Let's say I have a lesser metamagic rod of maximize, which only effects 3rd-level or lower spells.
I have also prepared a reach vampiric touch spell, using more traditional means.
Can I maximize the spell using the rod? Why or why not?
Let's say I have a lesser metamagic rod of maximize, which only effects 3rd-level or lower spells.
I have also prepared a reach vampiric touch spell, using more traditional means.
Can I maximize the spell using the rod? Why or why not?
This is a really interesting question. I would say yes, you can maximize it, because the reach spell feat does not change the level of the spell. So you pay with a fourth (or higher) spell level slot, but it is still a third level spell which can be used with the rod.
The only exception - as always - is the heighten spell feat, which changes the level of the spell. But that was not your question :-)
Let's say I have a lesser metamagic rod of maximize, which only effects 3rd-level or lower spells.
I have also prepared a reach vampiric touch spell, using more traditional means.
Can I maximize the spell using the rod? Why or why not?
This is a really interesting question. I would say yes, you can maximize it, because the reach spell feat does not change the level of the spell. So you pay with a fourth (or higher) spell level slot, but it is still a third level spell which can be used with the rod.
The only exception - as always - is the heighten spell feat, which changes the level of the spell. But that was not your question :-)
I would second this reading of it.
there are many things that can be the 'level' of the spell.
No, not really. Spell level is a defined term, and a RAW reading is that it works as Sangalor says, but I'm aware there's a 3.5 FAQ errataing pearls of power to the "use slot level instead of spell level" version. I wouldn't think it strange if it got errataed here to, but by RAW Sangalor is right.
Let's say I have a lesser metamagic rod of maximize, which only effects 3rd-level or lower spells.
I have also prepared a reach vampiric touch spell, using more traditional means.
Can I maximize the spell using the rod? Why or why not?
I've tended to go with Jason & David's ruling from Living Greyhawk that the level is the slot level in regards to metamagic rods.
This is ambiguous as 'level' is way over-used and there are many things that can be the 'level' of the spell.
Worse this changes with the spell list of the caster. A charm monster spell is a 3rd, 4th or even 5th level spell depending upon the caster's spell list.
Its something that I had hoped Pathfinder would clean up, but you can only do so much the first time you clean house.
-James
That's what I do too. I happen to think spell level as applied to rods is spell slot level, but that's a personal interpretation of a very gray area of the rules. That interpretation does prevent a whole lot of abuse with lesser metamagic rods being applied to spells metamagicked up to 8th or 9th level.
Case in point: maximized empowered fireball is an 8th level spell. I think applying a lesser rod of Quicken to that spell is abusive and against the intent of the rules.
I see your point, but I do not think this is as much of a problem as it seems at first glance. The maximized empowered quickened fireball makes me want to append the following to my previous statement: You can use a metamagic rod on a spell as long as the total effective spell slot level is not above 9th level. So you can use a vampiric touch spell bumped up to close distance with the reach spell feat and a lesser metamagic rod of quicken, because the spell level is only 3rd and total effective slot is only 8th level. I base this on the RAW which states "The wielder can cast up to three spells per day that are quickened as though using the Quicken Spell feat."
On a side note, considering your fireball example above, it is not necessarily as much as a problem as it first sems. Once you are able to burn 8th level slots, you will probably be facing opponents with lesser globes of invulnerability, counterspelling etc. After all, that mighty quickened empowered maximized fireball is still only a 3rd level spell with an according DC, and can be countered as such.
|
Slot level and spell level are two very different quantities. Sangalor ruled correctly on this one, I believe.
Slot level is what slot it takes and restricts what level you can cast. Spell level determines required attribute, saving throw DC and compatibility with spell-level-restricted items (such as metamagic rods), as well as being the baseline for the slot level.
Note that pearls of power restore a spell slot of a particular level, rather than a spell of a particular level, so they have no bearing on how the metamagic rod is used.
Since metamagic rods say a "level 3 spell or lower" it is assumed spell level, which would allow you to use a spell that takes a higher slot as long as its real level isn't above 3. If heightened, however, the spell level changes to match the slot level and the rod would not longer be usable on those spells.
