this spell, or similar effects”. Otherwise, it is a limited list of 1, because arcane thesis is not a function of the spell, and so greater arcane fusion does not inherit any outside effects.

I get what you mean, but I disagree here.

Greater Arcane Fusion uses a wording like many other things that grant compatibility:
- SLA refer to work like spells except as noted
- Urban Shape refers to work like Wild Shape except noted
- a number of Turn/Rebuke Undead replacements refer to still work like Turn Undead for other stuff

Imho you are trying to artificially narrowing down the possible interpretations of "works like XXX" here without any reason given by RAW.
Nothing wrong with that for RAI and for making house rules thou. It's sole RAW what I was talking here about.

So by RAW, unless you deny interactions like a Wild Shape Amulet to stack with Urban Shape, or that SLA suddenly ignore the illusion rules for spells, I would heavily insist that the limitation of Arcane Fusion is bypassed by the inherit compatibility of Greater Arcane Fusion.

For reference:

This spell works like arcane fusion, except that you choose any 4th-level or lower sorcerer spell that you know and any 7th-level or lower sorcerer spell that you know to cast together.

[Kish]

If Arcane Thesis meant "one related family of spells," instead of "one spell," it would say that. "Works like X" is shorthand to save the writers the trouble of copying out everything they wrote for Summon Monster I eight more times; it's not an awkward phrasing of "is actually the same spell as."

[Gruftzwerg]

If Arcane Thesis meant "one related family of spells," instead of "one spell," it would say that. "Works like X" is shorthand to save the writers the trouble of copying out everything they wrote for Summon Monster I eight more times; it's not an awkward phrasing of "is actually the same spell as."

1. You could say the same for things that require or interact with Wild Shape, Turn Undead... Sorry, but that argument would sole break the game on other parts "as we all normally play it".
2. "Laziness of the authors to be precise enough" ain't a RAW argument..^^ That would just prove that RAW is lacking and that the intention (RAI) was something else.

[Crake]

1. You could say the same for things that require or interact with Wild Shape, Turn Undead... Sorry, but that argument would sole break the game on other parts "as we all normally play it".

Can you give an example where this ISN'T the case? If something says it works with wildshape, or requires wildshape, but since wild shape is "like alternate form, except", things that require or work with alternate form don't suddenly quality for wild shape stuff, and vice versa is also not true, if something requires alternate form, or works for alternate form, then having wild shape doesn't suddenly qualify you. This is actually made very clear with the warshaper requirements, where wildshape is EXPLICITLY added as it's own qualifier, while alternate form is stated as NOT qualifying.

So yes, I could say the same thing about wild shape, and the rules would support me.

Likewise, the elemental turning abilities do not get buffed by things that buff turn undead, because, while they work "like turn undead" they are NOT turn undead.

2. "Laziness of the authors to be precise enough" ain't a RAW argument..^^ That would just prove that RAW is lacking and that the intention (RAI) was something else.

It wasn't laziness, it was cost saving on printing and page costs. They were plenty precise, they just used this shorthand to save on costs.

Fact is, you're straight up wrong, but we all know you'll argue until you're blue in the face, even when faced with clear evidence to the contrary, so I'm not gonna bother trying to convince you.

[Kish]

You're seriously claiming to be the one advocating RAW while insisting that "one spell" doesn't mean "one spell."

Have fun with that, and don't come crying to me if you try to get this past an actual DM and wind up with a DMG-shaped dent in your head.

[Crake]

You're seriously claiming to be the one advocating RAW while insisting that "one spell" doesn't mean "one spell."

Have fun with that, and don't come crying to me if you try to get this past an actual DM and wind up with a DMG-shaped dent in your head.

Yeah, seriously, if you want to play with that interpretation, 5e sounds like it's for you, since spells don't have upgraded versions, you just put the spell in a higher slot and it's function is upgraded. In 3.5, "greater" versions of spells are their own spells, full stop.

[Gruftzwerg]

You're seriously claiming to be the one advocating RAW while insisting that "one spell" doesn't mean "one spell."

Have fun with that, and don't come crying to me if you try to get this past an actual DM and wind up with a DMG-shaped dent in your head.

"Specific Trumps General"

You can bypass any rule by applying more specific rules. If that wouldn't be true, we would have compatibility issues all over the place in 3.5

This is one the base interaction between rules thriving from the Primary Source Rule (PSR).
I'm sorry if this feels irritating to you. But as I always say, it took me literary multiple years to understand the PSR in its entirety.
Pray the Primary Source Rule 10 times a day in the hope for enlightenment (sorry for the bad joke..) ;)


I mean, that's like saying "If it ain't Turn Undead, it ain't Turn Undead". While the statement may be true, it doesn't stop the compatibility granted by other abilities related to Turn Undead.
The same is true for the compatibility granted by Greater Arcane Fusion here, which bypasses the "single spell" limit of Arcane Thesis.
I'm not arguing that this is RAI, dunno about the intentions here. I sole make this claim about RAW.


edit: somehow my response to Crake got lost while posting...

