How Do Metamagic Rods Work For Preparation Spellcasters?

[airwalkrr]

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.

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]

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.

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.

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]

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]

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]

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:

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).

_______

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.

_______

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]

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]

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]

I call shenanigans on the FAQ.

 

[KarinsDad]

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]

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