Almagest's page

I would gladly donate if you could open up a non-Paypal option, because Paypal refuses to accept my credit card - must be the exotic card type of "Visa". These are great work and I'm using them in my Roll20 Campaign.

Almagest wrote:

I'd love to see ... the ability to export monster stats to a token for use in a VTT (like maptool).

The maptool community has a Pathfinder macro available that lets you copy|paste a statblock, and then populate token properties automagically. You should check over their forums if you have not yet.

I checked that out a while ago, and it was rather finicky. I'll take another look, though. Thanks.

Almagest wrote:

The idea is great, and I'll likely support it, but what I'd really like to see is either a campaign file for Maptool (like Forstor Nagar) or roll20.net, or at minimum some images of monsters that can be used as tokens, and separate map files for dungeons, combat, etc. that are gridless, and have all markings removed (like Paizo has been doing recently with their APs).

A Maptool or roll20.net file probably isn't doable unless someone steps up to say they'd like to create it. The images and maps should be doable no problem. I'll add a tier tonight.

Sounds good. I've already backed the project, but I'll likely change my pledge to this new tier.

I would suggest looking into both roll20 and d20pro. Both have a marketplace where you could sell your maps, tokens, or even the entire module for easy play. Combining this with the interactive ibook/epub is extremely attractive for GMs who run games on a VTT.

The idea is great, and I'll likely support it, but what I'd really like to see is either a campaign file for Maptool (like Forstor Nagar) or roll20.net, or at minimum some images of monsters that can be used as tokens, and separate map files for dungeons, combat, etc. that are gridless, and have all markings removed (like Paizo has been doing recently with their APs).

I'd love to see an API or some other way for for outside developers to interact with the SRD to easily grab content like feat & spell descriptions, or the ability to export monster stats to a token for use in a VTT (like maptool).

My group is looking for 1-2 GMs, players, and players who'd like to join a rotating GM schedule for our weekly/bi-weekly game. We use Maptool to handle our combat, though someone with a nice battlemat+dry erase, or printed maps, or 3-D paper maps, or foamcore/purchased plaster or stone scenery/whatever is welcome as well. As long as we have something that looks nice and helps organize combat, we're happy.
Our games generally focus more on combat and dungeon-crawling, but someone who can run a game with a kickass storyline & an increased emphasis on roleplay is very welcome -- same goes for any players who'd like to add roleplay to our games. Lead by example!
We play Friday nights, mostly weekly, from 7 PM until whenever. We could possibly switch to Saturday or Sunday, though all players would have to agree. Location is ~2 miles north of Wrigley Field.

The title pretty much says it all: I'm new to DMing Pathfinder, and my group doesn't have a cleric. I'm sure this has come up before; how did you handle healing when you don't have a healer?

Wands or scrolls with use magic device, npc spellcasters, summons with healing spells, potions, heal skill + treat deadly wounds, leadership + hire a healer.

So silly question, is the Amatastu Seal's "special" power not an option? Ok it would take several months to do the whole party but doesn't volume 3 have a "flexiable" timeline?

Yeah, it would just take way too long, and presumably the witchfire decimated the caravan after killing the PCs.

Almagest how do you plan on introducing a new group? Will they not be scions? I take it the 4 NPCs are still alive?

By waving my special DM wand and retconning the whole thing. They'll continue from right after the Witchfire fight. They'll all be scions with a relationship score with one NPC of their choosing (the one they take the trait for) equal to the score of their original NPC. I'm thinking I might also allow them a relationship of the opposite type, with one other NPC, equal to 1/2 of the main score. I'd like to see them interact with the NPCs more, since they really haven't done that much so far.

I did, I keep them a level or two below the PCs. But the killer thing is here, My group is NPC happy they have gone out of their way to recruit all possible traveling companions. They have Sandru, Koya, Shalalu, Amiko, Spivey, Kelda, Helgavarl, Ulf, and the winter wolf they rescued from the dungeon. ( I know I spelled half those wrong but eh, dont really care at the moment) That much firepower and still only Koya or Spivey would be a help in that encounter. As it was they needed only Spivey to be able to do mass heals so that the wizard and oracle could concentrate on attack instead of defense. They also had a construct lion that the wizard had made but look a few posts up this tread to see what happened to it.

I didn't want to throw the balance of the campaign off by leveling the NPCs and including them in battles, but it makes sense to have them be a level or two behind, so they can at least help out in dire situations. I'll also be able to bring them along if someone needs to miss a session.

My players don't know how to interact with NPCs, other than to obtain rewards for doing something, so none of the available NPCs were even bothered with. I doubt they'd bother with the four existing NPCs if there wasn't an occasional XP reward for doing so.

We're restarting the AP after the witchfire encounter, with a new group of characters. I think I'll level the four NPCs a bit and try to include them in the action a bit more, as I mentioned above, and see how that goes.

Don't forget incorporeal and if the Witchfire hits if the save isn't made the victim gains the effect of farie fire so even turning invisible won't help. My group came within a hair of a party wipe and might have had I not allowed the NPCs to intervene. I will maintain my stance that, that particular encounter is NOT CR 9.

Agreed. Did you level the NPCs? I didn't do that, so they probably would've been useless and just gotten killed in this encounter.

Sorry to hear Almagest. Can we get a break down of your party and what went wrong?

Everyone was level 7 -- Ninja focused on attacking with shortbow, Alchemist focused on bombs, standard some grapple, some punchin' Monk, Druid with large dino animal companion, Evocation(admixture)[acid] Wizard. This is a pretty strong group that only had one casualty so far -- Alchemist died to Omoyani and her poisons, but was reincarnated. Kimandatsu, another CR 9, was difficult but for the most part they dealt with her (opening with the cone of cold was nasty, though).

The encounter started with the PCs becoming separated from the caravan by a couple (normal) traders inviting them to share some food and drink by a fire. The PCs used this opportunity to barter for provisions and find out about the trail ahead. The wizard stayed with the caravan. Witchfire came up, disguised as a trader, and spent some time with them. Eventually, witchfire used pyrotechnics to isolate the caravan from the PCs, and attacked. Wizard used fly to join fight on first round.

This monster really is way too much for a CR 9, and especially for a level+2 encounter. The witchfire bolt is essentially free 25+ damage to one PC every round, and it can just fly around and rain down easy damage with little to be done by the PCs, unless they're geared towards this encounter. Also, the lack of range on the witchfire bolt is a problem -- actually, the bolt is a big problem altogether. I think the touch attack for crazy damage and a very difficult save with big consequences is enough.

