Using Metamagic Rod in each hand


Rules Questions


Hi folks! First time posting.

So, I'm aware that it's not possible to use multiple metamagic rods to enhance a single spell, however what I'm not clear on is whether or not you can use them separately to modify a quickened spell.

Say that I have a Metamagic Rod of Empower and one of Quicken. I know that I cannot use both to cast an Empowered, Quickened Fireball. But could I:

Cast an Empowered Fireball (Standard Action) then cast a Quickened Fireball (Swift) assuming I'm holding a rod in each hand?

Can I cast an Empowered Fireball using the appropriate rod, then cast a Quickened Persistent Fireball assuming that I have the Quicken Spell feat and am holding a Persistent Metamagic Rod?

My gut feeling is that yes, this is possible, but I'd like some clarification.

Lantern Lodge

Yes you can... but remember that spells with somatic components require that a hand be free :)


FrodoOf9Fingers wrote:
Yes you can... but remember that spells with somatic components require that a hand be free :)

then explain how casters get away with holding a weapon in their primary hand, a rod in the off-hand and casting a metamagic-ed spell with somatic components...


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Shimesen wrote:
FrodoOf9Fingers wrote:
Yes you can... but remember that spells with somatic components require that a hand be free :)
then explain how casters get away with holding a weapon in their primary hand, a rod in the off-hand and casting a metamagic-ed spell with somatic components...

Player is cheating.


Shimesen wrote:
FrodoOf9Fingers wrote:
Yes you can... but remember that spells with somatic components require that a hand be free :)
then explain how casters get away with holding a weapon in their primary hand, a rod in the off-hand and casting a metamagic-ed spell with somatic components...

Simple, they don't. That's why my Magus can't use a Metamagic rod at the same time he is wielding a weapon. If I had Still spell, I could, but without it, I cannot.

Dark Archive

Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

They're cheating, or don't understand the rules?

These sorts of details are easily glossed over, much like I often see martial characters move, and make a ranged attack, despite them having been attacking in melee the previous round.

Grand Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Still Spell Metamagic Rod?


Pathfinder Adventure, Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

meh, the same comment was made about wizards casting spells when using a staff (2-handed) the assumption being that the staff was 'held' in one hand for the spell to be cast.

In this situation; you could have the rods attached to weapon cords, hold one cast the spell with the other hand, recover the second rod as a move action and cast the quickened spell...

and let's avoid using words like 'cheating'.

Grand Lodge

Spring-Loaded Wrist Sheathe?


Well... Is there anything like weaponwand for rods?

Maybe the rod is the weapon?

PFSRD wrote:
Physical Description: Rods weigh approximately 5 pounds. They range from 2 feet to 3 feet long and are usually made of iron or some other metal. (Many, as noted in their descriptions, can function as light maces or clubs because of their hardy construction.) These sturdy items have AC 9, 10 hit points, hardness 10, and a break DC of 27. . . .

On a side note, I am so making an adamantine magic mace rod next time I play...


Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber
lastblacknight wrote:
let's avoid using words like 'cheating'.

How about "Creative Rule Enforcement" or "Selective Rule Ignoring"?

So, in your situation the caster has a metamagic rod in each hand, both with a weapon cord attached to it and he can drop either as a free action. However, it requires a swift action to get the rod back in his hand. You know, the same action that you are using to cast the Quickened Spell already in that round.

But, no, he will just use the swift action in the following round to get back into his hand and just not cast a Quickened Spell in that round. While all 100% by the rules and 100% feasible, I doubt most players would be so detailed as to make sure they are getting every action straight. The DM probably does not and should not be into tracking such minutia as well.

SO yes, it can be done, but only by a thin margin and a loose rendering of the rules.

Plus the DM could require the metamagic rod to remain in the caster's possession while casting the spell so it really could not be dropped until after the spell was cast which would preclude him from using his hands for somatic gestures and the manipulation of material components.

I would probably have to say no, it cannot be done.


Could be house-ruled. My groups allow a generous interpretation of the rules when it comes to somatic gestures.

At our table...
As long as it's reasonable to assume you can free a hand for long enough to cast, you can. So if you've got a quarterstaff that you've been gripping two-handed, you're allowed to take a hand off, wiggle some fingers, and re-grip without any real actions consumed. Similarly, if you're using a club or maybe a mace, in one hand, you can "tuck" it under the other arm for a moment to do your wiggling. Bladed weapons or spiked things don't work for this because you'd be too likely to hurt yourself.

So it could be a table that plays as we do.


