Spontaneous Casting and Metamagic Feats: Casting a standard action metamagic spell spontaneously is a full-round action, and a spell with a longer casting time takes an extra full-round action to cast. The only exception is for spells modified by the Quicken Spell feat, which can be cast as a swift action.
Hope that helps.
All metamagic rods manifest with the exact effects of metamagic feats. The exact effects. Including the increased casting time for all spontaneously cast spells.
Metamagic rods hold the essence of a metamagic feat, allowing the user to apply metamagic effects to spells (but not spell-like abilities ) as they are cast.
The reason the text that I quoted isn't repeated again in the metamagic rod section is because it would be redundant. Metamagic feats function under the effect of metamagic feats unless specified otherwise.
So yes, all spontaneous casters using metamagic rods will increase the casting time (except for quicken).
I very highly doubt you will get an official response on this because the rules are already very clear.
|
Spontaneous Casting and Metamagic Feats: Casting a standard action metamagic spell spontaneously is a full-round action, and a spell with a longer casting time takes an extra full-round action to cast. The only exception is for spells modified by the Quicken Spell feat, which can be cast as a swift action.Hope that helps.
Note, this rule is in the Feats section of the CRB, under the title Metamagic Feats.
i'm asking about metamagic RODS
Yes it does => Metamagic Rods
A sorcerer still must take a full-round action when using a metamagic rod, just as if using a metamagic feat he possesses (except for quicken metamagic rods, which can be used as a swift action).
EDIT: fix link
We have always played that Rods don't change the casting time (excluding Quicken) but apparently that is a house rule that we didn't know we were using. It has never been particularly unbalancing for us.
so why does it only say sorcerers have increased cast time and not all spells cast spontaneously have an increased cast time. all I know is metamagic rods do not increase cast time except for sorcerers because that's what it says.
Probably because it's assumed you would reference the metamagic feat rules which dictate how metamagic works. Also, during that time most spontaneous spellcasters were sorcerers.
you keep quoting metamagic FEAT rules saying rods follow them except for the increased cast time and increase in spell level. so they basicly don't follow the metamagic FEAT rules, EXCEPT as it says sorcerers whom they single out.
Actually, that last part I quoted was from metamagic rods.
Yes, I said it follows all metamagic feat rules unless otherwise specified. They specify that they do not raise the spell level needed. Everything else, I repeat, EVERYTHING ELSE about the effects is EXACTLY THE SAME as using a metamagic feat. Period.
You are reading the rules inside of a tunnel, claiming that one line of text to take precedence over all other metamagic rules present. That is a flawed way to interpret the rules.
|
A rod allows your to use the FEAT a certain number of times per day. It still follows all rules for the use of metamagic feats. If in your home games you choose to only apply that to sorcerers because they are the given example being the only full spontaneous caster at the time the CRB was written that is your choice.
|
|
actually if you go back and read the CRB metamagic feat section it specifically talks about bards and sorcerers, it calls them both out by name saying this is how it works for these 2 classes, same book metamagic rod, only says sorcerers have a longer cast time. that says something to me. it says ONLY sorcerers have the longer cast timeso why does it only say sorcerers have increased cast time and not all spells cast spontaneously have an increased cast time. all I know is metamagic rods do not increase cast time except for sorcerers because that's what it says.Probably because it's assumed you would reference the metamagic feat rules which dictate how metamagic works. Also, during that time most spontaneous spellcasters were sorcerers.
you keep quoting metamagic FEAT rules saying rods follow them except for the increased cast time and increase in spell level. so they basicly don't follow the metamagic FEAT rules, EXCEPT as it says sorcerers whom they single out.Actually, that last part I quoted was from metamagic rods.
Yes, I said it follows all metamagic feat rules unless otherwise specified. They specify that they do not raise the spell level needed. Everything else, I repeat, EVERYTHING ELSE about the effects is EXACTLY THE SAME as using a metamagic feat. Period.
You are reading the rules inside of a tunnel, claiming that one line of text to take precedence over all other metamagic rules present. That is a flawed way to interpret the rules.
Nope, it says, and only says, word count limitations.
And then the rules continued to talk about all spells cast spontaneously. I quoted that bit above. Again, you cannot accept one portion of the rules and ignore another if you want to understand them.
exactly ONLY sorcerer has increased cast time.
My bad, I missed your point in the OP.
