Using Rods with Metamagically Enhanced Spells


Rules Questions

51 to 90 of 90 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>

ShadowcatX wrote:

No, I told you that you're wrong based on the fact that you have admitted you have no ability to prove that a dazing fireball is anything other than a 3rd level spell cast in a 6th level slot.

And I've shown you that in frequent places spell level and spell slot level are used interchangeably. And metamagic rods work on "spell level". Which meaning of spell level does that apply to? Your arbitrary decision to say it applies to effective level does not make it so.

I can't show you any rules that say a dazing fireball is anything other than a 3rd level spell because there is nothing to clarify that.

Likewise you can't show me any rule that states that the spell level referred to in the use of a metamagic rods doesn't mean the spell slot level.

ShadowcatX wrote:


not somehow using the wording of a wish spell to try and prove a point or saying that the rules don't mean what they say they mean

So do you believe that when rules are written they do not consider how that might effect other parts of the game? (I'm certain that at times they do not consider all possibilities). Did they consider wish when they wrote metamagic feats? Maybe, maybe not. I have no idea. But if you are going to insist on a blanket meaning for what a game term means (especially when the rules clearly show the blanket meaning isn't applicable) then you need to be aware of all the consequences through the rules that imparts. Does the wish spell in and of itself have bearing on how metamagic rods work combined with feats? No. But it is illustrative of the ripple effect of insisting one possible interpretation of a rule is the way it is claimed to be.

Liberty's Edge

bbangerter wrote:
ShadowcatX wrote:

No, I told you that you're wrong based on the fact that you have admitted you have no ability to prove that a dazing fireball is anything other than a 3rd level spell cast in a 6th level slot.

And I've shown you that in frequent places spell level and spell slot level are used interchangeably. And metamagic rods work on "spell level". Which meaning of spell level does that apply to? Your arbitrary decision to say it applies to effective level does not make it so.

I can't show you any rules that say a dazing fireball is anything other than a 3rd level spell because there is nothing to clarify that.

Likewise you can't show me any rule that states that the spell level referred to in the use of a metamagic rods doesn't mean the spell slot level.

You're asking me to prove that spell level = spell level and spell level =/= spell slot.

I'm pretty sure I don't actually need the rules to do that. I can do it with an Order of the Stick comic strip here. Pay close attention to the 8th panel, specifically Roy speaking to V.

Quote:
ShadowcatX wrote:


not somehow using the wording of a wish spell to try and prove a point or saying that the rules don't mean what they say they mean

So do you believe that when rules are written they do not consider how that might effect other parts of the game?

I believe that is the domain of RAI, not RAW. Which mind you, I'm still not convinced RAI is even remotely on your side either.


1 person marked this as FAQ candidate.
Robert A Matthews wrote:
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.

The heighten FAQ answers this.

FAQ wrote:


fireball using a 3rd-, 4th-, or 5th-level spell slot, it would only be a standard action casting time, would count as a 3rd-level spell

A spell put in a higher slot with no gain is a different case than a spell metamagically enhanced. Still a fair point.

A similar question you should be asking:
Does a metamagically enhanced spell have a higher concentration DC (for defensive casting or if you take damage, etc)? Depends on what version/meaning of "spell level" you want to employ.

Fluff says, and yes this is fluff (and I fully am aware that has no bearing on RAW),

"Preparing and casting a spell in such a way is harder than normal but, thanks to metamagic feats, is at least possible."

Now the fluff itself doesn't tell you, but fluff often imparts intent. If something is harder to do would it be harder to keep doing it if something interrupts you? Probably.


ShadowcatX wrote:
You're asking me to prove that spell level = spell level and spell level =/= spell slot.

Didn't I do the opposite of that mathmatically? In the FAQ they refer to Spell Slot as added Spell Levels.

bbangerter brings up a good point in his post, and to build on that: does using Metamagic change the DC of a Concentration check based on it's Spell Slot or it's original Spell Level?


ShadowcatX wrote:


You're asking me to prove that spell level = spell level and spell level =/= spell slot.

In the context of using a metamagic rod, yes. Nothing in the context of using a metamagic rod provides sufficient info to determine that. So both of us turn to the rules on metamagic in general for more/better context. And in that greater context sometimes spell level means spell slot level, and sometimes it doesn't. It doesn't say based on the original spell level or the effective spell level. It leaves us with the loosely defined term only.

