Post/Author/DateTime	Post
Azzedar 06-03-05, 10:45 PM	I am very pleased with the addition of the metamagic rods in the DMG 3.5, they give spellcasters an opportunity to delve into a whole new FIELD of magical (and somewhat expensive) equipment that fills the somewhat empty gap of equipment that they have. However, they almost seem too good to be true. Surely no spellcaster worth his salt would want to go anywhere without a healthy stash of these rods to aid his spellcasting? A simple 14,000gp lesser maximization rod lets a wizard maximize up to a 3rd level spell three times per day. That's roughly the equivalent of being able to CAST an extra three 3rd level spells per day. The price of these rods is respectable for any mid-level or higher spellcaster, and their benefits are very healthy. Is there any errata on these rods? Or does anyone think that I'm blowing their power way out of proportion?
Elgonn 06-03-05, 11:23 PM	1. Only the low level ones are usually efficient (exception Greater Quicken). 2. Can be very expensive. 3. They ONLY work in hand. You have to get them out of bags and equip them just like using a dagger or anything else. If you have a bunch of them you aren't going to have access to them all. Even retreival from a Heward's Handy Haversack is a move action.
Jaid 06-04-05, 12:22 AM	quiver of ehlonna has a space for objects of about rod size as i recall ;) and, technically, they were added in 3.0, they were in Tome and Blood. and yes, they are pretty powerful. unfortunately, sorcerors still get screwed with these (as with most metamagic options, it seems, other than the basic ones), and still have to use a full round action. never did get why they have no problem giving wizards metamagic feats that have no drawbacks, but sorcerors (who frankly are supposed to be the masters of metamagic) always have to pay for it, no matter what.
Bloodtide_the_Red 06-04-05, 01:43 AM	I don't see the metamagic rods as over powered at all. Unless, like any magic item realy, you let it get out of control. Just because a character is high level, does not say he can walk into Magic-Mart and buy 25 metamagic rods. In all metamagic does not realy give that much of a power up. It gives a nice one, true, but not that much. BT
smrtgmp 06-04-05, 01:58 AM	I use them in my games and have had no problems as of yet.
solbergb 06-04-05, 02:07 AM	They're a kind of expensive way to duplicate the sorcerer metamagic flexibliity. The "cost" is even kind of similar in actions...move action to draw it etc. They are hideously useful, enough so that if they are freely available for the gold, many casters in the 13+ level range will have more of the damn things than a master thrower has daggers. But they have their limitations. Can't mix the metamagic (one rod at a time), can't mix with spontaneous metamagic, and swapping between them means dropping those expensive rods most of the time. Plus they'll suck out a significant portion of your cash, even if you take craft rods and use the dmg eratta that lowered the minimum caster level to craft the things from 17 to whatever craft rods minimum is. In the lower levels...they're not overpowered because they represent a significant portion of total character cash. In the upper levels the quicken rods might possibly be overpowered but again, especially if you don't craft them, they ain't cheap and they probably don't grow on trees either. If you worry about them, the easiest fix is to enforce caster level 17 to craft them. By the time you can do it and then make a slew of cheap rods, you are approaching epic levels anyway when such things don't seem especially out of line. That and don't let players purchase as many as they want just for having the cash. Ye Olde Rodde Shoppe probably doesn't exist, and one would assume 17th level rod crafters have better things to do with their time than mass produce the things for lowbies. It is of course sensible for some to be found as loot on enemy casters, after it's been used on the party.
DungeonMaster 06-04-05, 03:14 AM	Yes, yes they are too powerful. They were almost balanced in tome and blood where they literally cost 10 times the price they do in the 3.5 DMG. However in light or recent 3.5 metamagic cap breaking abilities they are tame. Sudden metamagic and divine metamagic are even more ludicrous than the rods. Take a 5th level human evoker mage, with sudden quicken and sudden maximize and hit your 5th level party with a maximized fireball followed by a quickened fireball. Do the same next round. Apparently that's a CR 5 encounter.
DungeonMaster 06-04-05, 03:16 AM	Can't mix the metamagic (one rod at a time), can't mix with spontaneous metamagic, and swapping between them means dropping those expensive rods most of the time. You can mix for instance the maximize rod with spontaneous metamagic, only the quicken rod is useless (go sorceror yay). You can also mix normal metamagic with them. An empowered fireball is still a 5th level spell and so you can use a lesser metamagic rod of maximize on it.
Elgonn 06-04-05, 03:22 AM	Take a 5th level human evoker mage, with sudden quicken and sudden maximize and hit your 5th level party with a maximized fireball followed by a quickened fireball. Do the same next round. Apparently that's a CR 5 encounter. In all fairness you aren't getting Sudden Quicken at 5th. I do completely understand your concerns though about breaching the metacap.
Marshall 06-04-05, 03:59 AM	In all fairness you aren't getting Sudden Quicken at 5th. I do completely understand your concerns though about breaching the metacap. In all fairness, none of what DM just ranted about is actually possible. There is no, and never has been a "meta-cap" so 'breaking' it is no big deal. Even a maximized spell of the highest level you can cast is going to be a small percentage of what the FTR types are dishing out on a crit.
Elgonn 06-04-05, 04:05 AM	There is no, and never has been a "meta-cap" so 'breaking' it is no big deal. What like an actual defined meta-cap rule? God no. But there is precedent. Like the twice errataed Incantatrix's Instant Metamagic and many other examples. Wanting metamagic effects to operate within the bounds of the basic and original metamagic feats isn't blasphemy. Lighten up.
Scifione 06-04-05, 04:41 AM	and yes, they are pretty powerful. unfortunately, sorcerors still get screwed with these (as with most metamagic options, it seems, other than the basic ones), and still have to use a full round action. That is kinda unfare. They should have some exception for spells memorized useing arcane preparation. That would be par with a wizard using a rod. I have used some of the rods in game. They are not all that bad. For the price they are good. Take a 5th level human evoker mage, with sudden quicken and sudden maximize and hit your 5th level party with a maximized fireball followed by a quickened fireball. Do the same next round. Apparently that's a CR 5 encounter. That is not a CR5. A 5th level NPC would not have one of these rods. He would not have the gold. An NPC should not have any item worth more than half his starting gold, so the earlies you should see the cheepest rods (3,000GP) would be 7th level. I don't have my book out right now, but I don't think a human wizard could get sudden quicken by 5th level. This are the things you over looked when discussing your CR5 encounter. ;)
Elandar 06-04-05, 05:25 AM	Yes, yes they are too powerful. They were almost balanced in tome and blood where they literally cost 10 times the price they do in the 3.5 DMG. Uhm. No. The rods of tome and blood cost 2 times the price they do in the 3.5 DMG. (Or are you using binary notation?)
wonderland666 06-04-05, 07:50 AM	hey come on! The metemagic rods (from DMG), the only one that you can normaly pay are the lesser ones . and the normal Extension rod. The prices are too high to have plenty of high level rods. The Extension rod is very powerfull but only the duration is doubled. So it's a very good option for players but for a Dungeon master the power of the spells hasn't really changed.
Marshall 06-04-05, 01:38 PM	What like an actual defined meta-cap rule? God no. But there is precedent. Like the twice errataed Incantatrix's Instant Metamagic and many other examples. Wanting metamagic effects to operate within the bounds of the basic and original metamagic feats isn't blasphemy. Lighten up. Precedent? Yes. If you take the terrible errata for a class ability that had to be fixed a second time and then dropped alltogether to be a precedent. Breaking the so-called "meta-cap" doesnt produce overpowered effects, especially once you consider the costs involved, unless the meta-feat is overpowered to start with(Persistant), so why make up a new rule to cover a non-problem? The only problem you might run into is stacking of meta effects. The above fifth level mage using a Sudden Max and a Lesser Rod of Empower on a Fireball needs to be looked at. But only because you are using a 3rd level rod on a 6th level spell effect.
Zitchas 06-04-05, 02:18 PM	From my limited experience with them, they're pretty good. The normal and greater versions thereof are rather expensive, which I'm not fond of, but not insanely so, reasonable. Of course, I've always been of the opinion that ALL spellcasters should have access to more of the metamagics. Something along the lines of giving spontaneous casters the equivalent of the wizard's every 5 levels get a metamagic, and boost the wizard's bonus feat up to one every 3 levels. Of course, in a monty haul style campaign in which your casters end up with enough gold to by rods (or enough rods as loot) that nearly every spell they cast has a rod of some type applied to it, then yes, they are overpowered. But so long as one's PCs are kept to something vaguely resembling the recommended wealth per level, they are perefctly reasonable. Taking a look at that Sudden Quicken feat, I'm having trouble reading it in the CA. From the way I look at it, it requires you to have the Quicken metamagic, along with five other sudden metamagics (listed). But that's a question for another thread. Although it could be just requireing any one of those. If it's just requiring any one of those, then yes, said 5th level evoker could have it. If it takes the whole list, then I'd be suprised if it EVER turns up (aside from warmages). Anyway, as has been said, a 5th level evoker is not going to have access to that sort of gear, unless it's been provided by a superior (cohort, hireling type deal) And in which case, it's going to be a rather hard fight for said party. Although the DM may be fair and bump it up a notch to acount for the difficulty.
DungeonMaster 06-04-05, 02:42 PM	In all fairness you aren't getting Sudden Quicken at 5th. How not? Maximize + quicken spell at 1st. Sudden maximize at 3rd. Sudden quicken at 5th (bonus feat). I don't remember reading any pre-requisites beyond the metamagic feats but I don't actually own the books.
