How Do Metamagic Rods Work For Preparation Spellcasters?

[takasi]

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.

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.

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]

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

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]

It's not an argument, just an explanation.

Thanee, this whole forum is argumenative discourse.

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?

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).

Bye
Thanee

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]

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.

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).

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]

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]

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.

"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]

"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]

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

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

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.

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]

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.

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.

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.

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

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

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]

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.