Metamagic Rods

[MykulFrost]

Hopefully a quick and easy one here. Would there or would there not be a metamagic rod for every metamagic feat?

[Kuulvheysoon]

RAW, there is not a metamagic rod for every feat.

Could there be? Sure, but that's in the realm of homebrew and custom magic items. Some metamagic feats, like Sanctum Spell, aren't particularly great as metamagic rods.

Should there be? Probably not. Spellcasters have enough inherent abilities that giving them what amounts to free limited use of a feat, especially one locked behind numerous prerequisite feats, is exceedingly generous.

EDIT: Thinking about it a bit more, any of the +0 metamagics are a bit suspect when talking about metamagic rods. they're priced partially off the spell slot increase that they grant, but something like the aforementioned Sanctum Spell is a +0 modifier. And if you mean to suggest that it should multiply the price by x0, I've got a book to throw at you.

[MykulFrost]

RAW, there is not a metamagic rod for every feat.

Could there be? Sure, but that's in the realm of homebrew and custom magic items. Some metamagic feats, like Sanctum Spell, aren't particularly great as metamagic rods.

Should there be? Probably not. Spellcasters have enough inherent abilities that giving them what amounts to free limited use of a feat, especially one locked behind numerous prerequisite feats, is exceedingly generous.

EDIT: Thinking about it a bit more, any of the +0 metamagics are a bit suspect when talking about metamagic rods. they're priced partially off the spell slot increase that they grant, but something like the aforementioned Sanctum Spell is a +0 modifier. And if you mean to suggest that it should multiply the price by x0, I've got a book to throw at you.

:smallbiggrin: Thanks for the speedy response. Much appreciated.

[Teth]

You can theoretically stick arbitrary feats in items, provided you know the feat and can otherwise craft a comparable item. Magic items in the sourcebooks are supposed to be examples, not a comprehensive catalogue of everything that can exist. So "that doesn't exist in RAW" here is kind of like saying you can only run adventures that exist in official modules.

But it needs to both make sense mechanically and pass DM approval like anything else, which is why you can't just say you're buying a ring of three wishes and not expect to have a book thrown at you, or make a ring of continuous true strike, or whatever. It's not that it can't be done in terms of rules, but that a sane DM usually won't approve it given typical campaign designs, simply because it'd make it difficult to balance game sessions in a way that's fun for everyone involved.

So it's not that there's a reason why a metamagic rod of Persistent Spell or Reach Spell or Nonlethal Substitution wouldn't be valid, but in the end you still have to ask your DM whether they're okay with you having it.

Sanctum Spell specifically wouldn't work as a normal metamagic rod because you need a sanctum for the metamagic effect to do anything, and setting up a qualifying sanctum requires the feat plus three months plus seven days.

You could potentially deal with that by having it paired with a "sanctum stone" which can be attuned to a site (taking a process of seven days, after you've stayed there at least three months), which comes down to "yes, but you have to add money." Plus of course still needing to know the feat, which means it'd probably be fairly uncommon outside of maybe some mage orders that specifically make them available to lower-level members.

[Biggus]

Thinking about it a bit more, any of the +0 metamagics are a bit suspect when talking about metamagic rods. they're priced partially off the spell slot increase that they grant, but something like the aforementioned Sanctum Spell is a +0 modifier. And if you mean to suggest that it should multiply the price by x0, I've got a book to throw at you.

There is a rod of a +0 feat printed, Energy Substitution in the MIC (p.165). It costs slightly less than a +1 rod.



So it's not that there's a reason why a metamagic rod of Persistent Spell or Reach Spell or Nonlethal Substitution wouldn't be valid, but in the end you still have to ask your DM whether they're okay with you having it.


There's also a Reach Spell rod (again, MIC p.165). AFAIK, the four extra rods in the MIC are the only official ones outside the DMG.

Personally, I'd allow most MM feats to be rods. A few of them (like Heighten Spell) wouldn't really make sense, and Persistant Spell I wouldn't allow because despite its presumably high price tag, it'd still increase the power of spellcasters too much at high levels, which is the last thing the game needs (but then I don't allow DMM or Incantatrix cheese when I DM either, so YMMV).

[Jay R]

This is clearly and unambiguously a DM judgment call.

If I were running a game, and a player asked for a non-standard metamagic rod, I would consider the question in terms of the world assumptions, the encounters I expect them to face in the foreseeable future, the effect of that particular metamagic feat, and quite possibly on the power level of that particular player's PC.

Some would seem perfectly normal. Some would be too much.

I'd be leery about, for instance, a metamagic rod of Fell Weaken, which turns magic missile into an automatic first level spell to take 4 STR from (up to) 5 opponents.

[Psyren]

Pathfinder does this (well, almost all of them - some of the really specific ones like Solid Shadows don't, but pretty much all of the "X Spell" ones have corresponding rods) and it doesn't seem to have broken anything.

As for "casters don't need to be buffed further" - keep in mind that mid and low tier casters can use rods too, and in many cases they benefit even more. A T1 caster is still T1 without a Rod of Coaxing Spell, but making it so the Bard or Mesmerist or Counterfeit Mage Rogue isn't completely hosed in those fights is worthwhile imo.

[Asmotherion]

I'd figure the cannon ones are used as examples, and thus, yes, every metamagic feat has a rod.

[Vaern]

Thinking about it a bit more, any of the +0 metamagics are a bit suspect when talking about metamagic rods. they're priced partially off the spell slot increase that they grant, but something like the aforementioned Sanctum Spell is a +0 modifier. And if you mean to suggest that it should multiply the price by x0, I've got a book to throw at you.

