There's a reason people think that, and it's because there's a paragraph of the FAQ which begins "In general...", which PDT use to describe the general case that should be used for rules interactions, including those not specifically covered by the FAQ.
So the fact that the question is about concentration, pearls of power, and magus recall doesn't matter, because they give us a general rule to apply in all other situations where "what level applies?" comes up. Such as this thread.
Whether it does mean that or not, the rules before the FAQ on metamagic feats and rods were clear. Now it is all but clear. If such a change is what they want, it really should have been an errata and it should not start as an explanation of some very specific cases. Also, the metamagic rods should be re-priced.
|
Whether it does mean that or not, the rules before the FAQ on metamagic feats and rods were clear. Now it is all but clear. If such a change is what they want, it really should have been an errata and it should not start as an explanation of some very specific cases. Also, the metamagic rods should be re-priced.
Apparently not since I've had the same thoughts on Metamagic since 3.5
And keep saying it should have been an errata, okay and? What difference does it make if they call it that or not?
To lots of people it was just a clarification, to you it was an errata. Okay, it's an errata, and?
|
Whether it does mean that or not, the rules before the FAQ on metamagic feats and rods were clear. Now it is all but clear. If such a change is what they want, it really should have been an errata and it should not start as an explanation of some very specific cases. Also, the metamagic rods should be re-priced.
Not at all. Read the discussions that originated that FAQ.
You are arguing that how the metamagic feats work is clear, and that is true, but the whole discussion is about the use of magic items and some abilities that interact with the slot used to cast the spell.
The rods say: "Lesser and Greater Metamagic Rods: Normal metamagic rods can be used with spells of 6th level or lower. Lesser rods can be used with spells of 3rd level or lower, while greater rods can be used with spells of 9th level or lower." but we know that in that text "level of the spell" can mean either "level of the slot used to cast the spell" or "level of the original spell". That kind of text has been used interchangeably in a lot of the rules.
What the FAQ did is to clarify that we should read it as "level of the slot used to cast the spell" if that was disadvantageous for the spellcaster, something that was very clear even before the FAQ to everyone that had a minimum of respect for game balance.
Oh, so the rules ARE clear, you just have to go through the discussion leading up to the FAQ to see it? Sounds great. Maybe there should be a link to those discussions from the FAQ, and "what we mean is in those discussions, except when it isn't"?
Oh, so the rules ARE clear, you just have to go through the discussion leading up to the FAQ to see it? Sounds great.
Which is why i was so confused to why there was a discussion in the first place... It just seems you have a handful of people arguing a point they already agree with and/or someone confused the rules and the who and whom disappeared amidst it all.
*shrug* Thats my assumtion at least.
And keep saying it should have been an errata, okay and? What difference does it make if they call it that or not?To lots of people it was just a clarification, to you it was an errata. Okay, it's an errata, and?
A clarification that (by some interpretations) goes against very clear rules, that do not clarify their scope, and only gives an example about very specific cases is not a good one. If they had made an errata to the text on metamagic feats and metamagic rods, it would have been very clear that that was their intention.
It is also a question of indexing. If I look through the PFSRD for metamagic rods, how will I know that an answer about metamagic and pearls of power is relevant to that? How will I know I can look for info about vampiric touch and not miss something about vampiric touch that is written in a faq about encumbrance? Or something equally obscure?
|
|
And keep saying it should have been an errata, okay and? What difference does it make if they call it that or not?To lots of people it was just a clarification, to you it was an errata. Okay, it's an errata, and?
A clarification that (by some interpretations) goes against very clear rules, that do not clarify their scope, and only gives an example about very specific cases is not a good one. If they had made an errata to the text on metamagic feats and metamagic rods, it would have been very clear that that was their intention.
It is also a question of indexing. If I look through the PFSRD for metamagic rods, how will I know that an answer about metamagic and pearls of power is relevant to that? How will I know I can look for info about vampiric touch and not miss something about vampiric touch that is written in a faq about encumbrance? Or something equally obscure?
Correct, by some interpretations, not mine.
If they add FaQs, clarifications or errata, then that is their intention.
If you don't bother looking up FaQs regarding things what would be different than looking up errata regarding things? I much prefer the FaQ/Errata Fridays then simply having to wait until a hopeful second printing of a book.
Even if they do not want to call it an errata, they could at least put a FAQ that clearly covers how all metamagic works, and specify that it is a change of the rule that metamagic does not change the level of the spell.
|
|
Even if they do not want to call it an errata, they could at least put a FAQ that clearly covers how all metamagic works, and specify that it is a change of the rule that metamagic does not change the level of the spell.