Let's say I have a lesser metamagic rod of maximize, which only effects 3rd-level or lower spells.
I have also prepared a reach vampiric touch spell, using more traditional means.
Can I maximize the spell using the rod? Why or why not?
You can't because it's effectively a 4th level spell.
Always, always be strict when it comes to magic.
I interpret the RAW statement...
"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."... differently. The only thing that happens when you metamagic a spell is that you have to use more power (i.e. spell slot) to cast it. The spell still remains the same. And, of course, you still cannot go higher than 9th level (cf. my previous post).
But as always, heighten spell is a different beast, there you are right :-)
Ah, but then you are appending new rules that don't exist to rods, since nothing about them says you can't go above 9th level spells (else Greater Rods of Quicken wouldn't exist). The whole point of rods is they don't raise the spell slot requirement of spells cast using the rod.
You are right there. I revert to my original statement in this case :-)
And while many high level opponents will have good counters to a maximized, empowered fireball, many won't. Nothing clears out the mooks of a fight faster than ~90 points of damage in a swift action, followed by something else.
But you burn an 8th level spell slot with a measely DC of a 3rd level spell - I do not see the issue with that. By the time you get those 8th level spell slots, you're at least a 15th level wizard with tons of money and powerful opponents with spell resistance, high saves, immunities, ... I would much rather use an 8th level spell in that 8th level slot and have almost uncapped damage die count, +5 higher DC, no simple defenses against it... Maybe your games are different, but at that level, my character opponents protect their people or do not have tons of low level mooks waiting for an easy death ;-P
Ah, but then you are appending new rules that don't exist to rods, since nothing about them says you can't go above 9th level spells (else Greater Rods of Quicken wouldn't exist). The whole point of rods is they don't raise the spell slot requirement of spells cast using the rod.
You are right there. I revert to my original statement in this case :-)
But you burn an 8th level spell slot with a measely DC of a 3rd level spell - I do not see the issue with that. By the time you get those 8th level spell slots, you're at least a 15th level wizard with tons of money and powerful opponents with spell resistance, high saves, immunities, ... I would much rather use an 8th level spell in that 8th level slot and have almost uncapped damage die count, +5 higher DC, no simple defenses against it... Maybe your games are different, but at that level, my character opponents protect their people or do not have tons of low level mooks waiting for an easy death ;-P
And while many high level opponents will have good counters to a maximized, empowered fireball, many won't. Nothing clears out the mooks of a fight faster than ~90 points of damage in a swift action, followed by something else.
Lol, yeah, they do protect them. But you're saying you never see fighter mooks (even 15th level fighter mooks) in front of a wizard who lack rings of fire resistance or resist energy? Even a 3rd level spell, from a focused caster with a 30 stat, is still a DC 25. Eighth level spells tend towards either awesome utility (Mindblank) or massive destruction (Earthquake) but there's less just blastiness there. If being cast as a swift action, you can use an 8th or 9th level spell for your non-quickened action to do ... something else. Control, aim for the main caster dude, etc. Fighters and wizards tend to have poor reflex saves, so aiming for them isn't a terrible option.
It's not something you'd do all the time. But the option...
All valid points, they have never come up in the games I played or DMed before though. And no, I have not seen those figther mooks you mentioned - the wizards always protected their highly trained experts, do research beforehand etc. :-P And a stat of 30 - yes, you can get it with optimization. I have never experienced that either. Either not enough money was available or spending that much money on those items would not have left enough for the character to keep it alive.
We play very different games apparently, but after all, that is a great thing about pathfinder :-)
A stat of 30 needs optimizing? Since when?
All valid points, they have never come up in the games I played or DMed before though. And no, I have not seen those figther mooks you mentioned - the wizards always protected their highly trained experts, do research beforehand etc. :-P And a stat of 30 - yes, you can get it with optimization. I have never experienced that either. Either not enough money was available or spending that much money on those items would not have left enough for the character to keep it alive.
