An empowered shocking grasp needs a 3rd level spell slot (or 2nd under some circumstances) so you need a pearl of power 2 or 3.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
RAI, not likely.
RAW, yes.
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. Saving throw modifications are not changed unless stated otherwise in the feat description.
While empowered shocking grasp is cast from a 3nd-level or higher slot, it is still a 1st-level spell for all purposes.
This seemingly normal pearl of average size and luster is a potent aid to all spellcasters who prepare spells (clerics, druids, rangers, paladins, and wizards). 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).
A pearl of power recalls spells based on their level, not the level of the slot required to cast it.
So, yes, you could even recall a quickened intensified maximized shocking grasp with a mere pearl of power I.
@blahpers
Do you play it in this way on your table (if you are GMing)?
With pearls of power you recall spells in their used spell slot. There is a pearl for every spell level = slot.
The saving throw depends on the spell level and for this is the rule you have quoted in your post.
You prepare a quickend maximized magic missle in an 8th level spell slot and get it back with a slotless magic item for 1000gp. Ridiculous.
No, I don't play it that way, but that is how RAW states it.
The rules as written say that there is a pearl for every spell level, not every spell slot level. That's normally not a distinction worth mentioning, but metamagic makes it important.
A quickened maximized magic missile is, very explicitly, a 1st-level spell, per the rules for metamagic feats quoted above. It is, for example, blocked by a lesser globe of invulnerability. It only takes one level of spell turning to deflect it instead of eight. And, yes, the saving throw (not applicable for magic missile, but work with me here) will be very easy to make.
If they had worded the pearl of power such that the spell must have been cast from a particular level of spell slot, then everything would be great. For some reason, though, the designer of that item did not consider that the level of the spell might differ from the slot used to hold it.
This isn't the only place this happens. Technically, there's no language in shadow conjuration precluding the duplication of a maximized acid arrow. A ring of spell storing can hold five maximized empowered intensified toppling magic missile spells. Madness ensues.
My advice is to not play it that way, because it's silly. Play it the way you already thought it was going to work, because pearl of power was obviously balanced against the utility of the spell slot, not the spell itself. Similarly, if a player tries to use shadow conjuration to cheese up a metamagicked spell, drop the GM hammer on them--the spell was obviously not intended to duplicate 9th-level effects even if the spell was technically 1st-level. Just make sure your players know that.
The RAW states one thing, but I think that most people are aware that using it in such a manner is abusive to say the least.
This is not the Advice forum, nor is it the House Rules forum. This is, actually, the Rules Questions forum. So while it's all fine and good to say "nobody plays it that way" or even to suggest house rules, it's important to note that Blahper's post cites the RAW: By the rules, the answer to the OP's question is "yes, you can get an empowered shocking grasp back with a level 1 pearl of power.
In reading the RAW, I see nothing to suggest that you automatically regain the spell with metamagic feats still applied. "just as if it had not been cast" could be a reference to getting it back exactly the way you had prepared it (with metamagic) or it could simply mean "the spell is now available to cast just like you had prepared it and not cast it" (which refers only to the spell and not any metamagic feats). So, presumably, if a 5th level wizard casts his Empowered Shocking Grasp from a 3rd level slot, then uses a pearl of power to get it back, he might just get Shocking Grasp back without the metamagic feat, still using his 3rd level slot.
Well, would start making the RAW vs RAI argument.
RAW it works. RAI, probably not.
The tricky thing about RAW, is the game cannot actually be played "strictly by RAW." Before being interpreted by a GM, the RAW is nothing more than words on a page and quite useless. As for RAI, if you interpret a rule without consideration for the intent of the rule maker, you're doing it wrong.
So, one interpretation of RAW is that a PoP 1 will recall and empowered Shocking Grasp.
Another is that the PoP 1 will recall the Shocking Grasp but not the empowered.
Yet another is that you need a PoP 3 to recall an empowered Shicking Grasp
As a GM, you can seek out the interpretations of others, but ultimately you should choose the interpretation that makes the most sense to you.