Thanks for the quick replies.

I had totally forgotten about the somatic components needing a free hand.

I'm assuming then, even with Still spell, there's the same problem with material components (sans the Eschew Materials feat)?


mmmm what about a vestigial arm or two?


Binjelli wrote:

Thanks for the quick replies.

I had totally forgotten about the somatic components needing a free hand.

I'm assuming then, even with Still spell, there's the same problem with material components (sans the Eschew Materials feat)?

I believe material components are manipulated with the 'free hand' when casting and do not require another hand to utilize.


If you treat the rod as just one more focus then it is part of the spellcasting and can be held in the hand that you are using to cast. The rules are not real specific about this though and so expect table variation.


Gilfalas wrote:
Binjelli wrote:

Thanks for the quick replies.

I had totally forgotten about the somatic components needing a free hand.

I'm assuming then, even with Still spell, there's the same problem with material components (sans the Eschew Materials feat)?

I believe material components are manipulated with the 'free hand' when casting and do not require another hand to utilize.

That... would make sense.

Material components don't even cross my mind outside of the expensive components. And given the following:

PRD wrote:
To cast a spell, you must be able to speak (if the spell has a verbal component), gesture (if it has a somatic component), and manipulate the material components or focus (if any). Additionally, you must concentrate to cast a spell.

It would seem that without Eschew Materials a wizard with Still Spell would still require some means of manipulating the material components of certain spells.


yeah, i think the general consensus is that you make your hand gestures with the material component in that hand (so like i cast a spell that needs chalk for material and some somatic as well. then im drawing something in the air in front of me with the chalk.)


Shimesen wrote:
FrodoOf9Fingers wrote:
Yes you can... but remember that spells with somatic components require that a hand be free :)
then explain how casters get away with holding a weapon in their primary hand, a rod in the off-hand and casting a metamagic-ed spell with somatic components...

Glove of Storing, weapon cords, Quickdraw...

There's plenty of ways to do it.

Gauss wrote:
If you treat the rod as just one more focus then it is part of the spellcasting and can be held in the hand that you are using to cast. The rules are not real specific about this though and so expect table variation.

I'm not sure how you're getting the rod is a focus. The RAW makes no mention of it being a focus. If we're just making stuff up, can a sword be a focus?


Quantum Steve wrote:
. . . I'm not sure how you're getting the rod is a focus. The RAW makes no mention of it being a focus. If we're just making stuff up, can a sword be a focus?

Just for clerics. It doubles as a cross. Think Templars.


Te'Shen wrote:
Quantum Steve wrote:
. . . I'm not sure how you're getting the rod is a focus. The RAW makes no mention of it being a focus. If we're just making stuff up, can a sword be a focus?
Just for clerics. It doubles as a cross. Think Templars.

^^THIS^^ is why casters are OP. because they can pull crap like this out of this air and call it legal and saddly, no one can argue that it doesnt work because theres no real reason it shouldn't work like that...because magic!

and we wonder why people think martial characters are inferior...hold a caster to the rules very strictly and you start to notice their power dwindles...


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Gauss wrote:
If you treat the rod as just one more focus then it is part of the spellcasting and can be held in the hand that you are using to cast. The rules are not real specific about this though and so expect table variation.

There's no rules support for the ability to treat an arbitrary object as a focus for the purposes of relieving the caster of the need for a free hand. You could just as easily say that a battleaxe, tower shield, or baby is a focus when a caster is holding it.

Feel free, though. I like the idea of waving around a baby to trace arcane sigils through the air.

/Somatic Baby is my next album name.


No, there are not "plenty of ways to do it". You can hold something in your left hand, and you can hold something in your right hand. If you're a freak alchemist, you can hold something in your...extra hand. If you're casting a spell that has a somatic component, you need one hand free.

If you're holding a staff, you can hold it in one hand while you cast with the other.

If you're holding a metamagic rod, you can hold it in one hand while you cast with the other.


Pathfinder Adventure, Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Hendelbolaf wrote:

Plus the DM could require the metamagic rod to remain in the caster's possession while casting the spell so it really could not be dropped until after the spell was cast which would preclude him from using his hands for somatic gestures and the manipulation of material components.

I would probably have to say no, it cannot be done.

