Metamagic and simultaneous spell concentration

[Siglorel]

@Erik Tyrrell

page 174 of the rule book tells us, (issues with the conjunctions aside), that you can't cast two spells in the same round unless both are fast cast.

OK, I just re-read it. Not to nitpick, but it says that only one of the two has to be fast-cast.

That's the issue with the conjunctions. There are two ways to read that passage. (no books with me at the moment, I'll look for the actual quote)

I'll be happy to oblige:
EDIT: Erik edited more details in while I was writing this message, I'll reconsider and perhaps edit in turn...

"Thus, a magus cannot cast more than one normal spell, or a fast-cast and a normal spell, in the same round."

What's your second way to read that?
EDIT #2: Alright, I do understand the different meanings you propose... interesting confusion, can't reply anything else to that right now!

Given that you have made me realize in the last few messages how I may have missed language subtleties in rule descriptions (English second language here), I am now wary of taking my understandings for granted, hence I may sound really obtuse or anal in this next section:

The concentration table on page 82 talks about casting another spell and, on a different line, it talks about maintaining another spell.

So, if I understand you well, you do interpret all those lines from the lower half of that table to apply to casting a spell, not just to maintaining one? "Casting another spell" could be in addition to maintaining the first one, your emphasis on ANOTHER does not necessarily mean that we are discussing the same action with two spells, only that two spells are involved... Unless this is a subtlety of English I am wrong about? Can you say: 'I'm eating an apple and keeping another one for later"?

There is another entry on the table for casting a spell and maintaining another spell.

... that other entry could also be read as maintaining a spell, while maintaining another spell. My point was that it is still unclear what the "continuing situations" subtitle of the table applies to. We're supposed to have a section in the table for conditions applying only to ability to maintain a spell... I can't see where ELSE that section might be, even though if we consider the table without the accompanying paragraph I would most certainly read it like you: as more conditions applying directly to casting a spell, or with -3 to target levels, to maintaining a spell.

[ezzelino]

@Siglorel

@Erik Tyrrell

There is another entry on the table for casting a spell and maintaining another spell.

... that other entry could also be read as maintaining a spell, while maintaining another spell.

That's how I've always read it as well. In fact, the entry provides a +3 modifier "for each spell beyond the second", which strongly suggests that it's about maintaining a spell while maintaining another. Also the text in the same page is very clear about the fact that some actions are possible while maintaining a spell, but impossible while casting it; it seems to me that casting a second spell simultaneously must be one of these impossible actions, or virtually every other action would be possible.

I would also point out that, from the description of Boreal Flames, I had never imagined it was meant as an example of a spell that may be cast simultaneously with another non-fast cast spell by the same caster. I've always stuck fast to the rule "one spell per round, with fast cast spells not counting against the limit", which is also the interpretation you get from the much clearer combat rules in Lords of Men. Violating it messes things up horribly.

Finally, I would point out that I am another one of the people with gripes about MoH. I've never got to listing them all in one place (though I may), but I really do think that it was a book that opened more cans of worms than it closed. This of Boreal Flames is one more I've just added to my list. I found MoH moderately interesting, but in terms of mechanics a far cry from the usually high standards of Arm5. Sorry.