ShadowcatX wrote:


I believe that is the domain of RAI, not RAW. Which mind you, I'm still not convinced RAI is even remotely on your side either.

Written rules are always RAW. Interaction of written rules that were considered when a rule was developed is always RAW. It doesn't fall into RAI domain until you hit unintended interactions of two rules.


bbangerter wrote:
Robert A Matthews wrote:
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.

The heighten FAQ answers this.

FAQ wrote:


fireball using a 3rd-, 4th-, or 5th-level spell slot, it would only be a standard action casting time, would count as a 3rd-level spell

A spell put in a higher slot with no gain is a different case than a spell metamagically enhanced. Still a fair point.

A similar question you should be asking:
Does a metamagically enhanced spell have a higher concentration DC (for defensive casting or if you take damage, etc)? Depends on what version/meaning of "spell level" you want to employ.

Concentration DC is based on the spell level, not the slot you use.
Metamagic Feats wrote:
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.

All ways means All ways. There is no grey area. What the fluff says means nothing, all that matters is rules text.

Liberty's Edge

I'm also in the camp that believes that a Lesser Metamagic Rod can modify a fireball spell even if it is already enhanced by a metamagic feat, and cast using a spell slot higher than 3rd.


Actually bbangerter, that last argument convinced me in terms of RAW... now the question for the FAQ is if it's RAI?

The fluff leans towards Metamagic Rods and Concentration Checks operating based on Spell Slot, but RAW it more often refers to Spell Level as being the Effective Spell Level, not the Spell Slot.

Personally I think it should refer to Spell Slot, but I have to agree that RAW it refers to Effective Level.


Sorry if I am repeating what others have said (I probably am) but here goes: Spell slot is not the same as the spell level. They are two different terms.

CRB p484 Metamagic Rods wrote:
Lesser and Greater Metamagic Rods: Normal metamagic rods can be used with spells of 6th level or lower. Lesser rods can be used with spells of 3rd level or lower, while greater rods can be used with spells of 9th level or lower.
CRB p113 Metmagic Feats wrote:
Spells modified by a metamagic feat use a spell slot higher than normal. This does not change the level of the spell, so the DC for saving throws against it does not go up. Metamagic feats do not affect spell-like abilities.

So, I apply a metamagic feat to a spell, does that raise the spell level? No. It is still the same spell level. Does it take a higher spell slot? Yes, it does. Does that mean I can use a metamagic rod of the appropriate spell level (not spell slot)? Yes.

Example: a 3rd level spell with a +2 level metamagic feat occupies a 5th level spell slot.
I can use a lesser metamagic rod on it because the spell level is 3rd, not 5th.

Note: Spells with Heighten spell have the actual spell level changed so the metamagic rod would need to be appropriate to the Heightened Spell.

Example 2: a 3rd level spell is increased to a 5th level spell via Heighten Spell. I then apply a +2 level metamagic feat which occupies a 7th level spell slot.
I cannot use a lesser metamagic rod on it because the spell level is 5th, not 3rd. However, I can use a regular metamgic rod since the spell level is 5th and not 7th.

Summary, #2 is correct. The Fireball has not changed it's spell level, only the spell slot that is used has been changed.

- Gauss


Robert A Matthews wrote:


Concentration DC is based on the spell level, not the slot you use.

Sure, it is easy to see in RAW that DC is based on spell level. It still doesn't specify what version/meaning of spell level is to be employed. Its a good bet it does mean the actual effective spell level, but not a certain one.

Robert A Matthews wrote:


Metamagic Feats wrote:
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.

All ways means All ways. There is no grey area.

And no one has disputed that "all ways" means anything other than that. And the qualifier on that is "...a metamagic spell operates at its original spell level". Is there any possibility that that second half could have multiple meanings?

Let me give a metaphor as an example. If I turn on a fork lift (or if I cast a spell) is that the same as operating a forklift (or is that the same as a spell being active - or a spell being operational).

It could be. But turning on a fork lift does not make you a fork lift operator. The act of turning on a fork lift, could in some contexts be part of operating the fork lift. But the general usage of operating a fork lift is the usage of the pedals, steering wheel, and levers to move crates and boxes around from one place to another.

Robert A Matthews wrote:
What the fluff says means nothing, all that matters is rules text.

You did read my heavy notes and acknowledgements regarding how valuable the fluff is right?


