A rod is a use activated item. Use activated items use either a standard action or no action. If you had to use a standard action you could not cast spells, so obviously they take no action to use. That means that there is no action limitation preventing you form using a rod multiple times in a round.
The rules also state that you can only use one metamagic rod on any given spell, but can combine a rod with a feat. This is a little more ambiguous. It could be taken that there is a one to one relationship between a rod and a spell. But it can also be taken that you could have a one to many relationship. This is something you are probably going to ask your GM about.
Metamagic rods are 'use-activated' magic items, so you'll need to review the rules for that.
Use-Activated, Magic Item Rules wrote:
... Unless stated otherwise, activating a use-activated magic item is either a standard action or not an action at all and does not provoke attacks of opportunity, unless the use involves performing an action that provokes an attack of opportunity in itself. If the use of the item takes time before a magical effect occurs, then use activation is a standard action. If the item’s activation is subsumed in its use and takes no extra time use, activation is not an action at all. ...
There does not seem to a limit on how many times you can use a magic item in a round, aside from the time it takes to activate the magic item. Metamagic rods have 'charges' that are consumed when the activation occurs, which is part of casting the spell, so their activation is not an action at all. Or more specifically, they are a 'free action' that occurs during the action the spell is being cast.
Now, the GM is free to limit the number of free actions you are able to make use of in a turn but that falls outside the scope of the RAW.
Activating a metamagic rod falls under "not an action at all" which is not the same as "free action." A free action limit would not apply to the usage of a metamagic rod and if you are casting an immediate action spell outside your turn while holding a metamagic rod, you can still use the metamagic rod with it even though you cannot take free actions at that time.
You can use metamagic rods with spells that are prepared with metamagic feats just fine as well (unless you are attempting to apply the same metamagic feat twice).
And to answer your question, yes, you can activate a metamagic rod twice during the same round, provided that you are applying it to a different spell each time. There is no limitation against doing so. Indeed, if you cast Borrowed Time, you can even spend all 3 uses of your metamagic rod in a single round.
I really thought there was limit on the number of times the rod could be used in a single round besides the daily use charge limit of three times per day.
This makes the rods more powerful than I thought and makes an number of players in my group happy.
I really thought there was limit on the number of times the rod could be used in a single round besides the daily use charge limit of three times per day.
This makes the rods more powerful than I thought and makes an number of players in my group happy.
Something to add real quick, because I have seen this happen in the past. When you get someone asking if they can use two different rods in the same round (even to affect two different spells, not the same spell), be sure to remind them that their spells still have somatic components and unless they have a means to ignore having a hand free, its not going to work so well. Recommend them a Spring Loaded Wrist Sheath if they want to get clever about it.
As others have said, and I am just agreeing with, you can use a metamagic round more than once per round.
If you had a quickened spell, you could use your lesser metamagic rod of intensify to bolster it. Then you could cast a fireball and use your rod to intensify it. Then you could drop the rod as a free action and your ally could pick it up and cast a spell bolstered by the rod (or if you had a move-action left you could pass it to them and they could accept on their turn).
After that, you'd need to check with your GM on how they view 'The wielder can use this three times per day' to see if they believe it applies the rod in total or that every creature in the world can use it three times per day.
Adventure Path Charter Subscriber; Pathfinder Rulebook, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber
Pizza Lord wrote:
If you had a quickened spell, you could use your lesser metamagic rod of intensify to bolster it. Then you could cast a fireball and use your rod to intensify it.
A Quickened spell uses at least a 5th level spell slot (unless Quickening a cantrip/0 level spell, for some reason, using a 4th level spell slot), so you may need to use a (normal) metamagic rod of intensify (affects spells 6th-level or lower) and not a lesser version (3rd level or lower). Definitely so for a prepared Quickened spell.
A Quickened spell uses at least a 5th level spell slot (unless Quickening a cantrip/0 level spell, for some reason, using a 4th level spell slot), so you may need to use a (normal) metamagic rod of intensify (affects spells 6th-level or lower) and not a lesser version (3rd level or lower). Definitely so for a prepared Quickened spell.
