| 9 people marked this as FAQ candidate. |
My Sorcerer knows Dazing Spell. He also knows Fireball. I'm considering getting a Lesser Rod of Widen Spell.
One of the following cases is "true" but I cannot tell which one from the rules text.
Case 1: I can metamagically enhance the spell with Dazing Spell, but this takes it from a third level spell to a 6th level spell, and thus, it cannot be further enhanced by the Lesser Metamagic Rod. I could enhance it further with a Metamagic Rod.
Case 2: I can metamagically enhance the spell with Dazing Spell, and since Metamagic doesn't enhance the level of the spell being cast, I can use the Lesser Metamagic Rod to make a Widenend Dazing Fireball.
My gut hunch and suspicion is that Case 2 is the correct case, but I'm not certain. Please cite relevant rules text if you can!
A caster may only use one metamagic rod on any given spell, but it is permissible to combine a rod with metamagic feats possessed by the rod's wielder. In this case, only the feats possessed by the wielder adjust the spell slot of the spell being cast.
EDIT: And
Effects of Metamagic Feats on a Spell: In all ways, a metamagic spell operates at its original spell level, even though it is prepared and cast using a higher-level spell slot.
So, #2.
#2 is correct with the sole exeption of Heighten Spell, which DOES change the spells level to the level of the slot it is cast from.
So Heightening a Fireball from 3 to 5, for example, would then make you unable to use the Lesser Rods on it.
| 1 person marked this as FAQ candidate. |
Effects of Metamagic Feats on a Spell: In all ways, a metamagic spell operates at its original spell level, even though it is prepared and cast using a higher-level spell slot.So, #2.
This conflicts with
Multiple Metamagic Feats on a Spell: A spellcaster can apply multiple metamagic feats to a single spell. Changes to its level are cumulative. You can't apply the same metamagic feat more than once to a single spell.
Does level here mean the spell slot level? Or does it mean something else?
Does the meaning of levels when talking about metamagic feats/rods always really mean spell slot levels? Which would make the text not contradictory, but would also mean answer #1 is right.
Effects of Metamagic Feats on a Spell: In all ways, a metamagic spell operates at its original spell level, even though it is prepared and cast using a higher-level spell slot.So, #2.This conflicts with
Multiple Metamagic Feats on a Spell: A spellcaster can apply multiple metamagic feats to a single spell. Changes to its level are cumulative. You can't apply the same metamagic feat more than once to a single spell.
Does level here mean the spell slot level? Or does it mean something else?
Does the meaning of levels when talking about metamagic feats/rods always really mean spell slot levels? Which would make the text not contradictory, but would also mean answer #1 is right.
Seems very simple to me:
Burning Hands is level 1 spell. Cast from a level 1 spell slot. It has a level of effect of a 1st level spell.
Quickened, Burning Hands is a level 1 spell. Cast from a Level 5 spell slot. It has a level of effect of a 1st level spell.
Quickened, Stilled Burning Hands is a level 1 spell. Cast from a level 6 spell slot. It has a level of effect of a 1st level spell.
Heightened to 4th level, Quickened, Burning Hands is a level 4 spell. Cast from a level 9 spell slot. It has a level of effect of a 4th level spell.
All of the above examples can have one Metamagic Rod used appropriately for the spells level of effect (as opposed to it spell slot used).
IE: The first three examples would all be valid for an appropriate lesser Metamagic Rod.
The last example would need a standard metamagic rod since the spell effect falls into the 4-6 level range those rods effect.
Level is used many ways in 3.Pathfinder but I think this is pretty simple.
You didn't address the conflict I pointed out. What does 'level' mean in the phrase 'Changes to its level are cumulative'. This is a meaningless statement if level means spell level given that 'In all ways, a metamagic spell operates at its original spell level'. Okay, its not meaningless in terms of the heighten spell metamagic feat, but in that case that sentence should specifically be a part of the heighten description, not the general description of metamagic.
You are making an assumption that is what it means.
I could assume that
In all ways, a metamagic spell operates at its original spell level...
actually just means its save DC and/or spell level for dispelling it, or any other effect of the spell that may be dependent on actual spell level.