Valdimarian wrote:

Actually bbangerter, that last argument convinced me in terms of RAW... now the question for the FAQ is if it's RAI?

The fluff leans towards Metamagic Rods and Concentration Checks operating based on Spell Slot, but RAW it more often refers to Spell Level as being the Effective Spell Level, not the Spell Slot.

Personally I think it should refer to Spell Slot, but I have to agree that RAW it refers to Effective Level.

Not quite sure which direction you got convinced in. I've actually made points on both sides :). (Though far more heavily against what appears to be the slight majority of posters in this thread).

Liberty's Edge

It doesn't matter if at some place or another they refer to spell slot as spell level, that has no effect on the rules here. Why? Because there is no proof that they did that here, and while you can say "maybe they actually meant X when they said Y" that falls under rules as intended, when they say "Y" that makes Y, rules as written, and rules as written metamagic does not change spell level.

You can try and make arguments against it, you can try and say that spell level doesn't actually mean spell level, that the developers were confused on the wording, or a hundred other things. All that you end up doing is arguing that white is black.

And no, there is 0 chance that "operates at original spell level" actually means "operates at the totally new and modified spell slot, rather than original spell level." Just like there is 0 chance that spell level =/= spell level.

Now maybe you enjoy arguing and playing the fool, but that doesn't belong in the rules forum. Here we actually try and find the actual rules and state them plainly so that people who have questions come away with answers.


ShadowcatX wrote:
Now maybe you enjoy arguing and playing the fool...

Your hostile attitude while instructing me in proper use of the forums is so ironic. And somehow by disagreeing with you I am not in search of the actual rules? Sorry, that is insufficient reason for me to feel inclined to stop posting on the topic.

People coming away with an answer that is in disagreement with your own view is not a "bad thing". Happens every day in nearly every thread in the rules forum (not you specifically, but people disagree, and its not a big deal).

ShadowcatX wrote:


And no, there is 0 chance that "operates at original spell level" actually means "operates at the totally new and modified spell slot, rather than original spell level." Just like there is 0 chance that spell level =/= spell level.

Either I failed by explanation DC check, or you failed your reading comprehension check, or some combination of both. Your response on this makes no sense with what I actually stated.

ShadowcatX wrote:


It doesn't matter if at some place or another they refer to spell slot as spell level, that has no effect on the rules here. Why? Because there is no proof that they did that here, and while you can say "maybe they actually meant X when they said Y" that falls under rules as intended, when they say "Y" that makes Y, rules as written, and rules as written metamagic does not change spell level.

A very interesting stance of insist on, given that you only apply it when convenient. Lets go back to metamagic items shall we?

PRD wrote:


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.

Now we both agree that INTENT is that is in reference to the spell slot level. However, you've just ruled intent as off grounds. So what does that say as actually WRITTEN. "...apply to the spell's higher spell level (after the application of the metamagic feat)." The word slot doesn't even appear in the entire description.

And because you are going to try and foist this off as a specific superseding a general rule lets take a look at that, and you can explain to me which point of the following is wrong, and provide the RAW (not the intent - remember intent is off limits) to back it up.

1 - The general rule is that metamagic feats increase the spell slot level. They do not increase spell level or effective spell level.
1a - Heighten spell increases spell slot level, spell level, and effective spell level.
2 - Level limits for potions and wands apply to the spell's higher spell level (after the application of the metamagic feat). This is RAW. It does not match the intent we both know, but it IS RAW.

Now which part of the RAW states that for this purpose the increased spell slot level is counted as the spell level? I don't see any rules being superseded here based on RAW. It makes no mention of changing how a metamagic spell effects spell levels for this purpose - it only references using the spell level. With no change in how spell level is determined in this specific instance then by RAW we continue to use the existing general rule.

So now by RAW, I can cast my maximized fireball with a quickened lesser rod. I can also buy a maximized wand of fireball for the same cost as a non-metamagic'd one. Any further discussion on these two facts at this point becomes a discussion of intent.

Liberty's Edge

bbangerter wrote:

A very interesting stance of insist on, given that you only apply it when convenient. Lets go back to metamagic items shall we?

PRD wrote:


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.

Now we both agree that INTENT is that is in reference to the spell slot level. However, you've just ruled intent as off grounds. So what does that say as actually WRITTEN. "...apply to the spell's higher spell level (after the application of the metamagic feat)." The word slot doesn't even appear in the entire description.