A Quickened 1st-level spell would still count as a first level spell (only Heighten Spell actually changes a spell's level). The level increase from meta-magic feats doesn't alter the spell's actual level. It will still have a DC of 10 + 1 (spell level) + casting mod. It will still be stopped by things like lesser globe of invulnerability. Having a quickened, silent, empowered magic missile will still be a 1st-level spell, even if it takes a 7th-level slot to cast it. A lesser rod of intensify would still work on it.
A GM might make it count as higher for concentration checks, but that's a separate issue than what level the spell casts as for almost all purposes. You would need a pearl of power VII to regain the slot, but otherwise, the actual spell would still be considered 1st-level for almost all purposes unless Heightened.
It is getting a bit off the topic, and I am aware of that FAQ, but that FAQ is specifically about spell recall and concentration DCs. Just because they use terms like in general (which doesn't mean 'all the time and for everything', it doesn't apply beyond the scope of what the FAQ is specifically about (pearls of power, magus recall, and concentration DCs).
They make that clear that they don't want slippery slopes or people implying one thing from a FAQ where an answerer is using terms or examples for the specific FAQ to be expanded into possible fringe or unintended areas. That would require another, specific FAQ about metamagic rods (which they might answer similarly or even use that FAQ you mentioned as a persuasive argument), but that's what it would require (for an official answer).
Space saver:
----------------------------------------------
Otherwise you have people that start saying, "Monks unarmed strikes count as magic for bypassing damage reduction, so they must count as magic for bypassing incorporeality." (Which is a completely different thing).
So then someone asks and the devs said, maybe we'll allow it (which they did, even though they admit it actually contradicts the rules, making it actually errata and not FAQ), but when it was brought up, "Well, then if something that isn't magic (unarmed strikes) but they count as magic for bypassing magic DR, and now you say we can bypass incorporeality or other effects regarding magic, do they detect as magic? Now their adamantine strikes count as adamantine for bypassing DR, shouldn't they bypass hardness (a different thing), or now their silver or adamantine strikes mean their unarmed strikes count as being silver or adamantine, which are metals, so now we can cast heat metal on their fists, elbows, knees, and feet, because a monk's unarmed strike counts as manufactured, and now you say they count as the property."
In this case, the spell is still treated as being 1st-level by the rod. The rod is not based on DC, spell recall, or spell slot, only spell level. Only Heighten Spell actually raises spell level. Despite the FAQ claiming raising spell level with Heighten Spell is a benefit, there are also times it isn't good or isn't a benefit, and if it does turn out to be bad (like an effect that triggers when a spell of a certain level is cast). In such a case, you can't point at that FAQ and say it shouldn't trigger or be a detrimental effect because this unrelated FAQ says it should be viewed as beneficial, and counting as being higher level is bad now (like for concentration DCs or spell recall), because that FAQ isn't about Heighten Spell, despite mentioning it in reference to what the FAQ was actually about, metamagic and pearls of power, magus recall, and concentration DCs.
Pizza Lord, I hear you, but I disagree with you and will continue to treat metamagic enhanced spells as the spell level of the slot required to cast them, for how they interact with Metamagic Rods (as one specific example).
In any event, you can certainly use a metamagic rod multiple times in a round. But casting multiple spells in a round is challenging (not impossible but not cheap) and an individual metamagic rod has a limited number of uses per day.
After that, you'd need to check with your GM on how they view 'The wielder can use this three times per day' to see if they believe it applies the rod in total or that every creature in the world can use it three times per day.
Generally, items with limited daily uses apply that limit to all users. I think that the alternate interpretation that the Rod limit is actually "for each user" is a niche interpretation used by very few GMs.
As the CRB description of metamagic rods says "The wielder can cast up to three spells per day that are" that interpretation is valid by RAW, but I think RAI is 3 uses/day.
After that, you'd need to check with your GM on how they view 'The wielder can use this three times per day' to see if they believe it applies the rod in total or that every creature in the world can use it three times per day.