We play very different games apparently, but after all, that is a great thing about pathfinder :-)
30 stat is easy :). At level 18 (9th level spells, only 4 stat bumps available), you start with a 20, bump to 24, buy a +6 stat item. No extra expensive tomes required, and as a caster you have limited stat requirements so a 20 isn't that bad to buy.
We obviously do play very different games, both of which I'm sure are a lot of fun. It'd be neat to compare DM and player playstyles sometime.
That's cool, let's do that some time :-)
A stat of 30 needs optimizing? Since when?
Melissa already stated adequately that it's not so difficult. If you really focus on few stats it's certainly possible.
It's just that in the games I have played in the single highest stat someone has ever had is a 26 Int at level 16 - all boosts and items included. However, most had also acceptable (14 or so) stats spread out to ensure enough hit points, skills and skill checks, saves, etc. are available. So to me a 30 in a single stat is optimization, and spending your 15 PBS (our standard) this way would certainly make it hard for you to survive in our games.
This is also due to the fact that rarely someone in our games has a lower score than 10 since we feel we should not got below average somewhere...
Again, games differ, have fun with the way you play :-)
...
It changes the effective level of the spell as the spell is now different it incorporates an extra feature it did not before. The saving throw DC remains the same but it's using a 4th level spell slot. The lesser metamagic rod can not alter a spell that uses anything greater than a third level spell slot. A higher level spell slot is not about more power, it's about greater complexity.
I read it differently. The decisive part is that the level of the spell is not changed. Spell level and spell slots are different things, and they are always called out explicitely in the rules. Heighten spell is different because it explicitely changes the spell level, and because of that the DC goes up, and you cannot use a lesser metamagic rod with it anymore in the examples above.
I also disagree about the interpretation of slot being about complexity. To me spell level is about complexity, and spell slot is about power.
Until I see an official clarification that says otherwise I'll rule it like that :-)
LazarX, do you have any RAW support of that? RAW clearly says "level of spell", not "level of slot" on the rods, and clearly says that metamagic doesn't alter the level of spell.
I agree with you on the assumption of RAI and balance issues, but this is the rules forum.
tamagic rod with it anymore in the examples above.
I also disagree about the interpretation of slot being about complexity. To me spell level is about complexity, and spell slot is about power.
Until I see an official clarification that says otherwise I'll rule it like that :-)
So then by your interpretation a 3rd level tongues spell is more powerful than a Scorching Ray? There are quite a few contradictions to the paradigm of spell level equals power. Sometimes the higher version of a spell casts faster, or has a few more features or is more or less selective but not neccessarily more powerful.
"Powerful" is a different concept, and something that you cannot fit into the D&D spell system IMO. When I say higher slots represent more "power" to me, I mean that the caster needs to invest more power to cast the spell. It does not mean that the spell is more "powerful" by definition. "Powerful" is something that is very situational.
To use your example, a scorching ray would definitely be more "powerful" fighting a water elemental than the tongues spell. However, when there is a huge misunderstanding between two peoples, being able to talk to them in their native languages and maybe avoid conflict, then tongues is more "powerful" to me.
A metamagic spell that has it's level raised sits in a higher level slot as far as spell prepration or spontaneous casting goes. So if it crosses the boundaries, then you need a higher quality metamagic rod to use with it.My interpretation of this has as much validity by RAW as yours and from what I've alwasys seen if there is a choice between two, with magic Always go by the more strict interpretation. It's DM's who do the other way around that are the ones that excaberate the power gulf between casters and noncasters, as well as increasing the impact of the "Christmas Tree" effect.
Well, I think we can agree to disagree. I believe RAW supports my argument, you believe it supports yours. I am fine with that :-)
And, just you know: I am very strict when it comes to magic. But in this instance, I believe it's perfectly legal (by RAW) to use a rod this way and would be an unnecessary nerf to casters in terms of game balance.