And because you are going to try and foist this off as a specific superseding a general rule lets take a look at that, and you can explain to me which point of the following is wrong, and provide the RAW (not the intent - remember intent is off limits) to back it up.

1 - The general rule is that metamagic feats increase the spell slot level. They do not increase spell level or effective spell level.
1a - Heighten spell increases spell slot level, spell level, and effective spell level.
2 - Level limits for potions and wands apply to the spell's higher spell level (after the application of the metamagic feat). This is RAW. It does not match the intent we both know, but it IS RAW.

Now which part of the RAW states that for this purpose the increased spell slot level is counted as the spell level? I don't see any rules being superseded here based on RAW. It makes no mention of changing how a metamagic spell effects spell levels for this purpose - it only references using the spell level. With no change in how spell level is determined in this specific instance then by RAW we continue to use the existing general rule.

So now by RAW, I can cast my maximized fireball with a quickened lesser rod. I can also buy a maximized wand of fireball for the same cost as a non-metamagic'd one. Any further discussion on these two facts at this point becomes a discussion of intent.

Do you recall when I said that the rules had to be read with a little bit of comprehension? The developers aren't going to put in a rule that does nothing. If you read the rule with that in mind, it is easy to determine what it does. And even if you are incapable of reading the rules such, you have a DM who hopefully can do so for you. (General you, not you specifically, of course.) But if you and your DM are both incapable, well then that's no different than anything else, DM has last word.

But again, I will point out that the crafting of magic wands has absolutely nothing to do with the casting of a spell through a magic rod. You are attempting to over complicate things.

And just as a side note, I don't see a whole lot of people coming into this thread and disagreeing with me. The last 3 posters other than yourself have all argued against your position. Not that that means I'm necessarily correct, but you are the one who brought it up.


ShadowcatX, I might agree with your views, I don't agree with your arguments.

The reason this needs an FAQ is because there are multiple locations where the rules refer to "Spell Level" interchangeably with both "Effective Spell Level*" and "Spell Slot". The reason I agree that RAW refers to Effective Spell Level is that it most times it refers to "Spell Level" it spells out that it is the Effective Spell Level, and explicitly refers to the Spell Slots as such. The problem is that there are times in the rules where it isn't explicit.

*Effective Spell Level = the original spell + Heighten metamagic

* * * *
On to the RAW argument though:

Compare the wording on the limits of Globe of Invulnerability and Rod of Metamagic and they're the same:

Globe of Invulnerability wrote:
excludes all spell effects of 3rd level or lower.
Rod of Metamagic wrote:
[...] can be used with spells of 6th level or lower.

Both refer to "spells of x level or lower", and it's spelled out elsewhere that Globe of Invulnerability refers to the Effective Spell Level, NOT the Spell Slot.

* * * *

By the way, Metamagic on Magic Items is spelled out clearly in the Magic Item Creation section:

SRD wrote:
Using metamagic feats, a caster can place spells in items at a higher level than normal.

Cross referencing this with the Heighten Spell FAQ and "higher level" here has to mean Spell Slot, otherwise you break the rules on Metamagic changing the Effective Spell Level. (Part 2 of the Heighten Spell FAQ entry, Metamagic other than Heighten Spell raises the Spell Slot but not the Effective Spell Level) It is one of the few times where Level is ambiguous as to whether it means Effective Spell Level or Spell Slot, it's only by referencing the Heighten Spell FAQ that it becomes definitive.


Anyone else agree with me that the whole spell level vs. spell slot thing here just makes things needlessly complicated?

Imho, just have spells have a minimum spell level. You can put them in high slots to increase the spell level, because spell slot = spell level ALWAYS. Remove Heighten.

I don't think this really changes the balance to a notable degree and it makes things a whole lot simpler.