They don't FaQ something unless it's brought up, or in this case something was brought which made them also bring a related rule or function.
And they can't specify that it's a change in the rules if to them (and others, such as myself) is isn't a change.
If rules are clear, and they are, people won't go looking for a FAQ. What's happening with these rod issues is just that some people seem to have read a terribly worded FAQ for something else, and decided that it should also apply to the perfectly fine rules for metamagic. However, applying that FAQ actually changes the rules as written. That's not the job for a FAQ.
In conclusion, why would one consult a FAQ if there's no question at all?
|
|
If rules are clear, and they are, people won't go looking for a FAQ. What's happening with these rod issues is just that some people seem to have read a terribly worded FAQ for something else, and decided that it should also apply to the perfectly fine rules for metamagic. However, applying that FAQ actually changes the rules as written. That's not the job for a FAQ.
In conclusion, why would one consult a FAQ if there's no question at all?
They wouldn't, making this whole argument moot.
You say the FaQ is terribly worded. I disagree.
Of course the FaQ about metamagic would apply to metamagic.
You say this FaQ changes the rules, according to your interpretation.
I disagree, as they do not change the rules to my interpretation.
"That's not the job for a FaQ"
Yes, it very well can be, they've released outright errata and rules changes before using the FaQ system, which I'm perfectly fine with since, as I stated above, I rather get this weekly than waiting for years for a possible later printing.
Please point out any questions these rules raise that would send you scampering for a FAQ.
From metamagic feats, CRB:
"As a spellcaster's knowledge of magic grows, he can learn to cast spells in ways slightly different from the norm. Preparing and casting a spell in such a way is harder than normal but, thanks to metamagic feats, is at least possible. Spells modified by a metamagic feat use a spell slot higher than normal. This does not change the level of the spell, so the DC for saving throws against it does not go up. Metamagic feats do not affect spell-like abilities."
From metamagic rods, CRB:
"Lesser and Greater Metamagic Rods: Normal metamagic rods can be used with spells of 6th level or lower. Lesser rods can be used with spells of 3rd level or lower, while greater rods can be used with spells of 9th level or lower."
The FAQ's job is to answer "frequently asked questions", not to arbitrarily sling out statements pertaining to areas of the game that raise no questions.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
IMO the problem is that we have too many FAQs of the 'is water wet?' variety. Things which should have been absolutely clear ('it is water, of course it is wet'), but supposedly weren't because rules lawyers are crazy ('the rules do not say that water is wet, therefor it is not').
Paizo has been providing answers on these obvious issues because they ARE 'frequently asked'... but it doesn't work, because people just turn around and apply the same unlogic to the wording of the FAQs... creating threads like this one.
There was NEVER any valid question on this issue. It should always have been obvious how metamagic works in all of these situations. The FAQ didn't 'change' anything. It just 'clarified' what was obvious to most people all along.
I guess its the wording of the Rods that is in most contention. The rods say what spell level they work with not what slot level they work with. Same as my Globe earlier. However because of the FAQ not only do meta-magic spells have a different slot level than their spell level but have 2 different spell levels based on what effect it comes into contact with.
Simply put an enlarged fireball is a 3rd level spell being cast with a 4th level slot. So if I want to use an ability to recall the used slot it has to work on 4th level spells slots. But if an enemy has a lesser globe of Invulnerability up then the spell doesn't hit because it's spell level is 3rd, however at the same time a lesser meta-magic rod which says it works on only 3rd level or lower spells can't work on it because it also is now being called a 4th level spell as well.
|
|
However because of the FAQ not only do meta-magic spells have a different slot level than their spell level but have 2 different spell levels based on what effect it comes into contact with.
Simply put an enlarged fireball is a 3rd level spell being cast with a 4th level slot. So if I want to use an ability to recall the used slot it has to work on 4th level spells slots. But if an enemy has a lesser globe of Invulnerability up then the spell doesn't hit because it's spell level is 3rd, however at the same time a lesser meta-magic rod which says it works on only 3rd level or lower spells can't work on it because it also is now being called a 4th level spell as well.
All correct... and exactly how each of those situations should have worked before the FAQ too.
