5
\$\begingroup\$

The Quicken Spell metamagic feat lets you cast certain spells as a swift action (instead of a standard action). This causes the spell's slot to increase by +4 levels.

The Spell Perfection feat has several benefits, including the following:

Pick one spell which you have the ability to cast. Whenever you cast that spell you may apply any one metamagic feat you have to that spell without affecting its level or casting time, as long as the total modified level of the spell does not use a spell slot above 9th level.

The text says "affecting" the casting time, rather than "increasing". So how does this interact with Quicken Spell, which normally reduces the casting time?

Can the spell be cast as a swift action (as per Quicken) without the +4 spell slot increase?

Or is the spell's casting time unchanged, thereby negating the benefits of Quicken Spell?

\$\endgroup\$
4
\$\begingroup\$

The rules, as written, are written poorly. Yes, Spell Perfection negates the benefit of Quicken Spell. Which is complete and utter nonsense, and should be ignored. Even if, and I very much doubt it, Paizo intended Spell Perfection to negate the benefit of Quicken Spell, that’s stupid and should be ignored. Special, counter-intuitive exceptions like that should be called out explicitly in the text, and usually are; RAW that’s not actually necessary here, but applying a little bit of context here suggests it normally would be and its absence is glaring.

\$\endgroup\$
  • \$\begingroup\$ Just to play devil's advocate, it may have been intended that you cannot combine achieve Quickened Spells with Spell Perfection (for instance, it may have been considered too powerful for the feat). You could still Quicken spells that you have Spell Perfection for (and apply another Metamagic with the benefits) but being able to cast your "perfected spell" as a Swift Action every round at-spell-level might have seemed to be too much. \$\endgroup\$ – Ifusaso Sep 10 '18 at 16:59
  • 1
    \$\begingroup\$ Of course, it was probably just poorly written and intended to account for Spontaneous Casters. \$\endgroup\$ – Ifusaso Sep 10 '18 at 17:00
  • \$\begingroup\$ @Ifusaso I addressed that already in the answer: “Even if, and I very much doubt it, Paizo intended Spell Perfection to negate the benefit of Quicken Spell, that’s stupid and should be ignored.” \$\endgroup\$ – KRyan Sep 10 '18 at 17:37
  • \$\begingroup\$ @KRyan While I appreciate (and agree with) the commentary, I am looking for a strict RAW explanation. Could you edit so that the RAW-backed answer is separate and distinct from the rest? \$\endgroup\$ – MikeQ Nov 16 '18 at 4:43
  • \$\begingroup\$ @MikeQ That is nowhere in your question, you might want to update that. Anyway, I establish the RAW in the first line (at least my screen), the second sentence. There is nothing more to be said on the subject, I don’t think. Are you just asking for a paragraph break between that and the rest? \$\endgroup\$ – KRyan Nov 16 '18 at 4:49

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.