Drachasor, it does, but the problem is that if you use spell slot = spell level things get nerfed that were probably not intended to be. If you use spell slot =/= spell level some combinations that should clearly not be applied exist. The problem is inconsistent language which is a problem throughout Pathfinder. The wielded as a two-handed weapon vs used in two-hands debate is another example of this. UGH

Of course, none of this matters in my home games and I rarely play PFS but, I think I am ready for a significantly cleaned up version of Pathfinder. I am tired of the confused language and poor layout. I am tired of having to explain a rule to my players because it is split up in 2 (or more) different places.

note: Edited

- Gauss


Gauss wrote:

Drachasor, it does, but the problem is that if you use spell slot = spell level things get nerfed that were probably not intended to be. If you use spell slot =/= spell level some combinations that should clearly not be applied exist. The problem is inconsistent language which is a problem throughout Pathfinder. The wielded as a two-handed weapon vs used in two-hands debate is another example of this. UGH

Frankly, I am getting tired of arguing semantics with people on the board. It doesn't matter to my home games and I rarely play PFS. However, I think I am ready for a significantly cleaned up version of Pathfinder. I am tired of the confused language and poor layout. :)

- Gauss

Anything that gets nerfed also comes with a buff, since a higher spell slot would mean a higher DC inherently. So I think it balances out.

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Companion Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
Gauss wrote:

Drachasor, it does, but the problem is that if you use spell slot = spell level things get nerfed that were probably not intended to be. If you use spell slot =/= spell level some combinations that should clearly not be applied exist. The problem is inconsistent language which is a problem throughout Pathfinder. After all, take the wielded as a two-handed weapon vs used in two-hands debate. UGH

- Gauss

I fully agree with that.

I am 99% sure that it mean the spell slot (and not the spell level, even if the text say that) when they speak of using the pearls of power and the spell recall feature of the magus (it is a question that has arisen in another thread).
Following my vision of game balance my opinion is that the metamagic rods should use the modified spell slot and not the original spell slot but I am not sure at all that the Developers share my opinion of what is balanced.

I think that the word usage is confused enough as the freelance contributors that write for Paizo probably come from both camps and often use the term "spell level" when they mean "modified spell level", so I have started a FAQ thread here.
Please, visit it, leave your comment and hit the FAQ button. I am sure we will not get a reply for a long time as it is a difficult question, but it is a good idea to get the ball rolling, so that in future product Paizo will try to use "spell level" when they mean "unmodified spell levels" and "modified spell level" when they mean modified spell level.
Thanks.


Drachasor, can you show me how? Because right now Metamagic feats do not alter spell level when they use up a higher spell slot. Even if Spell Level = Spell Slot the exception would already be in place.

- Gauss


ShadowcatX wrote:
The developers aren't going to put in a rule that does nothing.

Not intentionally of course. But it does happen. Three instances come to mind off the top of my head, all 3 needed errata.

Prone shooter feat.
Life link summoner ability.
Infiltrator ranger archetype adaptation ability.

There are probably a few others if I searched around.


Yeah, the Prone Shooter feat was particularly bad. Gave you the ability to go prone and shoot a crossbow or firearm without a penalty that DID NOT EXIST. So, the entire feat negated a non-existent penalty. That was amusing.

- Gauss


Gauss wrote:

Drachasor, can you show me how? Because right now Metamagic feats do not alter spell level when they use up a higher spell slot. Even if Spell Level = Spell Slot the exception would already be in place.

- Gauss

An errata to change the wording would fix all that.

Metamagic feats merely adjust the minimum spell slot required. Spell slot determines DCs, Globe penetration, etc.

Basically spell slot USED and spell level would be synonomous.

Metamagic Rods would be interesting a bit in that they don't change the spell slot used, so they wouldn't increase the DCs, unlike an actual metamagic feat.

Again, this is all in the hypothetical universe where we get rid of the confusion distinction we have now.


Drachasor, I think your argument does not apply. By making spell slot = spell level that does not mean the Metamagic feats change. They specifically exclude that change before it is even made. At most, it would be confusing since it states spell slot and spell level are different for metamagic feats.

- Gauss


Gauss wrote:

Yeah, the Prone Shooter feat was particularly bad. Gave you the ability to go prone and shoot a crossbow or firearm without a penalty that DID NOT EXIST. So, the entire feat negated a non-existent penalty. That was amusing.

- Gauss

Not that the new version is much better.... but it least it does have a game effect now. (Wonder if anyone has every built a character around the new version of the feat... rogue with the rogue crawl talent maybe).


Gauss wrote:

Drachasor, I think your argument does not apply. By making spell slot = spell level that does not mean the Metamagic feats change. They specifically exclude that change before it is even made. At most, it would be confusing since it states spell slot and spell level are different for metamagic feats.