I agree just I feel the use of level as the term here needs to be shored up and that might be something for someone to look at. In my example we use level three times and refer to 2 different numbers however the rod's text and the Globes match up perfectly both refer to spell level. That I believe is the crux of the arguement. Basicly we have a spell that has an actual level of 3rd using a slot that is 4th but the spell level (not the slot level since neither rods or globes look at that) is both higher than 3rd but lower than 4th at the same time until a particular effect is checked against it. That is where some clean up needs to be done. I agree the rods most likely were meant to use slot level not spell level and also to be applied last. I think the best answer would be to errata the rods to use slot level not spell level.
The reason I've been calling out the FAQ entry in question as terrible, is because it invalidates itself.
When you preface the ruling with "In general," why would I consider it to apply to situations that have their own specific rules that don't even have anything to do with the question being asked oh so frequently? Especially if those specific rules are unambiguous?
Specific trumps general every day.
RPG Superstar 2011 Top 32
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Fundamentally, with any issue with multiple sides, if the FAQ writers come down on side A and not side B, you get this:
Side A: Excellent clarification! Thanks!
Side B: Stealth errata!
It's just the nature of answering a contentious question.
If you don't like a FAQ it's okay to ignore it in a home game. In PFS not so much, but that's the price you pay for playing OP. I always advise against exploiting any contentious issue in PFS as your PC could end up FAQed out of usefulness.
Metamagic rods are already super powerful magic items. They don't need to be made more so. And spellcasters don't really need buffing. I think the FAQ is exactly right as it is, with the broadest interpretation possible.
But what if there's no contention in a certain set of specific rules?
Why would those rules need to get dragged into a FAQ about something else?
But what if there's no contention in a certain set of specific rules?
Why would those rules need to get dragged into a FAQ about something else?
There will always be someone who doesn't like the implication of a given piece of rules text, that wants a ruling that 2 +2 can equal 5.
Well, that's what the rules say, so I assume a PFS GM worth his salt would say it too.
|
|
"I know someone important-ish who I won't name that agrees with me" doesn't really cut it. Sorry.
You can dismiss all you want. 5 star GM in PFS means she knows her rules. And it isn't that I won't name her. It's that I don't need to. Her credentials should be enough.
Plus PFS is FAR more strict in it's rules than normal pathfinder.
|
|
"I know someone important-ish who I won't name that agrees with me" doesn't really cut it. Sorry.You can dismiss all you want. 5 star GM in PFS means she knows her rules. And it isn't that I won't name her. It's that I don't need to. Her credentials should be enough.
Plus PFS is FAR more strict in it's rules than normal pathfinder.
Well I know 3 five star PFS GMs that agree with me.
By your logic I don't need to provide any evidence they even exist and therefore win.
Well, by my logic, both sides need to exchange arguments to arrive at a consensus. Let me start.
"...Spells modified by a metamagic feat use a spell slot higher than normal. This does not change the level of the spell..."
"Normal metamagic rods can be used with spells of 6th level or lower. Lesser rods can be used with spells of 3rd level or lower, while greater rods can be used with spells of 9th level or lower."
This, to me, is crystal clear. Nothing about it raises any questions. If it's supposed to work differently, it needs errata. It doesn't need to be dragged under the umbrella of a FAQ that addresses the ambiguity in some other rules cases. There is no ambiguity here.
And it isn't that I won't name her. It's that I don't need to. Her credentials should be enough.
Well Gandhi and Einstein are on my side, so there. Case closed.
|
|
Ok fine. Then let me point this out. Does an Empowered Fireball have the save for a level 3 or a level 5 spell?3, knock off the games and actually say what you want to say.
Not playing games. Making a point. So by your own admission then, an Empowered Fireball is a level 3 spell, despite using a level 5 slot.
Not playing games. Making a point. So by your own admission then, an Empowered Fireball is a level 3 spell, despite using a level 5 slot.Ok fine. Then let me point this out. Does an Empowered Fireball have the save for a level 3 or a level 5 spell?3, knock off the games and actually say what you want to say.
And as long as I've played with rods it is the level of the SLOT that matters, not the spell when it comes to metamagic rods. Normally in most cases the two are the same, so it's an issue that hardly ever comes up. But when a spell has been prepared with a metamagic feat is when things change.
In the terms of spellcasting such as casting defensively, Empowered Fireball is a level 5 spell, in terms of saving throw DC it remains, level 3.
Part of the problem is that the word "level" itself has so many meanings in this game.
|
|
Not playing games. Making a point. So by your own admission then, an Empowered Fireball is a level 3 spell, despite using a level 5 slot.Ok fine. Then let me point this out. Does an Empowered Fireball have the save for a level 3 or a level 5 spell?3, knock off the games and actually say what you want to say.
