How Do Metamagic Rods Work For Preparation Spellcasters?

[Infiniti2000]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

[...]
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?

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]

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]

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.