New FAQ 23/11/06 [Merged]

[Infiniti2000]

The monk's belt just seems like the correct ruling. A bit powerful in a few odd cases, but correct. And I think, the original intent of the authors.

Good God, it's absurdly powerful in every single case of a spellcaster with Wisdom as a spellcasting stat. It's patently ridiculous for that price.

 

[shilsen]

Good God, it's absurdly powerful in every single case of a spellcaster with Wisdom as a spellcasting stat. It's patently ridiculous for that price.

Since the FAQ is generally designed to explain/interpet the intentions of the rules, rather than to put out errata, it makes sense that it explains the original intent, whether that be balanced or not. Right?

And I think you're exaggerating a fair bit in saying that it's absurdly powerful in every single case of a spellcaster with Wisdom as a spellcasting stat. Most clerics wear armor and won't benefit from it. It melds into a druid's form when he wildshapes and doesn't work. And those two classes are the two primary core spellcasters with Wis as a spellcasting stat.

 

[IndyPendant]

Errr...

...Ring of Force Shield...
The item is silent on the issue, so the Sage believes it appropriate to assume that the ring’s shield functions just like a normal heavy shield (except for the lack of armor check penalty or arcane spell failure chance). Thus, it requires a free hand to gain the shield’s benefit. Of course, a character wielding a weapon in that hand could activate the ring after making his attacks for the round (thus gaining its benefit while enemies attack) and deactivate it at the start of his next turn (allowing attacks with that hand). While you wouldn’t be able to use the shield hand to make attacks of opportunity while the shield was active, you’d otherwise be nearly as effectively protected as if the shield were active continuously.

Shield, Heavy, Wooden or Steel: You strap a shield to your forearm and grip it with your hand. A heavy shield is so heavy that you can’t use your shield hand for anything else.

So...if it's used 'just like a normal heavy shield', would that not require that you 'grip it with your hand', and thus you would have to drop the weapon you were just 'wielding in that hand'?

 

[amethal]

So regarding the metamagic rod "debate", FAQ decided on the interpretation that benefitted wizards. What a surprise!

To be honest, I think that is the interpretation which is best supported by the text, but its blatantly unfair that a sorcerer needs a full round action to use a rod whereas a wizard doesn't.

 

[Hypersmurf]

The rods "...confer... the ability to use the given feat a specified number of times per day." Wizards with metamagic feats use them when preparing spells. I would have thought a wizard with a metamagic rod would likewise use it during spell preparation.

But because the sorcerer or bard has not prepared the spell in a metamagic form in advance, he must apply the metamagic feat on the spot. Therefore, such a character must also take more time to cast a metamagic spell (one enhanced by a metamagic feat) than he does to cast a regular spell.

We know that the reason a sorcerer takes a full round action to cast a metamagic spell is because he is applying the metamagic feat on the spot.

We know that because a sorcerer takes a full round action to cast a spell with a metamagic rod, that a sorcerer using a metamagic rod is applying the metamagic feat on the spot.

We know that a wizard casting a spell with a metamagic rod does not take a full round action; therefore we know that a wizard casting a spell with a metamagic rod is not applying the metamagic feat on the spot.

Thus, we know that a wizard casting a spell with a metamagic rod must have applied the metamagic feat at preparation time... which is exactly what the language used by the rod would imply, given that the rod allows him to use the feat, and 'at preparation time' is how a wizard uses the feat.

Which is why I disagree with the FAQ answer in this case.

As noted elsewhere in the FAQ, metamagic feats don't actually alter a spell's level.

However, in the PHB under 'Magic Items and Metamagic Spells', it states that "Level limits for potions and wands apply to the spell's higher level (after the application of the metamagic feat)."

The explicit ruling is that for the purpose of level limits for potions and wands, the spell has a higher level after application of the feat. The implicit ruling we might infer is that for the purpose of 'Magic Items and Metamagic Spells' - including space in rings of spell storing, pricing for wands of empowered magic missile, limits on Lesser Metamagic Rods, and Pearls of Power - the spell has a higher level after application of the feat.

-Hyp.

 

[starwed]

On the one hand, I don't particularly like some of the answers (such as how wizards use metamagic rods.) On the other hand, they at least deigned to mention some of issues which spur some of the longest rules argument threads in D&D forums across the web.

I suppose they still haven't clarified how a hydra makes AoO, have they?

 

[Perun]

Good God, it's absurdly powerful in every single case of a spellcaster with Wisdom as a spellcasting stat. It's patently ridiculous for that price.

Depends on the class and the character's Wisdom. My 13th-level druid has Wis 24 (with a periapt of wisdom +4), and that gives me a +8 AC bonus for 13,000 gp.

A +3 full plate costs 10,650 gp (IIRC) and gives you a +11 AC bonus. True, monk's belt also increases touch AC, while standard armour does not, but then you can get all manner of fancy effects on your armour, and a belt is always only a belt

Regards.

 

[Elder-Basilisk]

For my part, I think the meta-magic feat rod is a very good ruling. To do otherwise would allow wizards to prepare metamagicked spells in normal level spell slots and then use pearls of power to recover the metamagicked spells. Recall an empowered fireball with a 3rd level pearl? Recall a quickened magic missile with a 1st level pearl. Utterly ridiculous. This ruling stops that nonsense.

 

[Infiniti2000]

Since the FAQ is generally designed to explain/interpet the intentions of the rules, rather than to put out errata, it makes sense that it explains the original intent, whether that be balanced or not. Right?

Actually, I think the FAQ ends up explaining the interpretations of one person, not necessarily even associated with the original R&D team. Even if so, it's not the same team and thus will not have the same intent (unless that FAQ person happens to be the original designer of the section for those questions he answers).

And I think you're exaggerating a fair bit in saying that it's absurdly powerful in every single case of a spellcaster with Wisdom as a spellcasting stat. Most clerics wear armor and won't benefit from it. It melds into a druid's form when he wildshapes and doesn't work. And those two classes are the two primary core spellcasters with Wis as a spellcasting stat.

I am not exaggerating one bit. The fantastic gain from the monk's belt for any wisdom-spellcaster outweighs any downside. My cleric would shred his armor for that ruling, going out to buy bracers of armor if he did not already have UMD (in which case he would buy a wand of mage armor). It's absurdly powerful. It's an extremely bad FAQ answer and it makes for a terrible rule, house or RAW.

 

[Li Shenron]

I completely HATE all the FAQ posted in this thread except the Pearl of Power one

The metamagic rod FAQ is the most irritating. Either these rod work like Hypersmurf explained, or otherwise they should work really "on the fly" for everyone, and should not increase Sorcerer's casting time.