Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="airwalkrr" data-source="post: 3230579" data-attributes="member: 12460">Thanks for joining the thread. Thanee already addressed this <a href="http://www.enworld.org/showpost.php?p=3228710&postcount=8" target="_blank">here</a>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).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.I agree with you there.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).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.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.</blockquote>

Verification