I think a Paladin or Cleric would've helped the party immensely. Also, the failure of the knowledge check for this creature was a big reason they all died. They wasted time fighting the wisps, and using fire attacks on the witchfire.

Full party TPK on the Witchfire in The Hungry Storm. That thing is nasty, especially when it succeeds on the Will O' Wisp summon. 8d6 fire damage, and 12d6 fire damage if the will save is failed. 50 ft. perfect fly, and a ranged attack that's basically the same as it's melee (though not touch, it's still a significant bonus to hit).

The Nook Color runs on Android, so if anyone has experience viewing PDFs on Android devices, it'll probably be similar to that. I'm seriously considering preordering one of these as well -- if I do, I'll try to get a review up so others know how well it performs.

And there is nothing in PF that supports it.

You can argue that there is nothing that says you can't. And I can argue that there is nothing that says you can, so...

Pretty sure Pathfinder defers to 3.5 rules when a rule for something doesn't exist in Pathfinder. That's the part of the whole "backwards compatible thing". Now, you may not "like" the rule that gives you a whopping 1d6 extra damage with an offhand attack (which you might not even be able to hit with, anyway, depending on your build), but that doesn't mean it's not technically legal. You can always house rule it.

I don't think the strength increase is doubled; only the actual base cost of the weapon is. The formula should be (2*base cost)+(str bonus*100)+(masterwork cost), which would be 1200 gp.

No, but I'd sure like one.

The feat that allows you to attack a creature's arms/weapons when the creature is out of your reach is called Strike Back, and as written applies to attacking a creature, not sundering their weapon ("...You can ready an action to make a melee attack against any foe...").

The lance is a valid target for a sunder as-is, and using a readied action allows you to act before the target, so I would allow you to do this. The 5 ft. step method is better, since the lance couldn't hit you if you didn't break it, but if you've already moved in this round you can't do that.

A couple sessions into Shadow in the Sky; all characters Pathfinder beta:

- N Half-Orc druid with a t-rex animal companion named Chomper (using the updated animal companion rules)
- N Elven fighter/Wizard going into Eldritch Knight eventually
- NE Human draconic bloodline sorcerer
- N Half-Elf rogue/fighter with a focus on strength and a bastard sword/buckler combo for some defensive/offensive versatility. Plans to take skill focus feats for absurd levels of skill-monkeying.

So far I'm really liking this adventure path. I ran a party through WoTC's Eyes of the Lich Queen, which was pretty fun overall, but Paizo's material blows that out of the water.

The sorcerer may not be able to join us for upcoming sessions, so if anyone lives in the Chicago metro area and is looking for a game, let me know.

That does clear some things up. So the enemies behind the door are behind cover, so they are eligible to make Stealth checks, which now cover both their Hide and Move Silently.

Stealth checks typically do not get modified by circumstances, this is handled through the Perception Check, so they roll what they roll.

Your character is eligible to make a Perception check to oppose this stealth check.

What should the modifiers be there.

-10 for being in battle? Look again. Thats the DC to perceive that there IS a battle. In other words, if you were hit by a spell that somehow gave you a -10 to your perception check and your normal roll would total up to a 1, you would still know that there was a battle going on around you because -10 + 1 > -10 DC. In other words that table is saying that battles are REALLY easy to perceive even at great distances, through walls and so forth.

A character standing right next to a door has the opportunity to both see and hear that door opening. I would give them the lowest of the two DC's to notice it. For sight, there are no modifiers positive or negative. For sound, there is a +5 to the DC for "Louder sound going on nearby". So we go with the seeing DC. Now if in the previous 3 or 4 round opponents had been opening doors, I doubt your characters are dummies. They probably understand that every door is a threat vector. So I'd probably give them a +2 for keeping an eye on the doors that surround them.

That leaves (in my opinion) not a -15 for your character to notice the door open, but actually a +2! If he fails that, then your opponent is successfully hidden and gets off exactly one attack against a flat footed foe. He's not considered invisible, just hidden, and that Denies him his Dex bonus to AC, no other special bonuses. After that attack, your character is certainly aware.

However, still no AoO due to the cover situation we discussed above.

That makes a lot more sense. Not sure what I was looking at -- I'll just chalk it up to "a wizard did it" and move on. The only difference I might go with is a -2 for being distracted by the monster already attacking them, for a total modifier of 0. No check needs to be made if the monster isn't using stealth, since that's not a check that could be failed in this situation.

I've been doing this for 10 years, and sometimes I still feel like I'm fumbling around, learning the rules for the first time. It's also amazing how many situations pop up (like this one) that I've never come across before, even after such a long time playing.

Now you're straying into a gray area.

Unseen is not the same thing as invisible. Invisible attackers get big benefits, perhaps the biggest of which is the ability to rob their defenders of their DEX bonus. Combine that with +2 to hit and suddenly their chances of hitting skyrocket. Even worse, throw in an automatic sneak attack if they have the ability, and watch those easy hits convert to lots of dice of damage.

Why does invisible get this bonus? Because until the moment the invisible blade sinks into your flesh (e.g.), you don't even know it's there. You can't defend yourself.

But unseen is different. Sure, the PC missed his perception check. Who wouldn't with those penalties? But as that perfectly visible arm holding that perfectly visible grenade come whipping into view, the movement out of the corner of the PC's eye causes him to whirl and sidestep, or whatever, thus still getting his DEX and still defending himself from AoOs.

Remember, no facing in combat, so it's not like that door is behind him. Further, the PCs are in battle and they know the doors are there. Unopened doors in an unexplored dungeon are dangerous - monsters might be behind them. And with all this noisy battle going on, those monsters might yank open the doors at any second to see what all the noise is about. So it's not like they're standing with their backs to the door, oblivious.

Perception check or no, the rapid motion of throwing something through the door will catch their attention, should catch their attention, enough for them to defend themselves normally.

You're right, I suppose the invisibility is a little much. I would still say the PC needs to notice the enemy opening the door, and require a perception check, even without stealth being used; however, at a DC of 10 or 15 (DC 0 to notice someone standing there, +10 for in battle, +5 possibly for behind door). If the PC fails, he's flat-footed.

Actually, I think that this kind of action calls for a Perception check opposed to a Stealth check.

If the Stealth is successful, I would undoubtly grant the flat-footed condition against the targets - and in that case, no AoO can be made at all.
If the Perception is successful, however, the opponents are not flat-footed, and the action of throwing the grenade could provoke the AoO if:
1) the creatures throwing the grenades are within the threatened area of their targets, and
2) the creatures throwing the grenades have partial cover or less towards their targets.