Incorrect

Weapon cords can be used as a move action but as a PC has three actions a turn (standard, move and swift) they can use the standard to cast on spell, a move action to recover the other dangling rod and the swift action to cast the second quickened spell, they can now make a 5 foot step too. all legal and above board.


this all roles back into another thread where we discussed what exactly the use activation of a metamagic rod actually it. i like to imagine my character drawing sigils in the air with the rod instead of his hand which is why the spell gets the boon of the metamagic. but thats all just my imagination. until someone clarifies what the use activation is for them, i have to argue that by RAW all you ave to do is hold it, which a vestigial arm or prehensile tail can do. there is no manipulation required.


lastblacknight wrote:
Hendelbolaf wrote:

Plus the DM could require the metamagic rod to remain in the caster's possession while casting the spell so it really could not be dropped until after the spell was cast which would preclude him from using his hands for somatic gestures and the manipulation of material components.

I would probably have to say no, it cannot be done.

Incorrect

Weapon cords can be used as a move action but as a PC has three actions a turn (standard, move and swift) they can use the standard to cast on spell, a move action to recover the other dangling rod and the swift action to cast the second quickened spell, they can now make a 5 foot step too. all legal and above board.

Thanks for giving me yet another reason not to allow weapon's cords in my game.

Scarab Sages

Yes, because 1 fireball a round is clearly not enough damage and I need the most OP'd character possible. It makes far more enjoyable gaming dropping 20D6 a round instead of 10. I'm awesome.


Folks, did you see me say anywhere that it was a focus? No? I didn't think so. I said "IF" you treat it as a focus.

Right now the rules are pretty vague on a number of aspects regarding spellcasting. So lets review:

1) Do you need a hand free to cast a somatic spell? Yes
2) Do you need a hand free to use a Material Component? Yes (you must be able to manipulate it)
3) Do you need a hand free to use a Focus? Yes (you must be able to manipulate it)
4) Is the hand from 2/3 the same as the hand from 1?
The rules are silent but the logic of not being able to use the Rod is that if you manipulate something with a hand then that hand isn't free is it? Thus, cannot be used for the somatic component.

Now, nobody in their right mind would agree with #4 because then you cannot possibly cast a spell that requires a Somatic, Material, and Focus (you'd need 3 hands).

The point to all of this is that there is a LOT of hand-waiving going on. Everyone assumes that if you have one hand free you can cast a spell. Why would that change for something that adds to spellcasting such as a metamagic rod?


Pathfinder Adventure, Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Owly wrote:
Thanks for giving me yet another reason not to allow weapon's cords in my game.

uh huh, the PC still provokes as normal when casting a spell. They cost a bucket-load and if a non-wizard then using a Rod to cast is a full round action (meaning my above combo wouldn't work).

Also the Rod isn't a focus as such as a Holy Symbol but it is required to be held in the hand when the spell is being cast, and you can only use one meta-magic rod to effect a spell at a time - all a limited number of times per day.

by the time your PC is throwing 10d6 fireballs enemies are ignoring you due to fire resistance or spell resistance or evading your damage entirely.

oh and you have to spend 35K on a lesser quickened wand...

The PFS system is really quite balanced - even if you don't think so on paper.


lastblacknight wrote:
Owly wrote:
Thanks for giving me yet another reason not to allow weapon's cords in my game.

uh huh, the PC still provokes as normal when casting a spell. They cost a bucket-load and if a non-wizard then using a Rod to cast is a full round action (meaning my above combo wouldn't work).

Also the Rod isn't a focus as such as a Holy Symbol but it is required to be held in the hand when the spell is being cast, and you can only use one meta-magic rod to effect a spell at a time - all a limited number of times per day.

by the time your PC is throwing 10d6 fireballs enemies are ignoring you due to fire resistance or spell resistance or evading your damage entirely.

oh and you have to spend 35K on a lesser quickened wand...

The PFS system is really quite balanced - even if you don't think so on paper.

None of the things you mentioned are "balancing" enough to justify the additional actions per round.

As far as I'm concerned, using weapons cords for anything but preventing the loss of a disarmed weapon is the equivalent of dealing off the bottom of the deck.

But I'm happy so many players want to master the rules so thoroughly that they've found a way, Magic the Gathering style, to get themselves extra actions. Most impressive.

Grand Lodge

Wow.

They thoroughly nerfed Weapon Cords, and there are people still soiling their drawers over any use of them?

You have to be kidding me.


Gauss wrote:

Folks, did you see me say anywhere that it was a focus? No? I didn't think so. I said "IF" you treat it as a focus.

