# How Do Metamagic Rods Work For Preparation Spellcasters?



## airwalkrr (Dec 15, 2006)

It seems there are two camps in the metamagic rod issue. I want to know what ENWorlders think about the subject. Here are the two camps as I see them.

*Metamagic Rods Are Used Only When Casting The Spell:* That is, when a cleric or wizard casts a spell that he wants to enhance with metamagic from a metamagic rod, he need only wield the rod during the casting. Use of the rod requires no preparation in advance and the character can decide to use it at any time, regardless of when spells were prepared.

*Metamagic Rods Are Used Only When Preparing The Spell:* That is, when a cleric or wizard memorizes spells for the day, they decide at that time which spells to enhance with the metamagic rods. Later, upon casting the spell, the rod is no longer needed as its magic has already provided the power for the metamagic during memorization.

So which interpretation do you favor? I realize there might be other opinions on the matter. If so, post them here. Note this isn't a discussion of the way it _ought_ to be, just your opinion on what the RAW says (or implies as may be the case).


----------



## Hypersmurf (Dec 15, 2006)

My most recent post outlining my thoughts on the matter.

The FAQ states:
*Does a wizard (or other spellcaster who prepares spells) with a metamagic rod (Dungeon Master’s Guide, 236) activate it when preparing spells (thus preparing three
spells with a metamagic effect without paying the extra spell level cost) or when casting spells (allowing her to apply the metamagic effect to any three spells she likes)?*

_The latter. The metamagic rods function the same for any spellcaster—they allow her to apply a metamagic effect “on the fly” when casting the spell to be affected. The exception is the sorcerer (or by extension, any other spontaneous spellcaster) who must still use a full-round action to cast the affected spell._

I disagree with this answer emphatically 

-Hyp.


----------



## Thanee (Dec 15, 2006)

The FAQ answer is completely unreasonable. 

The rods grant usage of the feat, but every caster has to use them the way the feats are normally used. It's not bearable, that sorcerers (or all spontaneous users) have to suffer through the extra casting time, while wizards (and other prepared casters) do not and furthermore can use them spontaneously unlike their regular metamagic.

Logically speaking, either the rods do the metamagic, or the caster does with the help of the rod. Like it is with the FAQ, sorcerers metamagic the spells themselves, while wizards let the rods do it. No way!

Therefore the rods have to be used during preparation for wizards (and there must be a limit that no more than three spells can be metamagicked at the same time from one rod, in order to avoid some issues that otherwise might surface).

Bye
Thanee


----------



## Plane Sailing (Dec 15, 2006)

Our gaming group have always read this as allowing any caster (prepared or spontaneous) to apply the effect at casting time, with no additional penalties - pretty much as if it were a rod of sudden metamagic.


----------



## Li Shenron (Dec 15, 2006)

I allow them to be used at casting time, applying the metamagic effect "on the fly" to anyone in the same way, without increasing the casting time to anyone.

But then I do not let the characters find these rods on sale.


----------



## Stalker0 (Dec 15, 2006)

Thanee said:
			
		

> The FAQ answer is completely unreasonable.
> 
> The rods grant usage of the feat,




If the rods really granted a use of the feat, then the cost would still be there The rod allows the caster to gain a benefit similar to the feat, but its not quite the same.


----------



## Sithobi1 (Dec 15, 2006)

It would, if it didn't specifically say that it didn't alter the slot cost.


----------



## Thanee (Dec 15, 2006)

> Metamagic rods *hold the essence of a metamagic feat but do not change the spell slot of the altered spell*.
> 
> Possession of a metamagic rod does not confer the associated feat on the owner, only *the ability to use the given feat* a specified number of times per day.




It's not similar to the feat, it's exactly as the feat with the single difference, that the spell level remains unchanged for determination of the necessary spell slot to cast the spell.

The FAQ answer contradicts this, and is thus to be considered errata to what the rulebook says, but I will gladly ignore that part of the FAQ, because it's inconsistent and unbalancing (even more than the rods already are, anyways ).


And before someone asks...



> All the rods described here are use-activated (but casting spells in a threatened area still draws an attack of opportunity).




Using the rod during preparation of a spell is also use-activated.
Casting a spell in a threatened area is still relevant (for spontaneous casters).

Bye
Thanee


----------



## Li Shenron (Dec 15, 2006)

I'd love to painfully torture the guy who wrote "Metamagic rods *hold the essence* of a metamagic feat" almost as much as whoever wrote the legendary "Using the foul sight granted by the powers of unlife..."


----------



## Vuron (Dec 15, 2006)

Plane Sailing said:
			
		

> Our gaming group have always read this as allowing any caster (prepared or spontaneous) to apply the effect at casting time, with no additional penalties - pretty much as if it were a rod of sudden metamagic.




This is the interpretation we've always used and is the most balanced.

The only way that you could justify the FAQ ruling vis a vis sorcerors is to assume that sorcerors are less skilled with monkeying around with the intrinsic formula of magic and thus require more time to change the fundamental nature of a spell through metamagic. As a result sorcerors are even slow to manipulate a spell with an external aid like a metamagic rod or power component (if you use Unearthed Arcana).

The only problem being that this theoretical justification is completely missing from the RAW and would have to be something that the DM arrived at for thier setting.


----------



## billd91 (Dec 15, 2006)

We've always gone with use of the rod at casting time. It's easier to deal with and the less subject to abuse.


----------



## Imagicka (Dec 15, 2006)

Greetings...

Well, please correct me if I'm wrong... but...

Spontaneous spell-casters are required to spend extra time to apply a metamagic effect to a spell.  That somehow, having a metamagic rod should then allow them not only apply the effect...but also not have to spend the whole round casting the spell?  Effectively speeding up the casting time (or I should say not slowing down the casting time) AND giving the metamagic benefit?  

So, that's two benefits for the spontaneous spell caster, where as the non-spontaneous spell caster only gets one benefit... the metamagic effect alone.

So... why should sorcerers and bards get a double benefit, where the wizard and others only get the singular benefit?


----------



## Patryn of Elvenshae (Dec 15, 2006)

There's really two questions here:

1.  How do the rules say that the rods work?  When answering this question (and the poll), I agree with Thanee and Hypersmurf.  Prepared casters use the rod at preparation time.

2.  How do I play it in my games?  In my games, metamagic rods are used by all casters at cast time, and sorcerors (etc.) do not need to take any extra time to cast spells so enhanced.


----------



## glass (Dec 15, 2006)

Imagicka said:
			
		

> So... why should sorcerers and bards get a double benefit, where the wizard and others only get the singular benefit?



Sorcerers don't get double benefit. They get to apply metamagic feats on the fly (which they can do anyway) and they pay the usual price for it. Per the FAQ, wizards also get to apply metamagic on the fly (which they _can't_normally do), but they don't pay anything for it. Thus, if anyone gets double benefit it is wizards (and other preparing casters).

Fortunately, IMO, the RAW is much more sensible.


glass.


----------



## Infiniti2000 (Dec 15, 2006)

Patryn of Elvenshae said:
			
		

> There's really two questions here...



 Not per the OP, there isn't: "Note this isn't a discussion of the way it ought to be, just your opinion on what the RAW says (or implies as may be the case)."



			
				glass said:
			
		

> Fortunately, IMO, the RAW is much more sensible.



 I don't agree because no matter what, prepared spellcasters get a double benefit.  I don't relish the idea of prepared spellcasters that have some time to plan using a single rod to (e.g.) empower every single spell they own.  That's a benefit, per RAW, that "spontaneous" casters will never get.


----------



## Patryn of Elvenshae (Dec 15, 2006)

Infiniti2000 said:
			
		

> Not per the OP, there isn't




I don't think everyone necessarily read that.


----------



## Infiniti2000 (Dec 15, 2006)

Patryn of Elvenshae said:
			
		

> I don't think everyone necessarily read that.



On that, we agree.


----------



## glass (Dec 15, 2006)

Infiniti2000 said:
			
		

> I don't agree because no matter what, prepared spellcasters get a double benefit.  I don't relish the idea of prepared spellcasters that have some time to plan using a single rod to (e.g.) empower every single spell they own.  That's a benefit, per RAW, that "spontaneous" casters will never get.



How do you translate 'three per day' into 'every spell they own'?


glass.


----------



## Infiniti2000 (Dec 15, 2006)

glass said:
			
		

> How do you translate 'three per day' into 'every spell they own'?



 Easy.  Three yesterday, three today, three tomorrow, . . .


----------



## KarinsDad (Dec 15, 2006)

This is an interesting balance question either way you rule it. I think the intent was for spontaneous use, but I think RAW is for non-spontaneous use for prepared casters.

Balance-wise, let's look at both.

First, all interpretations give the advantage of not increasing the spell level and this advantage is just as good for prepared casters as for spontaneous casters. But, what other advantages does each interpretation have:

1) During Casting. Advantage Prepared Casters. They get the additional advantage that they get to do spontaneous metamagic. Spontaneous casters already had this benefit.

2) During Preparation. Advantage Unknown. Possibly an advantage for Prepared Casters or possibly a limitation for Prepared Casters: DM dependent. They get to cast 3 spells per day this way, but there is no limit to how many total spells they can prepare this way (by RAW). Presumably, the number per day prepared is the same as the number per day cast (RAW does not explicitly state this), in other words 3 per day cast and 3 per day prepared. However, over a long period of time, they could prepare all of their spells with the rod and either a) pick and choose at casting time which spell to metamagic (effectively making it on the fly and an advantage) or b) the first three they cast that were prepared as metamagic are metamagic, however, the DM then has to either allow additional metamagic prepared spells to be cast as non-metamatic (a limitation because the metamagic had to be used on the first 3 cast and not on any other), or the caster cannot cast those additional metamage spells at all (also a limitation) since the rod limits it to 3 cast per day and the 50 spells were already prepared as metamagic.


If one literally rules like Hyp and Thanee that it is during preparation, then metamagic rods are not well defined for prepared casters. There is no language that the metamagic from the rod disappears after 24 hours or some such, so literally one is almost forced to interpret (without additional house rules) that if it is at preparation time, then a caster can have 50 such prepared spells. Reading it literally for preparation time and then not reading it literally for preparation (times per day) is not consistent. Either one rules per literal RAW, or one does not. But, this results in adjudication issues.


Either way (#1 or #2 above), the item might have an additional advantage for prepared casters. But, there is nothing wrong with that. Just like a Ring of Wizardry cannot be used by a Cleric, there is nothing wrong with an item that is only useable by some classes or even is more worthwhile for some classes than others.


But Hyp's literal interpretation (if extended to the logical conclusion) can potentially result in adjudication issues where each DM rules something different.


Plus, the language of the item has an implication for during casting time as well:



> All the rods described here are use-activated (but casting spells in a threatened area still draws an attack of opportunity).




The word casting in this sentence can be interpreted as referring back to use-activated for all uses of the Rod. It is not required to interpret it as Thanee did earlier in the thread.


Finally, WotC repeatedly has stated that during casting time is the intent. Since that is what WotC is stating and that has no adjudication issues, the "at preparation time" interpretation is more literal, but not WotC intent and not as clear.


A middle ground of "during preparation" but limited to 3 total spells prepared is more balanced, but that is not what RAW or WotC states.


----------



## glass (Dec 15, 2006)

Infiniti2000 said:
			
		

> Easy.  Three yesterday, three today, three tomorrow, . . .



If you only want to cast three spells per day. The restriction is on how many metamagicked spells are cast, not how many are prepared.


glass.


----------



## Infiniti2000 (Dec 15, 2006)

KarinsDad said:
			
		

> They get to cast 3 spells per day this way, but there is no limit to how many total spells they can prepare this way (by RAW).



 I agree.  More importantly, you can then allow all your preparation spell-casting buddies to use the rod.  The caveat here (which I mentioned earlier) is that time cannot be an issue.


----------



## Infiniti2000 (Dec 15, 2006)

glass said:
			
		

> If you only want to cast three spells per day. The restriction is on how many metamagicked spells are cast, not how many are prepared.



 Well, you've yet to explain what you think the RAW is in this case, and your comments are not clear.  So, if you want to discuss it further, perhaps you'd care you explain your position more clearly?


----------



## Thanee (Dec 15, 2006)

Imagicka said:
			
		

> Greetings...
> 
> Well, please correct me if I'm wrong... but...
> 
> ...




You are kidding, right? Please tell me, that you are kidding there. 

Bye
Thanee


----------



## Thanee (Dec 15, 2006)

KarinsDad said:
			
		

> If one literally rules like Hyp and Thanee that it is during preparation, then metamagic rods are not well defined for prepared casters.




Yeah, the description is not well-written at all. 



> There is no language that the metamagic from the rod disappears after 24 hours or some such, so literally one is almost forced to interpret (without additional house rules) that if it is at preparation time, then a caster can have 50 such prepared spells. Reading it literally for preparation time and then not reading it literally for preparation (times per day) is not consistent. Either one rules per literal RAW, or one does not. But, this results in adjudication issues.




I don't see the problem there... the intent is obvious, that you can only have three such spells prepared (assuming that preparation is necessary, of course) at any time from a single rod.

Bye
Thanee


----------



## Vuron (Dec 15, 2006)

Thanee said:
			
		

> You are kidding, right? Please tell me, that you are kidding there.
> 
> Bye
> Thanee





I see where the poster has a valid point from a game balance standpoint

ie that the sorceror gains two benefits the metamagic without a higher spell slot and that he is able to ignore the standard spontaneous casting metamagic requires 1 full round.

Honestly though I'm not that opposed to having a magic item be slightly better for one character versus another.

As to the metamagic at preparation it seems like if that was the intent the description should read that the caster can cast 3 spells of his choice into the rod per day and can call on the magic + the metamagic effect during the course of the day with a standard action. Of course that would still mess up the quicken rod but tbh that rod causes more trouble than it's worth.


----------



## KarinsDad (Dec 15, 2006)

Thanee said:
			
		

> I don't see the problem there... the intent is obvious, that you can only have three such spells prepared (assuming that preparation is necessary, of course) at any time from a single rod.




Interesting. It doesn't state that.


As for intent, I thought the intent was clear that it was spontaneous (based on the WotC literature on this subject).


----------



## RainOfSteel (Dec 15, 2006)

I voted for "when casting the spell".

The rules state the rods may be used 3 times per day, and notes no restriction on the usage times.

Since prepared spell casters may use the rod "3 times per day" without restriction on the usage time, then obviously they may use them at any time of the day, not just when spells are prepared.


----------



## Thanee (Dec 15, 2006)

KarinsDad said:
			
		

> Interesting. It doesn't state that.
> 
> As for intent, I thought the intent was clear that it was spontaneous (based on the WotC literature on this subject).






			
				Thanee said:
			
		

> ...(assuming that preparation is necessary, of course)...




Bye
Thanee


----------



## Infiniti2000 (Dec 15, 2006)

Thanee said:
			
		

> I don't see the problem there... the intent is obvious, that you can only have three such spells prepared (assuming that preparation is necessary, of course) at any time from a single rod.



 That is obviously _not_ the intent, is what you meant to say.  You can use it 3 times per day.  What in the wording of the item leads you to believe otherwise?


----------



## Thanee (Dec 15, 2006)

I'm not talking about what is written there. The only thing, that can be concluded from the rules text is, that wizards have to use the feat usage granted by the rod, just like their normal feat usage, that is, during preparation. How this exactly works is not exactly detailed. 

Although, 'intent' might not actually be the right word for it, but I don't know any better. 

Let's put it into a sentence without using the word 'intent'...

Obviously, when you have to use the rods during preparation, you won't be able to have more than three spells prepared this way (from a single rod) at any time. It's a simple logical conclusion, that there must be some such limit.

Bye
Thanee


----------



## Infiniti2000 (Dec 15, 2006)

Lots of leading words that create a self-fulfilling prophecy for your interpretation.  Nothing more than begging the question.  You are no more justified in making that statement, Thanee, than anyone else arguing that you can use the rods spontaneously as a prepared spellcaster.

There's no requirement/restriction on freeing up unused metamagicked spells the following day should you desire to metamagick another 3.  None whatsoever, nor is there any intent, obvious or otherwise.


----------



## Thanee (Dec 15, 2006)

Of course there is, you just can't see it. 

Bye
Thanee


----------



## Mistwell (Dec 15, 2006)

This is a case where I agree with the FAQ 100%.  I had always argued for that intpretation, as did many others.


----------



## KarinsDad (Dec 15, 2006)

Infiniti2000 said:
			
		

> Lots of leading words that create a self-fulfilling prophecy for your interpretation.




Precisely.

If we go with the preparation interpretation, there are a lot of unanswered questions in the writeup and there is no obvious intent written there. If it were obvious, we would not be having the discussion.