It operates at its original spell level. 'Operates' could refer to the final effects of the spell - the effect and casting of it being separate and distinct things. Or it could mean both the casting and the final effect of the spell.
Don't get me wrong, I agree that a quickened/maximized spell means +7 to the spell slot taken, but:
1 - it doesn't say spell slot level, it says level, this leaves it open to possibly being more than just the spell slot required.
2 - Because of that I believe intent may actually include more than that, meaning that a lesser rod might not be allowed in conjunction with a metamagically enhanced spell that pushes it to 4th level slot or higher.
I'm actually completely indifferent. I'm pointing out how the interpretation may be off.
If you are interested in the debate can you point out how my alternative view is wrong by RAW?
You've made a partial quote, it has a qualifying clause on it you missed.
This does not change the level of the spell, so the DC for saving throws against it does not go up.
Also
In all ways, a metamagic spell operates at its original spell level, even though it is prepared and cast using a higher-level spell slot. Saving throw modifications are not changed unless stated otherwise in the feat description.
They seem to be placing a lot of emphasis on the save DC's being unaffected in association with the spell level not being changed.
A heightened spell has a higher spell level than normal (up to a maximum of 9th level). Unlike other metamagic feats, Heighten Spell actually increases the effective level of the spell that it modifies. All effects dependent on spell level (such as saving throw DCs and ability to penetrate a lesser globe of invulnerability) are calculated according to the heightened level.
This is a specific overrides general rule. The general rule is metamagic does not increase spell level. Heighten spell does. It then goes on to list what effect that has - again specifically calling out a higher save DC.
The more I see people claim 3.5 worked like this, the less I become convinced that has any bearing at all. Sometimes pathfinder coincides, sometimes it does not. I'm still not seeing the RAW that leaves this a closed case as you claim it is. Based on current wording of RAW I can easily see this going either direction.
The reason I quit my quote where I did is because the part about DC's not going up doesn't have anything to do with this conversation. It does not matter that there is a lot of emphasis on the save DCs being unaffected. The simple fact is that it is treated as its original level for all purposes except the slot.
Usually non-exhaustive lists are clearly denoted as such. With words 'such as ......'. In fact heighten spell does do this.
...(such as saving throw DCs and ability to penetrate a lesser globe of invulnerability)...
But its non-exhaustive list sample is a list of things that matter in trying to determine if the spell effects the target. This may (or may not) have been intended to include whether you could cast the spell with a given quality of metamagic rod. The very short sample is silent on whether that sort of thing should be included in its list.
Do you have any proof that a dazing fireball would be anything other than a 3rd level spell cast out of a 6th level slot?
No. Did you read the part of my post where I said
Based on current wording of RAW I can easily see this going either direction.
Here is another piece from the rules on metamagic that is interesting in this context.
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.
By a very narrow reading of the metamagic feats, the only one that increases spell level is heighten. So this whole section really only matters for the heighten spell. Based on that I could quicken my fireballs into wand format since fireball is only a 3rd level spell. Or I could maximize/empower/intensify my potion of CSW. And that in both scenarios it would cost just as much to make as the non-quickened version or the maximized/empowered/intensified version (remember the spell level hasn't changed, and spell level determines wand or potion price).
Case 1: applies. The rod is the last thing applied to the spell. And while your Dazing Fireball is still treated as a 3rd level spell for setting save DC's, it's sitting in a sixth level spell slot, which means it's beyond the scope for a lesser metamagic rod to modify.My Sorcerer knows Dazing Spell. He also knows Fireball. I'm considering getting a Lesser Rod of Widen Spell.
One of the following cases is "true" but I cannot tell which one from the rules text.
Case 1: I can metamagically enhance the spell with Dazing Spell, but this takes it from a third level spell to a 6th level spell, and thus, it cannot be further enhanced by the Lesser Metamagic Rod. I could enhance it further with a Metamagic Rod.
Case 2: I can metamagically enhance the spell with Dazing Spell, and since Metamagic doesn't enhance the level of the spell being cast, I can use the Lesser Metamagic Rod to make a Widenend Dazing Fireball.
My gut hunch and suspicion is that Case 2 is the correct case, but I'm not certain. Please cite relevant rules text if you can!