I believe partial cover still prevents AoO. I agree with you otherwise.

I think I need to clarify the situation a little further. Combat was already happening (it was the 3rd or 4th round); there was no initial surprise round. The PCs were in a 5' wide corridor, with a number of doors on both sides. The PC in question (no combat reflexes) was standing in front of a door, with an ally standing behind him, and an enemy standing in front of him. Behind the door immediately below the PC was an enemy. The enemies were already alerted to the PCs presence by a lookout. The enemy strategy was to draw the PCs into the narrow corridor, and pop out of the doors to do nasty things to them from all sides. Once the PCs were in range, the enemy quickly opened the door just enough to see the PC relatively clearly (move action, no AoO), and tossed the weapon (partial cover, no AoO).

Also, hypothetically, I agree a perception (sound) check should be allowed if the enemy opens the door wide enough to negate any cover. I'd probably give a -15 to the check; however, due to being in battle (-10) and the enemy starting behind a solid object (-5) [PFRPG 68]. If the PC didn't make this check, I'd count the enemy as invisible for his standard action -- +2 to enemy attack, PC doesn't get Dex bonus. No Dex bonus means no AoO, to me, though I don't know if there's an explicit ruling on this, since technically the PC wouldn't be "flat-footed", he'd just have the same penalties.

We don't know the exact circumstance, so its difficult to pick it apart with precision, but here are the three lines of reasoning I would use.

- The door was partially opened, so the thrower has cover. No AoO allowed.

- Character was described as surprised and thus flat-footed, No AoO usually allowed.

- In a usual circumstance it would be an AoO to throw something while threatened, but it is a free action that does not provoke an AoO to drop something. Depending on the grenade weapon, if its not important for the weapon to actually hit the character as much as just land in his square, then its certainly reasonable for the bad guy to just drop the grenade in the adjacent square and let it detonate.

The only way it is reasonable to halt the game over a rules squabble for that long is if it reaches the threshhold of causing player death. If that guy was going to die, then its very difficult to recover from that if you later decide you were wrong. Everyone will feel better if an agreement on the rules can be reached. If not, or if its not a matter of life and death, just state that you're making a tenative ruling, the game has to proceed, and you'll be happy to discuss rules out of the normal game time to make sure everyone's in agreement the next time it comes up.

You state its not an isolated issue. I'd say take him aside one on one and talk about his rules concerns. Make sure its general, don't get specific about one rules squabble or another. Once you've heard out anything he might have to say, you gotta lay down the law. If he wants to keep playing in the group, the only way the game can work is if there is ultimately one person who makes a decision on the spot and keeps things moving. His rules debates may entertain him, but they do not entertain the other players and its your job as the DM to make sure -everyone- is having fun.

Then its time to have a conversation with the whole table to introduce a table rule. What are the rules governing rules debates? Some people say 5...

I didn't tell him I went to the boards for a clarification; I'm here to check how other players/GMs would handle a situation like this, both rules-based and game flow-based. Thanks for the advice.

I don't think that any flat-footed character can make any AoO.

Assuming no Combat Reflexes, this is correct -- is the character flat-foot, though, if combat has already started, and the character is already engaging an enemy? Does the newly-arrived enemy catch the character flat-footed, if no one knew he was there? Amending my earlier statement, I'm guessing a stealth vs. perception check would be necessary, but I could also see a case for allowing a pseudo-surprise round for the enemy entering combat. I'll have to hash it out with my players, I suppose.

I totally agree here. The only issue is how far the door was opened.

In your situation I would have stopped the arguing by stating my decision, and saying that I would "ask the boards" for more input, exactly as you have done.

Unfortunately, the player in question decided to ignore everyone and not play his character for the next two hours remaining in the session, as he apparently didn't like my repeated requests to drop the issue since I had already made my decision, wanted to resume the game, and wanted to bring the other, obviously uncomfortable, players back into the game. I wanted to get your opinions on if my judgment was incorrect, and if I was being unfair, so I can decide what to do with this player and his continued attendance in our games -- this wasn't an isolated issue, and I'm getting tired of this kind of stuff.

Although I didn't mention it in the game until after the event, the intent was for the enemy to open the door wide enough to see the PC relatively well (partial cover most likely), and toss the improvised grenade at him. I probably should have made that more clear, which is my fault, but this information was unfortunately lost (or ignored) in the deluge of protests and rule quotes that followed.

I also feel that the opening of the door and "surprising" whatever is on the other side would allow for a "free" attack by the door-opener -- for example, I would grant a rogue a sneak attack in this case. Once the door is open, the creature on the other side is fully aware of the opener, and no sneak attack/other action would be allowed.

My campaign was brought to a standstill tonight because of the following scenario:

-Enemy is holding an improvised grenade weapon
-Enemy uses move action to open a door in front of him, then standard action to toss the item at a PC in front of him.

I ruled that no attack of opportunity was allowed for the PC, even though ranged weapons within threat range normally allow AoO, since:

-The opponent had total cover from the PC before the door was opened
-The PC didn't know the opponent was there
-Opening a door does not provoke an AoO
-Any kind of cover does not allow for an AoO
-

Remember that even actions that normally provoke attacks of opportunity may have exceptions to this rule.

The player (who wasn't even the PC in question] argued that there should be an AoO, since the PC now knew the enemy was there after the door was opened.

This small issue ended up stopping the game for a good 15 minutes, as the player in question wouldn't let the issue go, even though everyone else at the table (even the player controlling the PC in question) agreed with me. What's your opinion? Did I make the right call? Is there a rule or concept I'm missing? Thanks.

An ex-girlfriend of mine used it in a game she ran. My character slept with some elf chick and got a venereal disease. I forget which one it was.

I also remember a 2e game I played in, where I got what amounted to a groupie (Elven, of course) pregnant, and had to give 1/3 of all the treasure I found in child support.

To make a long story short, all male characters I play now avoid Elven women like the plague.

He created Eberron, if it's the same Keith Baker.

I actually think both Power Attack and Combat Expertise are fine as they are.

You can still do a ton of damage with PA, and Barbarians are far better with it than any other class (due to rage bonus to str), which makes sense -- it's their job to hit things as hard as possible.

CE was never a good choice. It's almost useless for non-melee classes, because you have to use the attack action in melee to benefit from the AC boost. For those who can use the feat, hitting is hard at lower levels; you need every point of BAB you can get. At higher levels, hitting is easier, but AC becomes almost irrelevant, so why take a penalty to hit if it barely benefits you?

