Meta-Metamagic "Rods"

[schreier]

Could you combine two rods into one? Like greater maximize greater heighten? Three or more? What about two of the same for more daily uses?

Could you make it a metamagic tattoo to avoid having to carry it?

I would think yes, yes and yes but you couldn't apply more than one feat to a spell through the rod (or tattoo)

[Feldar]

Could you combine two rods into one? Like greater maximize greater heighten? Three or more? What about two of the same for more daily uses?

Could you make it a metamagic tattoo to avoid having to carry it?

I would think yes, yes and yes but you couldn't apply more than one feat to a spell through the rod (or tattoo)

I think this would land squarely under whether or not the judge allowed it.

[MaxiDuRaritry]

The MIC specifically has rules on this, and unlike in the DMG, they're not "suggestions" but actual rules.

So yes, yes you can, unless the DM specifically houserules against it (including disallowing the MIC).

And the rules on metamagic rods are that you cannot use more than one rod on a spell, but it says nothing about more than one rod effect.

Feel free to add the effects of multiple metamagic rods on a pair of arcanist gloves (if you're an arcane caster) or on psionicist gloves (using the magic-to-psionic conversion rules, also in the MIC, if you're a psionic manifester). Then use the rules in Magic of Incarnum to bind those gloves to your hands chakra. This gives you an extra +1 to your CL or ML when using the rod effect of the gloves (along with the +2 for any low level spell or power via the gloves themselves), and it also allows you to keep your hands free for M and S components (for an arcanist), as well as an actual weapon, if you want. And remember how slotless items cost x2 compared to slotted items? And you know how the formerly slotless metamagic rod effects are now slotted into your gloves? Yeeeah.

[Biffoniacus_Furiou]

The answer, as always, is to ask your DM.

You can make them sized for a tiny creature and each is about the size of a pencil. Then just rubber-band them all together. Then attach it to your belt so you can reach down and put a hand on it when you cast instead of needing to carry it. All of your problems are now solved.

[noob]

The MIC specifically has rules on this, and unlike in the DMG, they're not "suggestions" but actual rules.

So yes, yes you can, unless the DM specifically houserules against it (including disallowing the MIC).

And the rules on metamagic rods are that you cannot use more than one rod on a spell, but it says nothing about more than one rod effect.

Feel free to add the effects of multiple metamagic rods on a pair of arcanist gloves (if you're an arcane caster) or on psionicist gloves (using the magic-to-psionic conversion rules, also in the MIC, if you're a psionic manifester). Then use the rules in Magic of Incarnum to bind those gloves to your hands chakra. This gives you an extra +1 to your CL or ML when using the rod effect of the gloves (along with the +2 for any low level spell or power via the gloves themselves), and it also allows you to keep your hands free for M and S components (for an arcanist), as well as an actual weapon, if you want. And remember how slotless items cost x2 compared to slotted items? And you know how the formerly slotless metamagic rod effects are now slotted into your gloves? Yeeeah.

Metamagic rods actually fills slots: specifically the carried in hand slot like a sword or a shield.
So while it does not divide by 2 the cost it still is a good boost because there is not many other cool glove slot items for casters while there is tons of handheld items that are cool for anyone.

[MaxiDuRaritry]

Metamagic rods actually fills slots: specifically the carried in hand slot like a sword or a shield.
So while it does not divide by 2 the cost it still is a good boost because there is not many other cool glove slot items for casters while there is tons of handheld items that are cool for anyone.There is no "weapon" slot, and you can wield a weapon in a gloved hand; the glove (or gauntlet) takes up the hand slot.

The list of body slots are as follows:


1. Head (headbands, hats, helmets, phylacteries)
2. Eye (pair of lenses or goggles)
3. Neck (amulets, brooches, medallions, necklaces, periapts, scarabs)
4. Torso (vests, vestments, shirts)
5. Body (robe, armor)
6. Waist (belts)
7. Shoulders (cloaks, capes, mantles)
8. Arms or wrists (pair of bracers or bracelets)
9. Hands (gloves, pairs of gloves or pairs of gauntlets)
10. Rings (one ring on each hand or, oddly, two rings on one hand)
11. Feet (pairs of boots or shoes)...with a pseudo-slot for psychoactive skins (which you can wear three of, but only one can be active at once). And obviously, some things buck these rules, what with gauntlets taking up the hands slot while also being weapons (although they can also be enhanced as gloves, so...).

Furthermore, the rules for body slots say that even creatures with multiple arms still only have one "gloves" slot, but they can wield as many weapons as they have hands.

So I'm afraid not. Weapons are slotless.