DungeonMaster 06-04-05, 02:55 PM	. Breaking the so-called "meta-cap" doesnt produce overpowered effects, especially once you consider the costs involved, unless the meta-feat is overpowered to start with(Persistant), so why make up a new rule to cover a non-problem? I disagree. The fact that there is no metamagic cap causes no end of problems. If you actually beleive that the metamagic enhanced slot is worth a spell of that level then you are getting higher level magic then what you should have access to. In a plain game the wizard of 5th level should hit you with 5d6 damage or 17.5 average with save for half. Your 5th level wizard, if he fails his save, is alive. With no meta cap you get hit with 30 flat damage save for 15 from just a maximize effect, your 5th level wizard if he fails his save is dead. And you have to account for the possibility of a surprise round. Surprise round, wins initiative 60 flat damage save for half 30 most likely will do 45 damage with one save and one failure. TPK. Just with sudden maximize.
wonlee76 06-04-05, 02:57 PM	Metamagic rods aren't so bad once you look at the pre-reqs needed to make one. Just looking at the pre-reqs kind of limits the # of them around even in a high magic campaign. #1: Item Creation Rod feat. I use my PCs as a litmus test on how often an NPC would actually have a feat like this. Lets just say PCs don't tend to take this item creation feat as they rather take Wondrous Item or Scribe Scrolls (for clerics/druids). #2: Caster Level 17 and the creator has to have the metamagic feat in question. The 2nd part is relatively easy to deal with but how many level 17+ wizards/sorcerors are there with Craft Rod as one of their feats? And if you can find someone with a caster level of 17 with the craft rod feat, how many of these things would he churn out in a given year for sale? Between these two restrictions, I do allow metamagic rods in my game but they don't pop up very often. If a PC wanted to create it on his own, I let the PC do so since he invested the feat and levels and xp to get to the point where he can make his own metamagic rods. But finding them ina random dungeon crawl or a magic shop will be nearly impossible.
Drachasor 06-04-05, 03:00 PM	Taking a look at that Sudden Quicken feat, I'm having trouble reading it in the CA. From the way I look at it, it requires you to have the Quicken metamagic, along with five other sudden metamagics (listed). But that's a question for another thread. Although it could be just requireing any one of those. If it's just requiring any one of those, then yes, said 5th level evoker could have it. If it takes the whole list, then I'd be suprised if it EVER turns up (aside from warmages). It clearly requires 6 feats (all the other suddens, and quicken spell) before you can take it. Earliest a Wizard can nab it is 10th level, if he spends every one of his feats on getting it and is human (2 metamagics at 1st, another at 3rd, the fourth at 5th, the fifth at 6th, the sixth at 9th, and Sudden Quicken at 10). At that level it doesn't look nearly as bad (even with the sudden empower added in). -Drachasor
Zitchas 06-04-05, 03:49 PM	I've got a thread on this specific issue over in the skills and feats forum. To put it shortly, though, I think that kind of prereqs is rediculous. I can see needing Quicken spell and any other sudden feat, that's reasonable for prereqs. But needing all of them? that's a bit much. Especially when you can wait another ten levels (or less using less optimized builds for comparison) and get one or more automatic quickens once you reach epic. By level 30 you should be able to have ALL eligible spells being cast as quicken, without the level bump. But using the harshest interpretation of the CA, Sudden Quicken needs all those feats as prereqs, not any one of them. So that's a metamagic and five sudden feats you need to pick up before getting Sudden quicken. Not going to happen by level five unless said NPC a) has access to a lot of wish spells, and b) said DM allows wishs to grant feats, or c) some other fairly unreasonable combination thereof. As to the crafting of rods, PCs tend to be power gamers of some strip or another. Average NPCs tend NOT to be. Craftsmen, experts, adepts, etc. While a PC might not burn the feat to make rods, your average adept of that level might very well want to. Basing the commonness of feats in the general populace based on what your PCs take is a bad assumption. Firstly, your PCs are adventurers, not regular old townfolk. Secondly, your players chose what they want their PCs to be, often planning for a dozen levels down the road. average people don't. In most cases, they plan on what their career is going to be a couple years, maybe even for the rest of their lives, down the road. Most of us don't sit here and plot out exactly how a year from now we'll have this skill and that uniqueish ability, two years from now I'll be rich and thus have this item and buy that... But even assuming that they can, maybe some adept decided that "Hey, rods are rare, rods are powerfull. I can make lots of them and get rich selling them to all those adventurers who have too much gold" Sounds like a good busness proposition to me. Especially if they can count on there being a lot of adventurers around. (Hey, if the PCs can plan on there being enough monsters to get them to level XX in their future, NPCs can count on there being enough adventurers to keep them in busness) Likewise, classes such as the Artificer are flat out granted all the item creation feats at the level they are available on. If you have any Artificer's around, especially one of 17th or higher level, then they have access to it and can do it without spending any feats on it.
wonlee76 06-04-05, 04:19 PM	As to the crafting of rods, PCs tend to be power gamers of some strip or another. Average NPCs tend NOT to be. Craftsmen, experts, adepts, etc. While a PC might not burn the feat to make rods, your average adept of that level might very well want to. Basing the commonness of feats in the general populace based on what your PCs take is a bad assumption. Firstly, your PCs are adventurers, not regular old townfolk. Secondly, your players chose what they want their PCs to be, often planning for a dozen levels down the road. average people don't. In most cases, they plan on what their career is going to be a couple years, maybe even for the rest of their lives, down the road. Most of us don't sit here and plot out exactly how a year from now we'll have this skill and that uniqueish ability, two years from now I'll be rich and thus have this item and buy that... But even assuming that they can, maybe some adept decided that "Hey, rods are rare, rods are powerfull. I can make lots of them and get rich selling them to all those adventurers who have too much gold" Sounds like a good busness proposition to me. Especially if they can count on there being a lot of adventurers around. (Hey, if the PCs can plan on there being enough monsters to get them to level XX in their future, NPCs can count on there being enough adventurers to keep them in busness) Likewise, classes such as the Artificer are flat out granted all the item creation feats at the level they are available on. If you have any Artificer's around, especially one of 17th or higher level, then they have access to it and can do it without spending any feats on it. 1st, how many level 17 adepts are there? If you have a lot, how did these adepts get to 17th level? (presuming adepts get a 1 for 1 level to caster level ratio going). They didn't get it by making money through selling metamagic rods. Sure, there will be NPCs who have the necessary feats to make the item. I would argue that your average level 17 spellcaster was a former adventurer and would have feats that would be appropriate for them to survive and reach level 17. Two, how much xp do these NPCs have to burn in making magical items. There will come a point where they would need to do something in order to gain xp to offset the lost of xp from item creation. I'm just saying they will be rare and far between because of the CL requirement. Three, the artificer is a campaign specific class in a campaign with high magic. Plus can Artificers take metamagic feats? They may know how to craft a rod as a class ability but if they can't take metamagic feats how the hell do they make rods? Will there be more metamagic rods in a campaign with Artificers compared to a campaign without artificers? (presuming artificers can take metamagic feats. I'm unfamiliar with Eberron so I'm not sure). Yes. But in a campaign world without artificers, who else can make metamagic rods? Those NPCs who choose to take the appropriate item creation feats. There will be some with craft rod but then you need to figure out how many of those NPCs are CL 17. And of those with Craft Rod and a CL 17, how many types of metamagic rods can they create since they need to know the metamagic feat in question in order to craft the correpsonding rod.
DungeonMaster 06-04-05, 04:22 PM	It clearly requires 6 feats (all the other suddens, and quicken spell) before you can take it. I don't remember the specific wording but that is not at all the prerequisites I remember. Can someone post the specific wording?
smrtgmp 06-04-05, 04:29 PM	The requirements are as follows: Quicken Spell, Sudden Empower, Sudden Extend, Sudden Maximize, Sudden Silent, Sudden Still. So, once again, in your never ending quest to bash 3.5, you have proven that you know very little about the edition that you continue to vilify. Why dont you do us all a favor and read the damn books before you start talking ****.