@ Crake (sorry the short version):
It's a simple specific trumps general situation.

Regarding your warshaper example:
Alternate Form ain't sufficient, but Wild Shape is. I don't get where you see the logical problem with that? Just because Wild Shape is based on Alternate Form doesn't mean it has the same limitations or shortcomings (for this entry requirement).

And I can even give you a real life example of this: "IBM Compatible" was initially a commercial tag used for stuff that was technically fully compatible with IBM PC's. Later "IBM Compatible" systems developed additional stuff which was sole compatible with "IBM Compatible" systems, but not with IBM systems themselves anymore (since those lacked the new enhanced standards that IMB compatible did set in the meanwhile).. Irritating but true..

[AvatarVecna]

{Scrub the post}

[Gruftzwerg]

[Scrub the quote]

1: I think my mental health is fine as it is

2: I don't know anyone with mental problems where taking pills was every a real (long term) solution. I know plenty of people who take em, and I don't see a single one where I think that it really helps. If something helps, that is a good therapy. I was even in a relationship about 10 years with a person hearing "other people speaking", so I have my share on this topic and would kindly ask to not make any jokes related to mental health problems. That is really not a topic to make jokes about (and I hope that you where just joking here and not provoking me).

[AvatarVecna]

"one equals whatever number I want it to equal"

[Jay R]

<lots of words to pretend that "one spell" as written doesn't mean "one spell">

If one of my players suggested this, I would rule against it, saying that the phrase "one spell" is not ambiguous, and it means "one spell". I would believe and maintain that this isn't either homebrew or RAI; it's RAW. The rule about Arcane Thesis is written "one spell". I would also state that when applying Arcane Thesis, the specific rules about Arcane Thesis trump any other rules you're trying to use to overrule them.

Yes, greater arcane fusion "works like arcane fusion". That means, among other things, that greater arcane fusion with Arcane Thesis (greater arcane fusion) will work like arcane fusion with Arcane Thesis (arcane fusion). It doesn't mean that you get a free feat. If you want Arcane Thesis to apply to two spells, then you need to take the feat twice.

Specific trumps general, yes. But you're not talking about overruling a general rule. Specific rules about a specific spell overrule general rules about spells in general. But also, specific rules about how a specific feat works trump any other rules you might apply.

Do you know any actual DMs who have allowed your interpretation in their games as RAW, not as homebrew, or are you just playing internet word games?

---

By the way, as the OP, I would like to thank people for their contributions. The discussion on how Arcane Thesis affects +0 metamagic feats has been very helpful. [I don't think it had anything specific I hadn't thought about, but laying it out like that really helped me get it straight in my head. I am now clear about how the rules say it affects metamagic, and how reasonable people treat it.]

I've also been glad to see answers to my question about what spells to apply it to. The suggestions of enervation and arcane fusion are good ones. Anybody have any others to suggest? [I've thought of using it for silent image for a Shadowcraft Mage, who can turn heightened silent image into any evocation or conjuration spell.]

[Troacctid]

I like using Arcane Thesis for spells that make a big kaboom. Blasting spells scale really well with metamagic, and beyond that, they also benefit a great deal from the basic +2 CL that Arcane Thesis grants. Arcane Thesis (Fireball) at level 6 represents a 33% increase in damage output before you even apply any metamagic to it.

[pabelfly]

Combust is what I'm using with Arcane thesis at the moment. It's SR: Yes, and works only as a touch attack, but can go up to 10d8 damage as a level 2 spell, so you have plenty of levels to add metamagic to it.

I have two different variations on combust. The first, and probably the better one, is adding Ocular Spell and Split Ray to do 2x 10d8 damage at up to 60ft range

The other way to use it is to just use it as a melee spell.

Other metamagic I'll add includes Energy Substitution (bypass element immunities), Empower Spell (extra damage), Fortify Spell (to help with SR) and Reserves of Strength (extra damage that is further improved with Empower Spell).

I also would look at Rapid Metamagic when you reach 9th level if you're going to do a build centred around metamagic use, and if you're allowed Drag Mag content, Impromptu Metamagic specialist for Sorcerer, to help reduce your spell casting time down to a standard action.