- Gauss

You merely misunderstand me. To get rid of the confusion, metamagic feats would have to change too. Otherwise you still have the confusion (and, in fact, metamagic feats are the primary cause of it).


bbangerter, they didnt even change the fluff! LOL. Oh well. Yeah, the new version kinda sucks and has wonky wording. Basically, end every round prone and you will have the bonus during everyone else's turn. Now can we find a way to stand up as a free action?

- Gauss


@Gauss, Stand Up rogue talent (free action - still provokes) or get someone to cast blessing of fervor on you (swift action - does not provoke).


Good point, I should've remembered the Blessing of Fervor since I've used it. Must be my brain being fried from GMing. Yeah, that must be it. :D

- Gauss


(( Reads thread. ))

Man. Teach me to ask a question.

My head hurts.


;) Don't let our over exuberance with the nit-picky details dissuade you from asking future questions.


Sorry to necro a thread but the recent FAQ has me wondering. The FAQ I am talking about is this one:

FAQ

Quote:

Metamagic: At what spell level does the spell count for concentration DCs, magus spell recall, or a pearl of power?

The spell counts as the level of the spell slot necessary to cast it.

For example, an empowered burning hands uses a 3rd-level spell slot, counts as a 3rd-level spell for making concentration checks, counts as a 3rd-level spell for a magus's spell recall or a pearl of power.

In general, use the (normal, lower) spell level or the (higher) spell slot level, whichever is more of a disadvantage for the caster. The advantages of the metamagic feat are spelled out in the Benefits section of the feat, and the increased spell slot level is a disadvantage.

Heighten Spell is really the only metamagic feat that makes using a higher-level spell slot an advantage instead of a disadvantage.

—Pathfinder Design Team, 10/18/13

My question is does the bold text also apply to rods? When I read "more of a disadvantage" I think it refers to just things that would make casting, concentrating, or capturing the spell harder.

If the faq would apply to rods then this would not be possible:

Wizard prepares one of his daily level 6 spell slots with a fireball. He is not using any metamagic feats just preparing it in that slot. So it is still a level 3 spell. Now he wants to use his Lesser Quicken rod but can't because it was cast from a level 6 slot? That doesn't make sense.


Anyone?


While I am not sure Ignipotens, the thread that that particular FAQ answered had questions specifically regarding Metamagic rods and the design team seems to have intentionally left them out of that post.


Jayder22 wrote:
While I am not sure Ignipotens, the thread that that particular FAQ answered had questions specifically regarding Metamagic rods and the design team seems to have intentionally left them out of that post.

Thank you for answering.

Yes, that is why I am thinking they are different. If they are not different then my Sorcerer in ROTRL is not so awesome anymore :(
and the guide I based him off of is not correct.
The Inner Power. A Guide To Sorcerers.


Really the whole metamagic thing is asking for Errata which Paizo seems loathe to provide oftentimes. So we just get little snippets of ideas that contradict the rules.


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Pathfinder Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

"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."
Then:
"Lesser and Greater Metamagic Rods: Normal metamagic rods can be used with spells of 6th level or lower. Lesser rods can be used with spells of 3rd level or lower, while greater rods can be used with spells of 9th level or lower."

First off, it says you can use the feat and the rod. Secondly, it says only the feats of the wielder change the spell slot-not spell level, spell slot-, ergo this would not change whether the spell could be used with a certain rod. The rods don't say, "Can only be used with spell slots of 1st-3rd," etc. They say only with spells of that level.
You guys've explained it to him. He doesn't want to understand. Let him play it how he wants.


Ched Greyfell wrote:

"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."

Then:
"Lesser and Greater Metamagic Rods: Normal metamagic rods can be used with spells of 6th level or lower. Lesser rods can be used with spells of 3rd level or lower, while greater rods can be used with spells of 9th level or lower."

First off, it says you can use the feat and the rod. Secondly, it says only the feats of the wielder change the spell slot-not spell level, spell slot-, ergo this would not change whether the spell could be used with a certain rod. The rods don't say, "Can only be used with spell slots of 1st-3rd," etc. They say only with spells of that level.
You guys've explained it to him. He doesn't want to understand. Let him play it how he wants.

That is exactly how I understand it and use it. Others however are saying since the most recent FAQ it no longer applies.

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Companion Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber

Let's look the other FAQ about metamagic:

FAQ wrote:


Heighten Spell: How does this spell combine with other metamagic feats and using higher-level slots for lower-level spells?