SigilSigul 06-04-05, 04:52 PM	Read the errata posted on the WotC site. The 'CL5' or 'CL17' listed on the item isn't an actual pre-requisite. It's in black and white in the errata. Of course, in order to take Craft Rod, you still need to be caster level 9th, as that -is- a pre-requisite for the feat.
wonlee76 06-04-05, 05:04 PM	Umm, I'm looking at the Errata right now and don't see anything about metamagic rods and the change in the CL requirement in making those items. Unless you're talking about the page 215 revision which still doesn't change the caster level requirement of creating a metamagic rod. SRD: CREATING RODS To create a magic rod, a character needs a supply of materials, the most obvious being a rod or the pieces of the rod to be assembled. The cost for the materials is subsumed in the cost for creating the rod. Rod costs are difficult to formularize. Refer to Table: Estimating Magic Item Gold Piece Values and use the rod prices in the rod descriptions as a guideline. Creating a rod costs half the market value listed. If spells are involved in the prerequisites for making the rod, the creator must have prepared the spells to be cast (or must know the spells, in the case of a sorcerer or bard) but need not provide any material components or focuses the spells require, nor are any XP costs inherent in a prerequisite spell incurred in the creation of the item. The act of working on the rod triggers the prepared spells, making them unavailable for casting during each day of the rod’s creation. (That is, those spell slots are expended from his currently prepared spells, just as if they had been cast.) Creating some rods may entail other prerequisites beyond or other than spellcasting. See the individual descriptions for details. Crafting a rod requires one day for each 1,000 gp of the base price. Item Creation Feat Required: Craft Rod. Caster Level description with the errata'd text to it: • Caster Level: The next item in a notational entry gives the caster level of the item, indicating its relative power. The caster level determines the item’s saving throw bonus, as well as range or other level-dependent aspects of the powers of the item (if variable). It also determines the level that must be contended with should the item come under the effect of a dispel magic spell or similar situation. This information is given in the form “CL x,” where “CL” is an abbreviation for caster level and “x” is an ordinal number representing the caster level itself. For potions, scrolls, and wands, the creator can set the caster level of an item at any number high enough to cast the stored spell and not higher than her own caster level. For other magic items, the caster level is determined by the creator. The minimum caster level is that which is needed to meet the prerequisites given. Metamagic Rods: Metamagic, Empower: The wielder can cast up to three spells per day that are empowered as though using the Empower Spell feat. Strong (no school); CL 17th; Craft Rod, Empower Spell; Price 9,000 gp (lesser), 32,500 gp (normal), 73,000 gp (greater). Metamagic, Enlarge: The wielder can cast up to three spells per day that are enlarged as though using the Enlarge Spell feat. Strong (no school); CL 17th; Craft Rod, Enlarge Spell; Price 3,000 gp (lesser), 11,000 gp (normal), 24,500 gp (greater). Metamagic, Extend: The wielder can cast up to three spells per day that are extended as though using the Extend Spell feat. Strong (no school); CL 17th; Craft Rod, Extend Spell; Price 3,000 gp (lesser), 11,000 gp (normal), 24,500 gp (greater). Metamagic, Maximize: The wielder can cast up to three spells per day that are maximized as though using the Maximize Spell feat. Strong (no school); CL 17th; Craft Rod, Maximize Spell feat; Price 14,000 gp (lesser), 54,000 gp (normal), 121,500 gp (greater). Metamagic, Quicken: The wielder can cast up to three spells per day that are quickened as though using the Quicken Spell feat. Strong (no school); CL 17th; Craft Rod, Quicken Spell; Price 35,000 gp (lesser), 75,500 gp (normal), 170,000 gp (greater). Metamagic, Silent: The wielder can cast up to three spells per day without verbal components as though using the Silent Spell feat. Strong (no school); CL 17th; Craft Rod, Silent Spell; Price 3,000 gp (lesser), 11,000 gp (normal), 24,500 gp (greater).
Drachasor 06-04-05, 05:05 PM	The requirements are as follows: Quicken Spell, Sudden Empower, Sudden Extend, Sudden Maximize, Sudden Silent, Sudden Still. So, once again, in your never ending quest to bash 3.5, you have proven that you know very little about the edition that you continue to vilify. Why dont you do us all a favor and read the damn books before you start talking ****. To his credit, Sudden Maximize is still extraordinarily nasty at level 5. It's only requirement is any other metamagic feat, which is easy to get...heck, a human wizard could have it at first level (though I don't think it would help much then). Anyhow, 30 damage to most characters at level 5 from one spell is a bit much. It is fair to consider it to be this much damage to most characters because a save DC of 16 should be very easy to get (the NPC wizard should have at least a 16 int), and 17 or more isn't out of the realm of possibility (school specialization, higher int). Even with that 16 int and no DC boosting feats, the save DC could be boosted to 18 by casting Fox's Cunning. Average PC has a base reflex save of +1, even with an 18 dex that's only a +5 bonus. Most guys are going to have a 12-16 dex. Anyhow, let's assume a reflex save of +5 and no Fox's cunning. Half the party will fail the save of DC 16. A Wizard will have 25 HP with a con 14 if he's ahead of the curve (averaging 3 hp per level). So he's probably down. A Cleric or Druid will be a decent amount tougher (about 36 hp with 14 con), but they'll still be almost dead. A Fighter would have, on average, 47 hitpoints with a con of 16. A rogue might survive, they have a decent change of making their save, but if they fail then they're probably unconcious. If the evil wizard has a surprise round, then the party will be dead, since he follows that up with another fireball (avg. 15 damage, enough to drop the Cleric and likely the Rogue). The Fighter is left, but he's almost dead. He'll get one attack then be killed with a magic missile. It's a bit much, and sudden maximize should probably have more prerequisites as such. If you had to wait until 10th level or so to get it, then it would be much more tame. -Drachasor
Drachasor 06-04-05, 05:09 PM	Umm, I'm looking at the Errata right now and don't see anything about metamagic rods and the change in the CL requirement in making those items. Unless you're talking about the page 215 revision which still doesn't change the caster level requirement of creating a metamagic rod. It's this part: Caster Level Problem: The last two sentences in the section on caster level are ambiguous and potentially misleading. Solution: Replace with this text: For other magical items, the caster level is determined by the creator. The minimum caster level is that required to meet the prerequisites. In other words, the CL on items is the typical CL of items you find. You can make such an item before you get to that CL, if you can meet the prerequisites, and if you make it later, then it has a higher CL. -Drachasor
wonlee76 06-04-05, 05:15 PM	I edited my post to include the SRD and it clearly states that even with the errata revision, you need the minimum caster level for the item in question, in this case CL 17 for metamagic rods. I think the revision was intended for magical items that emulates or can cast spells. In black and white that means you still need a CL 17 to make a metamagic rod since you still need to meet the pre-req to make the item.
Drachasor 06-04-05, 05:24 PM	I edited my post to include the SRD and it clearly states that even with the errata revision, you need the minimum caster level for the item in question, in this case CL 17 for metamagic rods. I think the revision was intended for magical items that emulates or can cast spells. In black and white that means you still need a CL 17 to make a metamagic rod since you still need to meet the pre-req to make the item. I think you missed the point of the text. The "caster level" given for an item is in no way a prerequisite. No where does it say they are prerequisites. Caster Level prerequisites are: For potions, scrolls, and wands: The minimum level needed to cast the spell, or the level at which you want the spell effect to be cast at (if higher than the minimum). For other magical items: The minimum CL needed to make the item is the minimum CL you meet the prerequisites at. If you meet them at a lower level an the CL of the item entry in the DMG, you make make it before you hit that CL, because that CL is NOT a prerequisite, and no where does it indicate that it is. In fact, look in the DMG under "prerequisites", page 216. It says prerequisites are listed AFTER the Caster Level. Hence they don't include the caster level. -Drachasor
DungeonMaster 06-04-05, 05:46 PM	Quicken Spell, Sudden Empower, Sudden Extend, Sudden Maximize, Sudden Silent, Sudden Still. From the Complete Arcane? or from the mini-handbook? So, once again, in your never ending quest to bash 3.5, you have proven that you know very little about the edition that you continue to vilify. Why don't you wake up and smell the coffee bud. I don't frigging buy them? I peruse them - that's all. It doesn't take a lengthy perusal to realise the sudden feats are completely over the top even if - for whatever reason - sudden quicken is way more expensive that sudden maximize then what I remember it to be. It doesn't matter if it takes you till level 10 or 12 to get all the "sudden" feats, you can still toss a sudden maximized empowered fireball + a quickened empowered maximized through rod fireball with a plain level 10 NPC. And you can do that again on round 2. That's ~155 damage save for half twice. Not fun. It doesn't matter what level you pick they're going to be overpowered/broken because they add yet another layer to a mechanic that is proven broken, no metacap. Now do everyone a favor and go figure this simple reality out rather than female dog at me or provide a credible counter-argument that no metacap with these rules is "balanced". Because it isn't.
Marshall 06-04-05, 06:30 PM	I disagree. The fact that there is no metamagic cap causes no end of problems. If you actually beleive that the metamagic enhanced slot is worth a spell of that level then you are getting higher level magic then what you should have access to. In general, they are not worth the higher level slot. They are NEVER worth the higher level slot + the feat it takes to get them. If they were MM would be the center of every spellcaster build out there. Hence we get back to the reasoning behind Sudden MM and Divine MM and MM rods. The feats arent worth it for the cost, so reduce the cost. In a plain game the wizard of 5th level should hit you with 5d6 damage or 17.5 average with save for half. Your 5th level wizard, if he fails his save, is alive. With no meta cap you get hit with 30 flat damage save for 15 from just a maximize effect, your 5th level wizard if he fails his save is dead. Entirely possible without ANY metamagic. You havent actually increased the power of the spell at all, just the reliability. And you have to account for the possibility of a surprise round. Surprise round, wins initiative 60 flat damage save for half 30 most likely will do 45 damage with one save and one failure. TPK. Just with sudden maximize. Uhh, Sudden Max works ONCE a day. Before you begin a rant about something, read the rules first.
Merestil Haye 06-04-05, 07:07 PM	From the Complete Arcane? or from the mini-handbook? Both. The prereqs listed in the Miniatures Handbook are the same as in C Arc. I checked my copy.Why don't you wake up and smell the coffee bud. I don't frigging buy them? I peruse them - that's all. It doesn't take a lengthy perusal to realise the sudden feats are completely over the top even if - for whatever reason - sudden quicken is way more expensive that sudden maximize then what I remember it to be. It doesn't matter if it takes you till level 10 or 12 to get all the "sudden" feats, you can still toss a sudden maximized empowered fireball + a quickened empowered maximized through rod fireball with a plain level 10 NPC. And you can do that again on round 2. That's ~155 damage save for half twice. Not fun.No you cant. The Sudden feats are usable once per day; and you cannot take the feats multiple times to get multiple uses.