----------



## Hypersmurf (Dec 15, 2006)

Infiniti2000 said:
			
		

> There's no requirement/restriction on freeing up unused metamagicked spells the following day should you desire to metamagick another 3.  None whatsoever, nor is there any intent, obvious or otherwise.




You can 'use the feat a specified number of times per day'.  In addition, each of the rods states 'The wielder can cast up to three spells per day that are XXXed...'

So, we know that:
a/ A wizard uses a metamagic feat at preparation time.
b/ A wizard can use the (say) Enlarge Spell feat a specified number of times per day.
c/ He can cast up to three spells per day that are Enlarged.
d/ The only number that appears in the description is 'three'.

So, since we know that the number of times he can use the feat each day is 'specified', and the only number in the description is three, we must assume that the number of times he can use the feat each day is three.

Since we know that wizards use metamagic feats at preparation time, he must use the feat three times each day at preparation time.

Now, in theory, he might use the feat three times each day at preparation time several days in a row, affecting (say) nine of his spells.

But we also know that he can cast up to three spells per day that are Enlarged... so if he casts three of those nine, he can't cast the other six in the same day.

I'm quite happy to rule that using the rod on a second day to prepare more Enlarged spells will remove the Enlarge from older spells prepared the day before, for example, keeping the number of spells prepared with the rod's feat to no more than three at any given time; it seems to me to enforce the written restrictions while reducing headaches, and keeping with my reading of the spirit of the item.

-Hyp.


----------



## Hypersmurf (Dec 15, 2006)

KarinsDad said:
			
		

> If we go with the preparation interpretation, there are a lot of unanswered questions in the writeup and there is no obvious intent written there.




The 'obvious intent', to me, is that since it's applying a feat to a spell not prepared in a metamagic form in advance that increases casting time, and that since sorcerers (who obviously use the rod to apply a feat to a spell not prepared in a metamagic form in advance) suffer the increased casting time and wizards do not, that wizards cannot be applying a feat to a spell not prepared in a metamagic form in advance.

Which fits with the wording of 'use a metamagic feat', given that that's how wizards 'use a metamagic feat' anyway.

-Hyp.


----------



## Thanee (Dec 15, 2006)

KarinsDad said:
			
		

> If we go with the preparation interpretation, there are a lot of unanswered questions in the writeup and there is no obvious intent written there.




There are always unanswered questions, regardless of how you look at it, but at least the preparation reading does not _break_ any rules presented there, or is horribly inconsistent (as the spontaneous reading is).



> If it were obvious, we would not be having the discussion.




Nah, things can be obvious (and even much, much more obvious than this one ), and people _still_ are having discussions over it. 

Bye
Thanee


----------



## KarinsDad (Dec 15, 2006)

Hypersmurf said:
			
		

> Now, in theory, he might use the feat three times each day at preparation time several days in a row, affecting (say) nine of his spells.
> 
> But we also know that he can cast up to three spells per day that are Enlarged... so if he casts three of those nine, he can't cast the other six in the same day.
> 
> I'm quite happy to rule that using the rod on a second day to prepare more Enlarged spells will remove the Enlarge from older spells prepared the day before, for example, keeping the number of spells prepared with the rod's feat to no more than three at any given time; it seems to me to enforce the written restrictions while reducing headaches, and keeping with my reading of the spirit of the item.




But, this is house rules.

None of what you wrote here is written within the item.

Some options for how to handle multiple days include:

1) Only allowing 3 to be prepared, hence, if a 4th is prepared and all 3 of the earlier prepared spells still exist, then one of those 3 earlier prepared spells lose the metamagic.

2) Only allowing 3 to be prepared, hence, if a 4th is prepared and all 3 of the earlier prepared spells still exist, then one of those 3 earlier prepared spells is lost as if cast.

3) All of the prepared metamagic spells exist and the caster decides at casting time which really use the metamagic.

4) All of the prepared metamagic spells exist and the first three cast have the metamagic and any other cast afterwards do not have the metamagic.

5) All of the prepared metamagic spells exist and the first three cast have the metamagic and any others cannot be cast since the metamagic rod only allows 3 rod metamagic castings per day.


The point is that with the preparation interpretation, each of these options are just as valid as any other one and DMs could adjudicate differently.

With the spontaneous interpretation, there are no adjudication problems (TMK).


----------



## airwalkrr (Dec 15, 2006)

Thanee said:
			
		

> I don't see the problem there... the intent is obvious, that you can only have three such spells prepared (assuming that preparation is necessary, of course) at any time from a single rod.




I agree with Thanee. Intent is sometimes an important aspect of the rules. I think in this case, the intent is clear that a spellcaster is meant to get no more benefit from a rod than three spells worth. A truly literal interpretation seems to allow more than three spells per day if you count today and previous days of preparation, but if you consider intent, this is obviously unreasonable. Why make a limit if it can easily be circumvented by preparing 3 spells a day for a whole week to prepare all your spells before you go adventuring? It might not be easy in every campaign, but there are plenty of DMs who dislike the idea of one-day/one-level campaigns. Many (if not most) prefer there to be some kind of down-time between leveling up.

It is possible the designers simply overlooked this since they assumed it would be obvious. Or it is also possible the designers did not intend for it to work the way say (i.e. a metamagic rod confers "the ability to use the given feat a specified number of times per day" meaning the feat is used normally with the only exception being that which the rod explains). I tend to favor the former. However, I might be swayed if Skip Williams was the author of that particular FAQ entry, seeing how he had a hand in the 3.5 DMG and he probably play-tested the rules (in which case I assume he was basing his answer on the way they used them in play-test). But there have been several FAQ authors over the years...


----------



## billd91 (Dec 15, 2006)

airwalkrr said:
			
		

> I agree with Thanee. Intent is sometimes an important aspect of the rules. I think in this case, the intent is clear that a spellcaster is meant to get no more benefit from a rod than three spells worth. A truly literal interpretation seems to allow more than three spells per day if you count today and previous days of preparation, but if you consider intent, this is obviously unreasonable. Why make a limit if it can easily be circumvented by preparing 3 spells a day for a whole week to prepare all your spells before you go adventuring?
> 
> <snip>
> However, I might be swayed if Skip Williams was the author of that particular FAQ entry, seeing how he had a hand in the 3.5 DMG and he probably play-tested the rules (in which case I assume he was basing his answer on the way they used them in play-test). But there have been several FAQ authors over the years...




I agree that intent is sometimes an important aspect, but it's not always clear what that intent is. With the metamagic rods, since there is clearly a limit to the number of times it may be used per day, what seems the most likely intent? Did the designers intend to introduce the idea of spells that, once prepared with metamagic, will degrade or can be degraded by the spell caster? Or did they intend to allow a preparation caster to skip the need to assign the metamagic modification at prep time and cast a spell modified via the rod spontaneously?
There's no clear answer to those questions. I strongly believe the latter is easier to deal with, easier to conceptualize, and is more likely the author's intent. 

As far as I know, there have been 2 FAQ authors in recent years. Skip and Andy. Both should have some reasonable authority over what was meant by the rules.


----------



## moritheil (Dec 15, 2006)

Another victory for the debate necromancers!  May the argument continue into perpetuity!    

(One of the old threads on this topic yielded a quote to the effect that one cannot use the rules of the English language to parse rules text, because that will somehow alter the rules and make them unviable.  I kid you not.)


----------



## airwalkrr (Dec 15, 2006)

KarinsDad said:
			
		

> But, this is house rules.
> 
> None of what you wrote here is written within the item.




In Hypersmurf's defense, what he said is exactly within the item, particularly the things he quoted. The crucial phrases to Hypersmurf's position are:

-"Possession of a metamagic rod does not confer the associated feat on the owner, *only the ability to use the given feat a specified number of times per day.*"
-"A sorcerer must still...*just as if using a metamagic feat he possesses.*"
-"The wielder can cast up to three spells *per day*...as though using the...feat."

So logically:

1. A character with the rod can effective "use" the metamagic feat the rod confers.
2. A character can use a metamagic rod three times per day.
3. A character can cast up to (i.e. no more than) three spells per day that use the metamagic.

A literal interpretation therefore posits:

1. To "use" a metamagic feat involves the normal procedure for using the feat (since we are given no indication otherwise without the FAQ; note the item never states that the rod allows application of the feat spontaneously).
2. The only exceptions to the normal procedure are that which the item states.
3. The exceptions that the item states are:
a) A character can use the metamagic rod three times per day.
b) A character can cast up three spells per day that use the metamagic.

It is a perfectly justifiable, reasonable, and logical interpretation of the rules. Your point merely boils down to the fact that it disagrees with the FAQ. Now if Skip Williams wrote the FAQ entry in question, then I would agree that intent is just as he wrote it (in the FAQ). But if that is the case then metamagic rods are imprecisely worded, as a literal interpretation of them leads to Hypersmurf's position.


----------



## Twowolves (Dec 15, 2006)

Hypersmurf said:
			
		

> You can 'use the feat a specified number of times per day'.  In addition, each of the rods states 'The wielder can cast up to three spells per day that are XXXed...'
> 
> So, we know that:
> a/ A wizard uses a metamagic feat at preparation time.
> ...




So, you are quite happy to rule that a spell once prepared as modified by a metamagic feat can be cast without the metamagic modification? Even though there is absolutely no precedent for such a ruling anywhere in the RAW? Or are you saying that a prepared spell caster can prep 3 spells per day, each day, for a week, but after he casts three of the spells, he somehow totally loses access to all the other spells he prepped with the rod?? Effectively having spells memorized, but no access to them? Or are you saying that once 3 spells are prepared with the rod, that the rod can then pass to someone else but is then useless until the first three modified spells prepped by the previous owner of the rod are cast?

I also find it telling how many people, in previous threads on this subject, went around and around against the "modified at casting" ruling, but now seemingly (or at least, now admit to) support this ruling.


----------



## Hypersmurf (Dec 15, 2006)

Twowolves said:
			
		

> So, you are quite happy to rule that a spell once prepared as modified by a metamagic feat can be cast without the metamagic modification? Even though there is absolutely no precedent for such a ruling anywhere in the RAW? Or are you saying that a prepared spell caster can prep 3 spells per day, each day, for a week, but after he casts three of the spells, he somehow totally loses access to all the other spells he prepped with the rod?? Effectively having spells memorized, but no access to them?




I said that as written, he could only cast three spells that are Enlarged.  I'm not certain whether modified spells in excess of that would be castable (though not Enlarged), or non-castable... which is why I said that my personal ruling would be to forbid more than three spells to be prepared in modified form at any given time.



> Or are you saying that once 3 spells are prepared with the rod, that the rod can then pass to someone else but is then useless until the first three modified spells prepped by the previous owner of the rod are cast?




I think that even if the rod is used to prepare spells in modified form, you can't cast spells that are thus Enlarged unless you are the wielder of the rod.  So while the rod confers the ability to use the feat (which, for a wizard, is done at preparation time), it is also required to have the rod in hand when the spell so prepared is cast; it is the wielder who can cast spells that are Enlarged.

So if you prepare spells with the rod and then pass it on to someone else, you won't see the benefits of that preparation.

-Hyp.


----------



## Infiniti2000 (Dec 15, 2006)

Hypersmurf said:
			
		

> So if you prepare spells with the rod and then pass it on to someone else, you won't see the benefits of that preparation.



 So, you have to have the rod in hand when you are activating it and even when you are not?  I don't buy that as a valid interpretation at all.


			
				airwalkrr said:
			
		

> b) A character can cast up three spells per day that use the metamagic.



 An interesting side point to this is that it doesn't impose the limit on just the rod in question.  So, if you have two such rods, or the actual feat plus a rod of that feat, you still can't use any combination of them more than 3/day.

I think the valid rules interpretation of use-activated is at preparation time, but that gives us so many headaches that it is not the valid (i.e. appropriate) one.  Personally, I think the best option (house rule) is to apply it on the fly for everyone and not increase casting time for spontaneous spells.


----------



## Hypersmurf (Dec 15, 2006)

Infiniti2000 said:
			
		

> So, you have to have the rod in hand when you are activating it and even when you are not?  I don't buy that as a valid interpretation at all.




You have to use the rod to use the feat (and the rules for using the feat are found in the PHB).

You have to be the wielder of the rod to cast a spell that is [Metamagic Feat]ed.

-Hyp.


----------



## Infiniti2000 (Dec 15, 2006)

Hypersmurf said:
			
		

> You have to use the rod to use the feat (and the rules for using the feat are found in the PHB).



 Agreed.



			
				Hypersmurf said:
			
		

> You have to be the wielder of the rod to cast a spell that is [Metamagic Feat]ed.



 Disagree.  I don't see the text to support this.  I do see (e.g.):

"The wielder can cast up to three spells per day that are empowered as though using the Empower Spell feat."

But interpreting it the way you're attempting is conflating the usage of the item.  It's either use-activated or not.  What you're now saying, however, is that it's use-activated twice, once as a normal feat and once as a ...?


----------



## RainOfSteel (Dec 15, 2006)

Thanee said:
			
		

> The only thing, that can be concluded from the rules text is, that wizards have to use the feat usage granted by the rod, just like their normal feat usage, that is, during preparation. How this exactly works is not exactly detailed.



That is not the only thing that can be concluded.  The rules say "3 times per day".  It is clear that these uses may be called upon at any time of the day.  Why is it clear?  Because there is no other restriction listed.

"3 times per day" means exactly the same thing for metamagic rods that it does for any other magical item that has a per-day usage.  Metamagic rods are not different.




			
				Thanee said:
			
		

> Obviously, when you have to use the rods during preparation, [...]



Except that it is not stated that the rods must be used during spell preparation.




			
				Thanee said:
			
		

> [...] you won't be able to have more than three spells prepared this way (from a single rod) at any time.



If a metamagic rod is used at spell preparation (I do not say that this is true), and since not all spells are re-memorized at each spell preparation, and since there is nothing written anywhere about prepared spells with metamagic feats applied losing their "metamagically enhanced" status later on, then we can only conclude that a spellcaster could eventually rack up every available spell slot with a metamagic feat applied by adding three more such applications per day.

Specifying that such a mechanic exists--memorized spells losing their applied metamagic feat after one day in order to prevent a spellcaster from racking up all spells as metamagically enhanced, is inventing a mechanic to support a situation that doesn't exist in the first place.  It also needlessly complicates the handling of the entire usage of metamagic rods.  Such a mechanic (metamagic enchancement fading) or a restriction (only usable at spell preparation) is, to me, _obviously_ not what metamagic rods are for.




			
				Thanee said:
			
		

> It's a simple logical conclusion [...]



I can only view it as having increased complexity.  It is logical only when accepting the existence of rules not listed in the description of metamagic rods.

EDIT------------------------------

I would like to point out the rules for metamagic rods discuss combining the wielder's own metamagic feats with that of the rod.

In this description, it says (bold emphasis mine):


			
				DMG 3.5 p.236 said:
			
		

> In this case, only the feats possessed by the wielder adjust the spell slot of the *spell being cast*



There it is, crystal clear.  "[...] the spell being cast."

This is RAW that the rod is used on spells as they are being cast.


----------



## airwalkrr (Dec 15, 2006)

RainOfSteel said:
			
		

> In this description, it says (bold emphasis mine):
> There it is, crystal clear.  "[...] the spell being cast."
> 
> This is RAW that the rod is used on spells as they are being cast.




That is not what the RAW says. That is what you infer the RAW suggests. There is a world of difference. This statement is talking about two things simultaneously (using a rod and using a metamagic feat) and simply uses the phrase "spell being cast" as a reference, not a parameter. If you assume it is a parameter, then that means wizards and clerics apply metamagic feats as the spell is being cast, but we all know that is not the case.


----------



## Hypersmurf (Dec 15, 2006)

Infiniti2000 said:
			
		

> Disagree.  I don't see the text to support this.  I do see (e.g.):
> 
> "The wielder can cast up to three spells per day that are empowered as though using the Empower Spell feat."




That _is_ the text to support this...!



> But interpreting it the way you're attempting is conflating the usage of the item.  It's either use-activated or not.  What you're now saying, however, is that it's use-activated twice, once as a normal feat and once as a ...?




Consider the Rod of Security.  The possessor of the rod can create a pocket paradise, and the possessor of the rod can dismiss that pocket paradise.

I'm the possessor of the rod, and I create a pocket paradise.  Someone steals the rod from me.  Am I still the possessor of the rod?  Can I still dismiss the paradise?

I have a Rod of Enlarge Spell.  The rod allows me to use the Enlarge Spell feat.  It allows the wielder to cast up to three spells per day that are Enlarged.

I use the Enlarge Spell feat while preparing my spells.  Someone steals the rod from me.  Am I the wielder of the rod any more?  Can I still cast up to three spells per day that are Enlarged?

-Hyp.


