D&D 3E/3.5 Intensify Spell vs. Max. Twin Spell? Does it make any sense? (3E)

[Malachei]

I am planning my wizard's feat selection. As I'm slowly moving towards epic levels, I had a look at epic feats, as well.

I came across Intensify Spell, which maximizes and then doubles variable, numeric effects at a hefty +7 levels.

I guess I could do the same thing with a maximized, twinned spell (also +7 levels combined), with the only differences being two saves and potentially two overlapping effects. This can actually be an advantage for spells that have another effect in addition to damage (blindness, stun, etc.). Furthermore, twin spell is more flexible, as it can be used for a wider range of non-damaging spells.

Finally, if Improved Metamagic is in, Twin & Maximize are a combined +5, whereas Intensify is +6 (for one slot of Improved Metamagic).

So why would anyone take Intensify Spell? Especially with the prerequisites of both Maximize Spell and Empower Spell, this seems to me a bit much.

Of course, you could Twin Spell an Intensified Spell, but that would have a +11 modifier, and I feel that is a bit out of scope for the levels I will be looking at.

Your opinions?

 

[Runestar]

Intensify is a fairly weak feat, IMO. I suppose one benefit it has over twin+maximize is that resistances apply only once in the case of damage spells, compared to twice for the latter.

 

[FEADIN]

And may be Twin spell feat was published after the ElH making Intensify less interesting.

 

[Malachei]

And may be Twin spell feat was published after the ElH making Intensify less interesting.

Well, Twin Spell first appeared in Tome & Blood (2001), my Epic Level Handbook says "first printing: July 2002".

 

[FEADIN]

Well, Twin Spell first appeared in Tome & Blood (2001), my Epic Level Handbook says "first printing: July 2002".

Good point!!!!
I didn't remember it was in this splatbook, the 3.0 lasted only 3 years and I thought it was a 3.5 feat.

 

[Runestar]

Take improved metamagic twice (or once with incantatrix) and max+twin is only a +3 slot adjustment. Heck, intensify is even more expensive to qualify.

However, intensify spell can be situationally superior in cases where 2 similar effects would not stack (namely penalties). For instance, an intensified ray of enfeeblement would inflict a -22str penalty. A maximized, twinned ray of enfeeblement would still inflict only a -11str penalty. Granted, this comparison is somewhat unfair because you would simply opt not to twin said spell and apply some other metamagic feat which does stack, such as chain or empower spell.

Similarly, intensified timestop gives you 10 rounds of apparent time, assuming you can somehow muster a 16th lv slot. I am not sure if a twinned timestop has any additional effect beyond rolling twice and taking the better of 2 durations (which is rendered moot with maximize spell).

So my conclusion is - intensify spell can have a fairly desirable effect on a few corner cases, assuming you are able to pay its extremely exorbitant price, though you are generally better off with twin+maximize.

Enhance spell also seems fairly questionable, but that is probably another debate for another day.

 

[Malachei]

Take improved metamagic twice (or once with incantatrix) and max+twin is only a +3 slot adjustment. Heck, intensify is even more expensive to qualify.

Yes, and that is exactly what I am planning to do.

However, intensify spell can be situationally superior in cases where 2 similar effects would not stack (namely penalties).

Good example.

you are generally better off with twin+maximize.

I agree, and this confirms my concerns in the OP -- an intensified spell should be superior to a max. twinned spell... it's an epic feat after all.

 

[Runestar]

I agree, and this confirms my concerns in the OP -- an intensified spell should be superior to a max. twinned spell... it's an epic feat after all.

ELH was a test-bed for epic gameplay, so I wouldn't be surprised that there were a lot of options which were deemed powerful then, but later proved to be less so in actual gameplay (ie: pretty much all the non-caster feats).

Not to mention that back then, you could intensify a bull's str to give +10str. But yeah...at a 9th lv slot...

 

[Malachei]

I think at the same time, some feats are really powerful. I guess if WOTC felt the ELH turned out to be seriously off target, they could have done a 3.5 update or at least not make it Open Game Content with the 3.5 SRD. But yes, I agree with you that with epic rules, there is less clarity on how a rule will affect play -- probably because there's less playing experience, less playtesting and a lot more flexibility in what the characters can do. Also, I think in epic play, the campaign style and the DM-player interactons have a huge effect on the power level of any particular feat. I'd have another set of epic rules if I could, but this being the 'canon', we'll stick to what's there, with some minor changes.

Anyway, that leaves me with dropping Intensify Spell (and Enhance spell, probably, as well). Now having no need to get both Maximize and Empower, I will probably drop empower and take Maximize and Twin Spell -- see my other post on feat selection... looking forward to any comments you might have there.