How I understand it you have to me holding a metamagic rod, but if you want to use spell strike and spell combat you need a weapon in the other hand, which means you have no hands for semantic part of a spell.
would I, using a glove of storing be able to declare spell strike with the weapon in hand, then have it go away as a free action to cast my spell, only to have it come back to use it as the delivery method and the rest of my attacks?
; Kaigen
I would say no. The attack is a full round action and it is clear that the off hand must be empty to use spell combat. (You could use it for Spell Strike only.)
If you want to have a Metamagic rod for Spell Combat and Spell strike then you need to have it enchanted as a mace in your primary hand in my opinion.
That being said if your DM allows it in home games that is fine. But the rule is clear that the hand must be empty and trying to find ways around that requirement is outside of the normal intent and rules as written for the class ability.
As a GM I'd allow a rod plus spell strike if you were to jump through all the hoops: cast the spell with the rod in hand and weapon sheathed (standard), stow the rod (free), draw your weapon, possibly as a part of a move (move), deliver the spell through the weapon (free). This works because with spellstrike you are delivering the attack with the weapon, not casting it.
Spell combat on the other hand I'd say is a straight up no. Since you are doing a full attack and casting as part of a single Full-Round action you are running into two problems. First of all I would say that you would need to meet the action's requirements throughout the entire action. Since the requirements are for a one hander and a free hand, a rod in the offhand would fail to meet the requirements. Failing that, if I recall correctly you can't interrupt an action with a free action, so you could store the rod before or after spell combat, but not during.
The primary exception to that would be if you could have the free hand while you had the weapon and rod out, which could be possible with a synthesist or alchemist multi class.
The primary exception to that would be if you could have the free hand while you had the weapon and rod out, which could be possible with a synthesist or alchemist multi class.
A Hexcrafter magus with Prehensile Hair should work too, right?
Yes, if your body had the ability to hold things with some form of third appendage I think you could get it to work. You would still have a weapon in you main hand and a free hand in your off hand.
I was mostly joking, but depending on how the GM rules on the synthesist you could make some pretty cheese-tactic builds with a single level dip. If you go biped you'd get decent physical stats (while dumping your own), and with the 3 evolution points you could get limbs and reach. A magus weilding a scimitar two handed (with reach) with a rod and a free hand? Ick! I think I'd have to smack any player who tried to bring something like that to the table...
Every time I look at the synthesist I'm more convinced that it needs some clarification and possibly errata.
The synthesis creature is not attacking. It is just holding the metamagic rod as I understand the intent... or at least that is how I would run it. Use your attacks and reach... just have the hair/arm/whatever hold the rod.
Not very effective to give up a level just to be able to use a rod three times per day... but it is an option if you have that ability for whatever reason.
|
More hands = more rods.
Given the popularity to the point of utter requirement of rods (we don't even call them metamagic rods anymore... sell all your non-metamagic rods for metamagic rods), I'm surprised I don't hear more stories of casters doing everything in their power to add extra limbs just to hold more rods while they cast.
Since you'd be using the eidolon's BAB--which would only be +1 with a single level dip, I don't think it would be that great at mid or high levels.I was mostly joking, but depending on how the GM rules on the synthesist you could make some pretty cheese-tactic builds with a single level dip. If you go biped you'd get decent physical stats (while dumping your own), and with the 3 evolution points you could get limbs and reach. A magus weilding a scimitar two handed (with reach) with a rod and a free hand? Ick! I think I'd have to smack any player who tried to bring something like that to the table...
Every time I look at the synthesist I'm more convinced that it needs some clarification and possibly errata.
Like I said, depending on the GM's ruling. The BAB issue, like just about everything else about the Synthesist is still heavily debated with no official ruling clarifying things.
But anyway I didn't mean to turn this into another Synthesist thread, I was just presenting a silly work around since the OP's question had been answered. My apologies to everyone for derailing things.
Since you'd be using the eidolon's BAB--which would only be +1 with a single level dip, I don't think it would be that great at mid or high levels.
You use the Eidolon's BAB to determine the BAB coming from the Summoner, not as your total BAB. This is analogous to a Monk who multiclasses. The BAB for Flurry of Blows isn't stuck at whatever level the monk stopped taking monk levels.
thanks for all your thoughts, I think the best solution is for me to only really use spell strike with a meta-magic rod in hand. Cuz I don't want to give up spell recall or a level ^_^;
so I could work it with a meta-magic rod of quicken;
-cast quickened true strike (using the rod)
-cast what ever touch spell
-sword out of the glove
-deliver touch spell with spell strike
; Kaigen
|
|
The rods are handy, but hardly "utterly required".More hands = more rods.
Given the popularity to the point of utter requirement of rods
I agree with you, but I have been involved in other conversations in which mentioning that I've never encountered metamagic rods in my campaigns is met with dumbfounded horror, and the suggestion that removing them from the game nerfs casters at the same level as removing magic weapons from the game nerfs combat builds.
|
|
Take those conversations along with the charop/optimisation/build discussions on these boards with a heavy grain of salt. The idea that casters without metamagic rods are "nerfed" to the same degree as fighters without magic weapons is so ludicrous it does not deserve a serious answer. I've spent most of my time in network campaigns that don't give you a buy on demand MagicMart option so my spellcasters generally have to do without them. And Arcanis, Greyhawk, and Pathfinder are not carebear campaigns. Surprisingly enough my casters still were effective.
Haha, I feel you, that's totally the way I see it, too. I haven't seen a metamagic rod in my campaigns, ever, as player or DM. And then I hear a ridiculous argument on the boards: They aren't overpowered at all, so you better not take them away, because they'll nerf everything. I mean, come on. The truth is, they're either so powerful that their exclusion shifts the balance of power, or they're not powerful enough to be a worry. You can argue one or the other, but not both simultaneously.
Thanks for keeping my head on straight with this issue.