I'd say you are over-thinking the rule here. Increased casting time from a metamagic rod should apply equally to any spontaneous caster.Ouch! These boards are full of ninjas...
actually if you go back and read the CRB metamagic feat section it specifically talks about bards and sorcerers, it calls them both out by name saying this is how it works for these 2 classes, same book metamagic rod, only says sorcerers have a longer cast time. that says something to me. it says ONLY sorcerers have the longer cast timeso why does it only say sorcerers have increased cast time and not all spells cast spontaneously have an increased cast time. all I know is metamagic rods do not increase cast time except for sorcerers because that's what it says.Probably because it's assumed you would reference the metamagic feat rules which dictate how metamagic works. Also, during that time most spontaneous spellcasters were sorcerers.
you keep quoting metamagic FEAT rules saying rods follow them except for the increased cast time and increase in spell level. so they basicly don't follow the metamagic FEAT rules, EXCEPT as it says sorcerers whom they single out.Actually, that last part I quoted was from metamagic rods.
Yes, I said it follows all metamagic feat rules unless otherwise specified. They specify that they do not raise the spell level needed. Everything else, I repeat, EVERYTHING ELSE about the effects is EXACTLY THE SAME as using a metamagic feat. Period.
You are reading the rules inside of a tunnel, claiming that one line of text to take precedence over all other metamagic rules present. That is a flawed way to interpret the rules.
That is not what it says at all. You can make the argument that that is what it implies but that is not what it says.
The fact that it only says sorcerers =/= saying "only sorcerers".
Please don't take what I said the wrong way, I see you are new to the forums, I don't want you to get the wrong idea.
I am a bit of a read as written purist, but have recently been tempered a little and am willing to accept that RAI is sometimes the better answer.
Whether this is intended or not, I am not sure. if I had to rule on it in a game I would require the greater amount of time based on the rules for applying the feats. I would consider the longer casting time to be one of the effects of applying the meta magic.
Unfortunately or fortunately these rules were not written by lawyers and are not always perfect. At the end of the day it will be the DM's call, and that is why we have DM's.
I only know what it says. rods do not increase cast time except sorcerer I can't find any rule to the contrary.
The one I quoted.
You are flat out ignoring the rules text of metamagic feats.
so you want me to assume what other classes it means? that sounds like RAI to me.
No. The increased time is not specific to classes. It is specific to spontaneously casting, which is why when good-aligned clerics spontaneously cast cure spells they are also subject to the increased casting time, and to that same end why druids have the increased casting time when spontaneously casting summon nature's ally.
Any spell that is cast spontaneously with metamagic (feat or rod, it doesn't matter) has its casting time increased (unless it is quickened). That is RAW. Not just implied as RAI, it is RAW, black and white.
Nope. No assumptions whatsoever.
Spontaneous Casting and Metamagic Feats: A cleric spontaneously casting a cure or inflict spell, or a druid spontaneously casting a summon nature's ally spell, can cast a metamagic version of it instead. Extra time is also required in this case. Casting a standard action metamagic spell spontaneously is a full-round action, and a spell with a longer casting time takes an extra full-round action to cast. The only exception is for spells modified by the Quicken Spell feat, which can be cast as a swift action.
metamagic rods do not increase cast time rod are not feats rods are rods. you quote feat rules to me like they mean anything.
They mean everything. With the exception of the spell slot required, metamagic feats and metamagic rods function exactly the same. Until you come to accept that, you will never get over your confusion.
Metamagic rods cannot exist without metamagic feats. Metamagic feats can exist without metamagic rods. That is because metamagic rods are simply a vessel through which metamagic feats act. The metamagic feat rules are vital to how metamagic rods function. You cannot, cannot, cannot ignore those rules, however badly you want to. It's like wanting to use the fly spell but not looking at the fly rules.
This is the answer to your question in the most basic form, and I have already supplied all of the evidence that supports this.
If a spell is cast non-spontaneously, it does not increase the casting time.
If a spell is cast spontaneously, it increased the casting time.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I must agree with Carl on this one.
It is actually pretty clear.
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 (except for quicken metamagic rods, which can be used as a swift action).
Black and white, you are using the feat. Therefore you use the rule for using the feat.
Only rules specifically changed by the item trump the rules for using the feat.Nothing in the item says that applying the feat to a spontaneously cast spell, takes less time than normal.
It just reminds Sorcerers of this rule.
RAW Spontaneously cast spells take longer to cast using rods (except quicken).
In a home game feel free to change this. In PFS, you are stuck with it.
Moreover, if you do not plan to reference the metamagic feat rules when using a metamagic rod, how do metamagic rods even function? The description of every single metamagic rod simply references metamagic feats, saying the rod functions as they do.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
so you want me to assume what other classes it means? that sounds like RAI to me.
You want to ignore the rules explanations that have been provided simply because there's a word-count limit in the rulebook? That sounds like Munchkining to me.
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.
Emphasis mine.