Generally, items with limited daily uses apply that limit to all users. I think that the alternate interpretation that the Rod limit is actually "for each user" is a niche interpretation used by very few GMs.
As the CRB description of metamagic rods says "The wielder can cast up to three spells per day that are" that interpretation is valid by RAW, but I think RAI is 3 uses/day.
That's how I rule it too, but I also acknowledge how someone could read it differently.
It is getting a bit off the topic, and I am aware of that FAQ, but that FAQ is specifically about spell recall and concentration DCs. Just because they use terms like in general (which doesn't mean 'all the time and for everything', it doesn't apply beyond the scope of what the FAQ is specifically about (pearls of power, magus recall, and concentration DCs).
They make that clear that they don't want slippery slopes or people implying one thing from a FAQ where an answerer is using terms or examples for the specific FAQ to be expanded into possible fringe or unintended areas. That would require another, specific FAQ about metamagic rods (which they might answer similarly or even use that FAQ you mentioned as a persuasive argument), but that's what it would require (for an official answer).
** spoiler omitted **...
I think you aren't considering the last rows of the FAQ. That is a general rule about metamagics, not a rule about "pearls of power, magus recall, and concentration DCs".
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.
Heighten Spell is really the only metamagic feat that makes using a higher-level spell slot an advantage instead of a disadvantage.
Your argument is that the disadvantageapplies in full only "pearls of power, magus recall, and concentration DCs". For all other uses it is lessened.
I think you aren't considering the last rows of the FAQ.
I don't know what you mean by 'last rows' do you mean 'sentence'? If you do, then "Heighten Spell is really the only metamagic feat that makes using a higher-level spell slot an advantage instead of a disadvantage,' is terrible.
First off, because you want to read this as now not only applying to concentration DCs and spell recall, not only applying to how metamagic works with those specific sources, or identical ones, (all of which I am fine with, because that's the purpose and scope of this FAQ), but also how Heighten Spell should be judged or ruled based on an arbitrary 'is this good for the caster in all situations all the time' manner (rather than 'in general' which is even what they say).
Viewing it your way, would mean that someone can cite this FAQ, that has nothing to do with Heighten Spell, and claim that anyone who benefits from a different metamagic feat is doing it wrong or that anything Heighten Spell does that wouldn't work, or worked less effectively, or was otherwise a disadvantage, knowingly or not (such as if you Heightened your spell to a specific level that had a bad effect, like triggering an explosion of overloaded arcane power), shouldn't happen, because using it is supposed to be a benefit or advantage at all times 'in general', based on this unrelated FAQ.
FAQ Rulings:
-----------------------------------------
Diego Rossi wrote:
That is a general rule about metamagics, not a rule about "pearls of power, magus recall, and concentration DCs".
Right, it is a general rule or guideline, to be applied to situations specified in the narrow scope of this FAQ. A FAQ is not a place to make general rulings, it is a place to specifically answer questions (and sometimes imply or encourage, or hint that this might make a game run smoother) but not make sweeping, general rules (at least, not when there are actual rules and wording, which in this case, there are for Metamagic Feats).
If you want a specific and actual written rule it would be:
Metamagic Feats >Effects of Metamagic on Spells wrote:
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.
The only way they differ, is the slot they use. They shouldn't require higher concentration checks, they shouldn't require different slots, however, because someone brought up that these specific instances, when taken with the wording of pearls of power or spell recall might be abusable, they made a FAQ call to address those specific instances and things that work like them (meaning, like a pearl of power, or similar like how how vanish and improved invisibility are similar to invisibility. Not similarly like how a force bolt is similar to a magic missile.)
A metamagic rod does not work similarly to a pearl of power (or spell recall or concentration DC). They are two unique, specific, and different items. The only similarity they share is that they check a spell's level (not it's slot) and you could try and draw a comparison, but at that point, you are extrapolating, since there's no other implied connection or similarity between or mentioned in either item. There's no 'This works like a pearl of power when adjudicating spells it can affect.' in metamagic rod's description.