But, again, if you can point me to an official clarification that states otherwise, I am perfectly fine with that :-)
Contributor, RPG Superstar 2008 Top 6
|
Yes. Spells that have a metamagic cost on them raise them to a higher level spell slot, ergo they are higher level spells even if the spell save DC doesn't change.
A level 3 spell with a +1 metamagic is a 4th level spell for ALL purposes save one by RAW. By RAW you can't use a Ring of Power for 3rd level spells to recall that cast spell (assuming this is a wizard) because it's not a third level spell slot. If the Ring of Power treats this as a 4th level spell, so should the metamagic rod.
More than just one. For example, an empowered fireball can't get through a minor globe of invulnerability (which blocks 3rd level spells).
Yes. Spells that have a metamagic cost on them raise them to a higher level spell slot, ergo they are higher level spells even if the spell save DC doesn't change.
I still cannot quite see how you get this reading from the RAW which states "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."
IMO this is the exact opposite of what you are arguing. To go further, you state:
A level 3 spell with a +1 metamagic is a 4th level spell for ALL purposes save one by RAW. By RAW you can't use a Ring of Power for 3rd level spells to recall that cast spell (assuming this is a wizard) because it's not a third level spell slot. If the Ring of Power treats this as a 4th level spell, so should the metamagic rod.
Again, the highlighted part is contradicted directly by the RAW text, which states that the spell level does not go up.
Btw, what do you mean with a ring of power? I might have overlooked it, but I couldn't find it :-/
RAW clearly says "level of spell", not "level of slot" on the rods, and clearly says that metamagic doesn't alter the level of spell.So can you make a potion of maximized cure serious wounds?
What would the price of such a potion be? List it out by formula.
Also, please read the ring of wizardry entry. Its clearly talking about spell slots, but doesn't use the word 'slots', right? Or would you say it works differently.
James
No, you cannot do that. RAW states:
"Magic Items and Metamagic Spells: With the right item creation feat, you can store a metamagic version of a spell in a scroll, potion, or wand. Level limits for potions and wands apply to the spell's higher spell level (after the application of the metamagic feat). A character doesn't need the metamagic feat to activate an item storing a metamagic version of a spell."Here it is explicitely called out, unlike the whole rod topic.
Regarding the wizardry topic, it states "spells per day". That refers to spell slots, so no danger of abuse here.
My bad I meant Pearl of Power.Yes. Spells that have a metamagic cost on them raise them to a higher level spell slot, ergo they are higher level spells even if the spell save DC doesn't change.
I still cannot quite see how you get this reading from the RAW which states "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."
IMO this is the exact opposite of what you are arguing. To go further, you state:
A level 3 spell with a +1 metamagic is a 4th level spell for ALL purposes save one by RAW. By RAW you can't use a Ring of Power for 3rd level spells to recall that cast spell (assuming this is a wizard) because it's not a third level spell slot. If the Ring of Power treats this as a 4th level spell, so should the metamagic rod.Again, the highlighted part is contradicted directly by the RAW text, which states that the spell level does not go up.
Btw, what do you mean with a ring of power? I might have overlooked it, but I couldn't find it :-/
Ah, I see. No, you cannot recall your maximized empowered fireball with a 3rd level pearl. The text states "Once per day on command, a pearl of power enables the possessor to recall any one spell that she had prepared and then cast that day. The spell is then prepared again, just as if it had not been cast. The spell must be of a particular level, depending on the pearl. Different pearls exist for recalling one spell per day of each level from 1st through 9th and for the recall of two spells per day (each of a different level, 6th or lower)."
The highlighted section clarifies that it is for the spell slot, not the spell level, thus requiring an 8th level pearl for that to work.
So in short, I treat metamagic rods by the spell slot needed for the spell in question. Just as Pearls of Power.
You can do so in your game, of course :-)
But according to RAW, you can use lesser metamagic rods with spells of 3rd level or lower which have been metamagicked to a higher spell slot.
The other things you brought up all explicitely make a reference to the spells per day, whereas the rods description states:
"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." Combined with what I posted above from the rules "Spells modified by a metamagic feat use a spell slot higher than normal. This does not change the level of the spell..." this allows for the abovementioned procedure.