Right now the rules are pretty vague on a number of aspects regarding spellcasting. So lets review:

1) Do you need a hand free to cast a somatic spell? Yes
2) Do you need a hand free to use a Material Component? Yes (you must be able to manipulate it)
3) Do you need a hand free to use a Focus? Yes (you must be able to manipulate it)
4) Is the hand from 2/3 the same as the hand from 1?
The rules are silent but the logic of not being able to use the Rod is that if you manipulate something with a hand then that hand isn't free is it? Thus, cannot be used for the somatic component.

Now, nobody in their right mind would agree with #4 because then you cannot possibly cast a spell that requires a Somatic, Material, and Focus (you'd need 3 hands).

The point to all of this is that there is a LOT of hand-waiving going on. Everyone assumes that if you have one hand free you can cast a spell. Why would that change for something that adds to spellcasting such as a metamagic rod?

you bring up a good point. how exactly does one cast a spell that needs a DF, S, and M component? by RAW its not possible, so therefore we must assume that the M component is held in the same hand that makes the somatic gesture. this, i believe was the RAI. because of this, we can also draw the conclusion that in order to use a metamagic rod it could also be used in the hand making the somatic gesture. so then, how can a cleric use a metamagic rod with a spell that needs a df, s, and m component? RAW they cant? again, i do not believe that this was RAI. i think the developers left ALOT up to the imagination. why couldnt i crush the egg (material component) against the ground, then grab my rod and draw a circle into the egg mess with it (somatic component and metamagic together) while twirling my talisman in my other hand and chanting? <--this is the imagination the game was designed on. i think too many people age getting away from this concept by saying "thats not exactly what the spell says to do" and arguing RAW. the fact is, that no two people in a game imagine whats going on exactly the same way no matter how clear the picture is painted for them....this is the downfall of mankind brought on by the movie/video game era. no one has imagination anymore.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder PF Special Edition, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
lastblacknight wrote:

meh, the same comment was made about wizards casting spells when using a staff (2-handed) the assumption being that the staff was 'held' in one hand for the spell to be cast.

Unlike Magi, wizards aren't assumed to be using a spellcombat mechanic as they don't have one. It is also why Staff Magi get the free feat to use their quarterstaves one handed. So you're not really making a point here.


Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber
lastblacknight wrote:
Weapon cords can be used as a move action but as a PC has three actions a turn (standard, move and swift) they can use the standard to cast on spell, a move action to recover the other dangling rod and the swift action to cast the second quickened spell, they can now make a 5 foot step too. all legal and above board.

Technically, no, you cannot recover a weapon corded weapon as a move action as the entry says "if you drop your weapon or are disarmed, you can recover it as a swift action, and it never moves any further away from you than an adjacent square" so it looks like it is a swift action.

Now this is one occasion where I would probably allow a move action to take the place of a swift action, but that would not be a RAW determination.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder PF Special Edition, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
blackbloodtroll wrote:

Wow.

They thoroughly nerfed Weapon Cords, and there are people still soiling their drawers over any use of them?

You have to be kidding me.

The ONLY intended purpose for weapon cords was to let you retain your weapon on a disarm. Any other use you get out of hem is gravy and likely cheese as well.

Grand Lodge

Yeeeeah.

That is a silly response.

Basically, "youse a doody head, cheesy, munckin!"

Really, tying a string to your Rod, is not far-fetched.

Throwing a fit about any other use, than retrieving a disarmed weapon, is childish response.

Seriously, just how nerfed do they have to be, before people can change their diapers, and grow up.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder PF Special Edition, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
blackbloodtroll wrote:

Yeeeeah.

That is a silly response.

Basically, "youse a doody head, cheesy, munckin!"

Really, tying a string to your Rod, is not far-fetched.

Throwing a fit about any other use, than retrieving a disarmed weapon, is childish response.

Seriously, just how nerfed do they have to be, before people can change their diapers, and grow up.

How much cheese do we have to allow without question, before you're satisfied? I doubt that the answer would be any less than all that you want to serve.

The standard use of weapon cords isn't' a trivial benefit. A move action to recover a disarmed weapon would provoke after all.


Pathfinder Adventure, Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Hendelbolaf wrote:

Technically, no, you cannot recover a weapon corded weapon as a move action as the entry says "if you drop your weapon or are disarmed, you can recover it as a swift action, and it never moves any further away from you than an adjacent square" so it looks like it is a swift action.

Now this is one occasion where I would probably allow a move action to take the place of a swift action, but that would not be a RAW determination.

Technically? dude or dudette?...

If the an item is dropped [ or disarmed ] - paraphrasing your quote.