Improved CE was also a bad choice in 3.5. The increased AC bonus might be useful at higher levels, but if you're taking a -BAB (or close to it) to hit, you're not hitting, barring extreme circumstances/tons of buffs (which could go towards AC, anyways). You're also spending two feats to do it, one of which becomes useless after taking ICE.

Paizo's CE combines both 3.5 CE feats, helps justify the Int 13 prerequisite (you'll get at least +1 AC from it, same as Dodge), while still giving the feat a substantial cost. The Int synergy also greatly benefits Duelists.

Overall, I'd say CE and PA are now balanced rather nicely against the other core feats.

Currently playing in a Pathfinder campaign in Bridgeport. Some details on the campaign here. Anyone in the Chicago area is welcome; ask me for details.

Jason Bulmahn wrote:

Greater Trip
You can make follow-up attacks on foes that you knock prone.
Prerequisites: Improved Trip, base attack bonus +6.
Benefit: Whenever you successfully trip an opponent, that opponent provokes an attack of opportunity.
Normal:Creatures that are knocked prone do not provoke attacks of opportunity.

Does the opponent provoke an AoO from only the person who performed the trip or from anyone who threatens?

Only you. As the feat says, when you trip an opponent, it provokes an AoO. If your party members don't have Greater Trip, they can't make an AoO, as listed in "Normal". If they do have it, they didn't trip the opponent, so no AoO.

Wait a sec, having one caster (of the assumed two) be able to function in a Silence spell isn't exactly overpowered. It's a fairly common tactic and if you spend the resources to gain a silent spell rod then it's not so bad a day for you. It's not like low to mid level casters are going to have a golfbag full of various rods.

I mean at 12th level your WBL is 88K. Having a rod of Extend, Enlarge, or Silent is 11K. Not too bad, 1/8 your cash. But if you want a Maximize, Quicken, or an Empower that rod is anywhere from 32.5K to 75.5K! A Quicken is almost your whole WBL! To craft those you're still going to need from 1 month to 2.5 months even if you're not paying the full price!

So please explain how 32.5K, 55K, or 75.5K is not high enough a cost for a 12th level character. It's anywhere from 1/3 to nearly all his wealth.

I wouldn't bother asking those questions. I've asked similar ones throughout this thread, and the answers have been "gate is broken (irrelevant)", "most campaigns allow multiple months of downtime (sure they do)", "rods are way too cheap (which you address and debunk)," "you can easily afford them because you can just save all your money (because spending 25%+ of your wealth on one item that works three times per day on specific and not always common actions is such a great idea) ," and just general giant passages of self-indulgent word spew which I honestly didn't even bother reading. The topic creator is confusing his opinions and desires to ban everything to attempt some semblance of "balance" (which is always the best way to do things, btw.) with proven fact, and thinks everyone should do something because he says so. I don't understand why he doesn't just houserule them to work the way he wants, or go play 4e or Experimental Might or something, but whatever. We'll see if Paizo agrees.

You just keep pulling me in...

The discussion is about metamagic rods and whether or not they are unbalanced, if the reason the rods are unbalanced is because they provide free metamagic then discussing a fix for all free metamagic is germain to the conversation. Still I'm tired of arguing so no matter what is said I'm really going to stop posting so please don't respond to this.

But rods are not free. They have a cost.

Fine one last post because of a typo in my previous post which I just fixed.

added the word rod I just meant to say free metamagic, not free metamagic rod. And because I've never been talking about just rods, I'm talking about all free metamagic in general including feats and character abilities (i.e. universalist wizard and various PrCs) in WotC core. Which is why I want a fix for free metamagic in general, it happens that that will include rods. Maybe rods by themselves are fine, but they aren't by themselves, they can combine and stack with all the other sources of free metamagic out there which I have seen abused, a character with rods and sudden feats who was a universalist wizard and although he never got to it, he was going to take some PrC or another that gave him more. The problem isn't rods, it's free metamagic in general.

You can have free metamagic at level 1

The thread is about rods. Free/cheap metamagic in general is an entirely different discussion. One note on this, though: if Paizo wants to "boost" the power of base classes to match that of some of the later classes/PrCs, free/cheap metamagic is one way to do it.

I think you're right, to an extent. But I think there's a bit of room for moving around. I don't really consider a silent version of a meteor swarm to really be equivalent to a 10th level spell. It may cost a character a slot one level higher to do without the verbal component, but I don't think it really makes the spell a full level higher.

This may be a general conceptual problem with metamagic. Metamagic spells cost higher slots to cast as a balancing tool rather than a gauge of how powerful the spell really is. Does being able to turn a fireball into a line really make it a 4th level spell? No, it just makes it a lightning bolt that does fire damage. The premium cost isn't because the spell is more powerful, but more useful for the circumstances. And the caster pays an extra level's worth of spell power for that privilege.
By comparison, I think a quickened spell is truly equivalent to a significantly higher level spell because the increased utility of its fast cast time is extremely high.

I'd be more inclined to limit the number of extra slots above and beyond a caster's normal ability to cast rather than disallow any entirely. I would suggest allowing free metamagic that only adds one level to a slot requirement to exceed normal metamagic rule limits.

I agree, to a point. Spell power increase has almost an exponential growth pattern, while applying metamagic is nowhere near that. It seems that, unless there's a specific circumstance (the silent stilled suggestions mentioned earlier), it's not worth doing unless you can mitigate the costs somehow. Even when costs are mitigated, the power of the increased spell usually doesn't approach the level it's "supposed" to be.

I disagree that quickened x is equivalent to a spell of x's level+4, however. Quickened spells are very useful, but I can't see how a quickened 5th level spell is equal to a 9th level spell, or a quickened 9th level spell is equivalent to whatever is considered a 13th level epic spell (if you can even make that distinction with epic spells). Given the cost to quicken something, either via feat or purchase (or the few class features that can grant quicken), I feel it's pretty balanced, at least as far as casters go.

All right, you seem to be willfully obfuscating the fact that a quickened or maximized or still or silent or *whatever metamagic effect* spell is a better spell than it's non-metamagiced equivalent. Despite the fact that it has been attempted to be explained at the top end of 9th level spell effects, and at the lower end of 5th and 6th level effects. If you are entirely comfortable with having the ability to stack metamagic, whether through rods or the Metamagic Mastery class feature, which operates in *almost exactly the same way*, past effective caster level, then nothing anyone will say will change your mind, and I am done trying to, because it seems as though your opinion is that a quickened greater dispel magic is not actually better than greater dispel magic, and is not actually a 10th level spell equivalent. I feel that it is, and I am not inclined to change my opinion.