[Crake]

Metamagic rods actually fills slots: specifically the carried in hand slot like a sword or a shield.
So while it does not divide by 2 the cost it still is a good boost because there is not many other cool glove slot items for casters while there is tons of handheld items that are cool for anyone.

Carried in hand is not a slot though. That's why weapons cost double what armor does, armor occupies a slot while weapons do not. Plus you've got things like wand chambers which can store rods, and there's nothing saying you can't hold two rods in one hand.

Edit: Swordsaged

[noob]

Carried in hand is not a slot though. That's why weapons cost double what armor does, armor occupies a slot while weapons do not. Plus you've got things like wand chambers which can store rods, and there's nothing saying you can't hold two rods in one hand.

Edit: Swordsaged

Shields takes the same emplacement as weapons and does not costs the double of other armours so your argument here is not valid.
Weapons are a specific case and costs double only because they wanted to ruin the lives of mundanes.
I think that the grasped items counts as occupying slots since nowhere does it says in the rules that grasped items costs double and it is not the case for armour(shields with +x of enchantments costs roughly the same as plate with +x of enchantments).

[Crake]

Shields takes the same emplacement as weapons and does not costs the double of other armours so your argument here is not valid.
Weapons are a specific case and costs double only because they wanted to ruin the lives of mundanes.

True but the post above covers other reasons which i couldn't be bothered citing, like the fact that there is a specificly stated list of body slots and "carried in hand" is not one of them.

[noob]

True but the post above covers other reasons which i couldn't be bothered citing, like the fact that there is a specificly stated list of body slots and "carried in hand" is not one of them.

But it is all wrong in the case of halving the cost of placing an hand item into a body slot unless you are telling me that if I enchant like a shield a full plate I literally make it cost half of what it would cost if I enchant it normally.
Regardless there is precedents when reverse engineering the cost of items in the manuals(by opposition to custom items) that if you place multiple enchantments on one item that occupies a body slot that the next enchantments costs as if they were slotless so if you stack other enchantments on gloves of the arcanist if following the same pricing patterns as the manuals(instead of doing what they tell you to do ,do what they do) then you are not saving money.

[MaxiDuRaritry]

Well, shields are by and large pretty useless. I like to think that the devs were at least aware enough to realize this somewhat and decided to give them a 50% discount because of it.

But that would require that the devs had any kind of awareness of things like "balance."

Feel free to laugh at my momentary bout of naiveté, I guess.

Also, slotless items are +100% cost, whereas slotted items (from slotless) are -50% cost, and stacked items are +50% cost.

[noob]

Well, shields are by and large pretty useless. I like to think that the devs were at least aware enough to realize this somewhat and decided to give them a 50% discount because of it.

But that would require that the devs had any kind of awareness of things like "balance."

Feel free to laugh at my momentary bout of naiveté, I guess.

staves, wands and scrolls are not priced as slotless either as you noticed despite them not taking slots.


Also, slotless items are +100% cost, whereas slotted items (from slotless) are -50% cost, and stacked items are +50% cost.
According to what they wrote but not according to what they did.
Reread the costs of items with multiple modifiers in the manuals and try to deduce on multiple modifiers slotted items what was the costs of the varied modifiers and you will see that usually the formulae is "highest cost enchantment + 2 times the sum of the costs of the other enchantments"

[MaxiDuRaritry]

staves, wands and scrolls are not priced as slotless either as you noticed despite them not taking slots.They have their own pricing schematics. Which, if you follow the pricing guidelines for slotted vs slotless would be cut in half if added to a slotted item, because there is no "hand-held" slot, so they are slotless.

[noob]

They have their own pricing schematics. Which, if you follow the pricing guidelines for slotted vs slotless would be cut in half if added to a slotted item, because there is no "hand-held" slot, so they are slotless.

They never say that those items have specific pricing schematics that makes them exempt from those rules.
We should first see if there is slotted items that have limited charges and compare: I believe I have seen items like those and that they had prices similar to the ones of handheld charged items.
Ring of three wishes works just like handheld charged items for example.
I am checking its price right now.

[Biffoniacus_Furiou]

Hands are not item slots. A Thri-Kreen has four arms, and can have four 'held' items, but can't wear four rings. Because rings take item slots, but held items do not.

[noob]

Hands are not item slots. A Thri-Kreen has four arms, and can have four 'held' items, but can't wear four rings. Because rings take item slots, but held items do not.

but I say that handheld items however does not takes the "slotless item" overcharge.
Example: pearls of thaumathurgy, wands, staves, scrolls, shields.
However putting multiple times a modifier including the same one does include a slotless item overcharge according to dmg magic item price reverse engeenering(except when the devs decides "I will make this items cost 5 times too much for no reason").