It doesn't matter what order things apply in. Only heighten spell actually alters the level of the spell. All other metamagic feats make it consume a higher level slot, but it is still the same spell level.
Or do you think an Empowered Scorching Ray breaks through a Lesser Globe of Invulnerability? Hint: It doesn't. It's still a 2nd level spell and not a 4th, so the globe stops it.
By a very narrow reading of the metamagic feats, the only one that increases spell level is heighten. So this whole section really only matters for the heighten spell. Based on that I could quicken my fireballs into wand format since fireball is only a 3rd level spell. Or I could maximize/empower/intensify my potion of CSW. And that in both scenarios it would cost just as much to make as the non-quickened version or the maximized/empowered/intensified version (remember the spell level hasn't changed, and spell level determines wand or potion price).
A minor correction on this. A maximized/empowered/intensified potion would cost more as the caster level would need to be higher to accommodate multiple metamagic feats being applied. If applying only a single metamagic feat though that could be applied through the use of an appropriate rod, and given that scenario with your (ShadowcatX's interpretation) then the price does not change.
I think I can very safely declare that as not RAI.
Or do you think an Empowered Scorching Ray breaks through a Lesser Globe of Invulnerability? Hint: It doesn't. It's still a 2nd level spell and not a 4th, so the globe stops it.
Heighten spell specifically calls this out as the case for heighten spell, which means the general case most certainly does not allow it for the other metamagic feats (as you've properly ascertained). It looks like the use of spell level, spell slot level, and level when talking about metamagic feats though that the terms are used loosely and need to be taken in context of what they are talking about. Primarily the casting level of the spell and the actual effective level of the spell after it has been cast. (see my post regarding pricing of a wand of fireball vs a quickened wand of fireball costing exactly the same).
The more I look at this the more I'm starting to become persuaded that the casting level of the spell and the spell slot level are synonymous and that other references (when talking about spell DC's, minor globe, etc) are the effective level of the spell. Heighten spell changes both. All other metamagics only change the casting level (or spell slot level), but leave the effective level of the spell unchanged. That is, 'operates at its original spell level' is a reference to its effective level only.
Hey, ease up, guys. Easy now. Nobody needs to get hurt.
Look! A distraction!
So you're trying to argue a topic that you don't actually care about and where you have absolutely no proof. This is the rules forum, if you want to discuss house rules, it does not belong here, take it to homebrew.
Do you have any proof that a dazing fireball would be anything other than a 3rd level spell cast out of a 6th level slot?
No.
My proof is in the quotes I've provided - which you are ignoring (see in particular my pricing of magic items reference).
Nothing I've stated is a house rule. I've referenced all my points with rules quotes. So I'm quite certain this is the appropriate forum.
You have yet to address a single point that I've made, but are dancing around the issue with off hand comments to how it (purportedly) worked in 3.5. Then trying to deflect the issue with commentary on my honest statements.
@MrRed, you've also not addressed the pricing issue of a wand of fireballs vs a wand of quicken fireballs. Should the price of these two items be the same? Your support of "So a dazing fireball takes a 6th-level slot but is still considered a third level spell (so lesser rod are sufficient, and DC is that of a third level spell, can be countered as a 3rd level spell etc)." says they should be the same price. Do you personally really believe they should be the same price though (is the quickened wand of fire balls even a valid item? - wands only go up to 4th level spells - quickened being a 7th level slot.).
Hey, ease up, guys. Easy now. Nobody needs to get hurt.
Look! A distraction!
Squirrel where?
2) The quote you provided explains how you price metamagic items, you include the increase. That is a specific rule trumping a general rule.
So your assertion is that 'spell level' when used in the context of creating a metamagically enhanced item means something different than 'spell level' when talking about using a metamagic rod?
You'll note the rules specifically says you include the increase based on spell level (and not spell slot level). If metamagic does not increase the spell level than the price does not change. If metamagic does increase the spell level than the price changes (or the item isn't even allowed). Does spell level mean spell level or does spell level mean something different than spell level.
3) When you have to resort to nit picking grammar and to making up terms that aren't in the RAW (like effective level for a spell) your argument really doesn't have a leg to stand on.