LazarX, do you have any RAW support of that? RAW clearly says "level of spell", not "level of slot" on the rods, and clearly says that metamagic doesn't alter the level of spell.
I agree with you on the assumption of RAI and balance issues, but this is the rules forum.
Yes. Spells that have a metamagic cost on them raise them to a higher level spell slot, ergo they are higher level spells even if the spell save DC doesn't change.
A level 3 spell with a +1 metamagic is a 4th level spell for ALL purposes save one by RAW. By RAW you can't use a Ring of Power for 3rd level spells to recall that cast spell (assuming this is a wizard) because it's not a third level spell slot. If the Ring of Power treats this as a 4th level spell, so should the metamagic rod.
No. By RAW it's a 3rd level spell for all purposes based on spell level, not limited to saves but also things such as globes of invulnerability, light spells surpassing darkness spells and anything else. That's very clearly stated in the metamagic rules that it does not change spell level. How do you interpret "does not change spell level" to "changes spell level"?
The feat doesn't say "this changes the spell level, but the spells retain their original DC." It says "In all ways, a metamagic spell operates at its original spell level, even though it is prepared and cast as a higher-level spell"
This means that a Widened Light spell doesn't surpass a Darkness spell, that a Minor Globe of Invulnerability protects against a quickened Magic Missile and so on.
Also, by RAW there are no rings of power AFAIK. If you mean the rings of wizardry, see my comment further down.
RAW clearly says "level of spell", not "level of slot" on the rods, and clearly says that metamagic doesn't alter the level of spell.So can you make a potion of maximized cure serious wounds?
What would the price of such a potion be? List it out by formula.
Also, please read the ring of wizardry entry. Its clearly talking about spell slots, but doesn't use the word 'slots', right? Or would you say it works differently.
James
I agree that ring of wizardry has a retarded wording, but it specifically talks about "spells per day". But yes, it could've been better worded. By RAW, I don't know what the heck that item does.
And according to RAW you can't. Unfortunately there is no direct RAW ruling on this so the only answer is to default to the most similar kind of items that do have a raw answer. For me that item is the Pearl of Power which does not refer to spell level but spell slot. And you are talking about a metamagiced spell that is in a 4th level spell slot not the 0-3rd level slots the lesser rod is meant for using.So in short, I treat metamagic rods by the spell slot needed for the spell in question. Just as Pearls of Power.You can do so in your game, of course :-)
But according to RAW, you can use lesser metamagic rods with spells of 3rd level or lower which have been metamagicked to a higher spell slot.
I disagree, and I cannot spell it out more clearly than I did above. I stand with my reasoning until an official errata says otherwise.
The funny thing is, I would prefer it to be as you say, LazarX. It would definitely makes it easier to handle and prevent potential abuse. However, this is the rules forum and I am arguing for what the rules are IMO and not what I want them to be.
Spells altered by metamagic don't change level except if Heightened. Period. What level slot they consume doesn't govern what level they are inherently. A wizard preparing magic missile in a ninth level slot doesn't change that it's still a first level spell. If he Quickens it, it needs to be prepared in (at least) a fifth level slot but remains a first level spell. Only one rod may be used on a single spell casting, so there's really no problem..
vampiric touch is a third level spell. It can be prepared in a third-level slot or above.
Reach vampiric touch is a third level spell. It can be prepared in a fourth level spell if prepared as a Close range spell.
rod of metamagic maximize, lesser allows you to cast a 3rd level spell or lesser as if using Maximize Spell, three times per day without changing spell level or slot required.
Again, spell level and slot level are not directly linked. As noted by (many) other posters, metamagic does not change spell level in general, only slot cost. Note the quote below, which confirms that for instance if you can't cast 4th level slots due to ability score limits, you can still cast 3rd level spells in those slots. By definition those spells MUST NOT be considered 4th level else you could not cast them.