I'm not obfuscating anything. Quickened is better than standard actions. But is it better to the point of nerfing it because it's unbalanced/broken? No, because it's a good tactical option, has an appropriate cost (money/feats/levels in a class/number of times you can do it/whatever), and PCs aren't the only ones who can do it.

Now, if you don't want to change your opinion, that's fine. Houserule your games. But don't expect everyone else to feel the same as you, and don't expect them to adopt the same rules you have.

Although you are nitpicking the larger point I am making, there are numerous ways to park someone in an antimagic field, like every wall spell, and there are numerous ways to do nasty things by using the suppression of magic effects, like shrink item. I am well aware of the limits of mind affecting, as I have been one of the foremost advocates of paying attention to the CR12-20 creatures within SRD sources. If you aren't advancing monsters or using templates, then you are left with mostly Outsiders and True Dragons, which are going to be awesome because they are awesome.

This gets at one of the larger points I was trying to make. Casters have TONS of options to kill or disable things. Spending multiple actions/spells/metamagic/resources on AMF + wall spells + shrink item + something else is one option they have. It's fairly well-balanced (based on being a caster) against the number of spells and their level that you expend, the number of actions you take, and the material cost of the items you use. It's certainly not head & shoulders above anything else you can do.

Also, be careful with your wall spells, since most of them block line of sight and/or line of effect to just about everything.

The issue with a silent still mass suggestion isn't just what it can do in a grand melee, regardless. It means, that by holding a rod of silent spell, an arcanist can rig most social encounters they may have that day, and only those who are highly specialised in identifying magic will be aware that anything happened at all.

Characters with lots of ranks in bluff and diplomacy, with a decent charisma, can do mostly the same thing, essentially for free, with no way to identify without a correspondingly high sense motive. A caster can also cast a couple silent stilled suggestions to accomplish a similar feat, for less cost. Charm person/monster can perform a similar function, as well. He can even use these suggestions/charms to attempt to turn the opposition against one another -- like I said, casters have tons of options to do something.

Also, if your DM allows players to walk around with expensive metamagic rods, influencing social situations will spells, without realizing that someone's bound to be suspicious/have defenses against such a thing in place, that's his fault. Don't blame the ruleset if you can't come up with in-game ways to counterbalance a perceived problem, beyond hefting the banhammer.

SRD.org says nothing about a readied action becoming a standard action. Thank you.

Please re-read the SRD. Why should I take you seriously if you continually do not understand basic concepts about the game, then once you're corrected, you ignore it and reassert the same incorrect statement?

Battle sorcerer gets 1 less spell per level, minimim of 1.

You are entitled to your own opinion. Not your own facts.

Point taken, I forgot that part. Okay, so you get one casting of spectral mount at level 6, and two-thirds of your total 3rd level spells are still situational buffs. You're still not being very smart with your spell selection, when you could just buy wands & scrolls to buff yourself, and use your spell slots for things your going to cast more than once. This applies even more if you're extending hour/level duration spells. I'll say it again: extending situational, long-duration buff spells isn't a good idea, if that's all you can do, but still have tons of spells left to cast per day.

And if your opinion is that something that does 3d6 points of dexterity damage, you have to use a whole lot less of monsters to counter, and is a 3rd level spell isn't broken, I can't argue with you or your opinion.

And I played an ab champ because I hadn't before. And I dumped shivering touch from her arsenal, because... it's BROKEN.

And if your opinion is that shivering touch is broken, don't use it. Which you did. But don't expect everyone to agree with your opinion, especially when it's not based on any sort of fact.

Play Experience in games both run and played in: Metamagic is fine and balanced, but sources that provide metamagic for free unbalance encounters when said ability is used to metamagic things that the character wouldn't normally be able to cast.

Argue that, oh wait you can't because that's actual play experience. wording I use.

My play experience is that metamagic rods are balanced well, based on their costs and the estimated level at which you can attain them. Argue that, oh wait you can't blah blah blee bloo and so on.

And by the way on a tangent. Encounters are balanced around the characters having +x weapons at certain levels, the math is balanced at such so no a fighter with a +3 sword when wealth by level isn't unbalanced in fact a fighter without that same sword is often sorely underpowered. The exact opposite is true with magic and free metamagic. This may be the fault of the designers but it seems like they just didn't take into accounts the effects free metamagic has on the game considering how many sources there are for it. Other than to say its a finite resource so if your wizard is owning encounters just throw more encounters in a day. forgive me if I don't see that as a solution when there is a simple fix that keeps the item just as useful but not overpowered.

You contradict yourself. The cost of metamagic rods is meant to be balanced based on the levels at which you can attain them, same as other magic items. I find this balance works, you don't. So do what I've said numerous times before: houserule it.

Or are you saying a free metamagic rod that can't be used to beef your highest level spells would be useless because you could only use it on spells you would be able to use it on anyways.

Who gets free metamagic rods? They're either paid for, crafted, or found in EL-appropriate treasure. Metamagic rods are fine the way they are.

A generalist wizard can stack a rod and Metamagic Mastery to do so within the PFRPG Beta.

Not all casters are wizards. Not all wizards are generalists. This ability is gained at 8th level, which is a fairly long time to wait. You're not going to be free quickening fireballs at 5th level. It also sounds more like the problem, if any, is with the generalist wizard ability, not metamagic rods.

And I can't help you if you can't see the benefit to quickened greater dispel magic followed up with any of countless spells which can disable or kill. Or following up an acid fog or other nasty, lingering effect with a quickened antimagic field. Or heck, a clever use of shrink item and fly with quickened antimagic field.

Following nasty, lingering effects with AMF will suppress those nasty, lingering effects, unless they're instantaneous conjurations (which lingering effects are not), or they are wall of force, prismatic sphere, or prismatic wall. How is this even useful, much less "broken"?

And if it isn't apparent how readily a silent still mass suggestion can utterly railroad a mass CR13 or 14 encounter, you obviously don't have experience with high level enchantment effects.

Any area control spell can railroad a CR 13 or 14 encounter. I'm running a 14th level campaign right now, in fact, and have to be careful to make sure I don't toss in too many encounters where this can happen. You also seem to forget that mind-affecting spells become less and less useful as encounter levels increase. Tons of monsters are immune/have large bonuses against them -- so many, in fact, that one of the most recommended 3.5 banned schools for specialists is enchantment.

Don't underestimate the power of a quickened dispel/greater dispel/disjunction.