My made up term of "effective spell level"
Heighten Spell actually increases the effective level of the spell
You failed your trip attempt by more than 10. You are now prone.
So I'm not allowed to 'nitpick grammar', but you are allowed to arbitrarily change the meaning of the words "spell level"? Amusing.
Do you have any proof that a dazing fireball is anything other than a 3rd level spell cast out of a 6th level spell slot?
Pretty sure I answered this quite unambiguously above. My answer hasn't changed on this. But I'll qualify my previous "No" with, I don't believe that is the only interpretation possible by RAW, and as shown, in order to be internally consistent with all other uses of the words "spell level" it likely is not RAI. Spell level is either a hard fixed term (resulting in inconsistency), or the term has been used loosely in the rules regarding metamagic and can have multiple meanings depending on context. Nothing in the use of various levels of metamagic rods qualifies the context though, so we are left with a ambiguous meaning of what spell level refers to. That is, does the use of a metamagic rod refer to the effective spell level, or does it refer to the use of spell level as used in the creation of metamagic items (which really means spell slot level).
Now can you provide an unambiguous answer for my magic item pricing question? That is, is a quickened wand of fireball the same price as a wand of fireball?
I'll even provide the follow up questions to this leading question.
If your answer is yes, they are the same price. Lauds for your consistency. The follow up question is, is this intended? And if not (I'm presuming not) are there any possible alternate interpretations of RAW that would allow RAI to match RAW?
If your answer is no, then please explain how I determine when spell level actually means spell level and when spell level actually means something different than spell level.
First, when you pull in rules on things that have nothing to do with the topic at hand don't be surprised when things get muddied. (Ie. Going to item creation for a thread that has nothing to do with item creation.)
1 - this is wrong. Plain and simple. I'll illustrate with the rules on threatening. The description of how you threaten falls under the topic heading of Attacks of Opportunity. Yet understanding how to flank does not fall under the AoO section.
Other places that talk about threatening (meaning you have to know what threatening is because it isn't talked about in these sections):
Section on vehicle combat (a completely different source book). The notation being that vehicles do not threaten.
Fast Tumble rogue talent.
Spellbreaker combat feat.
Demanding Challenge cavalier ability.
Orc Weapon expertise racial ability (disrupter).
Tandem trip (teamwork feat).
And on and on.
Do all of these abilities simply not function because they themselves don't define what it means to threaten?
Clearly the rules need to be combined as a whole to understand how they function and interact with each other. The location of a rule in a separate section, chapter, or book, has no bearing on how they work when combined together. And in truth a chapter heading or section heading doesn't even define how a rule works. Chapter headings and section headings are not rules. They are a (non-exclusive) organizational structure of related topics.
2 - This
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.
is not taken from the chapter on magic item creation. It is taken from the chapter on feats, section heading of 'Metamagic Feats', sub section heading of 'Magic Items and Metamagic Spells'. So if the rules on metamagic feats don't apply to a discussion that includes a mixture of metamagic feats and metamagic rods.... well I don't know where we'd go from here. However, this is irrelevant in any case (see point 1).
The rules for metamagic'd wands, as your own quote have pointed out, specifically state that modifications from metamagic do apply. This is a specific rule and it trumps the general rule that says modifications to a spell's level only effect spell slots. That specific rules trump general rules is a core part of Pathfinder rules.
The rules say (and they say nothing more or less than this) that increases to spell level are applied. Not increases to spell slot level, not increases to caster level, not increases to effective spell level. Its in serious need of errata if they actually meant one of those other things. You may claim its not RAI, but you can't claim this statement isn't RAW - its right there in plain text. So what is needed is to understand what is meant by 'spell level', both in this context and in all other contexts where 'spell level' appears in the rules on metamagic. You have your viewpoint, I've given an alternate viewpoint. Both are possible RAI.
Still waiting for your simple straight forward answer to these questions:
Is a quickened wand of fireball the same price as a wand of fireball?I'll even provide the follow up questions to this leading question.