Heighten Spell is worded poorly and can be confusing. It lets you use a higher-level spell slot for a spell, treating the spell as if it were naturally a higher level spell than the standard version. Unlike Still Spell, which always adds +1 to the level of the spell slot used for a spell, Heighten Spell lets you decide increase a spell's level anywhere from +1 to +9, using a spell slot that is that many spell levels higher than the normal spell.

The language implies that the heightened spell uses whatever spell level is used to prepare or cast it, but the rules text was inherited from 3.5 and doesn't take into account (1) the normal rule allowing you to prepare a spell with a higher-level spell slot, and (2) combining it with other metamagic feats.

For (1), having Heighten Spell doesn't mean any spell you cast with a higher-level slot is automatically heightened; you still have to make the decision to prepare or cast the spell an normal or heightened.
If you are a non-spontaneous caster (such as a cleric or wizard) who wants to prepare a lower-level spell in a higher-level slot, there is no reason not to use Heighten Spell on that spell (it doesn't cost you any extra time or any other game "currency").
If you are a spontaneous caster, heightening a spell when using a higher-level spell slot still increases the casting time, just like any other use of metamagic, so you have to weigh the benefits of either
• casting it normally using the higher-level slot
vs.
• increasing the casting time to cast it as a heightened spell and treat the spell as the level of the spell slot you're using.
Example A 10th-level sorcerer could cast fireball using a 3rd-, 4th-, or 5th-level spell slot, it would only be a standard action casting time, would count as a 3rd-level spell, and have a DC of 13 + Charisma bonus. If she had Heighten Spell and wanted to heighten it using a 4th- or 5th-level spell slot, it would have a full-round action casting time, but 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).

For (2), you can't apply Heighten Spell to a spell at no cost: any increase to the effective spell level of the spell must be tracked and paid for by using a higher-level spell slot, above and beyond any other spell level increases from the other metamagic feats.
Example: A 15th-level wizard has Quicken Spell. If he prepares a quickened fireball, that requires a 7th-level spell slot (fireball 3rd level + quicken 4 levels). The spell's DC is still 13 + his Int bonus because it's still just a 3rd-level spell, even though it's in a 7th-level spell slot. If he also has Heighten Spell, the spell is not automatically heightened; it still counts as a 3rd-level spell and has the DC of a 3rd-level spell. If he wants to increase the quickened fireball's effective level with Heighten Spell, he needs to use an even higher level spell slot than the adjusted spell level from the Quicken Spell feat. Increasing the fireball's effective spell level by +1 (from 3rd to 4th) requires using a spell slot +1 level higher (in this case, an 8th-level spell slot instead of a 7th-level slot); increasing the fireball's effective spell level by +2 (from 3rd to 5th) requires using a spell slot +2 levels higher (in this case, a 9th-level spell slot instead of a 7th-level slot).

Another way to look at (2) it is to add Heighten Spell first, then other metamagic feats. Continuing the above example, you'd first heighten the fireball to a 4th-level spell, then quicken it, which requires an 8th-level spell slot (fireball 4th level + quicken 4 levels). Or first heighten the fireball to a 5th-level spell, then quicken it, which requires a 9th-level spell slot (fireball 5th level + quicken 4 levels).

(Heighten Spell is a weak metamagic feat and has limited utility when combined with other metamagic feats.)

—Pathfinder Design Team, 06/10/13

TANSTAAFL.

And the one you guy cited say:

FAQ wrote:
In general, use the (normal, lower) spell level or the (higher) spell slot level, whichever is more of a disadvantage for the caster. The advantages of the metamagic feat are spelled out in the Benefits section of the feat, and the increased spell slot level is a disadvantage.

You are trying to avoid the disadvantage. You really need to have a final judge spelling to you every limit in this kind of situations?


The issue that people have is the FAQ is specifically for "concentration DCs, magus spell recall, or a pearl of power" In general also does not mean all the time. The rod says it works with spells of a certain level, I don't think you can use the general rule since it is called out.

It doesn't matter to me either way I just want to make sure I am doing it by the rules. Would it hurt my character, yea but I can still use the lesser rod to follow up with a regular fireball, and then save for a normal rod.

As others have stated, the thread that the FAQ was based off of talked about rods and the dev team specifically left them out.

51 to 90 of 90 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / Rules Questions / Using Rods with Metamagically Enhanced Spells All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.