Core Page 218
Spell Slots: The various character class tables show how many spells of each level a character can cast per day. These openings for daily spells are called spell slots. A spellcaster always has the option to fill a higher-level spell slot with a lower-level spell. A spellcaster who lacks a high enough ability score to cast spells that would otherwise be his due still gets the slots but must fill them with spells of lower levels.
No, you cannot do that. RAW states:
"Magic Items and Metamagic Spells: With the right item creation feat, you can store a metamagic version of a spell in a scroll, potion, or wand. Level limits for potions and wands apply to the spell's higher spell level (after the application of the metamagic feat). A character doesn't need the metamagic feat to activate an item storing a metamagic version of a spell."
Here it is explicitely called out, unlike the whole rod topic.Regarding the wizardry topic, it states "spells per day". That refers to spell slots, so no danger of abuse here.
You're missing the point.
The point is in neither place are they expressly saying 'slot level'? No?
Take your argument for a metamagic rod then apply it to both cases here.
A maximized cure serious wounds spell is a 3rd level spell, there is no 'spell's higher spell level' as both the modified and unmodified spell levels are 3. Note it's talking about spell level and not slot level here.
Likewise a ring of wizardry I, would double the number of quickened magic missiles, empowered magic missiles as well as not metamagic'd magic missiles as long as the slots that they would be taken from weren't coming from STAT based bonus spell slots. It, too, is talking about all spells of a given spell level rather than slot level.
Now are either of these readings correct? No, of course not.
But they have the same level of validity as the metamagic rods imho. It certainly is an ambiguous part of the rules as many places in the magic items section they certainly do mean 'slot level' but rather use 'spell level'. If you are going to elect to fall down in one place, for consistency I suggest that you stay down. ;)
-James
PS: This is not addressing other problems where you can have different levels of spells with metamagics applied to them and how to price those items. This is a general failing of the system in not assigning a 'level' to each spell that is independent of the...
James, I pointed out in several posts above with several citations that each and everyone of the examples brought up to serve as an explanation as to why the spell slot and not the spell level should be used for rods had a statement somewhere that explicitely referred to the slot, i.e. the "spell per day". Nobody here has been able to bring up a similar reference for rods.
I showed that ring of wizardry refers to spell per day, i.e. slot level. Wands and potions can be metamagicked, just not above their normal level - there is an explicit mentioning (see above) in the rules. Pearls of power also reference the "spell per day", i.e. slot level as entry.Please reread my posts, I believe I have brought up enough arguments for my case, and Anguish also brought up some more.
Again, I personally have nothing against using the slot in the case of a metamagic rod to be the defining entity, I might even house rule it that way. But this is the rules forum, and RAW supports the argument the other way around.
James, I pointed out in several posts above with several citations that each and everyone of the examples brought up to serve as an explanation as to why the spell slot and not the spell level should be used for rods had a statement somewhere that explicitely referred to the slot, i.e. the "spell per day". Nobody here has been able to bring up a similar reference for rods.
I showed that ring of wizardry refers to spell per day, i.e. slot level. Wands and potions can be metamagicked, just not above their normal level - there is an explicit mentioning (see above) in the rules. Pearls of power also reference the "spell per day", i.e. slot level as entry.
Please reread my posts, I believe I have brought up enough arguments for my case, and Anguish also brought up some more.
Actually you are reading into each of these cases to say that they imply the level of the spell slot rather than the level of the spell.
Reread your own quote on metamagic'd wands/potions it never says level of the slot, rather it talks about spell level.
You are making a (reasonable) jump here, but it is a jump. What it is clear indication of, however, is that the magic items section blurs the line between 'spell level' and 'slot level' by referring to each of them by 'spell level'.
That there are indications in some places 'what was meant' does not mean either that such is the case or any absence of such means the opposite.
Read your own quote on metamagic'd wands and potions. Can you find any direct mention of spell slot? No?
If a 10th wizard elects to memorize all magic missile spells in all of his spell slots, what level of spells does he have memorized? What would be under the purview of a ring of wizardry in this case? Obviously the answer should be only the non-stat based slots allowed him for only 1st level spells and not those slots that could hold 2nd or higher level spells. Yet if you want to go by strict reading this is not the case.