Meta_FR_DM 06-04-05, 07:11 PM	I don't think metamagic rods are too powerful. Practical limits on usage like number of times per day and needing to have them in-hand, as well as pricing, keep them from being too powerful. Characters may --if their DM approves-- use material from other sourcebooks in combination with Meta Rods, just like they can any other DMG magic item. In my experience this produces at worst one-hit wonder characters, and not overpowered characters that are a problem every single encounter. On the side topic: I edited my post to include the SRD and it clearly states that even with the errata revision, you need the minimum caster level for the item in question, in this case CL 17 for metamagic rods. I believe this is incorrect. When the 3.0 Dungeon Master's Guide was printed, Wizards of the Coast made the mistake of including text that erroneously lead readers to believe the listed average Caster Level for an item (that is, the typical caster level set by the item's creator) was always the minimum caster level a character had to be to make a given item. The author of the 3.0 Dungeon Master's Guide (Monte Cook) pointed out as much on his website several years ago. Unfortunately this error did not make it onto the list of things to fix for 3.5, which is why we are graced with it in our 3.5 DMG's now. ...In black and white that means you still need a CL 17 to make a metamagic rod since you still need to meet the pre-req to make the item. On the contrary, a caster need only be of sufficient level to acquire the requisite feets. In closing I would like to say that the whole mess of rules on Caster Level is still very confusing, because it's not always clear when the DMG is presenting us with 'more requirements' for creating a given item. Dave -I'm still not a grognard, yet- M.
wonlee76 06-04-05, 08:38 PM	This whole time I thought that CL entry was a minimum needed to make the item and I admit I am wrong after re-reading things. I guess the minimum CL for a metamagic rod is level 9 (with variety of metamagic rods being limited to the feats known by the creator or some helper since the rules permit assistants to help out with pre-reqs). I concede my mistake in mis-reading things. Though I still contend the fact that certain feats are required and the # of NPCs in the world does limit the # of metamagic rods in the world. But since I guess you could do it as early as level 9, there are a lot more of them then I thought there would be.
DungeonMaster 06-04-05, 09:39 PM	In general, they are not worth the higher level slot. They are NEVER worth the higher level slot + the feat it takes to get them. If they were MM would be the center of every spellcaster build out there. Hence we get back to the reasoning behind Sudden MM and Divine MM and MM rods. The feats arent worth it for the cost, so reduce the cost. That impression comes from a missunderstanding of the spell system. A fireball does 10d6 damage at 10th level using a 3rd level slot. A cone of cold for a 5th level slot does 10d6 but can go up to 15d6 for a 15th level caster. An empowered fireball does 15d6 for a 10th level caster for the same slot as the cone of cold. They can definitely be worth the spell slot increase. Entirely possible without ANY metamagic. You havent actually increased the power of the spell at all, just the reliability. You do realise that rolling all 6s on 5d6 is a 1 in 7776 chance? You would have to sit down and throw 7776 fireballs on average to see one completely maximized one? That doing it on 10d6 is a 1 in 60 million chance? It is increasing the power of the spell. Uhh, Sudden Max works ONCE a day. Before you begin a rant about something, read the rules first. Sure, whatever. "You'll only be dead in the first round, it's only 155 damage" isn't much of a balancing factor but hey, to each his own. Use divine metamagic then if you truly crave multiple maximized poison spells.
Greowhiste 06-04-05, 10:10 PM	The thing i would like to add to the conversation on whether they are overpowered is that, in our game, preparation is very strict for a wizard. I play a wizard and found a lesser rod of silent spell. I am required to use the rod upon memorizing my spells. This changes my entire outlook on how they were supposed to be used, but in a thread i started many weeks ago, several people, after re-reading the actual description of metamagic rods, concurred this is the proper way for wizards to utilize these items. I have to say that the rod is very nice and i enjoy the comfort of its abilities, but preparing the spells (albeit they are not in the one-slot-higher prereq) in metamagic form constrains their applicability somewhat. For a sorcerer, the right rod with the right set of spells could be quite deadly, and a full-round action is a small price to pay for the benefit. Try to think outside the bounds of damage and more in the ways that extend and silent and enlarge (and widen, which ironically is not included in the set of rods available in the DMG) could be. Particularly for illusionists and enchanters, manipulators overall. Some of these thoughts have already been pointed out, i'm just saying that their value can be measured in more than money and how many d6's they can deal.
Marshall 06-05-05, 12:58 AM	That impression comes from a missunderstanding of the spell system. A fireball does 10d6 damage at 5th level using a 3rd level slot. Not possible without using Sudden/Divine MM. A 5th level Fireball is 5d6. A cone of cold for a 5th level slot does 10d6 but can go up to 15d6 for a 15th level caster. An empowered fireball does 15d6 for a 10th level caster for the same slot as the cone of cold. You have just demonstrated that CoC is a crappy spell. You have NOT demonstrated that the ability to cast a 15d6 energy burst at 10th level using a 5th level slot is worth a feat slot. They can definitely be worth the spell slot increase. But they are NEVER worth the slot increase AND a feat cost. Which was the point. You do realise that rolling all 6s on 5d6 is a 1 in 7776 chance? You would have to sit down and throw 7776 fireballs on average to see one completely maximized one? That doing it on 10d6 is a 1 in 60 million chance? It is increasing the power of the spell. No, the spell is still within its defined parameters. Since all of your arguments still apply even if it only does a much more common 20-25 damage the addition of the maximize at the cost of a feat is entirely reasonable. Sure, whatever. "You'll only be dead in the first round, it's only 155 damage" isn't much of a balancing factor but hey, to each his own. Use divine metamagic then if you truly crave multiple maximized poison spells. Which is true nearly anytime you get ambushed by a reasonable challenge encounter. IIRC, getting ambushed is worth a +2 to ECL.
DungeonMaster 06-05-05, 01:59 AM	Not possible without using Sudden/Divine MM. A 5th level Fireball is 5d6. Typo... corrected... sigh... it's late here... You have just demonstrated that CoC is a crappy spell. You have NOT demonstrated that the ability to cast a 15d6 energy burst at 10th level using a 5th level slot is worth a feat slot. Okay... do you have another way of doing 15d6 damage with a 5th level slot by the core rules? Then what about comparing to delayed blast fireball? Take an empowered maximized fireball compared to delayed blast fireball. What do you think then? But they are NEVER worth the slot increase AND a feat cost. Which was the point. Let me turn this around for a second here so I don't have to second guess - exactly what do you consider "worth a feat" for a spellcaster? Which is true nearly anytime you get ambushed by a reasonable challenge encounter. IIRC, getting ambushed is worth a +2 to ECL. :uh-huh: No. It's not at all true that every CR 10 "ambush" of the "first round of combat" results in a TPK. I don't know what game you're playing but in my games PCs get smacked around in surprise rounds all the time but it doesn't result in a TPK and I'm sure they would be all pretty damn schocked if I told them I did 155 damage to them all in round 1 at level 10. You're way off here marshall. Go find me a CR 10 monster from the monster manual that does the same or even close.
Meta_FR_DM 06-05-05, 04:47 AM	He wonlee76, Just wanted you to know that --just between you and me-- I think the Jury is still out on whether or not 17th level is the minimum a creator needs to be to make Meta Rods. I say this because the more I think about it the more it seems like a Dungeon Master could rule either way and be perfectly correct. And I don't mean this in the sense of, "The DM is always right." I mean it more in the sense that a DM could do what you did (i.e. look at the rules, then errata) and still conclude 17th level was the minimum, and be entirely right about it. So I hope no hard feelings or anything like that. I didn't mean to come off harsh or anything. By the way it's OK to post that you see how other's viewpoints are logical (if you believe they really are), but that you still don't agree. A lot of people on these forums take an 'either/or' attitude to debates, which is frankly too limiting. After all, sometimes both sides can be wrong*. ;) Dave -see you 'round the forums sometime- M. Or both sides can right.
Archtyrant Terevoth 06-05-05, 05:16 AM	I think metamagic rods aren't so bad for the most part, the only real problem with them arises from the fact that they devalue people actually taking the real metamagic feats, and they can get abusive when used with other free metamagic effects like the incantatrix ability. I would recommend requiring people to have the appropriate feat to use a rod of that effect, and also that only one free metamagic effect is allowed per spell. The sudden feats are another problem entirely, since I think they are given out too easily, with the exception of sudden quicken. NPCs can go well over their CR using these feats, and with very little drawback. There is simply no reason any NPC magic should ever use normal metamagic when he has the sudden feats available. Metamagic rods themselves are generally too expensive for most NPCs to have until higher in level, and eat up quite a bit of a PCs resources as well. In addition, they make easy sunder targets, so having one is risky. All being said, metamagic rods mainly seem to exist to make direct damage a viable style of play at higher levels, as it tends to be very weak given the existing rules.