Absolutely not, it has the saves of a level 3 spell, it is not a level 3 spell.
This conversation has already went around in here.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Ok fine. Then let me point this out. Does an Empowered Fireball have the save for a level 3 or a level 5 spell?
In general, use the (normal, lower) spell level or the (higher) spell slot level, whichever is more of a disadvantage for the caster.
3rd level for saves, 5th level if you're using a metamagic rod.
That is not what the rules say.
Not playing games. Making a point. So by your own admission then, an Empowered Fireball is a level 3 spell, despite using a level 5 slot.Ok fine. Then let me point this out. Does an Empowered Fireball have the save for a level 3 or a level 5 spell?3, knock off the games and actually say what you want to say.Absolutely not, it has the saves of a level 3 spell, it is not a level 3 spell.
This conversation has already went around in here.
But its more than just saves or would that fireball penetrate a Lesser Globe?
That's the most interesting question of it all, because if you use the FAQ to address that question, the answer would depend on the circumstances! And people wonder why I consider it a terrible FAQ.
I believe that no one is disputing that the empowered fireball is a 3rd level spell. It is by RAW. The bone of contention is when the spell interacts with a magic item or external effect. Then it becomes a question of which is less advantageous for the caster as per the FAQ. We have the 2 choices spell level and slot level. The fact that the FAQ indicates that one should use the slot level when interacting with pearl of power and similar devices, and then goes on to say that "In general..." leads some to believe that the FAQ applies, and as such the rod can't be used on that empowered fireball because it's slot level is 5 even though the RAW for the rod states spell level. I'd rather that wasn't the case, but it seems pretty clear that that was the intent. I get that the RAW for the rod states spell level, and it is a 3rd level spell. I'm not sure that anyone is going to change position on this.
That is not what the rules say.
The rules say, when trying to parse out the figure for this question, use whatever interpretation is worse for the caster. So I use the interpretation that does not turn lesser metamagic rods into items even more busted than they are now.
So, when the caster wants to hit someone in a lesser globe with his empowered fireball, it counts as a 5th level spell, but if he doesn't want to hit the person inside, it counts as a 3rd level spell. That's how it works, right?
That is not what the rules say.The rules say, when trying to parse out the figure for this question, use whatever interpretation is worse for the caster. So I use the interpretation that does not turn lesser metamagic rods into items even more busted than they are now.
That's not what the rules say. That's what the FAQ says. But the FAQ doesn't apply.
So, when the caster wants to hit someone in a lesser globe with his empowered fireball, it counts as a 5th level spell, but if he doesn't want to hit the person inside, it counts as a 3rd level spell. That's how it works, right?
That would be backwards it's 3rd level since penetration of the sphere would be beneficial. The real question is if my friends are in the Globe not a bad guy is it now a 5th level spell since hitting them is the more detrimental choice?
|
RPG Superstar 2011 Top 32
|
So, when the caster wants to hit someone in a lesser globe with his empowered fireball, it counts as a 5th level spell, but if he doesn't want to hit the person inside, it counts as a 3rd level spell. That's how it works, right?
Generally, since you want your spells to work, it counts as a 3rd level in both cases.
Ok fine. Then let me point this out. Does an Empowered Fireball have the save for a level 3 or a level 5 spell?
In what context? For crafting? For save DC's? For concentration check? For counterspelling? For spell recall? These are all questions cleanly answered by the FAQ.
Some, like crafting, have a clear intent of use the slot level, even though the actual RAW text says spell level. And this is the crux of the problem and why the FAQ was needed.
Was it really correct for a magus to use 1 arcane point to recall an intensified/maximized shocking grasp? (6th level slot, 1st level spell). The FAQ, explicitly for this example, tells us no, its a 6th level spell for purposes of spell recall.
Spell level and slot level were clearly used interchangeably without thought or regard in the rules. In some cases, like crafting, it was clear which they actually meant. Some people were able to deduce that spell recall getting back a 6th level slot for a single arcane point didn't seem right, but there was not enough clarity in the rules pre-FAQ to show that.
So the FAQ answered some specifics, then as has been repeated multiple times in this thread, made a general statement about how to determine when you should use slot level vs using spell level.
Well, it's what the FAQ says. I almost know it by heart, it's been quoted to me that often.
"In general, use the (normal, lower) spell level or the (higher) spell slot level, whichever is more of a disadvantage for the caster."
Clearly, the level you use depends on who is inside the globe.