[MaxiDuRaritry]

They never say that those items have specific pricing schematics that makes them exempt from those rules.They are slotless items that have their own pricing schemes. It's self-evident by simply being what they are. Like, you don't have to ask if a tree is made of wood, because trees are defined, in part, by being made of wood. And the general rules state that slotless items cost 2x what slotted items do.


We should first see if there is slotted items that have limited charges and compare: I believe I have seen items like those and that they had prices similar to the ones of handheld charged items.Prices for limited charge items that aren't standardized (ie, wands and staves) are all over the place, depending entirely on what the devs who made them hit on the dartboard they undoubtedly had. The earlier in the life of 3e they were, the more expensive they were, as a general rule, although that's not a hard-and-fast rule (see: the aforementioned dartboard methodology).

[noob]

They are slotless items that have their own pricing schemes. It's self-evident by simply being what they are. Like, you don't have to ask if a tree is made of wood, because trees are defined, in part, by being made of wood. And the general rules state that slotless items cost 2x what slotted items do.

Prices for limited charge items that aren't standardized (ie, wands and staves) are all over the place, depending entirely on what the devs who made them hit on the dartboard they undoubtedly had. The earlier in the life of 3e they were, the more expensive they were, as a general rule, although that's not a hard-and-fast rule (see: the aforementioned dartboard methodology).

Nope you are making an error: there is items that mix charge spell casting effects and continuous effects and many other silly combinations(and that are in hands or slotless or in slots): most combinations have been done.
You call self evident something that is just false.

[MaxiDuRaritry]

Nope you are making an error: there is items that mix charge spell casting effects and continuous effects and many other silly combinations(and that are in hands or slotless or in slots): most combinations have been done.
You call self evident something that is just false.Are weapons, wands, and staves on that list of body slots I quoted above? Because those things aren't on that list of body slots I quoted above. Ergo, they are slotless. They also have their own pricing scheme, because those are explicitly listed as being so.

[noob]

Are weapons, wands, and staves on that list of body slots I quoted above? Because those things aren't on that list of body slots I quoted above. Ergo, they are slotless. They also have their own pricing scheme, because those are explicitly listed as being so.

Reread this page
http://www.d20srd.org/srd/magicItems...MagicItems.htm
It says a list of body slots with affinities but it never says it is the exclusive list of body slots.
So it would not contradict the rules if hands were a body slot(just one with no specific affinities)
There is no actual list of body slots in the dmg only one of body slot affinities(so if a body slot had no affinities it would not appear in this table despite existing).
My interpretation does not directly contradicts the rules as written.
And it does not needs tortured interpretation involving saying that all the items in hands are somehow considered slotless despite them not costing twice as much as other similar items taking slots(except for weapons because the devs hates the mundane).
Regardless no way of interpreting things is not tortured because the devs used dartboards half of the time.

[MaxiDuRaritry]

Reread this page
http://www.d20srd.org/srd/magicItems...MagicItems.htm
It says a list of body slots with affinities but it never says it is the exclusive list of body slots.
So it would not contradict the rules if hands were a body slot(just one with no specific affinities)
There is no actual list of body slots in the dmg only one of body slot affinities(so if a body slot had no affinities it would not appear in this table despite existing).
My interpretation does not directly contradicts the rules as written.
And it does not needs tortured interpretation involving saying that all the items in hands are somehow considered slotless despite them not costing twice as much as other similar items taking slots(except for weapons because the devs hates the mundane).Weapons, wands, and staves don't have body affinities (ie slots), either. They don't work like anything like gloves, headbands, or boots. You can wield as many of them as you have the ability to wield, which varies significantly based on body shape and the way they're wielded. Weapons, for instance, can be wielded in one hand, two hands, more than two hands, telekinetically, in the mouth (see: mouthpick weapons), held in or on one's tail, etc. They do not interfere with body affinities or body slots (which are identical in the rules, so they're synonyms in a very real way). They don't act anything at all like how slotted (or affinity'd) items work.

If they're not slotted, they're slotless, by dint of not being slotted.

[schreier]

So the consensus seems to be you could have:
Gloves of arcanist with greater chaining, greater maximize and greater empower allowing up to 3 uses of each per day, and you could use one, two or all three on an individual spell? ( Assuming it falls under the epic cost ceiling)

[MaxiDuRaritry]

So the consensus seems to be you could have:
Gloves of arcanist with greater chaining, greater maximize and greater empower allowing up to 3 uses of each per day, and you could use one, two or all three on an individual spell? ( Assuming it falls under the epic cost ceiling)The only relevant limit in the rules for metamagic rods is that it's "per rod," not "per effect." So if multiple rod effects are on one rod (or on some other item, like the gloves), then yeah. By RAW, you can use one rod's multiple rod effects on one spell.