Marshall 06-05-05, 11:40 AM	Okay... do you have another way of doing 15d6 damage with a 5th level slot by the core rules? Sure. Create a half decent 5th level spell that actually scales a reasonable rate for a 5th level spell. Then what about comparing to delayed blast fireball? Take an empowered maximized fireball compared to delayed blast fireball. What do you think then? I think WotC values the Delay effect of DBF as being worth 3 levels. Thats nuts. You are also comparing a 7th level spell to an 8th level effect. Let me turn this around for a second here so I don't have to second guess - exactly what do you consider "worth a feat" for a spellcaster? In 3.5? IC feats, Sudden MM. Everything else is a waste. :uh-huh: No. It's not at all true that every CR 10 "ambush" of the "first round of combat" results in a TPK. I don't know what game you're playing but in my games PCs get smacked around in surprise rounds all the time but it doesn't result in a TPK and I'm sure they would be all pretty damn schocked if I told them I did 155 damage to them all in round 1 at level 10. You're way off here marshall. Go find me a CR 10 monster from the monster manual that does the same or even close. Nobody ever said it did. An ambush raises the EL by 2, going from a tough encounter to a deadly one. Frankly, most CR10 critters in the MM, with any kind of area attack, are lethal to a large chunk of the party in an ambush.
DungeonMaster 06-05-05, 12:08 PM	Sure. Create a half decent 5th level spell that actually scales a reasonable rate for a 5th level spell. That's not an answer. Tantamount to "If you can't hit things - create a half decent sword +5" - but I'm level 10. I think WotC values the Delay effect of DBF as being worth 3 levels. Thats nuts. You are also comparing a 7th level spell to an 8th level effect. Then lets revert to 3rd edition and make it a double empowered fireball x2.25 damage. What say you now? In 3.5? IC feats, Sudden MM. Everything else is a waste. As I suspected... what are IC feats? Improved caster level? Item crafting? Good thing I asked, I think you have a very weird view of the game Marshall - a perspective possibly skewed by a large amount of non-core material. Nobody ever said it did. An ambush raises the EL by 2, going from a tough encounter to a deadly one. Frankly, most CR10 critters in the MM, with any kind of area attack, are lethal to a large chunk of the party in an ambush. Example? I happen to know the MM very well and I can't quite manage anything like it.
wonlee76 06-05-05, 05:36 PM	He wonlee76, Just wanted you to know that --just between you and me-- I think the Jury is still out on whether or not 17th level is the minimum a creator needs to be to make Meta Rods. I say this because the more I think about it the more it seems like a Dungeon Master could rule either way and be perfectly correct. And I don't mean this in the sense of, "The DM is always right." I mean it more in the sense that a DM could do what you did (i.e. look at the rules, then errata) and still conclude 17th level was the minimum, and be entirely right about it. So I hope no hard feelings or anything like that. I didn't mean to come off harsh or anything. By the way it's OK to post that you see how other's viewpoints are logical (if you believe they really are), but that you still don't agree. A lot of people on these forums take an 'either/or' attitude to debates, which is frankly too limiting. After all, sometimes both sides can be wrong*. ;) Dave -see you 'round the forums sometime- M. Or both sides can right. Well, we all make mistakes sometimes but reading the entry for crafting Rods and the entry for caster level for items, I was under the impression that the CL entry for the item was a minimum caster level needed to make the item because it was a "pre-requisite" to crafting the item (as per the last line in the rod creation entry in the DMG). But then I later read the general rule on reading a magical item description and it pretty much said the CL entry on the magic item is not a pre-requisite. Well, my opinion as to commonality of metamagic rods in a game is determined by certain factors in a particular game world. 1: Number of NPCs available that would have the appropriate item creation feats and pre-requisites to make the item (CL 17 items if it was a requirement would be an inherent limitation on the # of items in existence for example if it is true). 2: Where these NPCs reside to make these items. Presumably large cities will have a few spellcaster types in this type of business if they are in the mood to make them. Probably can't purchase decent magic items ina small hamlet but in a large city, the chances of coming across the item is greater. 3: Whether the NPC has the xp to burn up to make the item and whether he's inclined to do so for the sake of money. An NPC in the business of selling magical items in general probably has other types of item creation feats and have made other items besides rods so the amount of time and XP he has to make items may be limited.
The Simbul 06-05-05, 05:49 PM	Metamagic rods aren't so bad once you look at the pre-reqs needed to make one. Just looking at the pre-reqs kind of limits the # of them around even in a high magic campaign. [snip]......But finding them ina random dungeon crawl or a magic shop will be nearly impossible.The prerequisites of an item dont influence the chances of finding that given item in random treasure or availability for purchase, that is only decided by the gp value. If such was the case, then half a dozen other items would be on a "restricted list" simply by virtue of their complex prerequisites. #1: Item Creation Rod feat. I use my PCs as a litmus test on how often an NPC would actually have a feat like this. Lets just say PCs don't tend to take this item creation feat as they rather take Wondrous Item or Scribe Scrolls (for clerics/druids). #2: Caster Level 17 and the creator has to have the metamagic feat in question. The 2nd part is relatively easy to deal with but how many level 17+ wizards/sorcerors are there with Craft Rod as one of their feats? And if you can find someone with a caster level of 17 with the craft rod feat, how many of these things would he churn out in a given year for sale? Item Creation is not inherently a solo project, nor do you even need to personally have the item creation feat at all to craft one. Cooperation is allowed under the core rules, which allows additional participants to provide the various prerequisites for creating an item, including the item creation feat itself. In addition, any character who provides at least one prerequisite (which even may or may not include the CL, depending upon which side you take in the parallel debate in this thread) can be designated as the creator of the item, both for purposes of determing the items caster level and who provides all of the XP. This, amoung other things, means that NPC hirelings, allies, cohorts, and followers can be conscripted to aid in the production of any magic item, but without requiring them to pay a single XP point or cause them any real inconvienience other than 8 hours a day of work and the cost of getting them to cast a spell or use a feat. In addition If you have a lot, how did these adepts get to 17th level? (presuming adepts get a 1 for 1 level to caster level ratio going).The same way that all other Warriors, Aristocrats, Experts, and Commoners found in a Metropolis can acchieve upwards of 18-20 character levels, or more.They didn't get it by making money through selling metamagic rods.If your sole purpose in life is to create and sell items, then you are going to gain XP from it. Maybe it isnt as efficient, fast, or exiting as killing monsters, but a crafter who has been at his trade for 50 years will be far more successful than one who has been at it for 5 months, and the fact that all NPC merchants and artisans arent 1st level commoners is evidence of this Sure, there will be NPCs who have the necessary feats to make the item. I would argue that your average level 17 spellcaster was a former adventurer and would have feats that would be appropriate for them to survive and reach level 17. Which somehow doesnt include Craft Rod? If No NPC spellcaster in the campaign world has the ability to create magic rods, then no magic rods would exist in the campaign world, nor would any PC's be capable of learning how to craft them. Two, how much xp do these NPCs have to burn in making magical items. There will come a point where they would need to do something in order to gain xp to offset the lost of xp from item creation. I'm just saying they will be rare and far between because of the CL requirement. Ive previously noted that core rules allow item creation as a cooperative effort, and participating in creating an item doesnt mean you have to actually pay the XP cost in crafting it. Three, the artificer is a campaign specific class in a campaign with high magic. Plus can Artificers take metamagic feats? They may know how to craft a rod as a class ability but if they can't take metamagic feats how the hell do they make rods? Will there be more metamagic rods in a campaign with Artificers compared to a campaign without artificers? (presuming artificers can take metamagic feats. I'm unfamiliar with Eberron so I'm not sure). Yes. But in a campaign world without artificers, who else can make metamagic rods? Those NPCs who choose to take the appropriate item creation feats. There will be some with craft rod but then you need to figure out how many of those NPCs are CL 17. And of those with Craft Rod and a CL 17, how many types of metamagic rods can they create since they need to know the metamagic feat in question in order to craft the correpsonding Once again, cooperative item creation. You only need to be able to provide ONE prerequisite of an item to participate in item creation, and if you are of the opinion that the 17 CL is a prerequisite, then my 17th level Sorcerer can hire two NPC spellcasters, each of who has the appropriate feats, and craft any metamagic rod I want, paying all the XP myself while the only prerequisite I provide is the CL. The game rules assume that magic items exist, that they have been created, and can be created again. If an item falls within a cities gp limit, or the value on a treasure table, then that alone is the indicator of how commonplace it is for some NPC somewhere to have created it. That said, I do not like metamagic rods.
RadicalTaoist 06-05-05, 06:03 PM	How about let's never ever pretend that 3.0's multiple stacking Empowers were a good idea. Ever Again. :nonono: The main purpose I find of the metamagic rods is to allow high level casters to get more use out of their low level spell slots. Which is fine if they're willing to make the investment. Too powerful for the high level spells though. I would adjust things so that the Lesser Rods affect spells of 4th level and lower, and the Greater Rods affect spells of 8th level or lower. No instant metamagic for your 9th level spells outside of feats.