To do so would require a specific FAQ or ruling. No one is stopping you from trying to do that and no one stopped anyone from doing that years ago. The FAQ they asked, involved metamagic applied to spell recall and concentration DCs.
------------------------
Reason:
-----------------------------------------
I can see a reason that they want that. I can see a reason a metamagic spell would require a concentration DC for the spell slot it uses. I can even call out 'general' wording for why I could rule that way.
Metamagic Feats wrote:
Preparing and casting a spell in such a way is harder than normal
And I am fine with that. This is flavor text, but I could still cite it for why someone could rule that way. I even agree with it. I don't agree with extrapolating or expanding the scope of a FAQ or applying it to things beyond its scope and intention.
You might be saying, 'Well then, why does it take a higher slot and higher concentration DC then if it doesn't now count in all ways as a higher spell?!
For one, because this FAQ specifically calls those instances out and is the purpose of the FAQ
And two, because the specific ruling and wording of Metamagic applies in all other cases other than the specifically called out ones. A FAQ does not override an entire chapter, section, or rule unless it specifically says it does, and if the FAQ contradicts the wording, it is an errata and needs to be stated as such.
In this case, the FAQ does not change the Metamagic rule, it focuses on the harder to cast intimation (basically flavor text) that implies the spell is harder, and likely to avoid some corner or fringe cases that could be abuseable, because of a specific item or class ability.
--------------------------------------------
Scope:
-------------------------------------------
Diego Rossi wrote:
Your argument is that the disadvantageapplies in full only "pearls of power, magus recall, and concentration DCs". For all other uses it is lessened.
I have never said that the disadvantage shouldn't be applied in full. Nowhere. If you cast a 1st-level spell Heightened to 9th, it counts as a 9th-level spell. You have concentration DCs like it was 9th-level (and that isn't an advantage or benefit), if there's a magical ward that deals 1d6 damage to casters per spell level, you take 9d6. Nowhere did I say a metamagic spell that requires a 9th level slot be reduced by half or even 1. But it only applies, where it should apply (like a non-Heightened metamagic spell doesn't count as its slot for save DC purposes, because the rules say it doesn't).
When the disadvantage applies, it applies in full. That is not the same as saying you apply a disadvantage to every instance or situation. Just because you can make things harder, doesn't mean you do it because it could be a disadvantage. You apply the disadvantage to what it applies to; higher spell slots to cast (RAW), concentration DCs, and spell recall (because a FAQ says so). Saying you don't apply a Strength penalty to a Dexterity check is not the same as saying not to apply the full Strength penalty to Strength-based skills or checks, it's saying not to apply it to things not stated as being applied to.
Just like I wouldn't let someone force an unrelated benefit to a Heightened spell that wasn't provided by Heighten Spell, especially not based on a FAQ not related to Heighten Spell, just because it was mentioned while answering another question. I am not going to let someone say, "I know I Heightened my spell to 9th, and it should always count that way, because that's what Heighten Spell does specifically, but I shouldn't have to count my 1st-level spell as being 9th-level for the concentration check. That's a disadvantage and this FAQ that isn't about Heighten Spell says that it should always be a benefit and advantage to the caster, unlike every other metamagic feat 'in general'!"
Diego Rossi" wrote:
That seems to go against the logic of the FAQ.
No, I can see how you would view it that way. But that is actually the logic and stated way that FAQs are to be viewed and used. You might think it goes against ONE SPECIFIC FAQ's logic or ruling, but the method of application being used to take the FAQ beyond its scope is what I am referring to.
So no, I don't disagree with a pearl of power or spell recall requiring or using the spell slot the spell used, nor the concentration check DC being related to the difficulty of casting the spell. I do not agree with taking things out of context or scope.
Imagine if a FAQ asked, 'Can magic fang be cast on a monk and apply to all their unarmed strikes or only ones made with feet, knees, fists, or elbows chosen at the time of casting?'
And the answer was, 'Yes, a monk's unarmed strikes count as natural and manufactured weapons and their unarmed strikes are one natural attack despite being able to be performed with any of their feet, knees, fists, or elbows.'