The rod allows you to "use the given feat", which means all of the applicable feat's rules apply to using the rod. See, when you use a feat, there are specific requirements and conditions set forth to govern its use. In the case of metamagic feats, spontaneous casters require additional time to use the feat(s). The rods allow you to "use the...feat". So you increase the casting time if you're a spontaneous caster. See how that works? Using the rod allows you to use the feat. To use the feat as a spontaneous caster, you increase the casting time. Use rod = use feat = increased spontaneous casting time. No clarification required unless you want to blatantly ignore the RAW because someone didn't spell out every single spontaneous caster class (particularly those that didn't exist yet) when the CRB was published.
So, everyone who quoted feat rules for you was doing exactly the right thing, and you're willfully ignoring them because it doesn't fit your narrow and unreasonable reading of the metamagic rod rules. I can only conclude you're trying to limit the casting time increase to sorcerers so you can powergame your way to "victory" with a different spontaneous caster class.
I, unlike MichaelCullen, won't give you a break for being new to the boards. Not when you're going to be belligerent with people who have kindly provided you multiple examples of why you're misreading the rule. Just because you disagree with CampinCarl (and the rulebook for that matter) doesn't make your point valid. If you choose to run a game where only sorcerers suffer increased casting time when using metamagic rods, so be it; it's your game and you're welcome to run it your way. Don't believe for a minute that you're following RAW, though. You will have dipped into houserule territory.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
vhok, as others have stated, the "sorcerer" bit in the metamagic rods is simply a reminder, not an inclusive or exclusive statement.
Metamagic Rods use the rules for Metamagic feats except where otherwise stated. I don't understand why you think they don't.
Metamagic rods hold the essence of a metamagic feat, allowing the user to apply metamagic effects to spells (but not spell-like abilities) as they are cast. This does not change the spell slot of the altered spell. All the rods described here are use-activated (but casting spells in a threatened area still draws an attack of opportunity). A caster may only use one metamagic rod on any given spell, but it is permissible to combine a rod with metamagic feats possessed by the rod’s wielder. In this case, only the feats possessed by the wielder adjust the spell slot of the spell being cast.
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 (except for quicken metamagic rods, which can be used as a swift action).
It states that it is the essence of a metamagic feat.
It states that it does not change the spell slot (an exception).It states how it is used (use-activated).
It states how many rods you may use at once (clarification).
It states it can be combined with metamagic feats (a clarification).
It states that you do not actually possess the feat (some items actually grant the feat, this indicates you don't actually have it, the rod gives it to you for X number of uses a day).
It states that sorcerers still must cast spells as full-round actions (this is a reminder).
There is NOTHING that excludes other spontaneous spell-casters from being forced to cast as a full-round action like normal. The fact that they only reminded you about sorcerers is just a lack of foresight in predicting how overly rules-lawyerish people can get.
Are you using a Metamagic Rod? Yes
Does the Metamagic Rod provide a Metamagic Feat? Yes
Do spontaneous spellcasters have to use a full-round action when casting a metamagic spell? Yes
The reminder in the Metamagic Rod text is really pointless beyond being a reminder.
Owner - D20 Hobbies
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Unfortunately or fortunately these rules were not written by lawyers and are not always perfect. At the end of the day it will be the DM's call, and that is why we have DM's.
+1
I'd like to point out that they are intentionally looser than some of the rules lawyers would like them, because most players want rules they can read without being a lawyer and pretty much every developer has said point blank, that they want more readable less legal speak rules.
so you want me to assume what other classes it means? that sounds like RAI to me.
Not RAI, but more "understand the meaning and less about the exact words". More often than not a FAQ will not alter a rules sentence, but change the meaning of that. If you are good at understanding the meaning, you will find few FAQ posts disagree with your reading of the rules.
actually if you go back and read the CRB metamagic feat section it specifically talks about bards and sorcerers, it calls them both out by name saying this is how it works for these 2 classes, same book metamagic rod, only says sorcerers have a longer cast time. that says something to me. it says ONLY sorcerers have the longer cast time
No, that's not what it says. If you're so concerned with strict RAW over obvious RAI, stop making interpretations. Especially using dodgy logic.
The introduction to Metamagic feats contains rules information that is passed on through the [Metamagic] tag, just like certain spell descriptors (most notably [Polymorph]) carry rules information in the tag.
This means that abilities creating effects tagged with [Metamagic] apply the general rules of the [Metamagic] tag.
The phrase "A sorcerer still must take a full-round action when using a metamagic rod, just as if using a metamagic feat he possesses" is not even a positive rule; it's a clarification that no exception to the more general rule ("spontaneous casters increate casting time fo rmetamagic") is implied.
|
I think vhok might be more concerned in the event of a GM using that line to specifically limit Sorcerers.
Having played in one such game where the GM enforced this prejudice against the Sorcerer but didn't have it apply vs the Bard was rather frustrating.
I find it a stupid and prejudicial rule against all spontaneous casters anyway. I'd prefer if it applied to all casters or if the increased casting time was done away with completely.
