1
\$\begingroup\$

The capstone ability of the Incantatrix prestige class (Player's Guide to Faerûn, p. 61), Improved Metamagic, says:

At 10th level, an incantatrix has mastered metamagic to such an extent that whenever she uses a metamagic feat, the required increase in spell level (if any) is reduced by one (minimum +1 spell level).

If an Incantatrix wishes to cast a spell with multiple metamagic feats, such as an empowered maximized fireball (8th level slot, 3 from the fireball +2 from Empower, +3 from Maximize); will her Improved Metamagic ability reduce each and every metamagic level increase by one (thus using a 6th level spell slot) or the combined metamagic level increase will be reduced by one (needing a 7th level spell slot)?

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

Improved Metamagic affects the cost of applying metamagic feats individually, so your empowered maximized fireball will end up filling a 6th level spell slot.

From the "Player's Guide to Faerun":

Improved Metamagic (Su): At 10th level, an incantatrix has mastered metamagic to such an extent that whenever she uses a metamagic feat, the required increase in spell level (if any) is reduced by one (minimum +1 spell level). For example, a wizard incantatrix could prepare a quickened fireball as a 6th-level spell instead of a 7th-level spell.

Emphasis added by me.

This proves that it is how the individual feats costs, not the end result that is adjusted by this ability.

Follow up on comments

There is nothing on this in the Errata, but the description of Improved Metamagic goes on to say:

This benefit also applies to the incantatrix's other class abilities. Thus, the DC for using her metamagic effect or cooperative metamagic ability is reduced appropriately for the metamagic feats involved, and she spends fewer charges when using metamagic spell trigger.

Again emphasis added by me.

I have always read this as modifying the feats (plural) cost individually, like we see with the Arcane Thesis feat or multiple Practical Metamagic feats.

The text can be interpreted to mean only a single-level reduction, or only with a single feat, but this doesn't seem to match with the implementation of similarly worded effects (Arcane Thesis, Practical Metamagic).

If this still isn't enough, then it would have to come down to a Game Master ruling.

\$\endgroup\$
  • 1
    \$\begingroup\$ I'm not sure how quoting the text back to asker answers the question. That is, an incantatrix that's applying two or more metamagic feats to a spell isn't applying just a metamagic feat to a spell. Although it's a stretch to read it this way, the question's been asked, so it seems it can be. An equally sketchy—but still possible—alternative would have the extraordinary ability improved metamagic do nothing if the incantatrix applies more than one metamagic feat to a spell! (That is, inferring from after the bolded and whenever she uses more than one metamagic feat, nothing happens.) \$\endgroup\$ – Hey I Can Chan Oct 15 '18 at 7:38
  • \$\begingroup\$ I favour the interpretation given; reading "[whenever a singular ability of a category is applied] then X" as resulting in "apply X to the total of the abilities of that category" would, in my understanding, result in a rather massive change to how D&D 3.x is usually interpreted; as would reading it as "[Whenever only one ability of a category...] then X". \$\endgroup\$ – Narf the Mouse Oct 16 '18 at 0:18

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.