If your answer is yes, they are the same price. Lauds for your consistency. The follow up question is, is this intended? And if not (I'm presuming not) are there any possible alternate interpretations of RAW that would allow RAI to match RAW?If your answer is no, then please explain how I determine when spell level actually means spell level and when spell level actually means something different than spell level.
You hint that your answer is no, but haven't come straight out and said it, and you haven't answered the follow up question.
An argument can be made that this isn't RAI, but since it was this way in 3.5, and it hasn't changed, I see no basis for that argument.
I see no basis that it worked this way in 3.5. Nothing in the FAQ applies to it at least.
Case #1, for sanity. The "treat in all other ways" language has been abused frequently enough.
Holy cow! I answer a simple question, go away for the weekend and discover a rather unnecessary yet intense debate on this!
A reminder:
Effects of Metamagic Feats on a Spell: In all ways, a metamagic spell operates at its original spell level, even though it is prepared and cast using a higher-level spell slot.
So...I'll let that speak for itself.
A reminder:Effects of Metamagic Feats on a Spell: In all ways, a metamagic spell operates at its original spell level, even though it is prepared and cast using a higher-level spell slot.
Poor wording we have been stuck with for 13 years. Almost everything ignores this. About the only effects are:
Other things, such as Pearls of Power pretty much always use the full spell-slot.
ShadowcatX: I can google this in four years and find this discussion of using them this way. Not very meaningful I'm sorry. I *get* that strictly reading the line above says one thing. But reading every other interaction with the metamagic rules says quite another.
@ShadowcatX, I'll address your last response to me later when I have more time. But I wanted to comment on the below.
An argument can be made that this isn't RAI, but since it was this way in 3.5, and it hasn't changed, I see no basis for that argument.I see no basis that it worked this way in 3.5. Nothing in the FAQ applies to it at least.
Case #1, for sanity. The "treat in all other ways" language has been abused frequently enough.
Really, cause I googled, clicked one link and found a discussion where they talked about using metamagic rods like this back in 2009. . . Certainly not an official source, but it does go to show that it was known and used during 3.5 era. Maybe not widely, but they had divine metamagic, incantrix, and cheater of mystara, they didn't have to rely on wands to cheat metamagic levels.
But let us assume for a minute that 3.5 had some RAW preventing this from working. That would mean that Pathfinder has explicitly changed the RAW so this does work, since there is no proof in the RAW this doesn't work (and plenty of proof it does).
Can you provide a link please? Is this a link to a random internet forum where random people on the internet came to a conclusion? Or does it contain developer comments, rules quotes that solidify your viewpoint, or something else that would give weight to your argument?
Holy cow! I answer a simple question, go away for the weekend and discover a rather unnecessary yet intense debate on this!A reminder:
Effects of Metamagic Feats on a Spell: In all ways, a metamagic spell operates at its original spell level, even though it is prepared and cast using a higher-level spell slot.
So...I'll let that speak for itself.
Welcome to the rules forum... :).
I do have to ask though, did you read the view points regarding how the small piece of rules you quoted fits into the big picture?
Welcome to the rules forum... :).
I do have to ask though, did you read the view points regarding how the small piece of rules you quoted fits into the big picture?
I did read the whole thread. I feel like the rules are pretty clear on what is meant by spell level as opposed to spell slot used.
Just using the quote from my previous post:
-Shield is a 1st level spell and uses a 1st level spell slot.
-Extended shield (using the meta-magic feat) is a 1st level spell (and treated as such) but uses a 2nd level spell slot.
-Heighten metamagic is the exception as it specifically states to cast the spell as a if its a higher level spell (so in some cases would prevent the use of lesser rods) dependent on the spell slot you choose to place the spell into.
I see nothing in the general rules or specific rules regarding metamagic that states the extended shield spell would not be treated as a 1st level spell in this regard. All the rules from item creation, etc, really have nothing to do w/ it. Unless there is a specific statement that says something along the lines of "Spells are treated as their spell slot level when determining if you can use a rod of metamagic" then we have to default to my earlier quote which assumes the spell is treated as its original spell level unless stated otherwise (such as heightened spells).
I think it would make sense to house rule this differently, if you felt the rods were too powerful stacking like this (and it probably is), but the rules seem pretty clear.