----------



## Nail (Dec 16, 2006)

Hypersmurf said:
			
		

> I use the Enlarge Spell feat while preparing my spells.  Someone steals the rod from me.  Am I the wielder of the rod any more?  Can I still cast up to three spells per day that are Enlarged?



Ouch.    

...But what *I2K* is pointing to is that the magic item is required twice to do one effect.  Is there any other item (other than other metamagic rods) that does such a thing?


----------



## Hypersmurf (Dec 16, 2006)

Nail said:
			
		

> ...But what *I2K* is pointing to is that the magic item is required twice to do one effect.  Is there any other item (other than other metamagic rods) that does such a thing?




Ring of Spell Storing?

If I have it when I cast a spell into it, but I don't have it when I want to release that spell, it's not much good to me!

Headband of Intellect?  Let's say I have an Int of 15, and I'm wearing a Headband +2, raising my Int to 17.  This grants me a bonus 3rd level spell.  If I'm not wearing the Headband when I prepare my spells, I can't prepare a spell in that slot, because that slot doesn't exist.  If I'm not wearing the Headband when I want to cast that spell, I can't cast the spell, because that slot doesn't exist...

-Hyp.


----------



## Infiniti2000 (Dec 16, 2006)

Hypersmurf said:
			
		

> That _is_ the text to support this...!



 It's the text to support the opposed viewpoint in the poll (opposing to both of us, I'll point out).



			
				Hypersmurf said:
			
		

> Consider the Rod of Security.  ... Can I still dismiss the paradise?



 "Details relating to rod use vary from item to item. See the individual descriptions for specifics." 



			
				Hypersmurf said:
			
		

> I have a Rod of Enlarge Spell.  The rod allows me to use the Enlarge Spell feat.  It allows the wielder to cast up to three spells per day that are Enlarged.
> 
> I use the Enlarge Spell feat while preparing my spells.  Someone steals the rod from me.  Am I the wielder of the rod any more?  Can I still cast up to three spells per day that are Enlarged?



 No, you are not the wielder.  And, yes you can cast as many as you have prepared because you've prepared those spells with that feat.  The text you are looking for that isn't there would be: "If the rod is lost, then the prepared spells cannot be cast."

I noted earlier, btw, that I think it's possible to interpret that it's in your best interest to not wield the rod after preparing your spells.  You do not need to be restricted by the rod thusly.


----------



## Hypersmurf (Dec 16, 2006)

Infiniti2000 said:
			
		

> "Details relating to rod use vary from item to item. See the individual descriptions for specifics."




Right.  And for the Metamagic Rod of Enlarge, it's the wielder who can cast spells that are Enlarged...

-Hyp.


----------



## RainOfSteel (Dec 16, 2006)

Infiniti2000 said:
			
		

> No, you are not the wielder.  And, yes you can cast as many as you have prepared because you've prepared those spells with that feat.  The text you are looking for that isn't there would be: "If the rod is lost, then the prepared spells cannot be cast."



Except that if metamagic rods are used when spells are cast, then we don't have to invent new game mechanics to support them, and we don't have to invent additional item description text to cover the problems of the newly invented game mechanics.


----------



## KarinsDad (Dec 16, 2006)

airwalkrr said:
			
		

> It is a perfectly justifiable, reasonable, and logical interpretation of the rules. Your point merely boils down to the fact that it disagrees with the FAQ. Now if Skip Williams wrote the FAQ entry in question, then I would agree that intent is just as he wrote it (in the FAQ). But if that is the case then metamagic rods are imprecisely worded, as a literal interpretation of them leads to Hypersmurf's position.




No, I made several points.

1) It disagrees with the FAQ (which btw, I could care less about).

2) It is an unclear position due to there not being any rules for it. And unclear interpretations should be avoided if possible.

3) The following sentence is totally unnecessary in a "preparation time" interpretation:



> All the rods described here are use-activated (but casting spells in a threatened area still draws an attack of opportunity).




It seems likely that the only reason this sentence is there is to indicate that the rod is used spontaneously. It does not do a good job of conveying that information, but that appears to be what this sentence is all about.

There are two reasons why this sentence appears to indicate at casting time over at preparation time:

1) Use-activated items which effect spell casting are almost exclusively used when a spell is cast (in fact, I cannot think of one which is also used at preparation except ability score modifying items and a Ring of Wizardry).

2) The word casting in the sentence appears to be referring to the phrase use-activated.


When this sentence is combined with every other statement by WotC, it is clear that designer intent is spontaneous. And since these items are worded so poorly, it makes sense for the FAQ to add a clarification here.

If it is supposed to mean spontaneous, it doesn't do a good job.

If it is supposed to mean during preparation, it does an even worse job due to the issues of how to adjudicate multiple days of prep (or not) and due to the implication that the item has to be used both at preparation time and at casting time.

So, it is perfectly reasonable for this to actually be a clarification within the FAQ.

What is funny is that people bitch when the FAQ does a lousy job and then they turn around and bitch when it does a good job. This is a good job because a) it appears to be original designer intent, and b) the during preparation results in addition different adjudication from different DMs.


----------



## airwalkrr (Dec 16, 2006)

KarinsDad said:
			
		

> 3) The following sentence is totally unnecessary in a "preparation time" interpretation:




Thanks for joining the thread. Thanee already addressed this here



			
				KarinsDad said:
			
		

> 1) Use-activated items which effect spell casting are almost exclusively used when a spell is cast (in fact, I cannot think of one which is also used at preparation except ability score modifying items and a Ring of Wizardry).




I would challenge you to find very many use-activated items that affect spellcasting at all. The only other one I can think of besides metamagic rods is the bead of karma (strand of prayer beads). That item simply states any spell you cast for the next 10 minutes is cast at +4 caster level and says nothing about needing to wield it after you activate it. That notwithstanding, there is not a huge precedent either way as this kind of item does not have a typical magic item effect like +X to such and such ability. So saying that use-activated items which affect spellcasting are almost exclusively used when a spell is cast proves little if anything (in fact I believe it is a false statement).



			
				KarinsDad said:
			
		

> When this sentence is combined with every other statement by WotC, it is clear that designer intent is spontaneous.




I must have missed some huge body of literature regarding metamagic rods that you are apparently familiar with and I am not. Please provide a reference for such statements so they can be validated. I am not saying I do not believe you. I am merely saying that I am not familiar with such statements, and I do doubt they are as prevalent as you think. I happen to think that WotC's sole statement on the matter is probably the FAQ.



			
				KarinsDad said:
			
		

> If it is supposed to mean spontaneous, it doesn't do a good job.




I agree with you there.



			
				KarinsDad said:
			
		

> If it is supposed to mean during preparation, it does an even worse job due to the issues of how to adjudicate multiple days of prep (or not) and due to the implication that the item has to be used both at preparation time and at casting time.




I disagree that it does an even worse job in this case. It is poorly worded either way and intent is for the most part unclear (without the FAQ, assuming of course that the FAQ author was aware of the intent, which is not necessarily a given).



			
				KarinsDad said:
			
		

> So, it is perfectly reasonable for this to actually be a clarification within the FAQ.




I didn't say it was not reasonable. I merely believe that the RAW plainly supports the interpretation that it is done at preparation because of the lack of qualifying statements regarding what it means to "use" a metamagic feat. However, the only thing that makes the FAQ interpretation reasonable is the fact that it is the FAQ. The RAW do not explicitly or implicitly state that "use" means spontaneously. They don't even address the issue, which is why the waters of interpretation are muddied. I only trust the FAQ if the entry in question was written by Skip Willaims, Jonathan Tweet, or Monte Cook (the chief architects behind 3.5), and even then it is only because I assume the author either wrote the rule or playtested with that interpretation of the rule. Unless someone has them on speed dial, this issue remains unelucidated.



			
				KarinsDad said:
			
		

> What is funny is that people bitch when the FAQ does a lousy job and then they turn around and bitch when it does a good job. This is a good job because a) it appears to be original designer intent, and b) the during preparation results in addition different adjudication from different DMs.




Assuming the FAQ correctly states designer intent, then there is nothing wrong with the FAQ in this case and it is the actual rule itself which is to blame. Unfortunately, I am a rational person and expect something like the FAQ which is billed as a "clarification" resource to be consistent with the RAW, which this entry is not.


----------



## Thanee (Dec 16, 2006)

RainOfSteel said:
			
		

> Except that it is not stated that the rods must be used during spell preparation.




It is.

It says the rods confer usage of the feat. The feat is used during preparation.

It does most definitely _not_ say, that the rods are used spontaneously, which would be necessary to change the procedure.

Besides, prepared spells are *cast*, too. 

Bye
Thanee


----------



## KarinsDad (Dec 16, 2006)

airwalkrr said:
			
		

> Thanks for joining the thread. Thanee already addressed this here




Yes, thanks for joining the thread. I've already made reference to Thanee's point in an earlier post.

His point is not convincing.



> Using the rod during preparation of a spell is also use-activated.




Rods are normally command word.

If used by a Sorcerer, it makes sense that it would be use-activated.

If used by a Wizard with the preparation time interpretation, it doesn't matter.

If used by a Wizard with the casting time interpretation, again it makes sense that it would be use-activated.

So by itself, this part of the sentence is not telling us preparation time or casting time. It is merely stating that it is use-activated.



> Casting a spell in a threatened area is still relevant (for spontaneous casters).




However, the second part of the sentence is totally unnecessary and a waste of words in a preparation time interpretation.

And, Thanee's point here doesn't "explain away" anything. All it does is state that the second part of the sentence repeats a normal rule and is not explicit one way or the other, and this is true.

However, the second part of the sentence in a casting time interpretation does make sense for why that part of the sentence is written there at all. Although not explicit, it does imply that casting time and use-activated are related and not just for Sorcerers.


----------



## airwalkrr (Dec 16, 2006)

Magic items that are use-activated do not always provoke attacks for opportunity. The parenthetical note is simply a reminder that using the rod while casting still involves casting the spell, which provokes as normal. These kinds of reminders are resplendent in 3e no matter how trivial it often might seem. Nevertheless this is a useful reminder even if it only applies to spontaneous casters, as some rules lawyers might otherwise try to argue that using the rod is all that is necessary to cast the spell and therefore avoid the attack of opportunity. The fact that this statement is parenthetical means it does NOT necessarily relate to the first part of the sentence in all cases, but where it does (i.e. spontaneous casters) it reminds you that the normal rules for casting a spell still apply.



			
				KarinsDad said:
			
		

> If used by a Wizard with the preparation time interpretation, it doesn't matter.




Yes, it does matter because a magic item should always declare what kind of action it takes to use it unless it is the default action type for that item.


----------



## Twowolves (Dec 16, 2006)

Hypersmurf said:
			
		

> Ring of Spell Storing?
> 
> If I have it when I cast a spell into it, but I don't have it when I want to release that spell, it's not much good to me!




Except that's not one effect, it's two effects. Storing the spell is one, casting it is another.




			
				Hyp said:
			
		

> Headband of Intellect?  Let's say I have an Int of 15, and I'm wearing a Headband +2, raising my Int to 17.  This grants me a bonus 3rd level spell.  If I'm not wearing the Headband when I prepare my spells, I can't prepare a spell in that slot, because that slot doesn't exist.  If I'm not wearing the Headband when I want to cast that spell, I can't cast the spell, because that slot doesn't exist...




The Headband doesn't give you spell slots, it increases your intelligence. A single classed fighter can wear it all day and not have it influence the spells he can (or cannot) cast. Loss of a primary casting stat is also handled explicitly in the RAW for ability drain/damage, where your rod interpretation scenario isn't.

Your interpretation of the rods requires a use activated item with a daily limit on use of 3 per day actually be used 6 times per day for some casters, 3 per day for others. Or else it requires some sort of interpretation where prepared spells can lose metamagic effects.



			
				RainofSteel said:
			
		

> If a metamagic rod is used at spell preparation (I do not say that this is true), and since not all spells are re-memorized at each spell preparation, and since there is nothing written anywhere about prepared spells with metamagic feats applied losing their "metamagically enhanced" status later on, then we can only conclude that a spellcaster could eventually rack up every available spell slot with a metamagic feat applied by adding three more such applications per day.
> 
> Specifying that such a mechanic exists--memorized spells losing their applied metamagic feat after one day in order to prevent a spellcaster from racking up all spells as metamagically enhanced, is inventing a mechanic to support a situation that doesn't exist in the first place. It also needlessly complicates the handling of the entire usage of metamagic rods. Such a mechanic (metamagic enchancement fading) or a restriction (only usable at spell preparation) is, to me, obviously not what metamagic rods are for.




Precisely.


----------



## Hypersmurf (Dec 16, 2006)

Twowolves said:
			
		

> Your interpretation of the rods requires a use activated item with a daily limit on use of 3 per day actually be used 6 times per day for some casters, 3 per day for others. Or else it requires some sort of interpretation where prepared spells can lose metamagic effects.




Th limit on the rod is not "can be used three times per day".

It's "confers the ability to use the given feat a specified number of times per day" and "can cast up to three spells per day that are [Metamagic Feat]ed".

Is the rod required at six points during the day?  Sure.  Am I exceeding the limits?  Not at all.  I'm using the feat a specified number of times (at preparation time), and I'm casting not more than three spells that are [Metamagic Feat]ed.



> Except that's not one effect, it's two effects. Storing the spell is one, casting it is another.




And this is different how?

Preparing the spell is one effect, casting it is another.

If I don't have the ring, I can't store the spell in it.  If I don't have the ring, I can't cast the spell from it.

If I don't have the Rod, I can't use the Enlarge Spell feat when I prepare my spells.  If I don't have the Rod, I can't cast a spell that is Enlarged.

If I don't have the Headband, I can't prepare a spell in a 3rd level bonus slot.  If I don't have the Headband, I can't cast a spell from a 3rd level bonus slot.

I'm not seeing the vast conceptual gulf between these situations.

-Hyp.


----------



## RainOfSteel (Dec 16, 2006)

Overall, these are the points I feel are in favor of metamagic rods being used when spells are cast for all cases.

There is no restriction on when metagmagic rods may be used listed anywhere.
The phrase, "[...] the spell being cast" at the end of paragraph one of the item description.
The phrase in each separate item description, emphasis mine, "The wielder can cast [...] _*as though empowered**_ by using the Empower* feat".  This clearly indicates, for all cases, that the caster is not using the Empower feat, but casting the spell as though it had been empowered using it.  The rods aren't giving the feats over to the spellcaster, the rods are applying the feat in question to a spell as it is being cast.  (* Or any of the other feat names.)
If metamagic rods are used by prepared spell spellcasters at spell preparation time, then this requires the assumption of new game mechanics to cover the complexities that arise from this situation.  If metamagic rods are used at casting time, no new game mechanics need be introduced.  (Thus, new entities beyond those necessary are not generated.)


----------



## anon (Dec 16, 2006)

d20srd.org said:
			
		

> Possession of a metamagic rod does not confer the associated feat on the owner, only the ability to use the given feat a specified number of times per day. A sorcerer still must take a full-round action when using a metamagic rod, just as if using a metamagic feat he possesses.




I summarize as follows: one can "use the feat" when one possesses the rod.

When does a Wizard normally use a metamagic feat? When the spell is prepared.*
When does a Sorcerer normally use a metamagic feat? When the spell is cast.

From this I conclude that Wizards use the rods at spell preparation, only, and Sorcerers use the rods at casting time, only.

*To those who might argue this, what happens, for example, if a Wizard has the Quicken Spell Feat, prepares a Quickened Magic Missile, then loses the feat? Does the spell go away? Revert to its normal level? Become unavailalbe? Or simply stay available ready to cast in its Quickened form? I would contend the last option is the correct one.

Additionally this quote supports the idea that Metamagic Feats are used by Wizards at preparation:



			
				d20srd.org:  section-Feats said:
			
		

> Wizards and Divine Spellcasters
> Wizards and divine spellcasters must prepare their spells in advance. During preparation, the character chooses which spells to prepare with metamagic feats (and thus which ones take up higher-level spell slots than normal).



_______




			
				d20srd.org said:
			
		

> The wielder can cast up to three spells per day that are [metamagic]ed as though using the [metamagic] Spell feat




This line is troublesome because, in the case of Wizards, the rod has nothing to do with casting, only with spell preparation. My interpretation of this internally contradictory description would be to interpret "can cast" as "can cast or prepare". A stretch I realize, but metamagic feats are used by Wizards when they prepare their spells, not when they cast them, IMHO.

_______




			
				d20srd.org said:
			
		

> All the rods described here are use-activated (but casting spells in a threatened area still draws an attack of opportunity).




As I see it this line isn't really telling us anything new. If one insists that it's there for a reason, I think it's there so that Sorcerers wouldn't claim that casting a spell metamagic'd with a rod _wouldn't_ draw an attack of opportunity.


