According to my own interpretation of the rules, yes, it does.
Is this broken or is it permitted even on PFS?
Empower doesn't change the Spell Level, only the slot required to cast such spell, and Metamagic Rods works according to Spell Level and not Spell Slot.
So I could use a 5th Level Slot to cast Empowered Fireball and a Rod of Maximized Lesser to get an Maximize Empowered Fireball
No, FAQ says when determining spell level use either the spells original level or the spell slot level, whichever is worse.
So your empowered fireball would count as a 5th level spell for interactions with rods since that is the worse result for the caster.
Chess Pwn wrote: No, FAQ says when determining spell level use either the spells original level or the spell slot level, whichever is worse.
So your empowered fireball would count as a 5th level spell for interactions with rods since that is the worse result for the caster.
You made a Panda really sad! Shame on you!!!
And thanks.
Working on my Arcanist Blaster
Actually in the description of the metamagic rod we can read two sententeces:
"This does not change the spell slot of the altered spell."
and
"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."
important: "only the feats possessed by the wielder adjust the spell slot of the spell being cast."
https://aonprd.com/MagicRods.aspx?Category=Metamagic
That i think i need to read that FAQ and or an errata from Paizo about this.
FAQ
Metamagic: wrote: 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.
it's a no two ways; metamagic basics and the FAQ.
Fireball:K3 +Empower(+2) = 5th, so you'd need a 'Normal' metamagic Rod.
adding Maximize(+3) = 8th
Metamagic feat 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.
The CRB text about "whichever is more of a disadvantage for the caster" isn't on AoN. It's a bit clumsy but clear.
The FAQ is addressed in above posts.
But is there a work-around?
Staff of the Master allows it? How much more expensive is that staff vs a staff with only the spells?
The traits that reduce metamagic cost?
Traits: The old CRB text covers the two metamagic cost lowering traits, so they don't help until the end. The 8th would then take a 7th SplLvl slot in my example above.
[3.5] Staff ot Master [wpn] $15200 same text as the rod so looks like a normal metamagic rod might be cheaper depending on the metamagic involved and what feats the caster knows. Old CRB text still applies.
This also happened with a ring of spell storing that applied a metamagic in OrgPlay. Paizo came out to clarify the spell level cap of the ring still applied, so a 2nd going in became a 3rd Spell level slot... no free lunch and expected grumbling.
Putting in a 2@6 DC 17 and getting out a 2@3 DC 13 is bad enough to make me pass on the item anyway.
Azothath wrote: Traits: The old CRB text covers the two metamagic cost lowering traits, so they don't help until the end. The 8th would then take a 7th SplLvl slot in my example above. I’m not saying at the end of the day that can’t be the case, but this argument doesn’t convince me further about the traits than expect table variation. Too much conflict with FAQ for me.
IDK why the old CRB text is not on AoN, the online PRD. It is concerning.
COMMENTARY
There will be table variation (not a bad thing) as it is a Game and the authors are not technical writers (they tried and it is okay, uniform contiguous consistency and clarity is rather difficult). If you want RAW to define everything clearly, then you are in for a >library< of disappointment.
Recent threads in Rules Questions
|