Simple, straight-forward... but then,
Someone says, "I cast magic fang on my wyrwood monk." and the GM says it doesn't work (correct) because a wyrwood is not a living creature (a required target for magic fang). It's a construct (unless they took the Living Machine racial alternative) and the player points out the above FAQ and tries to claim this FAQ says monks are valid targets for magic fang.
Sorry, no. The fact that it was mentioned, even specifically, does not mean you can extrapolate or take beyond its scope that the FAQ now makes magic fang able to target creatures or things it can't.
--------------------------------------
They don't want people doing that thing people do here, where they start a topic and ask an innocuous-seeming, simple question, and then use it to spring on someone replying with the "OH, SO YOU'RE SAYING X! or use that clear example to now claim you've validated something entirely different and they point out some fringe, corner case or unrelated or unique class, feat, monster, or magic item that is different (or designed after) what was being asked. They didn't and don't want that.
Slippery slope:
-------------------------------------------
They didn't want their FAQ repliers (who make mistakes, especially when they go out of scope of what they're answering) to have sweeping scope to change everything when they're replying about something else specifically. Someone could have incredible knowledge of racial templates, HD, or a creature, like half-fiends and so when a FAQ comes up about them, they answer it and in answering the FAQ they use an example of something, like alter self (when they meant something else), and it turns out alter self can't give you templates and they didn't realize it (let's assume it can't). They don't want people to suddenly go "Oh, alter self must allow templates because this FAQ intimates it!"
No, you can blame whoever made or worded the FAQ question for not being specific, and a little on the answerer for making a mistake about something that isn't part of the actual answer.
So, yes, the FAQ is specifically on concentration and spell recall. You can use that answer for things involving concentration DCs or other forms of spell recall that aren't mentioned (pearls of power or magus recall) or extrapolate if you like (in your game) and you might even be 'correct', but you can't take a FAQ out of scope. Trying to claim the FAQ requested just 'forget' to bring up metamagic rods is not a valid argument. Metamagic rods aren't even mentioned nor do they have any relation to recalling spell slots or concentration DCs themselves.
I am not arguing that only the listed options have a disadvantage, I am saying you can't argue from the FAQ that all unlisted option have the disadvantage, because following how FAQs are intended to be used precludes doing that (in an official manner, rather than a 'This FAQ is similar, so I am persuaded to rule it this way' manner.)
Just like that Spell Manifestations FAQ was taken far out of scope. It was in answer to what people were identify with Spellcraft, (to which the answer was 'Something, we don't know and there is nothing, but if it helps, you can say this" and suddenly everyone thought every single spell was a visible lightshow or invisibility made you look like a dotted outline because some random artist somewhere did one illustration of a person using an invisibility power and opted to go with a hazy or outlined form to show the viewer the person watching a scene invisibly.
They also said 'in general', and that means it's not meant to be for everything or all the time. You can rule it how you wish in your game, and you can even be right, but someone can do horrible math or use an improper method and still get a workable or even correct answer. If you ask what 5 + 5 is, and you hear the person start saying, "Okay... so... 5 x 5 is.... 25!... so take the 2... and multiply that by the 5... and.... 10! The answer is 10!" Well, yeah, it is... but that doesn't mean their method was correct.
Just like saying every instance where something is a disadvantage must apply because it's 'in general' from an example given that doesn't reference what's being asked (and isn't even being asked in this topic) isn't correct (isn't the correct way to prove it).
That's a slippery slope, and leads to people requiring specific corner case rulings even more, which are what the FAQ is aimed to mitigate or lessen.
"Oh! This FAQ (about concentration DC and spell recall) that isn't about Heighten Spell mentioned it in passing that it's to be viewed, in general, as being beneficial in all its effect... generally. So you need to retcon or change or otherwise ignore any effects I deem or could mentally gymnastic into view as disadvantageous or detrimental. Like a magical effect that counters my now, specifically, third level Heightened spell, you have to count it as a spell that wasn't Heightened to specifically the spell level I Heightened it to."