I feel like the rules are pretty clear on what is meant by spell level as opposed to spell slot used.
I agree with this. I differ on that the conclusion reached is (necessarily) the correct one. I conceive of it being possibly correct, but the alternative (imo) makes more sense.
The crux being that I can easily read the spell level requirement for a metamagic rod being the contextual equivalent to spell slot level used in other places in the rules that talk about spell level (such as the creation of metamagically enhanced items).
Hence the debate :).
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The alternative is that a wizard casts silent, extended shield and the spell level is treated as a 3rd level spell. Congrats, that's the same as the spell being heightened and you don't even have to take the feat and you get the added benefits of silent and extended. Yeah...I gotta disagree w/ that.
Have fun w/ your debate.
The alternative is that a wizard casts silent, extended shield and the spell level is treated as a 3rd level spell. Congrats, that's the same as the spell being heightened and you don't even have to take the feat and you get the added benefits of silent and extended. Yeah...I gotta disagree w/ that.
I'll simply refer you to the up thread information regarding heighten spell and how it changes the spells 'effective' level. This doesn't really need any further explanation. You'll note I'm not disagreeing with you about the effective spell level of your extended shield spell. It behaves as a first level spell for purposes of being dispelled, counterspelled, etc.
Have fun w/ your debate.
I will (and am), thanks.
My Sorcerer knows Dazing Spell. He also knows Fireball. I'm considering getting a Lesser Rod of Widen Spell.
One of the following cases is "true" but I cannot tell which one from the rules text.
Case 1: I can metamagically enhance the spell with Dazing Spell, but this takes it from a third level spell to a 6th level spell, and thus, it cannot be further enhanced by the Lesser Metamagic Rod. I could enhance it further with a Metamagic Rod.
Case 2: I can metamagically enhance the spell with Dazing Spell, and since Metamagic doesn't enhance the level of the spell being cast, I can use the Lesser Metamagic Rod to make a Widenend Dazing Fireball.
My gut hunch and suspicion is that Case 2 is the correct case, but I'm not certain. Please cite relevant rules text if you can!
Case #2 is correct. You are not increasing the actual level of the spell (unless you use heighten spell), therefore you can cast it with your rod. After reading this thread, it seems some people have the wrong idea about what Heighten Spell does. Heighten Spell does not increase the spell level depending on what slot you cast it in if you apply other metamagic feats to it. Each increase is cumulative, so if you apply Heighten and Empower, you further increase the spell slot required.
Heighten Spell FAQEffects of Metamagic Feats on a Spell: In ways, a metamagic spell operates at its original spell level,...
Anyone who makes an argument to the contrary doesn't have a leg to stand on. It requires ignoring this key part of the metamagic rules.
Unless there is a specific statement that says something along the lines of "Spells are treated as their spell slot level when determining if you can use a rod of metamagic" then we have to default to my earlier quote which assumes the spell is treated as its original spell level unless stated otherwise (such as heightened spells).
But for some reason this same logic doesn't apply when creating magic items with a metamagic enhancement? For creating such an item we are just supposed to know that the rule is applied differently?
Yes, and if in 4 years we have Pathfinder 2.0, and Pathfinder 2.0 has the same wording, that will be evidence that this was a known issue going into Pathfinder 2.0 and that Paizo either knew and didn't care, or actively intended this to work this way.
You missed some possibilities. It is also possible they are unaware of this issue and a copy/paste in to 2.0 would mean nothing at all. Or that they feel the rules are sufficiently clear. Their belief that the rules are sufficiently clear is not a case to be made that it works the way you think it does.
-----
You can read the rules and come to a conclusion X.
I can read the same rules and come to a conclusion Y.
Or another way of stating that is that 'How you read' the rules leads you to conclusion X, and 'How I read' the rules leads me to conclusion Y.
Given that.
How you read something and what the rules say are two different things. Hence your side of the debate not having a leg to stand on.
Did you really just tell me I'm wrong on nothing more than the unsubstantiated basis that you are right? You are right because how you understand (that is 'how you read' the rules) does not match with how I understand the rules?
Sorry, that's failed trip attempt number two. Please feel free to clarify what you actually meant by what I've quoted you saying above. Because what you wrote has no weight in this discussion.