I think vhok might be more concerned in the event of a GM using that line to specifically limit Sorcerers.
Having played in one such game where the GM enforced this prejudice against the Sorcerer but didn't have it apply vs the Bard was rather frustrating.
I find it a stupid and prejudicial rule against all spontaneous casters anyway. I'd prefer if it applied to all casters or if the increased casting time was done away with completely.
Whether or not it is a good idea I am not sure, but I think I know the reasoning.
Not all, but some, meta magic feats are significantly better in the hands of a spontaneous caster. For example, Silent Spell. Silent spell is only really useful in a couple situations, but when it is, it is extremely important. A prepared caster has to apply the feat before hand, predicting these scenarios. A spontaneous caster can apply them as needed.I personally love sorcerers and oracles, the delayed spell progression hurts. Extended casting time is a small downside compared to getting spells a level later. At the end of the day I am fine with them both because of the advantages spontaneous casting has, the ability to adapt to the moment.
vhok,
You are not alone in thinking that it should be an exception.
It can be explained like this:
Back in 3.0 it was deemed that spontaneous spellcasters should have a penalty when slapping a metamagic feat onto a spell.
(Many people disagree with this and think that when WotC did this back in 3.0 it was with the fear that spontaneous use of metamagic would be imbalancing.)
Metamagic Rods did not have an exception and instead a reminder was put in to remind people of the increased casting time.
Pathfinder re-used the same information regarding metamagic rods and metamagic feats without changing much, if anything.
|
|
I think vhok might be more concerned in the event of a GM using that line to specifically limit Sorcerers.
Having played in one such game where the GM enforced this prejudice against the Sorcerer but didn't have it apply vs the Bard was rather frustrating.
I find it a stupid and prejudicial rule against all spontaneous casters anyway. I'd prefer if it applied to all casters or if the increased casting time was done away with completely.
Whether or not it is a good idea I am not sure, but I think I know the reasoning.
Not all, but some, meta magic feats are significantly better in the hands of a spontaneous caster. For example, Silent Spell. Silent spell is only really useful in a couple situations, but when it is, it is extremely important. A prepared caster has to apply the feat before hand, predicting these scenarios. A spontaneous caster can apply them as needed.I personally love sorcerers and oracles, the delayed spell progression hurts. Extended casting time is a small downside compared to getting spells a level later. At the end of the day I am fine with them both because of the advantages spontaneous casting has, the ability to adapt to the moment.
That applies to feats but does it apply to rods as well? Can the Wizard just apply the rod's effect when they cast the spell or do they have to use it when they're preparing?
Rysky, no, a Wizard does not need to (and cannot) use the Metamagic Rod when they prepare spells.
Metamagic rods hold the essence of a metamagic feat, allowing the user to apply metamagic effects to spells (but not spell-like abilities) as they are cast.
|
|
Rysky, no, a Wizard does not need to (and cannot) use the Metamagic Rod when they prepare spells.
Metamagic rods hold the essence of a metamagic feat, allowing the user to apply metamagic effects to spells (but not spell-like abilities) as they are cast.
Thankies.
Okay then since the handicap for Wizards is removed when using rods then it's a little unfair that the Sorcerers still keep their's.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Which is why many people houserule it. But this is the rules forum and those are the rules. Rules don't have to be fair (and frequently are not fair). :)
*sigh* True.
Need to make a a thread and faq/errata click it into oblivion.
Please don't do that. That's not what the FAQ system is for.
And as long as it is not pfs, you can do what you and the gm can agree on.
That's why I said faq/errata, but if that would be an improper use of the system then how would we go about requesting an errata?Please don't do that. That's not what the FAQ system is for.*sigh* True.
Need to make a a thread and faq/errata click it into oblivion.
There is no need for errata. There is a rule that with a large helping of bloody-minded literalness can be misinterpreted, but it's really far, far below being a problem. And there's a rule that we don't like, but that's not what errata are for.
|
|
There is no need for errata. There is a rule that with a large helping of bloody-minded literalness can be misinterpreted, but it's really far, far below being a problem. And there's a rule that we don't like, but that's not what errata are for.That's why I said faq/errata, but if that would be an improper use of the system then how would we go about requesting an errata?Please don't do that. That's not what the FAQ system is for.*sigh* True.
Need to make a a thread and faq/errata click it into oblivion.
If every time said rule is brought up it is mentioned as being houseruled away or different then I do believe an errata is called for.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If you are good at understanding the meaning, you will find few FAQ posts disagree with your reading of the rules.
This. A hundred million thousand times this - I wish more people on these forums understood this principle.
1) The intent is far more important than the RAW. At times RAW could be read in multiple ways, but intent is very clear (not always, but often).
2) You don't have to like what the RAW is to understand the RAW (house rule when you don't like it).