A wizard 5/abjurant cheesewhore 5 (or sorcerer 6/ab champ 5) can throw a quickened dispel magic, without spell level adjustment. This means she can throw a dispel, with a fair chance to do some debuffing before following up with a regular spell. Or you can cast, move, ready the quickened action to counterspell.

My sorcerer/ruathar/abjurant cheese/going for archmage build always used round 1 to either a) cast shield on herself quickened or b) cast quickened protection from evil on the fighter so he didn't become dominate bait.

In 3.x multiple actions are king. being able to quicken your highest level spells makes you the king maker. 'free' metamagic breaks the game, in my experience.

Reading an action is a standard action. You can't ready a quickened action without it becoming a standard action, nor can you cast a spell, then ready an action without some way of gaining a second standard action.

Actions are king in 3.x, this is true. How does this make a quickened dispel/AMF broken, though? The enemy is already debuffed. Assuming they don't die/suck, they either start recasting buffs, which is a waste of a combat action for them, or they go ahead and do whatever they were going to do anyway. You probably reduce the encounter length by 1 round. Again, how is this broken, not merely powerful or just a smart thing to do?

If you think abj. champ. is so cheesy, why play one? Also, quickened abj. champ. shield followed by protection spells on your fighter isn't broken, it's just good common sense.

Speaking from experience, even the low level rods are 'too good' My battle sorcerer carried a rod to extend mage armor (and later greater mage armor) on her familiar, often adding a phantom steed to her travel needs, and still have one extend for emergencies.

That's 3000 GP at 6th level, allowing me to 'throw' a 5th level spell effectively. The biggest complaint I hear from the 'psionics are unbalanced' group is that he can throw all his points into higher level powers. Ignoring for the moment the flaws that have been touched on with that arguement, why is that unbalanced, but being able to throw 3 spells at two levels higher than I could cast isn't?

Wow, you made a 6 hour spell 12 hours, saving you exactly one of your precious 6+ first level spells, or 3+ third level spells. So broken.

Also, you couldn't just buy a 50 charge wand of mage armor for 750 gp, and recast it as necessary? Or some scrolls of greater mage armor, or phantom steed, and recast those as necessary?

And you're actually spending some of your precious few spells known on long duration buff spells? As a 6th level battle sorcerer, you know zero 3rd level spells. How were you even casting phantom steed? If you forgot, and took the spell at 7th level, you actually spent it on phantom steed, which is situational at best? At most, you'll know 3 3rd level spells. Two-thirds of your 3rd level spells are situational buffs. How is extending these broken? It's all you can do!

As to the 'official WotC' arguement, in the post D&D 3.5 world we live in, I think it's a false arguement. It is generally assumed that shivering touch is one of the horribly broken spells because a) it's an ability damage spell and it affects so much. For every 'just use all cold creatures' arguement there's a 'look it's a fire type creature' When a 3rd level spell disables most all monsters published, it's broken. Core (PHB/DMG/MM/XPH or PFRPG) vs non-core (everything else) is the common tongue of arguements. Pun-Pun is built with 'official WotC' products after all. So there should be no problem with bringing that character to a table, right?

Pun-Pun is broken. Candles of Invocation are broken. Twice-Betrayer of Shar is broken. Nanobots are broken. Diplo/Jumplomancers are broken. Shivering touch? Not close to broken. Maybe you should re-read what I said -- there's lots of options to negate shivering touch. It's not limited to solely cold subtype monsters. It's also a touch spell, which can pose all kinds of problems to casters using it, spectral hand notwithstanding.

Also, if a PC uses shivering touch, or metamagic rods, or whatever, and succeeds/does something powerful, great! He feels special. Is he always going to succeed? No. It's the DM's job to make sure there's a wide variety of encounters, so everyone has a chance to feel special.

The amusing thing I find is, I bet people who claim metamagic rods are fine and balanced as is, likely howl that psionics are overpowered/unbalanced/broken.

Uh, I don't. Psionics is pretty well-balanced, as long as you actually read the rules, which people seem to have a problem doing.

In general, stacking metamagic for free, whether through class features or rods, is problematic, as it can allow, even as early as 11th level, characters to access Epic level effects. A 6th level spell with +4 effective spell levels is a 10th level spell. This can be done by a Generalist wizard stacking multiple metamagic effects with any metamagic rod and Metamagic Mastery, or just using either Metamagic Mastery or a rod to Quicken a 6th level spell. Metamagic rods and other ways of adding metamagic with no cap to maximum effective spell level allow a violation of one of the key metrics used to balance encounters. It doesn't matter which metamagic feats are applied, as metamagic with no cap to maximum effective spell level makes the spell better than it should be for the character's caster level.

The easy, clean, mechanical solution is to cap maximum effective spell level to the highest spell level castable by the character. This keeps epic level effects, like quickened greater dispel magic or quickened antimagic field, or a widened maximized acid fog in the epic territory where they belong, and means that only 15th level characters can throw around silent still mass suggestion.

You can't apply more than one metamagic effect to a spell from rods. Adding a second effect would still require a feat, and an appropriate spell level adjustment.

I also don't think you thought most of these examples through. A maximized widened acid fog has to be a (pretty terrible) 9th level spell, which does a whopping 12 acid damage + solid fog, in a 40 foot radius, for 1 round/level. Spellcasters can just freedom of movement, or teleport out with any number of spells, or dispel it, or use a gust of wind to disperse it, or even just resist some acid & randomly move around for a while. Most melee characters are probably kind of boned, but that's not due to the acid fog, that's just what happens against high-level casters. You also seem to forget that fog spells can harm your party almost as much as the enemy, since you can't see them, either.

How is a quickened AMF better than a standard action AMF? You can't cast any spells on stuff in the field, so you're not going to follow the AMF with anything. Also once the field is in place, the target is in a lot of trouble anyway, so really you're just wasting a quicken. There may be some uses for it, but nothing game-breaking, or even consistently useful in more than a few situations.

Quickened greater dispel? Well, assuming you make the caster level check(s), and don't just waste the spell and the quicken, this still isn't much more useful than a standard action dispel. The dispelled effects are gone, or suppressed for a while. Quickening the dispel isn't going to be that much more powerful, besides maybe killing whatever you're fighting a round earlier.

A silent stilled mass suggestion is a 7th level spell (8th with no metamagic rods). 15th level casters can toss this around, anyway, without metamagic rods. I don't see your point.

Almagest wrote:

I was trying to argue against metamagic rods of all levels being changed/banned altogether. Some posters in this thread seem to have a bias against 3.5 style magic, so the subject quickly changed into a discussion on that, which I tried to avoid.