The rules require you to use basic cognitive abilities and reading comprehension. They are not written by or for lawyers. Can a normal person with a normal amount of cognitive function figure out what is meant when the level increase is mentioned with regards to metamagic and crafting? I believe so. And I don't believe requiring a bit of cognitive function is a bad thing. If you don't want to think, go play a video game.
Yes, yes they do. And when ambiguity strikes we end up with a post in the rules forum. The fact that we come to different conclusions isn't bad. But it illustrates that there is indeed an ambiguity.
Case #2 is correct. You are not increasing the actual level of the spell (unless you use heighten spell), therefore you can cast it with your rod. After reading this thread, it seems some people have the wrong idea about what Heighten Spell does. Heighten Spell does not increase the spell level depending on what slot you cast it in if you apply other metamagic feats to it. Each increase is cumulative, so if you apply Heighten and Empower, you further increase the spell slot required.
So I've read over the FAQ twice. It adds nothing further on metamagic rods. It explains in some depth the meaning of effective spell level as used by heighten spell. Pointing out such things as
cast fireball using a 3rd-, 4th-, or 5th-level spell slot...., would count as a 3rd-level spell, and have a DC of 13 + Charisma bonus...
heighten it using a 4th- or 5th-level spell slot.... would count as a 4th- or 5th-level spell and have a DC of 14 + Cha bonus (for a 4th-level spell) or 15 + Cha bonus (for a 5th-level slot).
The spell's DC is still 13 + his Int bonus because it's still just a 3rd-level spell...
Every instance of them talking about the spell level in the FAQ they always relate it to how it affects (or does not affect) the DC of the spell.
It further goes on to show the loosely defined meaning of the term “spell level”.
...above and beyond any other spell level increases from the other metamagic feats.
Not spell slot level increases mind you, spell level increases – showing that in some instances the term “spell level” can be replaced with “spell slot level” for the same meaning.
Anyone who makes an argument to the contrary doesn't have a leg to stand on. It requires ignoring this key part of the metamagic rules.
Like others you happily quote the first part and pay no attention to the rest of the paragraph completing the thought and providing context for the rule as a whole.
Saving throw modifications are not changed …
Further, lets look at the phrase ”a metamagic spell operates at its original spell level”. Is operating at inclusive of being cast as? A spell isn't operating (or is not in effect) until after it has been cast – at the time the spell goes into effect is the time when you care about DC's, ability to pierce minor globes, etc. This is similar to the thread on wish where the discussion centered around whether duplicating a lower level spell with wish also included duplicating the casting time. Note that I think this particular phrasing has more weight for your side of the table, but I point it out because it shows other possible ways to read and understand the meaning.
And speaking of wish spell, I'll use it for an example here.
Can I use a wish spell to make a bouncing, consecrated, dazing, disruptive, ectoplasmic, elemental, empowered, enlarged, extended, intesified, jinxed, lingering, maximized, piercing, selective, reach, shadow grasped, thanatopic, tenebrous, toppling, umbral, widened spell? And not break the
You may try to use a wish to produce greater effects than these, but doing so is dangerous.
clause.
I've added ~30 or more spell slot levels, but I haven't increased the level of the spell. Does it still qualify under these conditions as a normal wish spell? If not, under what pretense do you change the wording of “Duplicate any sorcerer/wizard spell of 8th level or lower” to actually read as “Duplicate any sorcerer/wizard spell as though using a spell slot 8th level or lower”. If yes, can I play a high level wizard in your game?
Also: why are you people quoting whole posts? I can't tell what you're referencing out of a post when all I see is a wall of text referring to 3 different things. Are you referring to my attempt at using geometry to break down the difference between spell level slot and effective spell level or are you referring to my heavy handed use of bolds and italics?
No idea. I find it makes it difficult to figure out what part of the entire quote they are actually addressing - which is why I always break mine up into multiple pieces and even leave out parts of the material I'm not addressing.
So if you choose to prepare a spell in a higher level spell slot, with no metamagic feats applied, does that mean you can't cast it with a metamagic rod simply based on the level of the spell slot you prepared the spell with? Seriously, it's very clear how it works.