The tricky thing about RAW, is the game cannot actually be played "strictly by RAW." Before being interpreted by a GM, the RAW is nothing more than words on a page and quite useless. As for RAI, if you interpret a rule without consideration for the intent of the rule maker, you're doing it wrong.
So, one interpretation of RAW is that a PoP 1 will recall and empowered Shocking Grasp.
Another is that the PoP 1 will recall the Shocking Grasp but not the empowered.
Yet another is that you need a PoP 3 to recall an empowered Shicking GraspAs a GM, you can seek out the interpretations of others, but ultimately you should choose the interpretation that makes the most sense to you.
I think the 2nd and 3rd are both valid. You could use that Pearl of Power 1 to recall a non-metamgic Shocking Grasp or use a Pearl of Power 3 to recall an empowered shocking grasp. Both I think are valid at the same time, or at least I would allow either. I certainly wouldn't allow the 1st under any condition.
Quantum Steve is absolutely right. There is no "RAW" in play, because "rules as written" are static words on a page, unread.
RAW is simply shorthand for "the meaning of the words on the page that the authors intended".
By mythical 'RAW', a character can move 15Km in a single round using nothing but free actions, assuming that he has a string of adjacent horses lined up and the GM allows it - but by a realistic concept of RAW (what the designers intended) that doesn't work.
The designers have stated that 'common sense' is part of the rules. So, is it 'common sense' to believe that a 10th level caster could really carry around 20 1st level PoPs and deal 1800 points of damage using a single spell slot and 1/3 of his wealth by level? Or that the average 10th level Magus could add on another 10 castings through Spell Recall, thereby doing 2700 points of damage by expending a single spell slot - or (tossing out the PoPs), 900 damage with no expenditure of non-renewable resources?
No, I doubt that it is.
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
...but ultimately you should choose the interpretation that makes the most sense to you.
For example, my wife isn't very rules-savvy, and has often responded to things that you or I would take for granted by saying "But that doesn't make any sense!" If she were to GM a game using rules interpretations that made the most sense to her, it wouldn't be recognizable as Pathfinder anymore. Instead, when she plays with me, she asks me whether what makes sense to her is correct or not, and sometimes it's not. In those cases, she acts on what I tell her instead of what makes sense to her, because she knows I'm more proficient with the rules than she is. That which makes sense to me is more likely to be right than what makes sense to her (if the two are in conflict at all, that is).
Part of being a responsible adult is recognizing when something is outside my own area(s) of expertise and choosing to put aside "what makes sense to me" in favor of "what makes sense to someone more proficient at [subject] than I am" because I'm wise enough to know that something can be dead wrong and still make perfect sense to me.
Thus, I chafe a bit when I see advice like "go with whatever makes the most sense to you", especially aimed at someone who clearly doesn't know. Defaulting to "whatever makes sense to me" is the surest way to remain in confident ignorance for a lifetime.
...but ultimately you should choose the interpretation that makes the most sense to you.** spoiler omitted **
I would counter that, in the end, a GM by definition always goes with what makes sense to them, even if what makes sense to them is "Well, the designers know what they're doing...?". This is tempered by a responsibility to not only learn but understand the rules of the game (and the dynamic of the group) enough to make sound judgments.
Or you can not stress about any of that and just do whatever. There are groups where people just make up mechanics for the things that they don't understand or don't agree with and many of the groups still have fun (more, for some player archetypes). It is only a game, folks.
In our games pearls of power can only be used to recover spells from the slots associated with their level. Metamagic spells go into higher level slots (usually) and so are treated as higher level spells in our games.