[Aracor]

I'd personally rule that if you have a Rod of Maximize and Empower, it still has only three charges. And it's still a binary yes/no activation. I'd also price it at +5 slot-level adjustment.

[MaxiDuRaritry]

I'd personally rule that if you have a Rod of Maximize and Empower, it still has only three charges. And it's still a binary yes/no activation. I'd also price it at +5 slot-level adjustment.So you're nerfing it to the point where nobody would ever use it, then. Why not just be honest about it and ban it?

[Biggus]

The MIC specifically has rules on this, and unlike in the DMG, they're not "suggestions" but actual rules.

So yes, yes you can, unless the DM specifically houserules against it (including disallowing the MIC).


Where in the MIC are these rules? The only part in the MIC I can see which is specifically described as "official rules" about item crafting is the part about adding common effects to existing magic items, which only refers to the abilities listed on the table on p.234.

[schreier]

So you're nerfing it to the point where nobody would ever use it, then. Why not just be honest about it and ban it?

I don't think he's nerfing it - just making the two together (not a or b but ab) and only 3 uses total of both at the same time .. pricing as +5 vs. pricing as two separate items doesn't seem too major

[schreier]

Where in the MIC are these rules? The only part in the MIC I can see which is specifically described as "official rules" about item crafting is the part about adding common effects to existing magic items, which only refers to the abilities listed on the table on p.234.

I think he's talking about combining multiple items (the second and third effects at +50%)

[MaxiDuRaritry]

Where in the MIC are these rules? The only part in the MIC I can see which is specifically described as "official rules" about item crafting is the part about adding common effects to existing magic items, which only refers to the abilities listed on the table on p.234.It's literally right before that, on the same page on the same column, even.


I don't think he's nerfing it - just making the two together (not a or b but ab) and only 3 uses total of both at the same time .. pricing as +5 vs. pricing as two separate items doesn't seem too majorIt's certainly not following the item combination rules. It's houseruling it to be ridiculously expensive by comparison to what it should be. You're saying that's not a nerf?

[schreier]

It's literally right before that, on the same page on the same column, even.

It's certainly not following the item combination rules. It's houseruling it to be ridiculously expensive by comparison to what it should be. You're saying that's not a nerf?

I just realized there is no +5 metamagic feat/rod so there is not even a formula to calculate the cost

[gijoemike]

So you're nerfing it to the point where nobody would ever use it, then. Why not just be honest about it and ban it?

I don't see it as nerfing the item but instead being true to the spirit of charges. Have 3 different effects on a single item but then saying i can use A twice a day, B 4 times a day, and C only once a week and calling it a item with limited charges missing the mark. A stave with 50 charges and 3 abilities uses the same charge pool to pay for those spells. Those abilities use a different # of charges per use. So using staves/wands as the most general example where the charges are a single pool seems cleanest.

The binary yes/no just means you go big or you go home. 1 charge to use both abilities could be seen as a buff. I would have preferred 5 charges per day 1 charge per ability and you can use all abilities at once. Thus 2 casts of Max and Emp, then 1 of either. My way is actually weaker but slightly more versatile as you could stretch it over 5 castings.

We all know the abuse deconstructing and reconstructing items can do. That is the whole point of this thread. The main point to remember is those rules are how to do something that doesn't exist anywhere else. As such they shouldn't be used most of the time. Items that grant daily powers of metamagic to spells cast exist so don't used these rules. If an item exists that does what you want that is the price of the item you are supposed to use. It is very possible to create items that have 2x the bonus and 3x the power for 1/2 of the price using these rules (Slotted vs slotless, daily charges, race specific, gender specific). Yes the DMG has items that are 3x or 5x the cost of the abilities combined per these rules because the devs ( at the time ) felt those combo of abilities needed extra payment. While a +5 weapon adjustment seems a bit harsh I totally agree that the combined power of maximize + empower should get a price bump. A +3 weapon enchantment is 18K, iirc? So I would go with an additional 15k on top of the calculated price. Items like this need to be a few levels higher and a few payouts later than regular rods of max and empower.


Is a weapon slotted or slot-less

Weapons don't take up one of the defined magic item slots found on a character in D&D. End of story. Slotted items are worn on the body in some way. This includes boots, gloves, rings, necklaces, masks, capes, etc.

