How Do Metamagic Rods Work For Preparation Spellcasters?

[Hypersmurf]

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]

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]

...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]

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).

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."

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]

"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]

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]

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]

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

Thanks for joining the thread. Thanee already addressed this here

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).

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.

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

I agree with you there.

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).

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.

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]

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]

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.