In reading the RAW, I see nothing to suggest that you automatically regain the spell with metamagic feats still applied. "just as if it had not been cast" could be a reference to getting it back exactly the way you had prepared it (with metamagic) or it could simply mean "the spell is now available to cast just like you had prepared it and not cast it" (which refers only to the spell and not any metamagic feats). So, presumably, if a 5th level wizard casts his Empowered Shocking Grasp from a 3rd level slot, then uses a pearl of power to get it back, he might just get Shocking Grasp back without the metamagic feat, still using his 3rd level slot.If it can helps:
CRB says: Once per day on command, a pearl of power enables the possessor to recall any one spell [bold] that she had prepared and then cast that day[/bold]. The spell is then prepared again, just as if it had not been cast.So, what have you prepared? the answer is an empowered shocking grasp. That is the spell that you have committed to memory, not only shocking grasp...What have you cast? Again, an empowered shcking grasp.
The reference to the spell being prepared again as if not cast, clearly makes reference to the prepared metamagic spell that you have recalled! I don't see how he would recall a simple shocking grasp (no metamagic) as this is not what he had prepared.
Doens't answer the debate about spell level vs spell slot used, but it is clear to what spell it makes reference to: the metamagic version.
I can see that.
I can also see that the caster originally prepared Shocking Grasp PLUS a metamagic feat and the Pearl of Power lets him get the spell, not the feat back. Or, another way to see it, a spell modified by a metamagic feat is not a new spell, it's still just a spell with extra stuff attached, and the Pearl let's him recall the spell without saying anything about recalling the extra stuff - assuming it is all included is actually assuming extra stuff that is not explicitly worded in the description of the Pearl of Power.
So yeah, this could be argued both ways. I'm not suggesting one is more right than the other.
...but ultimately you should choose the interpretation that makes the most sense to you.** spoiler omitted **
If you aren't passingly proficient in the rules, you really shouldn't be GMing, or at the very least, your players should be aware that you don't know what you're doing.
Edit:
...but ultimately you should choose the interpretation that makes the most sense to you.** spoiler omitted **I would counter that, in the end, a GM by definition always goes with what makes sense to them, even if what makes sense to them is "Well, the designers know what they're doing...?". This is tempered by a responsibility to not only learn but understand the rules of the game (and the dynamic of the group) enough to make sound judgments.
Or you can not stress about any of that and just do whatever. There are groups where people just make up mechanics for the things that they don't understand or don't agree with and many of the groups still have fun (more, for some player archetypes). It is only a game, folks.
Or this. this is better.
Double Edit:
Or if what makes most sense to you is "Defer to Jiggy," that's fine, too. If that's what makes the most sense.
Owner - D20 Hobbies
|
it occupies a 3rd level spell in the prepared list and it takes a 3rd level pearl to recall it.
I agree with you that RAW is best fit by this interpretation.
What I hate about the "mythical creature called RAW" is that the language used can suggest (but not prove to my satisfaction) that using a PoP 1 to recall an empowered maximized 1st level spell is allowed with twister style interpretation of RAW.
it occupies a 3rd level spell in the prepared list and it takes a 3rd level pearl to recall it.I agree with you that RAW is best fit by this interpretation.
What I hate about the "mythical creature called RAW" is that the language used can suggest (but not prove to my satisfaction) that using a PoP 1 to recall an empowered maximized 1st level spell is allowed with twister style interpretation of RAW.
While I agree RAI points towards not allowing a PoP 1 to restore an enlarged/maximized magic missile, I don't believe someone reading otherwise is stretching or even twisting the rules in any way.
Just reading the following statements from the rules:
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. Saving throw modifications are not changed unless stated otherwise in the feat description.
and
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.
A maximized Burning Hands is still a level 1 spell, subject to a lower reflex save, globe of invulnerabilty and other things. You use a level 1 Pearl of Power on a level 1 spell. I don't see any rule twisting or lawyering with those statements at all.
The Pearl of Power description does not mention which spell slot was used in any way shape or form.
edit: I am going to make another post with a more general question about PoP and metamagic, hoping to get a faq response.
I would think the RAW could also suggest that the shocking grasp that the pearl of power of 1st level restores is again the first level spell and not the effects of empowering, maximising and other possible metaeffects. As the RAW seemed to say you can restore the spell and did not include the adjustments the feat applied to the 1st level spell.