RAW and RAI you can draw an item to your hand using a weapon cord as a move action. (originally it was a swift, but mechanically they are better balanced now as a move).

RAW and RAI

If a PC has an item dangling on the end of Weapon Cord they can return it to their hand as a move action.


Te'Shen wrote:
Well... Is there anything like weaponwand for rods?

There is in my Saturday game. I specifically got permission from the GM to research it. ;)

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder PF Special Edition, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Xaratherus wrote:
Te'Shen wrote:
Well... Is there anything like weaponwand for rods?
There is in my Saturday game. I specifically got permission from the GM to research it. ;)

It should be about one or two levels higher than the weapon wand spells because unlike wands, rods are considerably larger tha the weapon widths you're trying to stick them into.


Hendelbolaf wrote:
lastblacknight wrote:
Weapon cords can be used as a move action but as a PC has three actions a turn (standard, move and swift) they can use the standard to cast on spell, a move action to recover the other dangling rod and the swift action to cast the second quickened spell, they can now make a 5 foot step too. all legal and above board.

Technically, no, you cannot recover a weapon corded weapon as a move action as the entry says "if you drop your weapon or are disarmed, you can recover it as a swift action, and it never moves any further away from you than an adjacent square" so it looks like it is a swift action.

Now this is one occasion where I would probably allow a move action to take the place of a swift action, but that would not be a RAW determination.

look up weapon cords again....they changed it to a move action instead of a swift.

however, i wouldn't allow my players to attach one to a metamagic rod unless i knew for certain they intended to use the rod as a weapon (risking the chance of damaging such an expensive item) simply for balance sake. if the character doesn't consider the item to be a weapon, neither should the GM, and thus an item thats not a weapon can't be attacked to a weapon cord....


LazarX wrote:
Xaratherus wrote:
Te'Shen wrote:
Well... Is there anything like weaponwand for rods?
There is in my Saturday game. I specifically got permission from the GM to research it. ;)
It should be about one or two levels higher than the weapon wand spells because unlike wands, rods are considerably larger tha the weapon widths you're trying to stick them into.

Yup, it's a 3rd level spell. In the campaign though it's invaluable; we've gone up against all kinds of demons, and getting around their elemental immunities with my Magus was a nightmare without the spell.


Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber
Shimesen wrote:
look up weapon cords again....they changed it to a move action instead of a swift.

Still shows it as I quoted it on the PRD...here.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder PF Special Edition, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Xaratherus wrote:
LazarX wrote:
Xaratherus wrote:
Te'Shen wrote:
Well... Is there anything like weaponwand for rods?
There is in my Saturday game. I specifically got permission from the GM to research it. ;)
It should be about one or two levels higher than the weapon wand spells because unlike wands, rods are considerably larger tha the weapon widths you're trying to stick them into.
Yup, it's a 3rd level spell. In the campaign though it's invaluable; we've gone up against all kinds of demons, and getting around their elemental immunities with my Magus was a nightmare without the spell.

Mine uses a metamagic helm.

Lantern Lodge

Hendelbolaf, they are referring to a recent FAQ on the subject.

FAQ wrote:

Weapon Cord: What kind of action is it to recover a weapon attached to your wrist with a weapon cord?

As originally published, this was a swift action. The design team has changed this to a move action. This will be updated in the next printing of the Advanced Player's Guide.


Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber
FrodoOf9Fingers wrote:

Hendelbolaf, they are referring to a recent FAQ on the subject.

FAQ wrote:

Weapon Cord: What kind of action is it to recover a weapon attached to your wrist with a weapon cord?

As originally published, this was a swift action. The design team has changed this to a move action. This will be updated in the next printing of the Advanced Player's Guide.

Looks like they need to update the PRD...


Hrm, odd - that FAQ isn't exactly recent. It was from late last year, wasn't it? Surprising PRD isn't updated yet.

Then again, if they're busy finalizing an awesome Advanced Class Guide, I can forgive them the oversight. :)


http://paizo.com/paizo/faq/v5748nruor1gg on weapon cords.

Lantern Lodge

Yeah, EVERYTHING has been holed up while they publish that guide. I think I should make another round through the play test and see if there's anything in there that could be exploited (and thus fixed).

I wonder if they hire rules lawyers...

Grand Lodge

Ugh. So many throw the term "cheese" around, when they really mean "I don't like it".

I despise the term "cheese".

Nobody can agree on what it means, and it's just a underhanded way to snipe others.

Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / Rules Questions / Using Metamagic Rod in each hand All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.