----------



## RigaMortus2 (Dec 17, 2006)

RainOfSteel said:
			
		

> Overall, these are the points I feel are in favor of metamagic rods being used when spells are cast for all cases.
> 
> There is no restriction on when metagmagic rods may be used listed anywhere.




No, there is not.  But there is a restriction (for Wizards) on when they can apply metamagic feats.  And since the rod confers the ability to use a metamagic feat, it indirectly does give us a restriction (for Wizards) to be used at the time of preperation.  I understand you have to dig deep in the text of the metamagic rod description, but if you look hard enough, it is there.


----------



## Thanee (Dec 17, 2006)

KarinsDad said:
			
		

> And, Thanee's point here doesn't "explain away" anything. All it does is state that the second part of the sentence repeats a normal rule and is not explicit one way or the other, and this is true.
> 
> However, the second part of the sentence in a casting time interpretation does make sense for why that part of the sentence is written there at all. Although not explicit, it does imply that casting time and use-activated are related and not just for Sorcerers.




The only problem is, that this breaks an existing rule (without any statement whatsoever, that this rule does not apply). The other way, no rules are broken.

Bye
Thanee


----------



## Seeten (Dec 17, 2006)

I call shenanigans on the FAQ.


----------



## KarinsDad (Dec 17, 2006)

Thanee said:
			
		

> The only problem is, that this breaks an existing rule (without any statement whatsoever, that this rule does not apply). The other way, no rules are broken.




That's why it is an implied statement and that is why clarification was required in the FAQ.

Broken is not the correct word. Rules are modified all of the time for magic items and special circumstances.


----------



## Thanee (Dec 17, 2006)

KarinsDad said:
			
		

> Broken is not the correct word. Rules are modified all of the time for magic items and special circumstances.




It is. Modified rules are pointed out, broken rules are not. 

The FAQ isn't a clarification here, it's a change. That's fine, of course, the FAQ does that all the time; it's just a change I do not agree with from various viewpoints (including balance and consistency; the way I'm using them is better on both counts), and thus ignore. 

What I'm talking about is the rule (without the FAQ change), and going from there, it's just as I say. Broken. 

Bye
Thanee


----------



## RainOfSteel (Dec 17, 2006)

Thanee said:
			
		

> It is. Modified rules are pointed out, broken rules are not.
> 
> The FAQ isn't a clarification here, it's a change.



When I look at it, the FAQ is just spelling out what the _entire_ item description already says.  That makes it a clarification.

No rules are broken.

It is a case of a magic item granting an ability/function/feature that is normally not available, just as many other magic items grant.


----------



## Hypersmurf (Dec 17, 2006)

RainOfSteel said:
			
		

> It is a case of a magic item granting an ability/function/feature that is normally not available, just as many other magic items grant.




Let's say we have an Druid who casts Flame Blade.  A 3-foot-long, blazing beam of red-hot fire springs forth from his hand. He wields this bladelike beam as if it were a scimitar.

No problem.  Druids are proficient with scimitars.

Now let's say we have an Archivist who casts Flame Blade.  A 3-foot-long, blazing beam of red-hot fire springs forth from his hand. He wields this bladelike beam as if it were a scimitar.

Archivists aren't proficient with scimitars, so he takes a -4 non-proficiency penalty.

Unless, for no reason at all, we assume an extra sentence that says "The spell allows you to use the blade as someone proficient with scimitars would, should you not be proficient with scimitars."

But why would we make such an assumption?

-Hyp.


----------



## Cyberzombie (Dec 17, 2006)

Hypersmurf's explenation about how he thinks the rod should work -- at preparation time -- goes on for more than a screen of text.

If you assume, however, that it is used when you cast the spell, the description of how it works encompases exactly one sentance.  Therefor, it makes MUCH more sense for it to work at the time of casting.


----------



## Seeten (Dec 18, 2006)

Thats true. But then it doesnt work with Sorcerors in the intuitive way. It takes all the Wizards problems with metamagic away, while continuing to highlight the sorcerors problems, and point them out.

Since wizards are already more powerful than sorcerors, this is poor from both a fair-play standpoint, and also a balance standpoint. If we assume this one sentence method is better, of which I am dubious, we also assume game balance is not worth much, I guess, and that no one cares about how the rules impact sorcerors, since as they are terrible no one plays them anyway.

With a simple clarification, "Metamagic rods take care of the metamagicking of the spell FOR the caster" we escape preparing the spell as a wizard, AND spending a full round as a sorceror, and its clear to me the intent is for the ROD to do the heavy lifting, not the wizard, and not the sorceror. Since the FAQ entry claims that the Rod does the work for the Wizard, but the Rod does NOT do the work for the Sorceror, I claim the entire FAQ entry is wholly worthless.


----------



## Hypersmurf (Dec 18, 2006)

Cyberzombie said:
			
		

> If you assume, however, that it is used when you cast the spell, the description of how it works encompases exactly one sentance.  Therefor, it makes MUCH more sense for it to work at the time of casting.




Then why are wizards (clerics, druids, paladins, rangers... and by the wording of the rod, potentially even bards!) not subject to the rule that if you have not prepared the spell in a metamagic form in advance, you must apply the metamagic feat on the spot, and therefore must also take more time to cast a metamagic spell (one enhanced by a metamagic feat) than you do to cast a regular spell?

Alternatively, given that the FAQ says that 'sorcerer' actually means 'sorcerer (or by extension, any other spontaneous spellcaster)', can we similarly assume that 'sorcerer' actually means 'sorcerer (or by extension, any other spellcaster applying a metamagic feat on the spot to a spell not prepared in a metamagic form in advance)'... that is to say, under the casting-time interpretation, _all_ spellcasters?

See, I don't have a problem with a rod that lets a wizard apply a metamagic feat on the fly (though I don't think the DMG metamagic rod is that rod).  I have a problem with a rod that lets a wizard apply a metamagic feat on the fly without incurring the standard penalty for doing so, but which goes out of its way to remind us about that very penalty!

-Hyp.


----------



## Thanee (Dec 18, 2006)

Cyberzombie said:
			
		

> Hypersmurf's explenation about how he thinks the rod should work -- at preparation time -- goes on for more than a screen of text.
> 
> If you assume, however, that it is used when you cast the spell, the description of how it works encompases exactly one sentance.  Therefor, it makes MUCH more sense for it to work at the time of casting.




By that logic, maybe we should alter the wizard class spellcasting ability to one sentance, too (I'm sure we can improve all rules this way)?

Wizards can cast all spells written in their spellbook at will.

Begone, all those complicated rules! Simplicity for everyone!

Bye
Thanee


----------



## KarinsDad (Dec 18, 2006)

Thanee said:
			
		

> It is. Modified rules are pointed out, broken rules are not.
> 
> The FAQ isn't a clarification here, it's a change. That's fine, of course, the FAQ does that all the time; it's just a change I do not agree with from various viewpoints (including balance and consistency; the way I'm using them is better on both counts), and thus ignore.
> 
> What I'm talking about is the rule (without the FAQ change), and going from there, it's just as I say. Broken.




With all of the capability in Complete Arcane, Complete Mage, etc., this is hardly broken.

If Spontaneous Metamagic were broken, then Sorcerers by default would be broken. Spontaneous Metamagic 3 times per day for Wizards for X amount of gold is not broken if Spontaneous Metamagic 50 times per day for Sorcerers for free is not broken.


Btw, I agree with you that by a strict literal RAW reading, the metamagic rods should be during preparation time for preparation casters.

However, I also view this as a case where WotC meant to state one thing and was unclear, and accidentally stated something else. Hence, the FAQ is a clarification in this case.

A better poll might be: "When you first read about metamagic rods (possibly in Tome and Blood) and before you read discussions on the topic here on the board or elsewhere, did you think they were supposed to be used at casting time or preparation time?"

I suspect that possibly even Hyp or you or both misread the strict literal RAW the very first time as "at casting time" until a closer look was taken.


----------



## Thanee (Dec 18, 2006)

KarinsDad said:
			
		

> With all of the capability in Complete Arcane, Complete Mage, etc., this is hardly broken.




The other 'broken'. 



> I suspect that possibly even Hyp or you or both misread the strict literal RAW the very first time as "at casting time" until a closer look was taken.




Indeed.  In fact, I'm pretty sure, that I even said so earlier (ok, much earlier, in another thread).

It's the intuitive view you almost automatically get, before you start to think about it. 

Bye
Thanee


----------



## KarinsDad (Dec 18, 2006)

Thanee said:
			
		

> The other 'broken'.




What other broken?  

The partially ok but still a pain in the butt for a DM broken, or the can't play the game at all with such a terrible rule broken, or some other broken?


----------



## takasi (Dec 18, 2006)

If you rule that a wizard must use a metamagic rod during spell preparation then does he also need to hold it when casting the spell?  Why?

If the wizard finds a metamagic rod during an adventure that will not end before he can rest does that mean that he can't use it?

And if you're a sorcerer who's bummed about increasing the casting time wouldn't you rather ditch your familiar and take metamagic specialist from PHB 2?


----------



## Infiniti2000 (Dec 18, 2006)

takasi said:
			
		

> If you rule that a wizard must use a metamagic rod during spell preparation then does he also need to hold it when casting the spell?  Why?



 Hyp says yes, I say no.  Quite honestly, I'm not sure why.


----------



## KarinsDad (Dec 18, 2006)

Infiniti2000 said:
			
		

> Hyp says yes, I say no.  Quite honestly, I'm not sure why.




Unlike the activation section of Wands and Staffs that specifically state that they must be held in hand to activate, the activation section of Rods does not state this. Hence, it appears that they do not have to be in hand to use.

In fact, it appears that mere possession is sufficient:



> *Possession* of a metamagic rod does not confer the associated feat on the owner, only the ability to use the given feat a specified number of times per day.


----------



## Thanee (Dec 18, 2006)

KarinsDad said:
			
		

> What other broken?
> 
> The partially ok but still a pain in the butt for a DM broken, or the can't play the game at all with such a terrible rule broken, or some other broken?




Yep. The same broken as in the whole post. Which is something entirely different, than what you think.

Bye
Thanee


----------



## Thanee (Dec 18, 2006)

takasi said:
			
		

> And if you're a sorcerer who's bummed about increasing the casting time wouldn't you rather ditch your familiar and take metamagic specialist from PHB 2?




Yeah, that's a very good special rule (and I'm one of those who like familiars and find them highly useful ).

I even had a character pick up Metamagic Specialist and then Obtain Familiar later. 

Bye
Thanee


----------



## takasi (Dec 18, 2006)

KarinsDad said:
			
		

> In fact, it appears that mere possession is sufficient:




"Possession of a metamagic rod does not confer the associated feat on the owner, only the ability to use the given feat a specified number of times per day."

But when do you have to "possess" the rod?  If you rule that you use the rod/feat during spell prep then could a wizard keep it safely guarded in his tower during the day as he goes off adventuring with his maximized fireballs?


----------



## Thanee (Dec 18, 2006)

The way I would (and do) use the rods for prepared casters, they have to use them both during preparation and when casting the spell, just like the metamagic feat is used on both occasions (once to determine the required slot and once to apply to the spell effect).

When they are preparing, they bind the energy of the rod to their spell slots, which is also why they can never have more than three spells bound to one rod at any time, though they can choose to unravel an unused binding when they prepare their spells the next time (when the rod's uses would become available again), of course.

When they are casting the spell, they need to have the rod ready in order to empower (not to be taken too literal here) the spells with the metamagic stored within.

Bye
Thanee


----------



## Hypersmurf (Dec 18, 2006)

KarinsDad said:
			
		

> Unlike the activation section of Wands and Staffs that specifically state that they must be held in hand to activate, the activation section of Rods does not state this. Hence, it appears that they do not have to be in hand to use.




Except that you have to be 'the wielder' to cast the spell that is [Enlarged].

If you don't have the rod in hand, you aren't 'the wielder'.

-Hyp.


----------



## RainOfSteel (Dec 18, 2006)

Hypersmurf said:
			
		

> [...]
> Now let's say we have an Archivist who casts Flame Blade.  A 3-foot-long, blazing beam of red-hot fire springs forth from his hand. He wields this bladelike beam as if it were a scimitar.
> 
> Archivists aren't proficient with scimitars, so he takes a -4 non-proficiency penalty.
> ...



The spell, Flame Blade, states "Attacks with the flame blade are melee touch attacks."  This specifies what to do in combat with this magical creation that looks like a scimitar (but actually isn't a scimitar).

No need for a Feat is mentioned, and so attempting to assume that a Feat is required, or attempting to assume there are penalties for its lack when that isn't mentioned, is something I wouldn't do (why needlessly complicate it?).


----------



## Hypersmurf (Dec 18, 2006)

RainOfSteel said:
			
		

> The spell, Flame Blade, states "Attacks with the flame blade are melee touch attacks."  This specifies what to do in combat with this magical creation that looks like a scimitar (but actually isn't a scimitar).
> 
> No need for a Feat is mentioned, and so attempting to assume that a Feat is required, or attempting to assume there are penalties for its lack when that isn't mentioned, is something I wouldn't do (why needlessly complicate it?).





The spell states "You wield this bladelike beam as if it were a scimitar."

If you have the Weapon Focus (Scimitar) feat, should you get a +1 on your attack rolls?  Absolutely, since you're wielding it as if it were a scimitar.  If you have Dervish levels, should you treat it as a light weapon?  Certainly - you're wielding it as if it were a scimitar.

What do you consider the sentence "You wield this bladelike beam as if it were a scimitar" to actually mean, if not "You wield this bladelike beam as if it were a scimitar"?

-Hyp.


----------



## RigaMortus2 (Dec 18, 2006)

Hypersmurf said:
			
		

> What do you consider the sentence "You wield this bladelike beam as if it were a scimitar" to actually mean, if not "You wield this bladelike beam as if it were a scimitar"?
> 
> -Hyp.




I take it to mean exactly how it is stated.  I do not take it to mean anything else, such as "You must be proficient in Scimitar otherwise you incur the usual -4 penalty from using a weapon you are not proficient it."

If I am not proficient with a double bladed sword, and I pick one up and try to swing it at an enemy, am I not "wielding" it?  I may not be proficient in it, but I am certainly "wielding" it.

Note: I am not sure if what I just stated supports or goes against the point you were trying to make, I am merely expressing how I view that particular statement.


----------



## Hypersmurf (Dec 18, 2006)

RigaMortus2 said:
			
		

> If I am not proficient with a double bladed sword, and I pick one up and try to swing it at an enemy, am I not "wielding" it?  I may not be proficient in it, but I am certainly "wielding" it.




Absolutely.  And how are you wielding it?  At a -4 penalty.

If you wield something else exactly as you wield that double sword, the something else will also be wielded at a -4 penalty.

-Hyp.


----------



## KarinsDad (Dec 19, 2006)

Thanee said:
			
		

> Yep. The same broken as in the whole post. Which is something entirely different, than what you think.




So much for Thanne being explict.


----------



## KarinsDad (Dec 19, 2006)

Thanee said:
			
		

> When they are casting the spell, they need to have the rod *ready* in order to empower (not to be taken too literal here) the spells with the metamagic stored within.




What does ready mean?

In hand? On belt? In backpack?


----------



## Hypersmurf (Dec 19, 2006)

KarinsDad said:
			
		

> What does ready mean?
> 
> In hand? On belt? In backpack?




Be the wielder.

-Hyp.


----------



## wildstarsreach (Dec 19, 2006)

Okay, 

From the reading, it doesn't state that you have to memorize the spell while using this rod.  That doesn't mean that it wasn't implied.  But from the reading it implies but doesn't explicitely state upon casting.  Sorcerers have to make their spells a full round which does imply at the time of casting.It does state that the casting of the spell still provokes attacks of opportunity.

Here is a proposed suggestion that I think should change how the rods are used.

They are used at the time of casting.  Whether memorized or spontaneous casting, application of the rod's feat/power extends the spell to full round casting.  If the caster possesses the same feat as the rod, then the casting is as stated in the book.  

The only exception the Quicken metamagic rod.  This quickens everyones spell regardless of whether they have the feat or not.  Otherwise the application of this rod is an oxymoron.


----------



## RainOfSteel (Dec 19, 2006)

Hypersmurf said:
			
		

> What do you consider the sentence "You wield this bladelike beam as if it were a scimitar" to actually mean, if not "You wield this bladelike beam as if it were a scimitar"?



What do you consider the sentence *"The wielder can cast up to three spells per day that are empowered as though using the Empower Spell feat."* to mean, if not *"The wielder can cast up to three spells per day that are empowered as though using the Empower Spell feat."*?  (This sentence is repeated once per type of metamagic feat.)

*"Can cast"* is about as crystal clear as it comes.

It does _not_ say *"Can prepare"*.

-------------------------------------

However, back to Flame Blade:

I consider the entire description, instead of individual sentences.