If your target is immune to 3rd-level (or higher) spells (or if they even get a bonus or it triggers an effect), a 1st-level magic missile that was Stilled and Silenced (+2) should not count as a 3rd-level spell for hitting that creature, whether because it benefits the target or is detrimental to the caster (it has nothing to do with spell retention, spell slot, or concentration DC).
It's just a 1st-level spell that requires a higher slot to cast. Just like you can prepare a 1st-level magic missile in a 9th-level slot. It's still a 1st-level spell. It is no different other than the slot used. It would still take a pearl of power IX to regain that slot.
I hear you thinking, "Yeah, then why does a metamagic spell have a higher concentration DC when just casting a lower level spell from a higher slot doesn't?
The answer is, because there's a specific FAQ that specifically says that it does. Not a FAQ somewhere else that asked about spontaneous casting and metamagic and casting times used a stilled spell as an example and unnecessarily mentioned a concentration DC that may or may not have been correct.
------------------------------------------
probably the best way not to create a side topic is not to post rather than rail on about it.¯\_(ツ)_/¯
Sometimes you have to read the preface or introduction to get some basics or key details rather than start with a FAQ (which honestly is for clarifications after the fact). This is a perennial issue with web based readers who just read a list of powers (and AoN puts the Intro or Rules on different pages without crosslinks)... it's a complicated game with a lot of rules.
The activation on the metamagic rod is effectively set by the spellcasting of the user rather than its own action. People pretty much agreed that it is 'not an action' by itself.
Magic items have charges and uses per day. Seems pretty clear. Don't obfuscate it to the item's user/activator.
Personally Home GMs could change activation to a Swift Action to constrain the item's use. There will be Action Economy impacts at mid+ levels.
The activation on the metamagic rod is effectively set by the spellcasting of the user rather than its own action. People pretty much agreed that it is 'not an action' by itself.
Magic items have charges and uses per day. Seems pretty clear. Don't obfuscate it to the item's user/activator.
Personally Home GMs could change activation to a Swift Action to constrain the item's use. There will be Action Economy impacts at mid+ levels.
I wouldn't make it a swift action, as the economy impacts hit hard for a magus or anyone who wants to quicken a spell.
But if a GM found it necessary, imposing a limit to using a metamagic rod once per round is not unreasonable.
As it stands you could potentially use a metamagic rod twice in a round on a regular and quickened spell. Although assuming you use the (correct) interpretation that the spell slot drives which kind of rod you need to use you're probably "wasting" the rod's usage on one of two spells because quicken will require the next level of metamgaic if casting the same spell or require casting a significantly lower level spell to take advantage of the same rod.
And then consider that a rod only has 3 charges and that they're not cheap. It just doesn't seem like something people are going to do often.
... Personally Home GMs could change activation to a Swift Action to constrain the item's use. There will be Action Economy impacts at mid+ levels.
I wouldn't make it a swift action, as the economy impacts hit hard for a magus or anyone who wants to quicken a spell.
But if a GM found it necessary, imposing a limit to using a metamagic rod once per round is not unreasonable.
...
{esseitially how to set a usage limit}
for Home GMs setting limitations it is going to be; 1) a use rate limitation on the item (such as 1/r), or 2) making the use a defined action from 'no action'. Each has their utility.
#1 leaves it open to the user's desire thus it is easy to surpass 9th spell level with a quicken(+4) spell being the easy choice for a mm rod bonus to a fast KO. Two rod usage is still possible in a round.
#2 (for swift) prevents combining a rod with quicken or requires the user to use a mm rod of quicken($$$$$) essentially moving the use to high level. It also forces a choice as swift action use has to be managed. Using a free action without a Dex limitation means we are back to spamming rod use. Immd actn is too complex and onerous. A move or std actn is simply impractical. Two rod usage isn't possible without special cases.
For Magus class, Spell Combat(Ex) requires a free off-hand and that is going to make wielded rod use with casting complicated. Arcane Pool(Su) use takes a swift and lasts 10r so that is manageable.