So what your saying is that it's okay for a spellcaster to be able to take a 6th level spell and then metamagic it even though they wouldn't be able to by the regular rules for magic?

If that's the case then we need to create an equal item for the fighter that three times per day they may attack with the attack bonus and damage potential of a fighter 2-4 levels higher.

I agree with you that they shouldn't be removed from the game, however I disagree that they should remain unchanged, especially when the change proposed (well, one of the changes proposed) doesn't even hurt their effectiveness, merely puts a cap on the abusable portion of the ability. which is to do something you shouldn't be able to do at the level with which you are doing it.

If said spell caster can afford the rod, then sure. It'll cost him anywhere from 11,000 gp to 75,500 gp, which is anywhere from simply expensive, to unaffordable. Don't penalize PC's for intelligently allocating resources. Scale challenges appropriately.

Uh, monks already have monk's belts, flurry, and later got feats like carmendine monk, you know. Rogues have weapon properties/magic items/feats/swordsage dips that increase sneak attack damage. Clerics have divine power. Druids have wildshaping. Wizards have transformation and polymorph spells. Barbarians have rage, and Lion totem barbarians have pounce. All classes have two weapon fighting, rapid shot, many shot, etc. All classes have the belt of battle. Bards & other casters can give serious buffs to other classes, like haste, enlarge person, magic weapon, align weapon, bull's strength, cat's grace, etc. Class features/feats/spells/items that greatly increase fighting prowess are not unheard of, even in core.

Silence don't come that often but when it does your in troble.

"What level can the cheapest metamagic rod come into play?" Depends on the DM. From level 7 up to lvl 9. Silent metamagic rod + dispel magic = nice.
Also, even if the party is lvl 6 if you come up against the BBEG you're not counting on him having a Silent metamagic rod. And if they do and when they do you'd probably get TPK:ed.

"For the price you pay on the rod it's still better to have the feat to fall back on or plan around"
I don't agree. As a wizard you have to decide if or what spell you will prepare. And chanses are you won't need a silent spell and if you do chanses are you don't need that particular spell you've prepared.
So rod is better and more flexible. (Although 'still spell' is better as a prepared spell using the feat).

Silencing spells is nice, but enemies still get a spellcraft check (-2 I believe, for no sound) to identify the spell. I don't think a silent dispel is all that nice, really, except possibly during your silence scenario (again, very specific circumstances).

That level 6 BBEG won't be able to afford that silent rod, based on normal NPC wealth. If you're giving them way better items than they can afford, of course the party is going to have a harder time.

The name of this thread: Get Rid Of Metamagic Rods.

Me, I'd keep them but change them. How? I'm not sure. Perhaps, If you have more rods than one you can only use them on X spells per day.

About this thread. Three things strike me.
A) this thread seems to be changing. It's start to ge more into casters are to powerful.

B) a lot of the examples in this therade are meta gameing.
- "Maximized meteor swarm followed immediately in the same turn a quickened meteor swarm" (does sound like a fighter player trying to play a wizard). At higher levels there are for more brutal spells and options.
- one wizard vs. one dragon. Meta gameing? Yes.

C) A lot of the examples in this thread involves high level spells and high level game (maximized meteor swarm followed immediately in the same turn a quickened meteor swarm etc.) A level 7 party have other problems than a level 20 party. Are we adressing high level problems or the rods? Jason and Paizo are probably well aware of the problems with high level games and high level spells (they can read and they are not stupid). Wouldn't it be better to focus on the rod? You can turn this thread into fighter vs. wizard. Does anyone seriously believe Jason will bother, or are people just posting to pick a fight and blow of steam?

So let's return to the topic of this thread. Metamagic Rods.
At lower levels there are far worse things than maximized or quickened rods.
Silent metamagic Rod. The party comes up agains the BBEG and battle begins. BBEG cast spells and after some rounds you cast silence and the group is ready to RUN AWAY. BBEG picks his Silent metamagic Rod and continue to blast the party or hold the someone or whatever.
So metamagic rods can be a problem at lower levels to.
Why would anyone pick the silent spell feat? Just get a rod.

I was trying to argue against metamagic rods of all levels being changed/banned altogether. Some posters in this thread seem to have a bias against 3.5 style magic, so the subject quickly changed into a discussion on that, which I tried to avoid.

Back on topic -- your silent spell situation is very specific. Casting silence on a caster is a good strategy, so of course there should be a way around it. Allowing an intelligent NPC to plan around possible party strategies is a good idea. Also, don't forget NPC wealth scales more slowly than PC, so it'll take that NPC even longer to get a metamagic rod.

Yeah. You got me. Meteor Swarm TOTALLY sucks. We should drop it down to 5th or 6th level. That's about on par with how much damage it does, right?

/sarcasm

Meteor swarm is basically 4 fireballs that are SR=yes, fire damage (which more monsters resist/are immune to than any other type), reflex save for half (evasion/improved evasion means 0 damage, or 1/2 at best), with a huge area (be careful where/how you use it). Direct damage spells in general are not the best options, and MS is just not worth taking when there're so many other cool spells at 9th level.

And summoning Solars is still better then all of these spells.

Why should I (or Paizo, or anyone else) believe you on this when you provide no evidence, just opinion, and you didn't even know the spell had a costly material component, or that it's actually a calling spell, not a summon?

What about Delayed Blast Fireball? How does it relate to either overpowered 9th level spells or overpowered magical items?

The point was to show that it's easy to kill things with high level spells. Gate doesn't exist in a vacuum.

And official WoTC spell? Who cares? WoTC isn't "official" anymore unless you're playing 4th Edition. The only "official" Pathfinder material is the playtest material that we're dealing with right now. You may chide me for talking about gatling guns and mecha, but that's really about as "official" as Frostburn is at this point in time.

And just because something was published in a WoTC book doesn't mean that it isn't broken. WoTC stuffed their books full of all kinds of broken, junky prestige classes and spells that no self-respecting DM would ever let into their game. Your crowing about Shivering Touch being "official" doesn't mean that it isn't a poorly designed spell that should be dropped. But it does indicate to me that you're not the sort of person to be bothered by issues such as "game balance" so long as you can lay waste to everything in your path in your games at home.

Shivering touch, broken? Really? I mean, you can't just overcome it with cold subtype monsters, monsters immune to physical ability damage/drain (like undead), high dodge/deflection bonuses (like, from high dex, or scintillating scales, or rings of protection, or the first level spell shield, or etc.), spell resistance, better initiative rolls, or good tactics, like taking out the spellcaster first, or not getting close enough for him to touch you, etc.? Just because you read something, possibly misunderstand it/not read it fully, and see it as too powerful because you can't come up with tactics to deal with it, doesn't mean it's broken. Broken means the system isn't equipped to handle it, or it's an exploit -- like infinite damage loops, or candle of invocation wish shenanigans.