The sentence *"You wield this bladelike beam as if it were a scimitar."* is followed by *"Attacks with the flame blade are melee touch attacks."*

Since a character wielding a real scimitar does not use a melee touch attack (melee touch attacks do not suffer from non-proficiency penalties as far as I know), I can conclude that wielding it isn't really like wielding a scimitar after all, and that it is only speaking in general in that regard, as it is followed immediately by a game mechanic instruction that covers the situation.

If pressed, I might consider allowing a character to take Exotic Weapon Proficiency (Flame Blade) and then take Weapon Focus (Flame Blade) to obtain a bonus, but apply a non-proficiency penalty?  No, I wouldn't do that.

----------------------------------

Since spell preparation cannot be conducted in combat, and the description of metamagic rods contains an all-cases reference to combat . . .

"All the rods described here are use-activated (but casting spells in a threatened area still draws an attack of opportunity)."

. . . that would not even remotely be necessary, not even as an off-hand reminder, if it could not be used in combat on-the-spot (in all cases).

Any attempt to prepare a spell when combat is even nearby disrupts the preparation.

I'll update my list, then:


There is no restriction on when metagmagic rods may be used listed anywhere.
Spell preparation is not mentioned anywhere in the description of metamagic rods.
The phrase, *"[...] the spell being cast"* at the end of paragraph one of the item description.
The phrase in each separate item description, emphasis mine, *"The wielder can cast [...] as though empowered* by using the Empower* feat"*.  This clearly indicates, for all cases, that the caster is not using the Empower feat, but casting the spell as though it had been empowered using it.  The rods aren't giving the feats over to the spellcaster, the rods are applying the feat in question to a spell as it is being cast.  (* Or any of the other feat names.)
The description of metamagic rods contains an all-cases reference to combat usage, namely *"All the rods described here are use-activated (but casting spells in a threatened area still draws an attack of opportunity)."*.  Spell preparation cannot be conducted when combat is even nearby.  There would be no purpose to this statement, not even as an off-hand reminder, if the rods could not be used to cast spells in combat for all spellcasting wielders (if it were related to Sorcerers only, it would be listed as a Sorcerers only exception).
If metamagic rods are used by prepared spell spellcasters at spell preparation time, then this requires the assumption of new game mechanics to cover the complexities that arise from this situation.  If metamagic rods are used at casting time, no new game mechanics need be introduced.  (Thus, new entities beyond those necessary are not generated.)
I feel that the overwhelming majority of indicators in the description of this type of magic item indicate they may be used to cast spells at any time with no prior preparation on the part of the wielder and that the spells cast in association with the a metamagic rod's use receive the enhancement benefits indicated.


----------



## wildstarsreach (Dec 19, 2006)

Thanee said:
			
		

> The way I would (and do) use the rods for prepared casters, they have to use them both during preparation and when casting the spell, just like the metamagic feat is used on both occasions (once to determine the required slot and once to apply to the spell effect).
> 
> When they are preparing, they bind the energy of the rod to their spell slots, which is also why they can never have more than three spells bound to one rod at any time, though they can choose to unravel an unused binding when they prepare their spells the next time (when the rod's uses would become available again), of course.
> 
> ...




Here's the problem with what you are suggesting.  If you had a month between adventures.  Every day a caster prepares 3 of their spell with the Metamagic rods power.  If it is a greater rod, every spell that a wizard has could be for that adventure is empowered/maximized/ect.  This is imbalancing.

Using them at the time of casting prevents this and encourages use of this rod.  It gives the player flexibility.  There is nothing wrong with this.  You as a DM don't have to win but the players may have to win to save the world.  Being leiniant is always better.


----------



## wildstarsreach (Dec 19, 2006)

Thanee said:
			
		

> Yeah, that's a very good special rule (and I'm one of those who like familiars and find them highly useful ).
> 
> I even had a character pick up Metamagic Specialist and then Obtain Familiar later.
> 
> ...




I've thought about the same with taking familiar and improved familiar.


----------



## wildstarsreach (Dec 19, 2006)

KarinsDad said:
			
		

> With all of the capability in Complete Arcane, Complete Mage, etc., this is hardly broken.
> 
> If Spontaneous Metamagic were broken, then Sorcerers by default would be broken. Spontaneous Metamagic 3 times per day for Wizards for X amount of gold is not broken if Spontaneous Metamagic 50 times per day for Sorcerers for free is not broken.
> 
> ...




Even in Tome and Blood, it is implied badly at the time of casting.  Again, getting to spontaneously add a feat to three spells is not imbalancing.  Let's say that you have 4 rods of various feats, it is still not imbalancing, it gives the players options, that's all.


----------



## wildstarsreach (Dec 19, 2006)

Thanee said:
			
		

> The only problem is, that this breaks an existing rule (without any statement whatsoever, that this rule does not apply). The other way, no rules are broken.
> 
> Bye
> Thanee



Page and book of the rule that is broken please.


----------



## wildstarsreach (Dec 19, 2006)

anon said:
			
		

> I summarize as follows: one can "use the feat" when one possesses the rod.
> 
> When does a Wizard normally use a metamagic feat? When the spell is prepared.*
> When does a Sorcerer normally use a metamagic feat? When the spell is cast.
> ...





All good points but there is an abuse factor.  Over a period of time having all their spells prepared with a metamagic feat.  Also as many others have said, I wouldn't have them available for sale.  Unless they find them or have the appropriate skills to create them, then I as DM control how these are out and affecting the balance of my game.


----------



## Seeten (Dec 19, 2006)

Thats handled by the 3 per day rule, but you know, all these arguments are easily put to rest if you say "Everyone applies the feat at the time of casting, and nobody spends a full round 'applying' the feat."


----------



## KarinsDad (Dec 19, 2006)

Hypersmurf said:
			
		

> Be the wielder.




It is not a weapon. According to the metamagic text, it is merely possession.

It is not a wand. It is not a staff. These must be in hand. Nothing in the Rod text (that I could find) indicates that the possessor must be a wielder (in a weapon sense).

The only text I can find that might indicate that it must be "wielded" is:



> Use-Activated
> This type of item simply has to be used in order to activate it. A character has to drink a potion, swing a sword, interpose a shield to deflect a blow in combat, look through a lens, sprinkle dust, wear a ring, or don a hat. Use activation is generally straightforward and self-explanatory.




But, even this is vague on Rods.

The Rod of Alertness states "If grasped firmly". Many of the other rods have similar text. The Metamagic Rods have no such text.


----------



## Hypersmurf (Dec 19, 2006)

RainOfSteel said:
			
		

> What do you consider the sentence *"The wielder can cast up to three spells per day that are empowered as though using the Empower Spell feat."* to mean, if not *"The wielder can cast up to three spells per day that are empowered as though using the Empower Spell feat."*?  (This sentence is repeated once per type of metamagic feat.)




By my reading, the wielder can cast up to three spells per day that are empowered as though using the Empower Spell feat.  If he's a wizard, those three spells are the three upon which the Rod permitted him to use the feat; as a wizard, he uses the feat when he prepares the spells.



> I consider the entire description, instead of individual sentences.
> 
> The sentence *"You wield this bladelike beam as if it were a scimitar."* is followed by *"Attacks with the flame blade are melee touch attacks."*
> 
> Since a character wielding a real scimitar does not use a melee touch attack (melee touch attacks do not suffer from non-proficiency penalties as far as I know), I can conclude that wielding it isn't really like wielding a scimitar after all, and that it is only speaking in general in that regard, as it is followed immediately by a game mechanic instruction that covers the situation.




When I trip someone with a halberd, I make a melee touch attack.  If I have Weapon Focus (Halberd), I add a +1 bonus to that melee touch attack roll.  If I am not proficient with martial weapons (or the halberd in particular), I take a -4 penalty to that melee touch attack roll.

Do you disagree?



> . . . that would not even remotely be necessary, not even as an off-hand reminder, if it could not be used in combat on-the-spot (in all cases).




If it can be used in combat on-the-spot _in even a single case_, the reminder is not out-of-place.

If I have a Weapon Special Ability that contains the line "Disarm attempts made with the weapon gain a +2 bonus (though light weapons still incur a -4 penalty as normal)", does that mean that the ability can only be applied to light weapons?  Not at all.  Does it mean that two-handed weapons don't get the normal +4 bonus?  No, it doesn't.  When writing the line, the author for some reason felt it necessary to remind readers about the penalty for using a light weapon... even though omitting this reminder would not alter the rules.

The reminder is applicable to light weapons, even though the ability can apply to weapons that are not light.

Similarly, a reminder about casting spells in a threatened area is applicable to those who use the rod while casting, even if that does not cover all the possible users of the rod.

-Hyp.


----------



## Hypersmurf (Dec 19, 2006)

KarinsDad said:
			
		

> The only text I can find that might indicate that it must be "wielded" is:




_Metamagic, Empower: *The wielder can* cast up to three spells per day that are empowered as though using the Empower Spell feat.

Metamagic, Enlarge: *The wielder can* cast up to three spells per day that are enlarged as though using the Enlarge Spell feat.

Metamagic, Extend: *The wielder can* cast up to three spells per day that are extended as though using the Extend Spell feat.

Metamagic, Maximize: *The wielder can* cast up to three spells per day that are maximized as though using the Maximize Spell feat.

Metamagic, Quicken: *The wielder can* cast up to three spells per day that are quickened as though using the Quicken Spell feat.

Metamagic, Silent: *The wielder can* cast up to three spells per day without verbal components as though using the Silent Spell feat._

Who can?  The wielder can!

-Hyp.


----------



## Hypersmurf (Dec 19, 2006)

wildstarsreach said:
			
		

> Here's the problem with what you are suggesting.  If you had a month between adventures.  Every day a caster prepares 3 of their spell with the Metamagic rods power.  If it is a greater rod, every spell that a wizard has could be for that adventure is empowered/maximized/ect.  This is imbalancing.




Remember, there are two restrictions.  

1. You can use the feat a specified number of times per day.  (And when wizards etc use a metamagic feat, they do it at preparation time.)

2. The wielder can cast up to three spells per day that are [Metamagic]ed.

So if he prepares 3 spells each day for a month using the Enlarge feat from the rod, say, it doesn't change that he can only cast three per day that are Enlarged.

-Hyp.


----------



## wildstarsreach (Dec 19, 2006)

Hypersmurf said:
			
		

> Remember, there are two restrictions.
> 
> 1. You can use the feat a specified number of times per day.  (And when wizards etc use a metamagic feat, they do it at preparation time.)
> 
> ...




This is an assumption that you are making.  I think FAQ got it right but again this is an assumption that I am making.  I hear constantly how people berate the FAQ.  If you don't like the answer, you argue to the point to obsurdity ad nauseum.  Raw is unclear and someone answers in FAQ to clarify.  

I've run in two campaigns where these rods have been used.  They have not caused an imbalance.  They have given us options but a Headband of Intellect or any other enhancing items has gotten more use or mileage.  These are balanced at the time of casting.  To have 438000 GP in Greater Metamagic rods to have all your options would leave some horrible lacks in a wizard.

The poll states that about 75% of the people would or allow at time of casting.  Just because the majority think something doesn't mean it right.   But by the same token, they may be right since it doesn't imbalance most campaigns.


----------



## RainOfSteel (Dec 19, 2006)

Hypersmurf said:
			
		

> By my reading, the wielder can cast up to three spells per day that are empowered as though using the Empower Spell feat.  If he's a wizard, those three spells are the three upon which the Rod permitted him to use the feat; as a wizard, he uses the feat when he prepares the spells.



That goes pretty well, right up until you use the word "If".  The rod is granting the feat's effect upon the spell when cast, not when prepared.

That's "can cast".





			
				Hypersmurf said:
			
		

> When I trip someone with a halberd [...]



A scimitar isn't one of the weapons that can be used to do that.

General melee touch attacks do not suffer from non-proficiency penalties, and neither would the use of a Flame Blade if the spellcaster was not proficient in the use of a scimitar.




			
				Hypersmurf said:
			
		

> If it can be used in combat on-the-spot _in even a single case_, the reminder is not out-of-place.



In that case, yes it would be out of place.  If that were so, it would be misleading and in error because it did not specify.




			
				Hypersmurf said:
			
		

> If I have a Weapon Special Ability that contains the line "Disarm attempts made with the weapon gain a +2 bonus (though light weapons still incur a -4 penalty as normal)", does that mean that the ability can only be applied to light weapons?



The example you illustrate is not parallel, because the parenthetical note is specific (about light weapons) whereas the metamagic rod note about provoking attacks of opportunity is not specific (about what types of spellcasters it applies to).


----------



## airwalkrr (Dec 19, 2006)

takasi said:
			
		

> If the wizard finds a metamagic rod during an adventure that will not end before he can rest does that mean that he can't use it?




If the wizard levels up during an adventure and learns a metamagic feat, but the adventure will be over before the end of the day, does that mean that he can't use it? How unfair that he must abide by the rules of the game!



			
				takasi said:
			
		

> And if you're a sorcerer who's bummed about increasing the casting time wouldn't you rather ditch your familiar and take metamagic specialist from PHB 2?




You might. 3rd edition is all about choices. And then again, you might not. You might want a familiar or have an Intelligence of 12 and not see it as being that worthwhile.


----------



## airwalkrr (Dec 19, 2006)

Thanee said:
			
		

> Yeah, that's a very good special rule (and I'm one of those who like familiars and find them highly useful ).
> 
> I even had a character pick up Metamagic Specialist and then Obtain Familiar later.
> 
> ...




Therefore, Metamagic Specialist should be a feat...


----------



## Hypersmurf (Dec 19, 2006)

RainOfSteel said:
			
		

> That goes pretty well, right up until you use the word "If".  The rod is granting the feat's effect upon the spell when cast, not when prepared.




It says it grants the ability to use the feat.  When a wizard has the ability to use the Empower Spell feat, he does it while preparing.



> A scimitar isn't one of the weapons that can be used to do that.




What's your point?  I give you an example of a melee touch attack made with a weapon; if you're not proficient with the weapon, you suffer a penalty.

Let's say I have a scimitar with which I am not proficient, and the Deep Impact psionic feat.  When I resolve my attack with a melee weapon as a touch attack, do I take a -4 non-proficiency penalty?



> In that case, yes it would be out of place.  If that were so, it would be misleading and in error because it did not specify.
> 
> The example you illustrate is not parallel, because the parenthetical note is specific (about light weapons) whereas the metamagic rod note about provoking attacks of opportunity is not specific (about what types of spellcasters it applies to).




I disagree.  I think the note about provoking AoOs _is_ specific - it applies when the caster is using the rod while casting a spell in a threatened area.  If the caster doesn't use the rod while casting a spell in a threatened area, the note is not incorrect, it's just not pertinent to him.  Just like the note about a light weapon is not incorrect, merely not pertinent, when someone isn't using a light weapon.

I don't consider the light weapon note to be misleading or in error; it clearly states what applies if someone is using a light weapon.  Nor do I consider the casting note to be misleading or in error even under the preparation-time reading of metamagic rods; it states what applies if someone is casting a spell in a threatened area.  

I note you don't argue that the rod can only be used to cast a spell if you are in a threatened area; why is it that the note tells us "The rod is always used at casting time!" but not "The rod is always used in a threatened area!"?

-Hyp.


----------



## airwalkrr (Dec 19, 2006)

wildstarsreach said:
			
		

> Here's the problem with what you are suggesting.  If you had a month between adventures.  Every day a caster prepares 3 of their spell with the Metamagic rods power.  If it is a greater rod, every spell that a wizard has could be for that adventure is empowered/maximized/ect.  This is imbalancing.




This point has been discussed earlier in the thread and it has been concluded that it is not in fact inbalancing because the item description still places a limit of casting only three spells so metamagicked per day. No matter how you decide to rule it (whether the caster can still cast any remaining spells prepared thusly simply without the metamagic or whether the caster cannot cast the spells at all until the next day), it isn't unbalancing.


----------



## airwalkrr (Dec 19, 2006)

Hypersmurf said:
			
		

> _Metamagic, Empower: *The wielder can* cast up to three spells per day that are empowered as though using the Empower Spell feat.
> 
> Metamagic, Enlarge: *The wielder can* cast up to three spells per day that are enlarged as though using the Enlarge Spell feat.
> 
> ...




p0\/\/N3D


----------



## Thanee (Dec 19, 2006)

wildstarsreach said:
			
		

> Page and book of the rule that is broken please.




p. 88 PHB 3.5

Bye
Thanee


----------



## Thanee (Dec 19, 2006)

KarinsDad said:
			
		

> So much for Thanee being explict.




Think broken as a verb, not as an adjective. 

Bye
Thanee


----------



## Thanee (Dec 19, 2006)

Hypersmurf said:
			
		

> Who can?  The wielder can!