Drachasor 06-05-05, 06:18 PM	Well, I would add to the whole minimum CL talk that not only does the DMG clearly state that prerequisites come AFTER the Caster Level (and hence don't include it), but there are many items that clearly have caster level prerequisites. Take the Helm of Opposite Alignment: Strong transmutation; CL 12th; Create Wondrous Item, creator must be 12th level; Price 4,000 gp;Weight 3 lb. Or Golems: (clay) CL 11th; Craft Construct, animate objects, commune, resurrection, caster must be at least 11th level; Price 40,000 gp; Cost 21,500 gp + 1,540 XP. (flesh) CL 8th; Craft Construct, animate dead, bull’s strength, geas/quest, limited wish, caster must be at least 8th level; Price 20,000 gp; Cost 10,500 gp + 780 XP. (iron) CL 16th; Craft Construct, cloudkill, geas/quest, limited wish, polymorph any object, caster must be at least 16th level; Price 150,000 gp; Cost 80,000 gp + 5,600 XP. (stone) CL 14th; Craft Construct, antimagic field, geas/quest, symbol of stunning, caster must be at least 14th level; Price 90,000 gp; Cost 50,000 gp + 3,400 XP. Amulet of Mighty fists: Faint evocation; CL 5th; Craft Wondrous Item, greater magic fang, creator’s caster level must be at least three times the amulet’s bonus; Price 6,000 gp (+1), 24,000 gp (+2), 54,000 gp (+3), 96,000 gp (+4), 150,000 gp (+5). Bracers of Armor: Moderate conjuration; CL 7th; Craft Wondrous Item, mage armor, creator’s caster level must be at least two times that of the bonus placed in the bracers; Price 1,000 gp (+1), 4,000 gp (+2), 9,000 gp (+3), 16,000 gp (+4), 25,000 gp (+5), 36,000 gp (+6), 49,000 gp (+7), 64,000 gp (+8);Weight 1 lb. And the Golem Manuals have "caster must be at least level X" just like the Golems do too. Ioun Stones: Moderate varied; CL 12th; Craft Wondrous Item, creator must be 12th level. Golembane Scarabe (particularly interesting) Moderate divination; CL 8th; Craft Wondrous Item, detect magic, creator must be at least 10th level; Price 2,500 gp. Caster's Shield (a +1 item) CL 6th; Craft Magic Arms and Armor, Scribe Scroll, creator must be at least 6th level; Price 3,153 gp (plus the value of the scroll spell if one is currently scribed); Cost 1,653 gp + 120 XP Spell Storing Weapon Strong evocation (plus aura of stored spell); CL 12th; Craft Magic Arms and Armor, creator must be a caster of at least 12th level; Price +1 bonus[quote] Dwarven Thrower: [quote]Moderate evocation; CL 10th; Craft Magic Arms and Armor, creator must be a dwarf of at least 10th level; Price 60,312 gp; Cost 30,312 gp + 2,400 XP. Sylvan Scimitar (notice that the CL of the item is less than the requirements) Moderate evocation; CL 11th; Craft Magic Arms and Armor, divine power or creator must be a 7th-level druid; As you can see, the CL of an item is not a requirement, but rather a how you typically find it. If there is a caster level requirement, then it is with the prerequisites, which, as the DMG clearly states is after the CL of the item. -Drachasor
smrtgmp 06-06-05, 04:58 AM	Why don't you wake up and smell the coffee bud. I don't frigging buy them? I peruse them - that's all. It doesn't take a lengthy perusal to realise the sudden feats are completely over the top even if - for whatever reason - sudden quicken is way more expensive that sudden maximize then what I remember it to be. And yet clearly your perusal was insufficient to gain a clear grasp on the feats in question, as you dont know the requirements and seem to be confused with how they work, the evidence for which lies in the next quote: It doesn't matter if it takes you till level 10 or 12 to get all the "sudden" feats, you can still toss a sudden maximized empowered fireball + a quickened empowered maximized through rod fireball with a plain level 10 NPC. And you can do that again on round 2. That's ~155 damage save for half twice. Not fun.Mind explaing how you're going to do this two rounds in a row? That would be a neat trick, concidering you can only use the sudden feats once per day and you are limited to using one metamagic rod on any given spell. Furthermore, to use more than one rod in a round, in could be argued that you would need the quick draw feat unles you want to be dropping your first rod and then using a move action to draw the next one. That sounds like fun. I'm not sure what you would do on round two now that your MM rods are lying at your feet. Now do everyone a favor and go figure this simple reality out rather than female dog at me or provide a credible counter-argument that no metacap with these rules is "balanced". Because it isn't.First of all, I never made any comments regarding the balance of the sudden feats (though personally I dont think they're worth taking, YMMV). All I said is that you should read the books before you start making false acusations. The continuous stream of eronious statements does nothing to help your cause. Which brings us to the heart of the matter. What exactly happened to make you so bitter where 3.5 is concerned? Were you a head designer on 3.0? Were you held down by 3.5 as a small child and beat up for your lunch money? Surely you must have some sort of personal investment in 3.0 (beyond the cash you paid for the books) to harbor such resentment towards 3.5. By your own admission on this and other threads, you havent really read the 3.5 books. You peruse them. And to what end? To find ammo, pure and simple. Unfortunately, in your fanatical campaign against everything 3.5, you have missed out on a lot of great stuff. Are there balance issues in 3.5? Most certainly. Were there balance issues in 3.0? You betcha. So why dont you do what the rest of us have done and make a happy little marriage of the two versions. Use what you like from both. But to discount material out of hand simply because it has 3.5 printed on the cover is foolish to say the least. I almost feel sorry for you. Have fun with your anger and resentment.
Archtyrant Terevoth 06-06-05, 09:51 AM	Drachasor, there are plenty of ways to get a caster level 12 without actually having 12 wizard levels or being 12th level, thus the prereq does mean something. You can have a caster level of 12 with an orange ioun stone and being an 11th level wizard. A cleric could be level 8 with prayer beads of karma.
Drachasor 06-06-05, 11:29 AM	Drachasor, there are plenty of ways to get a caster level 12 without actually having 12 wizard levels or being 12th level, thus the prereq does mean something. You can have a caster level of 12 with an orange ioun stone and being an 11th level wizard. A cleric could be level 8 with prayer beads of karma. Such items are hardly the norm, and in 3.5 core there are no items that grant you an increased caster level for a long enough time to make magical items (supplemental books have them, but nothing in the core 3 books). My point was to help illustrate that the "CL" on items is just a typical CL. You can also go peruse the 3.5 DMG which explicitely states that the prerequisites for an item appear *AFTER* the caster level, and in no way indicates that the Caster Level is itself a prerequisite. In fact, it says you can make items as soon as you have access to the necessary spells. If your point was just that the "creator must be at least 12th level" means something, then that was my point as well. Anyhow, read the DMG section on Caster Level and prerequisites, and remember to use the errata. It's very clear that the CL of an item is not a prerequisite by any means, but rather a way of telling how potent an item appears under detect magic and similar spells. Edit: To remind everyone how this got started, it does mean that someone can create Metamagic Rods before 17th level. -Drachasor
DragonsArt 06-06-05, 11:37 AM	Take a 5th level human evoker mage, with sudden quicken and sudden maximize and hit your 5th level party with a maximized fireball followed by a quickened fireball. Do the same next round. Apparently that's a CR 5 encounter. Huh? A 5th level human evoker with 3 extra feats at 5th level should be a much higher CR. And one with the special ability to use once per day feats more than once per day should be even higher... probably closer to a CR 10 or higher. I'm guessing from your described scenario that you've never actually looked at the feats?! 5th level human.... 1st level feat, 3rd level feat, human feat and 5th level wizard feat = 4 feats Sudden Quicken needs Quicken Spell, Sudden Empower, Sudden Extend, Suddent Maximize, Sudden Silent and Sudden Still. That's 6 feats for the prerequisites and then you can take Sudden Quicken. That's 7 feats total. I can't see a human wizard getting it until 9th level at the earliest, 10th level for a non-human. Plus, Sudden Quicken can be used ONCE per day. So they can cast two fireballs in one round and then they're back to normal casting... and they've used two 3rd level slots. It's powerful, definately. But for the cost of 7 feats, it had better be!
DungeonMaster 06-06-05, 12:21 PM	Such items are hardly the norm, and in 3.5 core there are no items that grant you an increased caster level for a long enough time to make magical items (supplemental books have them, but nothing in the core 3 books).. Orange ioun stones...
Drachasor 06-06-05, 12:24 PM	Orange ioun stones... touche' Beyond that though. -Drachasor
DungeonMaster 06-06-05, 12:59 PM	And yet clearly your perusal was insufficient to gain a clear grasp on the feats in question, as you dont know the requirements and seem to be confused with how they work. Please. I havn't been in my local gamestore for over 2 months because of work. I don't need to understand the specifics to discuss them - I know 1 thing, they break the metacap and they cost nothing but feats. You don't actually need more than than to make them broken. All you're doing is complaining - not that I don't remember the rules - but that I pointed this out. Face it. The whole rest of your post is nothing but a personal attack. I'm not sure what you would do on round two now that your MM rods are lying at your feet. Tie a short string to it. What exactly happened to make you so bitter where 3.5 is concerned? Were you a head designer on 3.0? Surely you must have some sort of personal investment in 3.0 (beyond the cash you paid for the books) to harbor such resentment towards 3.5. I hate as in detest the direction the game is taking. I am disgusted with "prestige classes" "feats" "substitution levels" "level adjustments" the entire panoply of "new mechanics". I've been playing the game for a long time and these changes are revolting to me. It's like watching your childhood game, the game you've always loved, get repeatedly raped by a gang of morons. I've had no involvment with 3rd edition development, testing, or even financial involvment at all. If I did have any kind of power to change things you bet I would and I wouldn't be on these messageboards that's for damn sure. Basically 3rd edition started off on a good foot, took a few wrong turns, 3.5 took those wrong turns and amplified them and here I am pointing out those wrong turns, that's all. And to what end? To find ammo, pure and simple. I actually like weapons of legacy. It looks "good". Don't be an idiot and think I won't buy a book just because it has a 3.5 label on it. I own "3.5 books" just not WotC 3.5 books. Unfortunately, in your fanatical campaign against everything 3.5, you have missed out on a lot of great stuff. Are there balance issues in 3.5? Most certainly. Were there balance issues in 3.0? You betcha. No, no I havn't "missed out". You don't get it. It's precisely what you call "great stuff" that I don't like. I point out the mechanical problems because I hate the mechanics, profoundly. What you don't understand is many of the authors of 3.5 books are older authors that worked on 2nd edition stuff - and they made great books. Not all of them were great, but there were real gems and the average was much higher quality. Largely because 2nd edition didn't have this moronic insipid thrust towards mechanics, mechanics, mechanics. Which has now been proven no more balanced than a flavor thrust. There's no "need" for all these stupid rules and restrictions if each and every time someone tries to make something new it merely involves lifting a rule or restriction. I will also, quite likely, buy the 3.5 WotC book from a $5 bargain bin for the 1/20th of the book I'm interested in, like a monster.