My point is simply that the rules are not written...
I know what I wrote, and I still believe I made it reasonably clear that the "spells per day" term is the decisive wording. Pathfinder rarely - if ever? - mentions the word "slot" anywhere. "Slots" is a term that I primarily find used in these and other forums, that's why I used it. Instead "spells per day" is used. And these I found referenced in each of the abovementioned cases, except for metamagicked wands which had an explicatory statement there clarifying that the "spells per day", i.e. slots are meant. So please don't try to nail me on the word "slot", I have not used it in any quotations but simply as a short term :-)
Now, about your question regarding the 10th level wizard: If a 10th level wizard elects to memorize magic missile in all of his slots, he has (except for cantrips) only 1st level spells memorized. He is just using higher level slots to cast them, which is allowed and explicitely stated by the rules; see Anguishes post for references to the source.
And regarding the ring of wizardry, the rulebook states:
"This special ring comes in four kinds (ring of wizardry I, ring of wizardry II, ring of wizardry III, and ring of wizardry IV), all of them useful only to arcane spellcasters. The wearer's arcane spells per day are doubled for one specific spell level. A ring of wizardry I doubles 1st-level spells, a ring of wizardry II doubles 2nd-level spells, a ring of wizardry III doubles 3rd-level spells, and a ring of wizardry IV doubles 4th-level spells. Bonus spells from high ability scores or school specialization are not doubled."
IMO the highlighted part clearly shows that the "spells per day", i.e. the spell "slots", are referred to. So a Ring of wizardry I doubles your 1st level spell slots (except for bonus and specialization slots).
So if I go by a strict reading, I have no issue with any of the items brought up to support yours and LazarX reading of the rules.
And finally, for the third and last time: I would be completely happy if the rod's issue was cleared up. I stand by my reading, but - personally - I would prefer it to be clarified along the line of pearl of power, ring of wizardry etc. to refer to the spell slots. Though - as mentioned before - I do not have a real issue with the metamagicked fireball example above being modified by a lesser rod, I would rather stay clear of potential abuse issues.
...Level limits for potions and wands apply to the spell's higher spell level (after the application of the metamagic feat). ..."
Here it is explicitely called out, unlike the whole rod topic.
This right here is really all that is needed to clarify this. "Spell level" in rule text means both "arcane power level of spell" (for save DCs and penetrating globes, etc.), and "spell level slot of spell".
The scroll/wand text does not "call it out" as distinct, it simply clarifies. As such, it's a perfect example of how the language is insufficient.
It is ridiculous to use otherwise, which you appear agree with.
I understand your case, as I understand LazarX's. I still believe it's correct the way I read it. Still, I would rule it the same way you and LazarX do it, but I consider it a house rule :-)
I am with you that the "spell level" and "spell slot" is inconsistent, and it would be great if it could be addressed and clarified throughout the book :-)
I still believe it's correct the way I read it. Still, I would rule it the same way you and LazarX do it, but I consider it a house rule :-)I just go further and say that there isn't a 'correct' way to read it as the information given is not sufficient.
I believe that the better way to read it is to use 'slot level' but do not believe it is a house rule, but rather a place where the rules do not give a correct answer for RAW.
A good amount of clarity could be had if someone were to go through the core rules with a thesaurus and separate all of the over-uses of some specific words.. level being chief amongst them.
-James
This is the internet. There is ALWAYS a right and wrong.
RE: Ring of Wizardry:
Talking about a caster who has prepared Magic Missile as his only spell, that is, using every single available spell per day that he has to memorize Magic Missile, is not appropriate to determine the functionality of the Ring.
In order to properly parse the functionality of the Ring, one must look at a wizard who has not memorized *any* spells out of his spells per day, determine what in the set of potential spells per day is doubled, and only then can one make a comment about how many spells per day the wizard has the potential to memorize.
If one follows this process, the meaning of the Ring's description becomes clear in that it is clearly talking about spell slots of a particular level.