Mental picture of Hypersmurf standing on a stage with his band _Hypersmurf and the Metamagic Rods_ shouting to the audience... *“WHO CAN?”* ...and the audience shouts back... *“The wielder can!”* ... repeatedly. 

Bye
Thanee


----------



## Thanee (Dec 19, 2006)

wildstarsreach said:
			
		

> Here's the problem with what you are suggesting.  If you had a month between adventures.  Every day a caster prepares 3 of their spell with the Metamagic rods power.  If it is a greater rod, every spell that a wizard has could be for that adventure is empowered/maximized/ect.  This is imbalancing.




Read my post again, please.

Bye
Thanee


----------



## Thanee (Dec 19, 2006)

airwalkrr said:
			
		

> Therefore, Metamagic Specialist should be a feat...




I'm not so sure about that... losing the familiar is a greater loss than a feat.

This could probably be fine-tuned with prerequisites, though. 

Bye
Thanee


----------



## Twowolves (Dec 19, 2006)

airwalkrr said:
			
		

> This point has been discussed earlier in the thread and it has been concluded that it is not in fact inbalancing because the item description still places a limit of casting only three spells so metamagicked per day. *No matter how you decide to rule it * (whether the caster can still cast any remaining spells prepared thusly simply without the metamagic or whether the caster cannot cast the spells at all until the next day), it isn't unbalancing.




See, right here is the issue you fail to grasp. To rule as you do on how these rods work, it leaves you with another unanswered question, requiring more rulings on your "emanations from the penumbra" of your implied rules. So how do you think the designers intended for the rods to work in this case? You don't know? Because they never clarified it? Maybe because they never thought it needed clarifying because they never forsaw your particular mis-conclusion for how you think the rods work. 

People seem to have a problem with the rods bypassing the normal preparation rules, but no problem whatsoever with the rods bypassing the higher spell level slot rules. Odd that. Magic items break the rules, and that's how these rods do so. Everyone I knew read the description and interpreted them the same way I did, modified at the time of casting. Living Greyhawk runs it that way, and now the official WotC FAQ does too, and 3 to 1, the voters in this poll do too. Odd that, eh?


----------



## Thanee (Dec 19, 2006)

Twowolves said:
			
		

> People seem to have a problem with the rods bypassing the normal preparation rules, but no problem whatsoever with the rods bypassing the higher spell level slot rules.




Well, that's not true. I have a problem with anything bypassing rules without saying so. 

And I actually do have a problem with the higher spell level slot, despite the description clearly saying how it works, and have said on other occasions, that I would prefer them to be usable only on spell levels, so that the modified spell level, using the modifier from the regular metamagic feat, does not exceed the highest level one can cast (i.e. like the Incantatrix Instant Metamagic works).



> Everyone I knew read the description and interpreted them the same way I did, modified at the time of casting. Living Greyhawk runs it that way, and now the official WotC FAQ does too, and 3 to 1, the voters in this poll do too. Odd that, eh?




It is absolutely not odd, because that is what most consider the easiest (though I fail to see what's really easier there in practice), and it is also somewhat intuitive when you look at the rod's descriptions.

But that doesn't make it the best-working solution, and it still breaks rules, despite the non-spontaneous use for prepared casters.

It only requires a minor clarification, that you cannot use a rod to metamagic more than 3 spell slots at a time, which does not really limit them further, but only removes issues to deal with metamagicked slots, that cannot be used to cast anymore, once the 3/day uses are used up.

OTOH, the spontaneous use errata creates even more imbalances between spontaneous and prepared casters (as if _pearls of power_ weren't enough), and makes the _metamagic rods_ _even more_ powerful, than they already are. Not the most sensitive ruling, if you ask me. 

Bye
Thanee


----------



## KarinsDad (Dec 19, 2006)

Hypersmurf said:
			
		

> Who can?  The wielder can!




Fricking getting old and blind as a bat.


----------



## takasi (Dec 19, 2006)

Hypersmurf said:
			
		

> Remember, there are two restrictions.
> 
> 1. You can use the feat a specified number of times per day.  (And when wizards etc use a metamagic feat, they do it at preparation time.)
> 
> ...




Then is this possible, and if not why not?

A high level wizard acquires a greater maximize metamagic rod.  He spends a month preparing all of his spells as maximized spells.  

The wizard loses the rod for 10 years.  He never casts any of the spells he prepared.   If he recovered the rod could he still cast the maximized spells?

Also, if the wizard finds a few dozen of these rods, could he use them to cast all of the prepared maximized spells he's been saving up all these years on the same day he finds the rods?


----------



## delericho (Dec 19, 2006)

IMC, metamagic rods allow a caster to apply the feat to a suitable spell spontaneously at casting with no increase in the casting time.

However, per the RAW, it would appear that the rod merely lets the caster use the feat 3 times per day as though he had the feat normally. For Wizards, this means the 3 spells have to be chosen when the spells are prepared. For a Sorcerer, the feat is applied on the fly, but increases the casting time.

In either case, I disagree with the FAQ.


----------



## wildstarsreach (Dec 19, 2006)

Thanee said:
			
		

> p. 88 PHB 3.5
> 
> Bye
> Thanee



Thank you


----------



## wildstarsreach (Dec 19, 2006)

delericho said:
			
		

> IMC, metamagic rods allow a caster to apply the feat to a suitable spell spontaneously at casting with no increase in the casting time.
> 
> However, per the RAW, it would appear that the rod merely lets the caster use the feat 3 times per day as though he had the feat normally. For Wizards, this means the 3 spells have to be chosen when the spells are prepared. For a Sorcerer, the feat is applied on the fly, but increases the casting time.
> 
> In either case, I disagree with the FAQ.




Why?


----------



## wildstarsreach (Dec 19, 2006)

Thanee said:
			
		

> Well, that's not true. I have a problem with anything bypassing rules without saying so.
> 
> And I actually do have a problem with the higher spell level slot, despite the description clearly saying how it works, and have said on other occasions, that I would prefer them to be usable only on spell levels, so that the modified spell level, using the modifier from the regular metamagic feat, does not exceed the highest level one can cast (i.e. like the Incantatrix Instant Metamagic works).
> 
> ...




This magic item isn't violating the rules.  Reading the rod it states that use still provokes an attack of oppurtunity.  This rod's special power is to be used at casting.  A sorcerer doesn't have to spend a higher level spell slot but must still spend a full round to apply metamagic feats.  If a cleric spontaneously casts a healing spell, he can apply the metamagic feat with extending to a full round.  I would state that from the item description, it is at the time of casting and because of other precidents, even a wizard spell becomes a full round spell with the metamagic feat applied.  This doesn't make the rod so rediculas.  It doesn't give the rods so much power and they are worth what the DMG has for them.  Applying them at the point of casting is the best of problems.  Applying them at the point of memorization leads to the worst abuse IMO.


----------



## Infiniti2000 (Dec 19, 2006)

Hypersmurf said:
			
		

> Who can?  The wielder can!



 What wielder?

a/ The wielder who prepared the spells.
b/ The current wielder of the rod.

I presume your answer is (b).  Thus, if two wizards prepares spells with a rod (on different days), can they both cast those spells with the rod on the same day if they appropriately hand over the rod?  I mean, the wielder is limited, but what happens when you change wielders?


----------



## Arg-ha Lardgoa (Dec 19, 2006)

*Preparing spells*

<srd>
Rest

To prepare her daily spells, a wizard must first sleep for 8 hours. The wizard does not have to slumber for every minute of the time, but she must *refrain from movement, combat, spellcasting, skill use, conversation, or any other fairly demanding physical or mental task during the rest period.* If her rest is interrupted, each interruption adds 1 hour to the total amount of time she has to rest in order to clear her mind, and she must have at least 1 hour of uninterrupted rest immediately prior to preparing her spells. If the character does not need to sleep for some reason, she still must have 8 hours of restful calm before preparing any spells. 
Preparation Environment

To prepare any spell, a wizard must have enough *peace, quiet, and comfort to allow for proper concentration*. The wizard’s surroundings need not be luxurious, but they must be free from overt distractions. Exposure to inclement weather prevents the necessary concentration, as does any injury or failed saving throw the character might experience while studying. 
</srd>
So therefore no casting/use of magic during preparation. Using a rod breaks concentration during prep!


----------



## wildstarsreach (Dec 19, 2006)

If we are to assume that Thanee and others thinking at the point of memorization is right, then x wizard prepares a fireball with a maximize rod.  Later he decides to scribe that spell to scroll.  It is at the 3rd level for purposes of xp and monetary costs.  But he gets a maximized scroll.  This is abusive.  At the time of casting is the only way to proceed.


----------



## wildstarsreach (Dec 19, 2006)

Arg-ha Lardgoa said:
			
		

> <srd>
> Rest
> 
> To prepare her daily spells, a wizard must first sleep for 8 hours. The wizard does not have to slumber for every minute of the time, but she must *refrain from movement, combat, spellcasting, skill use, conversation, or any other fairly demanding physical or mental task during the rest period.* If her rest is interrupted, each interruption adds 1 hour to the total amount of time she has to rest in order to clear her mind, and she must have at least 1 hour of uninterrupted rest immediately prior to preparing her spells. If the character does not need to sleep for some reason, she still must have 8 hours of restful calm before preparing any spells.
> ...




Interesting conclusion but I would disagree with this.  Once you have the rested, spell memorization would not be interrupted by use of the rod on specific spells.


----------



## Arg-ha Lardgoa (Dec 19, 2006)

Once again you must maintain proper concentration during prep as stated in the prep section. cast a spell or using a magic item breaks concentration during prep


----------



## wildstarsreach (Dec 19, 2006)

These rods should be compared to the 'Sudden Metamagic' feats out of the Complete Arcane.  They are done at the time of casting.  This makes it simplier to make rulings.

If the rods were re-written, The should read as if the had the Sudden 'appropriate feat' usable 3 times a day.  

The Sudden feat have no regard to spell level and have no increasing of casting time.

An exception might be a Sorcerer who always has to extend to full round whenever he applies a metamagic feat unless he is a metamagic specialist.


----------



## Infiniti2000 (Dec 19, 2006)

wildstarsreach said:
			
		

> If we are to assume that Thanee and others thinking at the point of memorization is right, then x wizard prepares a fireball with a maximize rod.  Later he decides to scribe that spell to scroll.  It is at the 3rd level for purposes of xp and monetary costs.  But he gets a maximized scroll.  This is abusive.  At the time of casting is the only way to proceed.



 Not surprisingly, this exact same comment can be made for the other interpretation.

It's a lose-lose scenario!


----------



## takasi (Dec 19, 2006)

wildstarsreach said:
			
		

> If we are to assume that Thanee and others thinking at the point of memorization is right, then x wizard prepares a fireball with a maximize rod.  Later he decides to scribe that spell to scroll.  It is at the 3rd level for purposes of xp and monetary costs.  But he gets a maximized scroll.  This is abusive.  At the time of casting is the only way to proceed.




Can anyone else confirm if this is true?

If using the rod gives you the benefit of the feat 3 times per day without increasing the casting time and you rule that you can use the rod at preparation then can you scribe the metamagic'd spell into low level scroll?

Could another caster then use that scroll?


----------



## KarinsDad (Dec 19, 2006)

Arg-ha Lardgoa said:
			
		

> Once again you must maintain proper concentration during prep as stated in the prep section. cast a spell or using a magic item breaks concentration during prep




Nowhere in the preparation quote you mentioned does it state that magical item use is not allowed.

You are adding that to the text.

For example, a failed saving throw is a distraction. A successful one is not. Hence, if a PC use activated his Cloak of Resistance in order to get a saving throw bonus and successfully saved against a spell, according to your claim here, he would be distracted, even though successful saving throws are not on the list of distractions.



> To prepare any spell, a wizard must have enough peace, quiet, and comfort to allow for proper concentration. The wizard’s surroundings need not be luxurious, but they must be free from overt distractions. Exposure to inclement weather prevents the necessary concentration, as does any injury or failed saving throw the character might experience while studying.


----------



## takasi (Dec 19, 2006)

I think the keywords there though are "proper concentration".  Wouldn't magic item use disrupt spells (or abilities like bardic music) that required concentration???


----------



## KarinsDad (Dec 19, 2006)

takasi said:
			
		

> I think the keywords there though are "proper concentration".  Wouldn't magic item use disrupt spells (or abilities like bardic music) that required concentration???




It depends on the DM.

The rules do not actually state this. In fact, the literal reading of Metamagic Rods is that they give the use of the feat and the feat is used during preparation for prep casters, hence, Metamagic Rods by definition imply they do not interfere with "proper concentration", just like adding the metamagic feat normally does not interfere with "proper concentration".


----------



## delericho (Dec 19, 2006)

wildstarsreach said:
			
		

> Why?




The short answer is: on principle. 

The longer answer is that the FAQ ruling is unfair to Sorcerers. Their longer metamagic casting time is balanced by the Wizard's need to prepare. If the rods do not require that the Wizard prepare the spells in advance, the Sorcerer should not require a longer casting time.

More to the point, the rods give the caster the ability to use the feat, and are use-activated. The method via which Wizards use metamagic feats is at spell preparation, and therefore that should be the case here, unless an exception is spelled out. No exception is given.


----------



## Hypersmurf (Dec 19, 2006)

Infiniti2000 said:
			
		

> I mean, the wielder is limited, but what happens when you change wielders?




If I use a Pearl of Power to regain a spell, then pass it to my friend, can he use it to regain a spell as well?

I'd say that if one person uses the rod to cast two Enlarged spells, then passes it to another person, 'the wielder' has so far cast two Enalrged spells today, and 'the wielder' (whoever it might be) can only cast one more today.



			
				takasi said:
			
		

> Then is this possible, and if not why not?




Note that I've previously stated that my own ruling would be that the caster can have no more than three spells prepared with the use of a particular rod at any given time, so this wouldn't be an issue.

-Hyp.


----------



## takasi (Dec 19, 2006)

KarinsDad said:
			
		

> In fact, the literal reading of Metamagic Rods is that they give the use of the feat and the feat is used during preparation for prep casters, hence, Metamagic Rods by definition imply they do not interfere with "proper concentration", just like adding the metamagic feat normally does not interfere with "proper concentration".




"Possession of a metamagic rod does not confer the associated feat on the owner, only the ability to use the given feat a specified number of times per day."

...

"All the rods described here are use-activated (but casting spells in a threatened area still draws an attack of opportunity)."

...

"The wielder can cast up to three spells per day that are empowered as though using the Empower Spell feat. "

I think the key word here is SPECIFIED.

Where exactly does it specify how many times you can use the feat to prepare spells?

The only SPECIFIED NUMBER OF TIMES per day that usage is limited is during casting.  No where in the rules does it mention preparation, yet the "ability to USE THE FEAT" should list a specified number of times per day according to the rules.

If you conclude that you must USE THE FEAT during preparation, then you are technically using the feat more than the specified number of times you can cast the spells.

When exactly are you using the feat?  If you are using it during preparation you must also use the feat during casting correct?

Here's a question:

A wizard with a metamagic feat decides to retrain using the process in PHB 2.  He prepares his spells USING his metamagic feat.  He loses this metamagic feat.  Can he still cast these memorized spells even though he lost the feat?


----------



## Hypersmurf (Dec 19, 2006)

takasi said:
			
		

> A wizard with a metamagic feat decides to retrain using the process in PHB 2.  He prepares his spells USING his metamagic feat.  He loses this metamagic feat.  Can he still cast these memorized spells even though he lost the feat?




... you know, I'm not sure?

I'll want to check the PHB before answering, in case there's information that isn't in the SRD...

-Hyp.


----------



## KarinsDad (Dec 19, 2006)

takasi said:
			
		

> Here's a question:
> 
> A wizard with a metamagic feat decides to retrain using the process in PHB 2.  He prepares his spells USING his metamagic feat.  He loses this metamagic feat.  Can he still cast these memorized spells even though he lost the feat?




Sure, why not?

The spell slot is still higher. The spell slot is still in use. The spell is still prepped.

Metamagic feats for spells cast by prep casters modify the spell at prep time, not at casting time.



> During preparation, the character chooses which spells *to prepare* with metamagic feats (and thus which ones take up higher-level spell slots than normal).




How is this different than a Wizard who preps a spell and then loses his spell book?


----------



## gnfnrf (Dec 19, 2006)

Here's my take.

According to the intro to metamagic rods, Hyp is right, and it's applied at preparation time for prepared spellcasters.  The "ability to use the feat" is pretty clear on that.

But, that's not how I voted, because all of the specific rods say something different.

They say "can cast up to three spells a day that are empowered as though using the Empower Spell feat." and so forth.  They don't say that you actually use the feat AT ALL!  They just say that the spell is cast in a state AS THOUGH you used the feat (which, in fact, means that you didn't use the feat.)  And if all they do is apply the effect of the feat on the spell, then everyone uses them at casting time, just like it says.