BUT weapon enchantment costs are not x2 based on the slot-less status. So that entire path of discussion is completely pointless. They just are x2 because the rules say so. I would assume the devs wanted AC to improve first and weapons improve slower. Why do I say this, as mentioned earlier shields are on the weapons table yet can be enchanted as either Armor or a weapon. It is stupid. It is possible to have a +2 weapon enchantment on a shield that also has a +1 defense/armor enchantment. A shield can have enchantments that are for armor only and for weapons only. If a PC wants to use a shield in games I run this gets house ruled to hell in an attempt to make sense. It has never really worked.

[MaxiDuRaritry]

Not everyone will want to use both Empower and Maximize at the same time all the time, and you're paying significantly more for less granularity and utility than you would've gotten, and half the uses per day for when you want to spread them out.

And what if you have Quicken and Empower on the same rod? The chances of wanting to Quicken and Empower every time are not as high as the price would demand, especially since so many spells can't be both Empowered (due to not having variable numbers) or Quickened (due to having too long a casting time). You can Quicken a haste spell, but how do you Empower it? Does that mean you can't use the rod on it at all? So you just wasted all that money on a rod you can't even use?

[tiercel]

Given that the entry on metamagic rods specifies “A caster may only use one metamagic rod on any given spell,” I would think it would be highly reasonable for a DM to rule that a “duplex rod” (that allows more than one metamagic effect simultaneously through the rod) is a transparent ploy to subvert this rule and either disallow it entirely or allow only a “dual option” version of the rod (that allows you to employ either one of two metamagics at a time, but not both simultaneously).

[MaxiDuRaritry]

Given that the entry on metamagic rods specifies “A caster may only use one metamagic rod on any given spell,” I would think it would be highly reasonable for a DM to rule that a “duplex rod” (that allows more than one metamagic effect simultaneously through the rod) is a transparent ploy to subvert this ruleOf course it is. But there are many ways to get free (and extremely highly discounted) metamagic, and those are also ways to subvert the rules on metamagic, and they're 100% legal and RAW.

Hell, metamagic rods themselves are "a transparent ploy to subvert rules" of metamagic, and they're self-contained and explicit. And core.

[tiercel]

they're 100% legal and RAW.

...my argument was about what was likely at an actual table game in my experience, not about what was strictly RAW. The latter leads down a slope of drown healing, infinite combos, and lands one in something like the Tippyverse, which... is fine if that’s what a table wants to play, but is incompatible with essentially any published campaign setting or prepackaged module or adventure path.

More to the point, if a player at my table said “well, if there’s a rule about only using one metamagic rod effect at a time, then I’ll just smush two rods together, CALL it one rod, and YOU CAN’T STOP ME because RAW,” I suppose I’d raise my eyebrows and reply, “actually, I’m the DM, so, yeah, I kinda actually can. DMs interpret the rules to work for their game. Now, do you REALLY want RAW? Because my BBEG is higher level than you all and has more gold, and if RAW works this way for you, it’s been working this way for him for, oh, years? Decades? Does anyone think the BBEG is *less* power hungry and *more* morally bound than the PCs in terms of seeking out routes to power?”

Also, at a metagame level, I suppose I’d ask if casters need even more goodies relative to noncasters. You don’t have to necessarily take umbrage with the sheer amount of metamagic reduction already available (as some might) in order to not think, hey, casters need MORE help than what’s been explicitly published.

[Aracor]

So you're nerfing it to the point where nobody would ever use it, then. Why not just be honest about it and ban it?

The way I see it, there are two possible ways to handle it. My way is the first one. Yes, it means you'll need to be careful about WHICH Rods you combine. But if people want to buy it that way, they're absolutely going to buy options that their particular character intends to use.

The second way to handle it is to treat it as two different Rods that happen to coexist in the same item. They can be activated separately, but they are not a "single" rod, and cannot BOTH be applied to the same spell.

If you're using the previous example (Greater Chaining, Greater Maximize, and Greater Empower), and applying all three effects to a single spell slot, then you ARE effectively trying to bypass the rules, because that is in total a +8 slot-level adjustment to a single spell. From a 9th level spell, it's suddenly got the power of a 17th level one. That's FAR beyond what you're paying for when you're buying the Rods individually.

If someone (for example) wanted a Lesser Rod that does both Silent Spell and Still Spell at the same time, then I'd absolutely price it the same as a Rod of Empower, because the Rod is providing a +2 slot-level adjustment, not a +1 slot-level adjustment TWICE. If they wanted a Lesser Rod that was effectively a Rod of Silent Spell and a Rod of Still Spell duct taped together and they could choose between the two (but not use both together), then I'd price it at 7500 (the cost of both + 50% on the second). Because they're not bypassing the fundamental limit of the Rods (which are priced based on the slot-level provided by the Rod).