How Do Metamagic Rods Work For Preparation Spellcasters?

[Thanee]

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]

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]

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

Bye
Thanee

 

[Mistwell]

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

 

[KarinsDad]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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...