This is, to me, inherently contradictory.  In one place, you use the feat, and in the other place, the spell is effected as though you had used the feat.  Normally, the difference would be too subtle to matter, but here, it is huge.

The only way I can reconcile this is to say that "the ability to use the feat" is a very bad way of saying "the ability to apply the effects of the feat".  It's a stretch, but it's better than saying that each rod is actually saying "cast up to three spells a day which, at the appropriate time for your class, you applied the Empower Spell metamagic feat to without increasing the spell level using this item, which is also limited to three uses per day."

--
gnfnrf


----------



## Twowolves (Dec 19, 2006)

Thanee said:
			
		

> OTOH, the spontaneous use errata creates even more imbalances between spontaneous and prepared casters (as if _pearls of power_ weren't enough), and makes the _metamagic rods_ _even more_ powerful, than they already are. Not the most sensitive ruling, if you ask me.




So, because it is not "fair" to sorcerers, and it makes metamagic more powerful, it can't possibly right? Rings of Wizardry and Incense of Meditation are not "fair" to sorcerers either. Can it not be that the entire purpose of the metamagic rods were to make metamagic "even more powerful"? There is clear precedent in the rules for some items being better for some weilders of magic than for others, so I'm not buying that arguement. 



			
				Thanee said:
			
		

> It is absolutely not odd, because that is what most consider the easiest (though I fail to see what's really easier there in practice), and it is also somewhat intuitive when you look at the rod's descriptions.




It's so intuitive, it can't be right?




			
				Thanee said:
			
		

> It only requires a minor clarification, that you cannot use a rod to metamagic more than 3 spell slots at a time, which does not really limit them further, but only removes issues to deal with metamagicked slots, that cannot be used to cast anymore, once the 3/day uses are used up.




So, one FAQ-issued minor clarification doesn't suit your ruling, so you suggest another, in addition to the already extant ruling that is 100% counter to how you and Hyp read the item? In other words, instead of the FAQ, and the LG campaign ruling, and the intuitive first reading my many, your/Hyp's ruling requires about 3 times more words to describe how you think the rods should work than what the rules and FAQ already state? Simple!


----------



## takasi (Dec 19, 2006)

KarinsDad said:
			
		

> Sure, why not?




"The modifications made by these [metamagic] feats only apply to spells cast directly by the feat user. "

This indicates that you must have the feat at the time of casting in order for the modifications to apply.

Again, if the rod descriptions say:

"the ability to use the given feat a specified number of times per day"

and the only specification of usage is during casting then the conclusion should be that preparation is not involved at all.

The preparation restriction is in the feat desription, but remember that the rod "does not confer the associated feat on the owner, only the ability to use the given feat a specified number of times per day".

It specifically says that sorcerers must increase their casting time to use these rods.

It does not specifically say that wizards must prepare their spells as they would if they actually had the feat.

The FAQ specifically says that wizards do not need to prepare their spells as they would if they actually had the feat.

Something for DMs to think about when making their decisions.


----------



## Thanee (Dec 19, 2006)

wildstarsreach said:
			
		

> This rod's special power is to be used at casting.




There is absolutely nothing in the rod's description, that says so.
Everything that is said there also applies when the rod would be used during preparation.
And... the rod's description does state (indirectly, but still), that it _is_ used during preparation. It does not state, that it is used during the casting.

Bye
Thanee


----------



## Thanee (Dec 19, 2006)

wildstarsreach said:
			
		

> If we are to assume that Thanee and others thinking at the point of memorization is right, then x wizard prepares a fireball with a maximize rod.  Later he decides to scribe that spell to scroll.  It is at the 3rd level for purposes of xp and monetary costs.  But he gets a maximized scroll.  This is abusive.  At the time of casting is the only way to proceed.




Huh? Where is this a problem with the preparation-interpretation?

When you create a scroll, you have to cast the spell (once per day). You could use the rod there either way.

But that doesn't matter, since magic items are not priced like this. When you make a scroll of _maximized Fireball_ you are making a scroll with a 6th-level spell at 11th caster level, it doesn't matter how you get the spell into the scroll. But that's another topic and has nothing to do with this here, really.

Bye
Thanee


----------



## Thanee (Dec 19, 2006)

Twowolves said:
			
		

> ...I'm not buying that arguement.




It's not an argument, just an explanation. 



> It's so intuitive, it can't be right?




It could be, but it isn't, because it breaks existing rules, and thus it's wrong.



> So, one FAQ-issued minor clarification doesn't suit your ruling...




It's not a clarification, it's errata.



> Simple!




I never said it's simple. I said it's more fair, better, consistent with the rules as presented in the core rulebooks, and many other things, but not that it's simple (it's surely not complicated, though). 

Bye
Thanee


----------



## takasi (Dec 19, 2006)

Thanee said:
			
		

> There is absolutely nothing in the rod's description, that says so.
> Everything that is said there also applies when the rod would be used during preparation.
> And... the rod's description does state (indirectly, but still), that it _is_ used during preparation. It does not state, that it is used during the casting.




Where does it state, even indirectly, that it _is_ used during preparation?  

It does state it is "use activated".

It does state it can only be used "a specified number of times per day".

The only time the description specifies a number of uses per day is during casting.

In order to cast a metamagic spell you must have the metamagic feat (or have a rod that emulates this feat), thus requiring a use of the rod during casting (note the wielder requirement).  Where does it specify the number of times per day that you can use the rod during preparation?  It doesn't.

Also, why do you think the description would specifically say a sorcerer must increase his casting time?  If this was implied as you believe it is for a wizard's preparation then why would they need to specifically state this additional rod requirement for a sorcerer?  Why make the additional statement for a sorcerer (which should be obvious according to your interpretation) but not add this statement for a wizard's preparation?


----------



## Thanee (Dec 19, 2006)

Here:


> Possession of a metamagic rod does not confer the associated feat on the owner, only the ability to use the given feat a specified number of times per day.




How metamagic feats are used is explained in the PHB feat section.



> Also, why do you think the description would specifically say a sorcerer must increase his casting time? If this was implied as you believe it is for a wizard's preparation then why would they need to state this again? Why state this but not the requirement for a wizard???




Because whoever wrote the description was rather bad at writing magic item descriptions.
I hope s/he learned how to do this properly in the meantime. 

It makes absolutely no sense to place this restriction in there (especially not for _only_ sorcerers, amongst all the spontaneous spellcasters; and there is more than one of those in the PHB even), and have it in effect, but none else.

It makes absolutely no sense, that wizards can suddenly use metamagic spontaneously (and thus are lifted from their usual restrictions when using metamagic) and without any increase of casting time either, while sorcerers, who already _know_ how to use metamagic that way, suffer from their usual casting time increase. That's badly balanced, inconsistent and very much stupid. 

Bye
Thanee


----------



## takasi (Dec 19, 2006)

Thanee said:
			
		

> How metamagic feats are used is explained in the PHB feat section.




That's fine, but the rods only provide the "essence of a metamagic feat" and "do not confer the associated feat on the owner".  You are incorrectly associating the requirements of the feat with the requirements of the rod.

You've yet to respond to the specified number of uses per day and what constitutes a use.



			
				Thanee said:
			
		

> It makes absolutely no sense to place this restriction in there (especially not for _only_ sorcerers, amongst all the spontaneous spellcasters; and there is more than one of those in the PHB even), and have it in effect, but none else.




The ruling makes sense, whether it's balanced or not.



			
				Thanee said:
			
		

> It makes absolutely no sense, that wizards can suddenly use metamagic spontaneously (and thus are lifted from their usual restrictions when using metamagic) and without any increase of casting time either, while sorcerers, who already _know_ how to use metamagic that way, suffer from their usual casting time increase. That's badly balanced, inconsistent and very much stupid.




Just to be clear, are you basing your interpretation on personal preference or on the semantics of the rules as written?  Unfortunately these discussions focus on the latter.

For example, let's say there was a magic item that was described as follows:

The rock of ziggyzaggy gives the wielder a bonus to his tumble check equal to his spellcasting level.  Sorcerers cannot receive a bonus higher than the highest cross class skill rank allowable for their class.

It may be wonky, clumsy, unreasonable and you may hate it but no where in there does it say a wizard (or any other class for that matter) has the same restrictions.

Can you agree that, rules as written, the restrictions written in the metamagic rod description for the sorcerer would be pointless and redundant based on your interpretation?


----------



## wildstarsreach (Dec 19, 2006)

Thanee said:
			
		

> There is absolutely nothing in the rod's description, that says so.
> Everything that is said there also applies when the rod would be used during preparation.
> And... the rod's description does state (indirectly, but still), that it _is_ used during preparation. It does not state, that it is used during the casting.
> 
> ...




  Metamagic Rods: Metamagic rods hold the essence of a metamagic feat but do not change the spell slot of the altered spell. All the rods described here are use-activated (but casting spells in a threatened area still draws an attack of opportunity). A caster may only use one metamagic rod with metamagic feats possessed by the rods's wielder. In this case, only the feats possessed by the wielder adjust the spell slot of the spell being cast.

  Possession of a metamagic rod does not confer the associated feat on the owner, only the ability to use the given feat a specified number of times per day. A sorcerer still must take a full-round action when using a metamagic rod, just as if using a metamagic feat he possesses.

This is typed word for word from the text in the DMG.

"All the rods described here are use-activated (but casting spells in a threatened area still draws an attack of opportunity)."  This is the reference that is is upon casting.  If you prepare and then upon casting, then you are using the rod two times a day.

The wizard or cleric gets the greatest benefit here since they have to prepare their spells ahead of time.  The sorcerer or other spontaneous spellcaster get less benefit, but still have a benefit.  This doesn't screw the spontaneous casters over, it just doesn't give as much benefit.

If you are a good character using a holy weapon, you get x benefit.  If you are evil, you get x benefit but with one level loss while he weilds it.  The evil character get to use it but with less benefit.


----------



## wildstarsreach (Dec 20, 2006)

Thanee said:
			
		

> It's not an argument, just an explanation.




Thanee, this whole forum is argumenative discourse.



			
				Thanee said:
			
		

> It could be, but it isn't, because it breaks existing rules, and thus it's wrong.




Did you think that this might be an exception to the rule and therefore not a violation as you see it?



			
				Thanee said:
			
		

> It's not a clarification, it's errata.
> 
> 
> I never said it's simple. I said it's more fair, better, consistent with the rules as presented in the core rulebooks, and many other things, but not that it's simple (it's surely not complicated, though).
> ...




Consider the Sudden metamagic feats from the Complete Arcane.  This rod is more consistant with these rather than core.

I can say from experience that these rods applied at casting time do not imbalance the game.


----------



## Thanee (Dec 20, 2006)

takasi said:
			
		

> That's fine, but the rods only provide the "essence of a metamagic feat" and "do not confer the associated feat on the owner".




Why is it, that (almost) everyone who thinks they are written to be used spontaneously, ignores the part in the text, that says, that they confer the _ability to use the given feat_. I mean, sure, I can see how inconvenient that part is in combination with that view, since it quite clearly implies, that it can't work that way... whether that is intended or not... but it's there, really! 

Of course, it does not confer the feat, otherwise you could use it as a prerequisite.
And of course, it holds the essence of a metamagic feat, since that's exactly what you get... to be able to _use it_, not just something similar to it, the feat with all the baggage that comes along with it.



			
				takasi said:
			
		

> Just to be clear, are you basing your interpretation on personal preference or on the semantics of the rules as written?




Rules As Written. As explained above (not counting the FAQ-errata, though, but I said so earlier, already).



			
				takasi said:
			
		

> Can you agree that, rules as written, the restrictions written in the metamagic rod description for the sorcerer would be pointless and redundant based on your interpretation?




Sure, the part is redundant and pointless (and makes no sense, as explained above, since it takes a completely different approach to work for two different classes (not just working different to cover the different aspects of the classes; it's like wizards get all the work done for them from the rod, while sorcerers do all the work themselves and only get the basics to actually do so)).

The FAQ even states, that the part should be seen as an example for all spontaneous casters, but why stop there? It can also be seen as an example for _all_ casters, that they still have to abide to the rules for metamagic feats (just like sorcerers, who have to spend a full-round action). That could also be a viable possibility. But as I said, as written, the part makes no sense at all, it's a rather silly and totally random rule.

BTW, it's really no argument to say, that the part is in there, so it cannot be redundant. I can show you myriads of sentances in the book that are completely redundant (like the casting still incurs an AoO in the metamagic rod description, which is also completely redundant, because there is absolutely nothing in the item description, that might even let you think otherwise... it's not like the rod is casting the spell or something).

Bye
Thanee


----------



## Thanee (Dec 20, 2006)

wildstarsreach said:
			
		

> Consider the Sudden metamagic feats from the Complete Arcane.  This rod is more consistant with these rather than core.




It doesn't work like them, so it's not consistent with them.

I agree, that it would be a fine idea to use the rods this way (i.e. lift the silly restriction for sorcerers to have to spend a full-round action to activate a metamagic rod, and make them usable only once per day). That would still give more benefit to wizards, but not nearly as much as it does now, and it would be consistent and make sense.

I still would like the way it is written now, that you have to use the feat (as normal), a little better, because it's better balanced (especially once you add in a maximum spell level equal to highest - regular metamagic modifier), but both approaches would work fine.

The approach as presented in the FAQ does not.



> I can say from experience that these rods applied at casting time do not imbalance the game.




Good for you, if it works well in your games. 

I can't say, that I can share this observation... and I have _a lot_ of experience with spellcasters.

Bye
Thanee


----------



## Thanee (Dec 20, 2006)

wildstarsreach said:
			
		

> If you are a good character using a holy weapon, you get x benefit.  If you are evil, you get x benefit but with one level loss while he weilds it.  The evil character get to use it but with less benefit.




Great comparison. 

Wizard and sorcerer are not quite the total opposite on the axis of all (spellcasting) classes, or are they?

In fact, many people complain that there are too many similarities between these two.



			
				wildstarsreach said:
			
		

> "All the rods described here are use-activated (but casting spells in a threatened area still draws an attack of opportunity)."  This is the reference that is is upon casting.  If you prepare and then upon casting, then you are using the rod two times a day.




Ok, explain to me how 'use-activated' can possibly (only) refer to casting, and why using an item twice (in a different fashion, kinda like starting and ending the use) for each use is not 'use-activated'?

Bye
Thanee


----------



## KarinsDad (Dec 20, 2006)

takasi said:
			
		

> "The modifications made by these [metamagic] feats only apply to spells cast directly by the feat user. "
> 
> This indicates that you must have the feat at the time of casting in order for the modifications to apply.




This is an inference you are making.

Was he the feat user when he prepped the spell? Yes.

Is he casting the spell directly? Yes.

It is not an explicit statement that if the feat is lost, the spell the feat modified is lost as well.


----------



## Li Shenron (Dec 20, 2006)

Hypersmurf said:
			
		

> It says it grants the ability to use the feat.




I am more and more convinced that this sentence is the cause of all pain. It's RAW, but it's wrong RAW   



			
				SRD said:
			
		

> Possession of a metamagic rod does not confer the associated feat on the owner, only the ability to use the given feat a specified number of times per day. A sorcerer still must take a full-round action when using a metamagic rod, just as if using a metamagic feat he possesses.




It is actually quite obvious to me that the unfortunate writer of this description was only trying to make it clear that you cannot take a metamagic rod and consider yourself as "having the feat", whatever your purpose.

If you check the original sourcebook (Tome & Blood), there is an extra sentence in the middle that goes like "For instance, having a rod of energy substitution does not confere you the Energy Substitution feat to qualify for Energy Admixture" (or something similar). The context is clear. 

Unfortunately the author was not good at all in this case. He should have said very simply *in the first sentence* what is the effect of the rod, period. Then add blurb, flavor and further "precision notes". Instead, he writes a description which is good only for someone (he) who already knows what the rods do.

It's a terrible description which starts by saying something meaningless:
"Metamagic rods hold the essence of a metamagic feat"
and by saying what the rods DON'T do
"but do not change the spell slot of the altered spell."

In high school, it would have granted a terrible grade   




			
				Hypersmurf said:
			
		

> Remember, there are two restrictions.
> 
> 1. You can use the feat a specified number of times per day. (And when wizards etc use a metamagic feat, they do it at preparation time.)
> 
> ...




It is impossible that the author seriously meant to have two separate limitations and would have cleverly hidden this fact within a deliberately vague description.

"The wielder can cast up to three spells per day that are enlarged *as though using* the Enlarge Spell feat" *says it all*. It's not "the wielder can use the feat 3 times".


----------



## wildstarsreach (Dec 20, 2006)

Thanee said:
			
		

> Why is it, that (almost) everyone who thinks they are written to be used spontaneously, ignores the part in the text, that says, that they confer the _ability to use the given feat_. I mean, sure, I can see how inconvenient that part is in combination with that view, since it quite clearly implies, that it can't work that way... whether that is intended or not... but it's there, really!