wonlee76 06-06-05, 02:02 PM	Such items are hardly the norm, and in 3.5 core there are no items that grant you an increased caster level for a long enough time to make magical items (supplemental books have them, but nothing in the core 3 books). My point was to help illustrate that the "CL" on items is just a typical CL. You can also go peruse the 3.5 DMG which explicitely states that the prerequisites for an item appear *AFTER* the caster level, and in no way indicates that the Caster Level is itself a prerequisite. In fact, it says you can make items as soon as you have access to the necessary spells. If your point was just that the "creator must be at least 12th level" means something, then that was my point as well. Anyhow, read the DMG section on Caster Level and prerequisites, and remember to use the errata. It's very clear that the CL of an item is not a prerequisite by any means, but rather a way of telling how potent an item appears under detect magic and similar spells. Edit: To remind everyone how this got started, it does mean that someone can create Metamagic Rods before 17th level. -Drachasor Yup, I agree with you and did correct my misinterpretation of the CL entry for magical items. :P However, there is still a level limit of CL 9 to make a rod due to that being a pre-req for the Craft Rod feat. Unfortunately, the only downside to a CL 9 item is it has a lesser saving throw bonus then a CL 17 and in most games I play in, this is a non-issue (unless you actually have DMs requiring saves made by items when the PC rolls a natural 1 on their save against a fireball).
Drachasor 06-06-05, 02:13 PM	Yup, I agree with you and did correct my misinterpretation of the CL entry for magical items. :P However, there is still a level limit of CL 9 to make a rod due to that being a pre-req for the Craft Rod feat. Unfortunately, the only downside to a CL 9 item is it has a lesser saving throw bonus then a CL 17 and in most games I play in, this is a non-issue (unless you actually have DMs requiring saves made by items when the PC rolls a natural 1 on their save against a fireball). Though the price is prohibitively expensive on most of the rods until much later than 9. You can squeeze out enough for a lesser Empower, perhaps, but a lesser maximize or quicken rod probably can't be afford until later. Those only go up to 3rd level spells, by the time you can spring the 15k+ for a normal one, you should be beyond 6th level spells. I admit that it might be good to add to requirements something like "must be able to cast spells 3 levels higher than the rod can affect"...but oh well. Right now the price is an ok control. Empower: Strong (no school); CL 17th; Craft Rod, Empower Spell; Price 9,000 gp (lesser), 32,500 gp (normal), 73,000 gp (greater). Maximize: Strong (no school); CL 17th; Craft Rod, Maximize Spell feat; Price 14,000 gp (lesser), 54,000 gp (normal), 121,500 gp (greater). Quicken: Strong (no school); CL 17th; Craft Rod, Quicken Spell; Price 35,000 gp (lesser), 75,500 gp (normal), 170,000 gp (greater). -Drachasor
crazysamaritan 06-06-05, 03:52 PM	Have fun with your anger and resentment. I've been around long enough to respect Dm's opinion. In most cases I prefer the 3.5 version of the rules, since it is better balanced, imo. In this case, I think you are beening needlessly rude. DM has a very good point. I don't find certain things that break the "metamagic cap" broken. The errata version of Divine Metamagic is fairly reasonable (limited to cleric spells only). I DON"T like the sudden MM feats. IMO, they're useless! Rods themselves aren't broken. Allowing them to be completely pervasive is. Same with the fabricate spell. It could break the game if the DM is not aware. having one or two rods is also fine. (having dozens breaks it). Some changes should probably make their way into the game, and the elimination of the sudden feats are one of them. besides, double empower should be x2. (;))
Zuckerart 06-06-05, 04:10 PM	Plus they'll suck out a significant portion of your cash, even if you take craft rods and use the dmg eratta that lowered the minimum caster level to craft the things from 17 to whatever craft rods minimum is. Any chance for a reference to that errata? I am unable to find it in the errata on the WotC site.
smrtgmp 06-06-05, 05:12 PM	Please. I havn't been in my local gamestore for over 2 months because of work. I don't need to understand the specifics to discuss them - I know 1 thing, they break the metacap and they cost nothing but feats. You don't actually need more than than to make them broken.Cost nothing but feats? It doesnt get more expensive than that. All you're doing is complaining - not that I don't remember the rules - but that I pointed this out. Face it. The whole rest of your post is nothing but a personal attack. I'm complaining? And what are you doing? I dont care that you think they're broken. You're entiteled to your opinion. I agree with you in many cases (for instance, I dont allow divine metamagic). What bothers me is that you continue to make eronious statements. If you had a firm grasp of the 3.5 material that you continued to bash, you wouldnt hear boo from me. Its when you say things that are clearly false as if they were factual that I get agravated. Tie a short string to it. Fair enough. Now they wont hit the ground. You still cant draw multiple rods in 1 round without quick draw. Otherwise drawing one is part of a move action (assuming you have a BAB of +1 or higher). I hate as in detest the direction the game is taking. I am disgusted with "prestige classes" "feats" "substitution levels" "level adjustments" the entire panoply of "new mechanics". I've been playing the game for a long time and these changes are revolting to me. It's like watching your childhood game, the game you've always loved, get repeatedly raped by a gang of morons. At least now I understand your motivation, at least in part. I started playing years ago as well, and there are several things I dont like about the new editions. That doesn't mean they there arent some good things about them. And, in all fairness, several of the things you complained about above (with the exception of the racial sub levels) were present in 3.0 as well. Don't be an idiot... And my post was a personal attack? No, no I havn't "missed out". You don't get it. It's precisely what you call "great stuff" that I don't like. I point out the mechanical problems because I hate the mechanics, profoundly. You have no idea what I call great stuff. I'm not referring to every new mechaninc that is printed (many of which are close to direct ports from 3.0). I'm referring to the new ideas, spells, histories etc. What you don't understand is many of the authors of 3.5 books are older authors that worked on 2nd edition stuff - and they made great books. Not all of them were great, but there were real gems and the average was much higher quality. Largely because 2nd edition didn't have this moronic insipid thrust towards mechanics, mechanics, mechanics.I dont understand that? How do you figure? I started playing this game in 2nd edition when I was 7 years old. I have played this game for most of my life, and I have boxes full of old 2nd ed stuff. In fact, I still use a lot of it. I agree that the shift from flavor to mechanics has been less than seemless. In fact, thats why I use so much 2nd edition flavor in the games I run. Like I said before, 3.5 has its problems, but dismissing the whole system out of hand is foolish. There's no "need" for all these stupid rules and restrictions if each and every time someone tries to make something new it merely involves lifting a rule or restriction.A very good point, but not every new peice of material released lifts old restrictions. A lot of the new stuff does little more than give you more options in character creation, which is never a bad thing, IMO (provided the DM places reasonable limits on the options available in his/her campaign).
smrtgmp 06-06-05, 05:17 PM	In this case, I think you are beening needlessly rude.Yes, because DM is a model of civility. Quite frankly, I dont care if you think I'm being rude. I'm not here to make friends. I'm here to speak my mind. If what I say offends you, thats too bad. Freedom of speech and being offended go hand in hand. Learn to live with it or dont. It makes no difference to me.
Merestil Haye 06-06-05, 05:21 PM	Here (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/er/20040125a) is the errata page. It's in the DMG errata, which you will need to download. It's in the form of a .pdf document so you will need Adobe Acrobat to read the file. Yes, the errata states that the CL is (or should now be) the minimum level needed to create the item; to take one example, Boots of Springing and Striding require CL2 because in order to meet one of the (non-spell) prerequisites you need to be at least second character level. Similarly I would guess the CL 17 derives from the fact that in order to be able to cast spells of all levels a Greater metamagic rod can affect, you must be CL 17 - ie be capable of casting 9th level spells. This would suggest that plausible minimum CLs for the two weaker varieties of metamagic rods are 11th and 5th - and no lower. I would suggest that the rod descriptions need to be errata'ed to contain the sentence "Creator must be able to cast <3rd | 6th | 9th > level spells." as appropriate to the rod's power.
