I think the note about bards should be removed. Perhaps interesting to know that bards can take the feat but since they can't even help to meet the prequisite (level 9 spell casting) it's not worth a note. After all there's no note for CoT, red dragon disciple and shifter. There's not even a note for Pale Master and they actually can help to meet the prequisite (unfortunately not the bard). Same for the other Automatic feats (and Epic Spell Focus but there isn't such a note). --Kamiryn 05:54, 29 August 2006 (PDT)
Ability to cast 9th level spells needs to be explained more Edit
I do not see anywhere in this wiki whether the "Ability to Cast 9th level spells" means that there is an implicit characteristic requirement. For instance, if you had a 17th level Wizard with an 18 INT, and a ring of +1 INT, they would be able to cast their 9th level spell. But could they qualify for any of these feats?
My suspicion is no, but it is really up in the air.
18.104.22.168 07:14, February 18, 2011 (UTC)
- One problem with your assessment is that "their 9th level spell" does not exist. A wizard with a base intelligence of 18 cannot learn any 9th level spells, regardless of equipment or level. (See, for example, wizard or intelligence.) --The Krit 16:45, February 18, 2011 (UTC)
- I've noticed some odd behavior for qualifying for feats with a "MINSPELLLVL" indication in feat.2da. In order to qualify for one of these feats (all metamagic, all auto-metamagic, spell penetration, spell focus, epic spell focus) the following conditions need to be met:
- 1. A class with a spellbook must have enough class levels to unlock the spell level indicated (this includes 0 casts per day). Wizards (not bards or sorcerers) may add in the pale master levels that improve their spell book.
- 2. A base ability score of 10 + spell level in either intelligence (if wizard has enough levels) or wisdom (if a divine class has enough levels). Sorcerers and bards with enough class levels do not need to meet this requirement.
- So a sorcerer can take this feat with as few as 18 sorcerer levels, even if the character had a charisma of 8, though this scenario is not recommended for character building. WhiZard (talk) 02:56, October 21, 2013 (UTC)
- I have traced the phenomenon down to the 2da files. To determine if a class can cast a spell the game uses the 2da specified as "SpellGainTable" in classes.2da, pale master levels that improve this class are added to the class level for determining spells gained. To determine if a class knows a spell the game uses the ability specified as "PrimaryAbil" in classes.2da, with the exception of bards and sorcerers, for which it uses the 2da specified by "SpellKnownTable", this table will not have pale master levels adding to the class level. If a class both "knows" and "can cast" spells of the necessary level from these two references, then it meets the "MINSPELLLVL" requirement of feat.2da. WhiZard (talk) 14:03, October 21, 2013 (UTC)
Confused about this feat. Edit
My question about this feat is how the Stilled Spells are picked. If you have Still 1 does this mean that all your 1st through 3rd level spells (that can be) will be stilled even if you don't pick them from the stilled list ( one level higher )? Meaning that all 1st level Magic Missiles are still and I don't need to use a 2nd level slot for them?
Thanks for any answers you all may have on this. --Grom56 23:36, 3 October 2016 (UTC)
- Yes, your level 0-3 spells will be cast without a somatic component automatically, without having to use a higher-level spell slot. Alternatively, for spells that can be stilled, you can manually apply still spell to a spell and cast it using a higher-level spell slot (useful to get more castings of a single spell). --The Krit (talk) 01:09, October 5, 2016 (UTC)
Auto feats can be taken in any order? Edit
I may be a bit confused, but I seem to recall reading somewhere about Auto Still (and maybe other Auto spells) that you can mix the order you take the three feats. Meaning that if I wanted to grab Auto Still II first, it was doable. I no longer can find any mention of this. Was it ever true?? Grom56 (talk) 19:58, October 19, 2018 (UTC)