Okay, why is is that you think it doesn't?  Now just because the majority, 75% think it is at the time of casting, that may not make us right.  The other alternative is the majority is seeing it clearly which is supported by the FAQ.



			
				Thanee said:
			
		

> Of course, it does not confer the feat, otherwise you could use it as a prerequisite.
> And of course, it holds the essence of a metamagic feat, since that's exactly what you get... to be able to _use it_, not just something similar to it, the feat with all the baggage that comes along with it.




Again we are all making different assuptions.  Some that it has to be done for wizards and clerics at time of preparation and other at time of casting.



			
				Thanee said:
			
		

> Rules As Written. As explained above (not counting the FAQ-errata, though, but I said so earlier, already).




Rules as written lead more towards at casting than preparation though they are ambiguious.  However, regarding FAQ, why is that people discount it when they have a different opinion?  I may not like some of their rulings or explanations but they are generally set to giving a good basis for a ruling.



			
				Thanee said:
			
		

> Sure, the part is redundant and pointless (and makes no sense, as explained above, since it takes a completely different approach to work for two different classes (not just working different to cover the different aspects of the classes; it's like wizards get all the work done for them from the rod, while sorcerers do all the work themselves and only get the basics to actually do so)).
> 
> The FAQ even states, that the part should be seen as an example for all spontaneous casters, but why stop there? It can also be seen as an example for _all_ casters, that they still have to abide to the rules for metamagic feats (just like sorcerers, who have to spend a full-round action). That could also be a viable possibility. But as I said, as written, the part makes no sense at all, it's a rather silly and totally random rule.
> 
> ...




I think that it should be full round casting regardless of spontaneous casting or not.  But that isn't how it is written.



			
				Li Shenron said:
			
		

> It is impossible that the author seriously meant to have two separate limitations and would have cleverly hidden this fact within a deliberately vague description.
> 
> "The wielder can cast up to three spells per day that are enlarged as though using the Enlarge Spell feat" says it all. It's not "the wielder can use the feat 3 times".




I like this point because it looks back at the original publishing of this item and points out that if the designer had meant for this to work two different ways, then they would have said something.


----------



## Hypersmurf (Dec 20, 2006)

wildstarsreach said:
			
		

> I think that it should be full round casting regardless of spontaneous casting or not.  But that isn't how it is written.




Indeed - how it is written doesn't reference spontaneous casting at all; it references _sorcerers_.

When a bard uses a metamagic rod, does casting time increase?  The item description doesn't say.

If you answer that yes, casting times increases, then do you think that when a wizard uses a metamagic rod, casting time increases?

If your answers were yes and no, respectively, can you justify that in terms of what's written in the item description?

-Hyp.


----------



## Hypersmurf (Dec 20, 2006)

Li Shenron said:
			
		

> If you check the original sourcebook (Tome & Blood), there is an extra sentence in the middle that goes like "For instance, having a rod of energy substitution does not confere you the Energy Substitution feat to qualify for Energy Admixture" (or something similar).




Exactly - you can't qualify for Energy Admixture, because the rod doesn't grant you the Energy Substitution feat; it grants you the ability to use the Energy Substitution feat.



> "The wielder can cast up to three spells per day that are enlarged *as though using* the Enlarge Spell feat" *says it all*. It's not "the wielder can use the feat 3 times".




It's not 'the wielder can use the feat' despite saying 'the rod confers the ability to use the feat'?

-Hyp.


----------



## billd91 (Dec 20, 2006)

Hypersmurf said:
			
		

> It's not 'the wielder can use the feat' despite saying 'the rod confers the ability to use the feat'?
> 
> -Hyp.




I think there's a difference in nuance between "Possession of a metamagic rod does not confer the associated feat on the owner, only the ability to use the given feat a specified number of times per day" and "The wielder can cast up to three spells per day that are empowered as though using the Empower Spell feat".

The first sentence could be construed as using the metamagic feat in the normal way, via spell prep for preparation casters. But the second sentence does not say they use the feat, rather that they can cast 3 spells per day empowered _as though_ using the empower spell feat. That sentence seems to support casting on the fly. The user isn't actually using the feat, but casting a spell that behaves as though it is affected by the feat.

A poorly explained item to be sure. Hence the importance of the FAQ for clarifying what was meant by it.


----------



## wildstarsreach (Dec 20, 2006)

Hypersmurf said:
			
		

> Indeed - how it is written doesn't reference spontaneous casting at all; it references _sorcerers_.




If you use the reference of spontaneous casting on Pg 88 of PHB, it talks about sorcerers and bards in regards to spontaneous casting.



			
				Hypersmurf said:
			
		

> When a bard uses a metamagic rod, does casting time increase?  The item description doesn't say.
> 
> If you answer that yes, casting times increases, then do you think that when a wizard uses a metamagic rod, casting time increases?
> 
> ...




Page 88 of the PHB states for both bards and sorcerers, as well as clerics casting spontaneous healing that the application of metamagic feats increases the cast time to full round.

This should also apply to new classes such as the Duskblade which also spontaneously casts spells.

I say yes to extending the wizards ability in which a metamagic rod is applied to a spell as cast.  The description of the rods talk that use of the rod still provokes and AoO when casting a spell.  This gives two things, it doesn't raise the spell level which spontaneous caster gets as well and allows the application of a metamagic feats on the fly while using the rod which spontaneous casters already have.  It doesn't allow a third benefit which by the majority interpretation doesn't increase cast time for the wizard.


----------



## Hypersmurf (Dec 20, 2006)

wildstarsreach said:
			
		

> I say yes to extending the wizards ability in which a metamagic rod is applied to a spell as cast.




Do you mean extending the casting time?

-Hyp.


----------



## wildstarsreach (Dec 20, 2006)

billd91 said:
			
		

> I think there's a difference in nuance between "Possession of a metamagic rod does not confer the associated feat on the owner, only the ability to use the given feat a specified number of times per day" and "The wielder can cast up to three spells per day that are empowered as though using the Empower Spell feat".
> 
> The first sentence could be construed as using the metamagic feat in the normal way, via spell prep for preparation casters. But the second sentence does not say they use the feat, rather that they can cast 3 spells per day empowered _as though_ using the empower spell feat. That sentence seems to support casting on the fly. The user isn't actually using the feat, but casting a spell that behaves as though it is affected by the feat.
> 
> A poorly explained item to be sure. Hence the importance of the FAQ for clarifying what was meant by it.




Good logical deductive reasoning.  This is the reason that gives the majority their impression.

I have a question though.  Why are there a few that disagree with the FAQ when it disagrees with what they want?  I'm not trying to berate anyone but the FAQ is for our benefit.


----------



## wildstarsreach (Dec 20, 2006)

Hypersmurf said:
			
		

> Do you mean extending the casting time?
> 
> -Hyp.



Yep indeedydyooooo!


----------



## Hypersmurf (Dec 20, 2006)

wildstarsreach said:
			
		

> Yep indeedydyooooo!




Right.  I agree; if anyone uses the Rod at casting time, it should extend that casting time. 

... now what do you do with the Quicken Rods?  

-Hyp.


----------



## Thanee (Dec 21, 2006)

wildstarsreach said:
			
		

> Okay, why is is that you think it doesn't?  Now just because the majority, 75% think it is at the time of casting, that may not make us right.  The other alternative is the majority is seeing it clearly which is supported by the FAQ.




Just to be clear, I totally agree with this, and I think I have posted in my very first post on this thread, that I'm absolutely aware, that the current official rule is different to my own view.



> Rules as written lead more towards at casting than preparation...




Huh? There is not the slightest indication, that it would be used spontaneously.

It might be an intuitive impression gained when reading the paragraph, I will gladly agree to that, but there is really nothing in there, which actually says so, and which does not also work equally well in that other context. 

Bye
Thanee


----------



## Thanee (Dec 21, 2006)

Hypersmurf said:
			
		

> ... now what do you do with the Quicken Rods?




Give them to me, so I can sell them for half value! 

Bye
Thanee


----------



## airwalkrr (Dec 21, 2006)

wildstarsreach said:
			
		

> I can say from experience that these rods applied at casting time do not imbalance the game.




I can say the same thing. And I can also say the opposite at the same time. I have seen campaigns where metamagic rods used this way were not abused. I have seen campaigns where they were abused being used this way. For that reason, I tend to err on the side of caution and say that a loose interpretation (such as that of the FAQ) is unbalancing and therefore possibly incorrect. Spontaneous application of metamagic feats should be the domain of the sorcerer. Wizards are limited in that they must prepare spells in advance but advantageous in that they have a greater arsenal of spells at their disposal. Seeking ways to uphold the intentions of the core rules is not necessarily a bad thing, and using the intentions of the core rules to guide one's interpretation is not a bad thing either.


----------



## wildstarsreach (Dec 21, 2006)

Hypersmurf said:
			
		

> Do you mean extending the casting time?
> 
> -Hyp.



Yes, from cast time of x to one round and so on.


----------



## Li Shenron (Dec 21, 2006)

Thanee said:
			
		

> Huh? There is not the slightest indication, that it would be used spontaneously.
> 
> It might be an intuitive impression gained when reading the paragraph, I will gladly agree to that, but there is really nothing in there, which actually says so, and which does not also work equally well in that other context.




"The wielder can cast up to three spells per day that are enlarged as though using the Enlarge Spell feat".

It might be read both ways, but I'm sure that if this was meant like you think, it would have said:

"The wielder can prepare (or cast spontaneously, in case of a Sorcerer) up to three spells per day that are enlarged as though using the Enlarge Spell feat".

If I am a Wizard and read that sentence, when I'm casting a spell I think "hey, I can actually cast this Enlarged".


----------



## Thanee (Dec 21, 2006)

Li Shenron said:
			
		

> It might be read both ways...




That's all I'm saying, there's no text, that clearly says so. And there is also the school of thought, that for an item to make a fundamental change like allowing wizards to suddenly spontaneously apply metamagic, it should maybe make some sort of mentioning of this in the item's description. In fact, it has to, in order to work that way, since items do not normally do what they do not say they do.

Bye
Thanee


----------



## Li Shenron (Dec 21, 2006)

Hypersmurf said:
			
		

> It's not 'the wielder can use the feat' despite saying 'the rod confers the ability to use the feat'?




It's not. It's clearly a mistake by the writer.

1) '(the rod) only (confers) the ability to use the given feat a specified number of times per day'

2) "The wielder can cast up to three spells per day that are enlarged as though using the XY feat"

You are giving all weight to the first, despite the fact that it is a sentence in the middle of an explanation about secondary things (what the rod "doesn't do"). And you're then trying to justify the second assuming that it can still be "logical" if you assume that preparation is implicit and doesn't need to be mentioned.

I'm instead just trying to tell that the second, in its simplicity, makes perfect sense if you assume the opposite (that preparation isn't mentioned because it is not in fact part of the scenario at all).

I know that as soon as you consider the first, which is anyway an accessory sentence to help explaining something else, then the whole text is not perfectly logical. But your concern with "flawless logic" is making you miss the real meaning   You're trying to derive the truth from all the smallest details, but you don't try to see the (imperfect) bigger picture.


----------



## Thanee (Dec 21, 2006)

Li Shenron said:
			
		

> 2) "The wielder can cast up to three spells per day that are enlarged as though using the XY feat"




This works just as it is written there, when a wizard first prepares the spells and then casts the spells with the rod, because that is _as though using the ... feat_ to me (the big picture, which includes the whole feat usage, not just one part of it ).



> ...but you don't try to see the (imperfect) bigger picture.




To me, the bigger picture goes even beyond what the author might have wanted to say... as explained above, I simply see the rods as too powerful and thus unbalancing, if they work that way. Besides the obvious issues silliness with the casting time increase for sorcerers spontaneous casters only.

Bye
Thanee


----------



## Li Shenron (Dec 21, 2006)

Thanee said:
			
		

> To me, the bigger picture goes even beyond what the author might have wanted to say... as explained above, I simply see the rods as too powerful and thus unbalancing, if they work that way. Besides the obvious issues silliness with the casting time increase for sorcerers spontaneous casters only.




I didn't like them either since the start, just as I dislike nearly everything that tries to make preparation casters (nearly) as good as sorcerers with metamagic... They are quite too powerful and in fact I don't let my players find them on sale (at least crafting has some steep feat & xp cost...). Plus I gladly house-rule that sorcerers don't need increased casting time, so the rods have a slightly reduced difference in benefit between Wiz and Sor.

But that's my own idea how they should be (actually IMO they should also be quite more expensive).
My idea of how they are by the rules is what I wrote in my previous posts (except the first, which mentioned my own changes).


----------



## KarinsDad (Dec 21, 2006)

Hypersmurf said:
			
		

> ... now what do you do with the Quicken Rods?




Drop them from the game completely.

Spontaneous Quicken should not be allowed ever.


----------



## wildstarsreach (Dec 21, 2006)

KarinsDad said:
			
		

> Drop them from the game completely.
> 
> Spontaneous Quicken should not be allowed ever.




As written, and then interpreted, only a wizard or cleric can get the benefit of a quicken rod.

One this we did learn from this discussion, in our last campaign, we a a radiant servant with quicken and divine metamagic who was quickening spontaneous cure spells by using turn attempts.  We now know this to be wrong unless the Divine metamagic is another exception.


----------



## Thanee (Dec 21, 2006)

wildstarsreach said:
			
		

> As written, and then interpreted, only a waizard or cleric can get the benefit of a quicken rod.




Yep. Unless you move away from the Core rules, that is. With Metamagic Specialist a Sorcerer should be able to use rods without increasing the casting time, at least I think so. It's certainly not 100% clear.



> One this we did learn from this discussion, in our last campaign, we a a radiant servnat with quicken and divine metamagic who was quickening spontaneous cure spells by uding turn attempts.  We now know this to be wrong unless the Divine metamagic is another exception.




Hmm... it says 'apply a metamagic feat' there. 

Bye
Thanee


----------



## Hypersmurf (Dec 21, 2006)

wildstarsreach said:
			
		

> As written, and then interpreted, only a waizard or cleric can get the benefit of a quicken rod.




But you said that yes, by your reading a wizard using the rod extends casting time, didn't you?

-Hyp.


----------



## wildstarsreach (Dec 21, 2006)

Hypersmurf said:
			
		

> But you said that yes, by your reading a wizard using the rod extends casting time, didn't you?
> 
> -Hyp.




No I believe that if the ruling is spontaneous, then they should extend the casting time to 1 round.  This isn't the current FAQ ruling.


----------



## wildstarsreach (Dec 22, 2006)

Metamagic Rods: Metamagic rods hold the essence of a metamagic feat but do not change the spell slot of the altered spell. All the rods described here are use-activated (but casting spells in a threatened area still draws an attack of opportunity). A caster may only use one metamagic rod with metamagic feats possessed by the rods’ wielder. In this case, only the feats possessed by the wielder adjust the spell slot of the spell being cast.

Possession of a metamagic rod does not confer the associated feat on the owner, only the ability to use the given feat a specified number of times per day. A sorcerer still must take a full-round action when using a Metamagic rod, just as if using a metamagic feat he possesses.

Below is what I would change the wording to to make more balance and less abiguous.

Metamagic Rods: Metamagic rods hold the essence of a metamagic feat but do not change the spell slot of the altered spell.  All the rods described here are use-activated and are applied at the time of casting (but casting spells in a threatened area still draws an attack of opportunity). A caster may only use one metamagic rod with metamagic feats possessed by the rod's wielder. In this case, only the feats possessed by the wielder adjust the spell slot of the spell being cast.  A wizard would have to have memorized a spell with feats that he himself has learned and not with the rod.

Possession of a metamagic rod does not confer the associated feat on the owner, only the ability to use the given feat a specified number of times per day. Possession of the rod does not give the wielder the prerequisites for learning other feats.  Scribing a scroll will not confer the energy of to rods feat.  It is only applied to spells that are cast, not stored, charged or saved for later use in any items or persons unless the spell is cast on a person who receives a benefit at the casting such as Mage Armor, ect. 

All casters using the rod on a spell must move to the next higher casting time, swift/immediate/quickened action to standard action, standard action to full round, ECT when using a metamagic rod.  The only exception to this is the quicken Metamagic rod which allows any caster to have a quickened spell or reduce the time by one step up to 3 times a day on the appropriate spell levels that the rod can affect.


----------



## Graf (Jan 5, 2007)

The FAQ is fine.

People are frustrated about the sorcercer's power level & how metamagic works for them.
Hoiwever insisting a metamagic rod has to work some kind of special way to "balance" that is silly.

Even that was fixed in PhBII. Just give up your familiar.

Do it the FAQ way.


----------