DungeonMaster 06-06-05, 07:48 PM	Thanks crazysamaritan. Cost nothing but feats? It doesnt get more expensive than that. For the PC perhaps. For the NPC definitely no, not at all. That was the original argument keep in mind. An NPC with these feats can casually level a party. It's just another feat you have to go around with a black marker and ticking off as "bad". If you had a firm grasp of the 3.5 material that you continued to bash, you wouldnt hear boo from me. Then just correct me when I'm wrong. Beleive it or not I do admit I can be wrong. And I did in this thread. I don't have a fantastic memory either and that's my own failing but I recognise it. And, in all fairness, several of the things you complained about above (with the exception of the racial sub levels) were present in 3.0 as well. Yup. Did I say 3rd edition is the be-all and end all? Nope. Not once, not ever. It's merely the version of D&D I currently prefer. You know this, I've said this to you before. But don't tell me I don't have a right to complain about the direction of D&D when you tell crazysamaritan you have your own right to free speech that may offend/irritate. You have no idea what I call great stuff. I'm referring to the new ideas, spells, histories etc. Above all else that is exactly what this edition is lacking, in quantity. New ideas, new spells, histories, mythology, and most importantly archetype. I honestly don't see any - or very little in the 3.5 books I've "perused". I see pages and pages of PrC, feats and flavorless spells though. It doesn't exactly help my opinion when they don't mesh well with the mechanics either. Like I said before, 3.5 has its problems, but dismissing the whole system out of hand is foolish. That's where you're wrong - I don't dismiss the whole system out of hand and you don't read all my posts. I think that weapons of legacy looks like a good book. It's the 1st book since manual of the planes, deities and demigods that looks quite good. Here's a thread: http://boards1.wizards.com/showthread.php?t=440017&page=1 My comments are dated to before this conversation. I would have bought the environment books were it not for tons of useless Prestige classes and feats. I still might, I like some of the monsters. I inherently detest the complete series and anything resembling it. I do however dismiss Andy Collins' work out of hand because to be frank it's the worst I've ever seen in any edition. That you can definitely call me on dismissing out of hand - it's gotten to the point where I can predict the mistakes just by hearing the book title. And they're not "little" mistakes you can just gloss over. It's ok to hate a particular author's work as well you know? Or to dislike a filmaker's films?
smrtgmp 06-06-05, 09:12 PM	Then just correct me when I'm wrong. Beleive it or not I do admit I can be wrong. And I did in this thread. I don't have a fantastic memory either and that's my own failing but I recognise it.Thats generally what I do. You caught me on a bad day. What can I say, when I see yet another of your posts that contains false information presented as fact I get annoyed. I suppose I shouldnt let it bother me. *shrugs* But don't tell me I don't have a right to complain about the direction of D&D when you tell crazysamaritan you have your own right to free speech that may offend/irritate. When did I say you had no right to complain? All I said is that you should know the details of what you're discussing before you go on a rant. I think thats reasonable. Granted, I didnt say it in such a civilized manner. I will refrain from baiting comments in the future (unless, of course, I'm in a horrid mood ;)). Above all else that is exactly what this edition is lacking, in quantity. New ideas, new spells, histories, mythology, and most importantly archetype. I honestly don't see any - or very little in the 3.5 books I've "perused". I see pages and pages of PrC, feats and flavorless spells though. It doesn't exactly help my opinion when they don't mesh well with the mechanics either.There's a lot of crap in the current system. But then there's been a lot of crap in every version. You have to take the good with the bad. The fact that you're missing the flavor in the new books isnt suprising if you just skim the mechanical sections, as they rarely contain anything but crunch. That's where you're wrong - I don't dismiss the whole system out of hand and you don't read all my posts.I never claimed to read all your posts. But I think its fair to say you dismiss the system as a whole out of hand when your sig says what it says. Just because you like a piece here and there does not mean you've given all the material a fair chance. You admitted yourself you dont read them in depth. As such, you arent qualified to make generalized statements about the material in question, as you havent, by your own admission, seen much of it. I would have bought the environment books were it not for tons of useless Prestige classes and feats. I still might, I like some of the monsters.If the environment books intrest you, you should really give them a closer look. Moreso than any other recent WotC publications, those books are about flavor. The PrCs dont have gobsmacking abilities like the ones in the Complete books. Instead, they are based on flavor. The feats arent things that make powergaming PCs salivate at the thought of them. And the spells, with the exception of the poorly worded shivering touch, are quite good for the most part. They arent your standard xd6 damage spells that seem to be spewed forth in staggering quantity in many of the newer releases. I inherently detest the complete series and anything resembling it.Thats certainly understandable. There is some good stuff in those books, but there is a lot of bad to go with it. Dont get me started on Complete Divine. I do, however, think Complete Adventurer is awesome. There are only a few things in that book I concider to be broken. It's ok to hate a particular author's work as well you know? Or to dislike a filmaker's films?Of course thats OK. I just think you should read over the new books more than you currently do. Dont get me wrong, I somewhat understand your point of view. When WotC first bought the rights to my favorite hobby from an ailing TSR, I was livid. I have never been a huge fan of Magic the Gathering (always seemed like a roleplaying game without the imagination to me. and yes, I played quite a bit of it when it first came out), and I thought WotC would ruin D&D. I resisted making the switch for years. I spoke ill of it, despite the fact I hadn't played the new version or even given the books more than a cursery look. Then one day I came to terms with the fact that if I wanted to keep playing the game, I was going to need to make the change (having moved, I didnt know any gamers at the time, so my old 2nd ed buddies were unavailable). So, I sat down and taught myself the new rules. What I found were the cleanest mechanics I had ever seen for D&D. Much of the old flavor was gone (especially in the magical item creation department), but the game was certainly easier to play. More importantly, it was easy to teach. Yet 3.0 had its problems. Many problems. 3.5 was an attempt to correct those problems. Now obviously they didnt do a perfect job, as 3.5 has its fair share of problems as well. But so did every other version of the game. But just like every other version of the game, it also has its strong points. Many aspects of 3.5 are vastly superior to previous editions. The same goes for 3.0. And 2.5. And 2.0. Every version has had its ups and downs. Every version has aspects which I find superior to other versions. Thats why my campaigns are a crazy amalgum of material from 2nd edition to 3.5, because there is great stuff to be found all over. I guess it just seems to me that when someone says 3.5, you expect the worst. Instead of looking through the books with an open mind, you're looking though them trying to find things you concider broken (obviously this is just an assumption based off the persona you have presented on these boards, as I dont have my global surveilance system up and running yet). I just dont think thats a good way to go about doing things.
wonlee76 06-06-05, 10:02 PM	If your sole purpose in life is to create and sell items, then you are going to gain XP from it. Maybe it isnt as efficient, fast, or exiting as killing monsters, but a crafter who has been at his trade for 50 years will be far more successful than one who has been at it for 5 months, and the fact that all NPC merchants and artisans arent 1st level commoners is evidence of this Well, I disagree that crafting magical items and selling it will net you more xp then you lose from the item creation itself. I can understand a craftsman slowly becoming more experienced over the years from their trade but that craftsman isn't losing xp to their trade like someone who is creating items. But I guess if an NPC is creating items in moderation, then maybe his xp gain from trading magic items outpaces the lost of xp from creating items. 40 xp/day used in crafting isn't that much but the more items you make, the more xp is burning up and I have my doubts on how they are recovering this xp unless they are adventuring in between stints or doing activities that gain them xp but doesn't cause them to lose xp. Which somehow doesnt include Craft Rod? If No NPC spellcaster in the campaign world has the ability to create magic rods, then no magic rods would exist in the campaign world, nor would any PC's be capable of learning how to craft them. I didn't mean to imply that there are no NPC spellcasters with the Craft Rod feat but would argue that it is less common then say Craft Wondrous Items. I guess I look at item creation feats as a ranking of how common NPCs would have it. Scrolls would be the most popular due to the fact that Wizards get it for free at level 1. Out of the rest of the item creation feats, I think Craft Rod is the second to least common item creation feat just glancing over at the random treasure chart in the SRD. (Medium to Major Magical item, Rod falls in the 10% range and there is no such thing as a "minor" magical rod even though some of the lesser metamagic rods are relatively affordable compared to the other magical item categories which far exceed in commonality in a random treasure roll (with the exception of a magical staff.) Actually, that may be a nice idea, use the DMG magic item chart to determine whether an item is for sale in the city or can be crafted by someone in the city. Some of the metamagic rods are hard to come by according to the charts (2% for some of the greater versions of the rod). Overall, I don't mind metamagic rods but I don't like making them so common that they are easily obtainable because they are pretty powerful. If a PC chooses to make a metamagic rod, he made the investment in feats to do so and should be able to take full advantage of it.
Meta_FR_DM 06-07-05, 01:52 AM	Orange ioun stones... Though one can't gain more than a +1 bonus from these. They don't stack with eachother. Dave -Durn that details-loving devil!- M.
Vaelan 06-07-05, 02:03 AM	I don't allow them as normal magic items, as their price does not sufficiently balance their power. I categorize the metamagic rods as Quasi-Artifacts, and they are extremely difficult to make or find (I also took out the lesser/greater designations; one rod for all 9 levels). I enjoy using (tormenting my players with ;)) a version of item creation more similar to second edition's if they want to make a Quasi-Artifact.
Elandar 06-07-05, 09:15 AM	Originally Posted by Dungeon Master Originally Posted by smrtgmp Cost nothing but feats? It doesnt get more expensive than that. For the PC perhaps. For the NPC definitely no, not at all. That was the original argument keep in mind. An NPC with these feats can casually level a party. Why would feats be less costly for NPCs than for PCs? Seems like you're just metagaming/optimizing your NPCs.