So as a GM I would rules that yes you can recall the maximised shocking grasp with a 1st level pearl of power, but it would be a standard shocking grasp then and not the empowered or maximised adjustment of the spell.
RAW states that the spell itself is intact and is only amplified by the metamagic feats. Off course you need to make sure you have the 1st level slot available. And if you have the Pearl of power of the right level then you can recall the spell as amplified as it was cast.
You might be correct Cuttler, but I do not believe you can recall an empowered shocking grasp with a level 1 pearl of power and still expect it to be empowered and occuppy a level 3 slot.
I think the level 1 PoP could recall the unmodified spell, because RAW states the spell basic statistic isn't altered by empowering or maximising it, so I figured you could get the base spell out of the modified version again. But that might be a stretch, even though I like the idea.
|
Seems pretty clear to me that the pearl of power would indeed restore a "1st level" spell, and that an empowered maximized quickened shocking grasp is a "1st level" spell, because the pearl description in no way refers to slots, just to levels. Also pretty clear to me that this is a bug.
If you use this logic, following the same logic a pearl of power will not recall a "empowered maximized quickened shocking grasp ".
A "empowered maximized quickened shocking grasp" is a spell?No, it is a spell modified by metamagic feats.
The pearl don't say it recall spells modified by metamagic feats, it only recall spells.
it occupies a 3rd level spell in the prepared list and it takes a 3rd level pearl to recall it.I agree with you that RAW is best fit by this interpretation.
What I hate about the "mythical creature called RAW" is that the language used can suggest (but not prove to my satisfaction) that using a PoP 1 to recall an empowered maximized 1st level spell is allowed with twister style interpretation of RAW.
While I agree RAI points towards not allowing a PoP 1 to restore an enlarged/maximized magic missile, I don't believe someone reading otherwise is stretching or even twisting the rules in any way.
Just reading the following statements from the rules:
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. Saving throw modifications are not changed unless stated otherwise in the feat description.
and
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.
A maximized Burning Hands is still a level 1 spell, subject to a lower reflex save, globe of invulnerabilty and other things. You use a level 1 Pearl of Power on a level 1 spell. I don't see any rule twisting or lawyering with those statements at all.
The Pearl of Power description does not mention which spell slot was used in any way shape or form.
edit: I am going to make another post with a more general question about PoP and metamagic, hoping to get a faq response.
To repeat it again, you have even bolded the parts that make this not feasible if people want to play RAW idiot.
"In all ways, a metamagic spell operates at its original spell level,"but
"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 [b]spell must be of a particular level, depending on the pearl.[/b]
You see any instance of metamagic spell in the description of the pearl of power? No.
So the same interpretations of the rules that would allow you to recall a spell at its original level don't allow you to recall a spell modified by a metamagic feat.
|
|
similar wording is in place with arcane bonded item. but it explicitly calls out not being able to use metamagic feats known in conjunction with the spell recall.
if pearls , rods, whatevers, referred entirely to the slot used, and less focused on the spell level used, it'd be clearer to some of us. but confusing to newer players at the same time.
|
|
For anyone that's interested, there's a FAQ request from a couple months ago that is still awaiting an answer.
Thank for linking that old thread of mine, Nefreet.
BTW, I did wrote: "- I haven't jet seen someone claiming that a pearl of power will recall a spell based on its original level but I am sure someone will make that argument too."
Now I have seen someone claiming that.
:P
|
...
The best way to rule it would be that a metamagic spell counts as its initial spell level, or its adjusted level, whatever is worse for the caster. So things like saving throws would be based off of the initial level, but things like Pearls of Power, concentration checks, and Metamagic Rods use the adjusted level.
...
|
Owner - D20 Hobbies
|
whatever is worse for the caster
Yea, a similar ruling was present in 3.5 for things like Ring of Spell Storing etc. So it has been a long standing "understanding" that if you try to take advantage of the quirkiness of metamagic you are prevented from doing so if it isn't a disadvantage ;-)