Translation: I've seen a lot of good arguments about why Metamagic Rods should be eliminated, but I still want to use these broken magical items (preferably with my broken spells), so I'm going to ignore these arguments.

No, I've seen lots of interesting opinions on why metamagic rods could be houseruled. Now, if you're going to continue to make stuff up and pretend you can base a coherent argument around it, there's no point in continuing this discussion. Face it: you don't like metamagic rods, gate, or 3.5e in general, and you should really houserule them, or play something else. Don't assume everyone else wants the same things you do.

I'm not frustrated with the power and balance issues in Pathfinder at all. If they fail to address and fix them, then my gaming group and I (and I suspect many other players) will move on to play other games. However, it would be a shame that an otherwise promising game would be hobbled by an antiquated magic system that promotes massive imbalances between spellcasting and non-spellcasting classes because a very vocal group of players that wants to maintain the utter and complete class dominance that they maintained in 3.X.

Paizo never claimed this to be a goal, and they've already released a beta that doesn't address your concerns. It's not going to change. 3.5 games are not balanced -- any class can be fun, but it's up to the DM to create challenges that highlight the strengths of all characters, not just toss monsters in a room and let casters utterly destroy them.

You don't need to cast Gate every day. You just need to be able to cast it whenever you need to utterly, ruthlessly, and completely crush any threat that your DM might send against you. It's like having an "I WIN" button hidden in your pocket that you can press every time you come across something that you can't deal with that deducts 5,000 GP from your credit card account.

And other 9th level spells aren't an "I WIN" button? Other spells in general aren't an "I WIN" button? Also, you're not abusing gate at all. It's a trump card in this scenario, one that has nothing to do with metamagic rods. How does this make it, or rods, broken?

And as far as XP losses go - they are negligible. Frank Trollman wrote a great article talking about how "XP losses" to spells and magic item creation aren't really losses at all. The way the XP system worked in 3.X, you would be able to easily make back the XP you lost to your crafting and spellcasting and simultaneously close the gap between yourself and your fellow players so long as you remained with a level or so of the rest of your party at all times. Frankly, the GP cost is more substantial - but even then, given how much cash you'll be throwing around at higher levels (especially now with cut-rate cost magic items), it's not really very substantial at all.

This may be true, I haven't read Frank Trollman's article. I do know, however, that losing caster levels is in general a bad idea, and no magic item is worth spellcasting ability. I also know that you can just planar bind something and make it create items for you, or take leadership and have a cohort do it for you. Those are both better options than taking IC feats yourself.

Are you serious? Now you're just quibbling over semantics at this point. :lol:

First, please learn what "semantics" means. Second, I clearly stated the same thing I had all along -- you're making invalid assumptions. You tried to turn that into me assuming something was NEVER a valid option. There's a huge difference there, and it's one you're going to be called on by anyone you do it to.

I'd like to thank you for being the latest person to tell me that I need to "go play 4th Edition" because I'd like to see a more balanced version of the 3.X system emerge from this playest! Much obliged!

And if by "reinventing the game" you mean "fixing the unbalanced magic system", then yes, I am propsing that we reinvent the game! :lol:

If you keep hearing it, there might be some truth to it. Pathfinder probably isn't going to incorporate the widespread and major changes you want to see. Instead of getting frustrated with what you perceive to be power and balance issues, try 4e or Experimental Might. You might find them more suited to your play style.

But that being said - does that really balance the effect? Money isn't very hard to come by in high level games, and now that most magic items cost about 50% of what they used to in 3.X, there's going to be even more of it lying around then before. And when it is implemented, it's FAR beyond the ken of other 9th level spells. Even with the 5,000 GP cost, I still don't think it's a balanced spell. It wasn't even a balanced spell back when it cost you 1,000 XP in 3.X.

In short: any spell that lets you summon a Pit Fiend or a Solar - even with a high GP cost attached to it - isn't balanced.

Admittedly, 5,000 GP itself isn't all that much. But spending that amount in materials EACH time you cast gate? It'll pile up really quickly, especially with quickened gate + gate. For comparisons sake, how often would you cast stoneskin in 3.5? How willing was the party to cast true resurrection instead of resurrection/raise dead/reincarnate on a fallen friend (without using the friend's equipment to pay for it)?

Also, 1,000 XP per casting? HUGE cost. You can lose a level by casting it. XP/caster level loss is bad, bad, bad.

You just assumed that taking 170 days to craft a magical items in a campaign would be impossible, and now you're telling me that I'm making assumptions and that I should consider how other games might unfold? :lol:

1) If you ONLY buy or craft the wand, and nothing else, maybe. But that's not likely in most games. Also don't forget the 170 day crafting time for such a wand. How many games have that long of a duration between adventures?

Also, again, you're assuming this wizard has tons of time to run his business. That's not going to be the case in lots of games. You can't claim something is broken just because of x, y, and z specific non-standard circumstances that work totally in your favor.

What part of that says "impossible"? Please argue against what I say, not what you think/hope I say.

Meteor Swarm < Summoning Solars. The difference in power between these two spell effects cannot be overstated enough.

Meteor swarm is a terrible spell. There's lots better core PF 9th level spells, like time stop. Or wish. Mage's disjunction. Prismatic sphere. Mass hold monster. Crushing hand. Shapechange.

Oh. You mean the Shivering Touch spell? The one from Frostburn? The one that isn't part of the Beta and was listed in a number of threads on the WoTC forums as being "completely broken"?

Frankly, if we're going to be arguing the merits of the spell mechanics in this game based on spells like that, we may as well talk about how balanced Fighters are with Gatling Guns and Power Armor.

What about delayed blast fireball? You didn't address that at all.

Shivering touch is an official WotC 3.5 spell, and as such is compatible with Pathfinder. Gatling guns & power armor are not official WotC items, and afaik are only in 3rd party d20 sci-fi or anime-based products, which have little or nothing to do with Pathfinder. Now, would you like to try a counterpoint that isn't a strawman?

I think that there are many, many people in this thread have made some very solid and rational arguments regarding why Metamagic Rods need to be eliminated. I haven't heard anything so far from you that would lead me to believe that I am incorrect on this matter.

Like what? I haven't found any arguments that show Paizo needs to eliminate metamagic rods, only that some people don't like metamagic rods, and need to make a houserule.