Rods of a +0 metamagic feat would be priced similarly to a 0-level spell, being half the cost of a +1 metamagic feat.


There is a rod of a +0 feat printed, Energy Substitution in the MIC (p.165). It costs slightly less than a +1 rod.

The pricing on metamagic rods actually varies depending on where you look. The pricing on them was tweaked between 3.0 and 3.5, but there have been rods reprinted in 3.5 using the original 3.0 pricing.

Metamagic rods were first printed in 3.0's Tome of Blood using a pricing formula that could be used to plug in new metamagic feats and create new rods.

The Original formula:
X = Metamagic feat's spell level modifier (+0 is calculated as 1/2)
Y = Maximum level of spell affected by the rod
Z = Uses per day

Market Value = 2X * Y^2 * Z/5 * 1000

It's worth noting that, while all published rods will be usable 3/day on 3rd, 6th, or 9th level spells and lower, it's technically possible to use this formula to calculate the cost of a trinket that can be used to, say, extend a single spell per day of 1st level or lower (200 gp).
It's also possible to turn Z up to 5 for to cost of an unlimited use item, then use that price as a baseline to derive the cost of a single-use consumable variation of metamagic item (for example, a crystal that can be consumed as an additional material component when casting a spell of 4th level or lower to apply the effect of Empower Spell, which I believe would end up costing 480 gp).

A handful of Tome of Blood's rods later made it into 3.5 core. These rods had their prices rounded up to the next thousand, then cut in half to end up where they are in the 3.5 DMG printing. For example, a lesser +1 metamagic rod originally had a market value of 5,400 which was rounded up to 6,000 and then halved to the 3,000 that you see on enlarge, extend, and silent. This throws numbers off quite a bit, and made it basically impossible to try reverse-engineering a formula using the PHB's numbers.
Aside from taking forever to figure out where the numbers came from, the prices don't look bad on ordinary rods. But, applying this adjustment does kind of spoil attempts to make ludicrously cheap homebrew rods using the aforementioned formula, as even a rod originally priced at 100 gp would be rounded up to 1,000 and halved to 500 - five times the original cost.

A good chunk of Tome of Blood content that didn't make it to core was later reprinted in Complete Arcane, including the remainder of its metamagic rods with their original pricing as they were written in 3.0. If you look at CAr, you can see by comparing Substitution to other effects such as Sculpting that a +0 rod does have half the cost of a +1 rod whose price is derived from the same formula (2,700 for Substitution vs. 5,400 for Sculpting).
When reprinted in MIC, all of Complete Arcane's rods got the 3.5 update treatment of having their prices rounded up and then halved... except substitution (resulting in Substitution remaining at 2,700, vs. 3,000 now for Sculpting). If the same conversion rules were applied, Substitution should cost 1,500/5,500/12,500.
I don't know why they left Substitution out of the conversion. Maybe the editor decided that the effect was strong enough to justify its cost, despite the formula saying it should cost less. Maybe it was just an oversight. At any rate, the whole thing results in an awkward situation where the only printed +0 metamagic rod costs about the same as a +1 rod, despite the fact that the formula used to determine its price only works by calculating its value as being half of a +1 rod.

Anyway, as far as officially printed 3.5 RAW goes, despite what the cost of Substitution should be, you are technically correct - the best kind of correct, by the way - that a +0 rod seems to cost just a bit less than a +1 rod.

[Quertus]

Working with fiddly math slows the game down. Thus, buffs (or, at least, "+x to Y" buffs) should be persisted, to keep the game running quickly. Thus, I am, personally, a fan of things like Metamagic Rods of Persist.


you are technically correct - the best kind of correct

Not only one of my favorite "sayings", but such a great way to end such a well-explained and well-researched post.

Did you change your Sig for this purpose, or was it always this reference?

[Psyren]

If it helps, PF has +0 rods at about half the price of +1 ones. See Extend vs. Merciful and Murky for example.

[Darg]

Working with fiddly math slows the game down. Thus, buffs (or, at least, "+x to Y" buffs) should be persisted, to keep the game running quickly. Thus, I am, personally, a fan of things like Metamagic Rods of Persist.

Not everyone agrees with this though. Persistent spell was balanced around requiring 6 extra spell levels. Challenging encounters are designed around you using 25% of your resources. Persistent spell can increase the efficiency of a spell by up to 1,439,900% if it lasted a single round to 71,900% if it lasted 20. And we all know that the only spells getting persisted are the powerful really short term buffs that generally don't need to be tracked because the durations are so short. If you need to track the durations constantly, then your encounters aren't spaced apart enough or they're too easy to be considered challenging or there isn't enough "easy if handled properly" encounters that require more than just bulldozing through with maximum buffs.

Throwing "very difficult" and "overpowering" encounters in there also helps keep the game apace.

[Lilapop]

Persistent spell can increase the efficiency of a spell by up to 1,439,900% if it lasted a single round to 71,900% if it lasted 20.
Eh. Vigors maybe, but for most spells the effect is closer to 4x or 16x: the spell is active on all four-ish of your daily encounters instead of just one, or all four-ish rounds of each of your four-ish encounters instead of just one round.


And we all know that the only spells getting persisted are the powerful really short term buffs that generally don't need to be tracked because the durations are so short.
The point isn't tracking durations, its that your stats don't change. Instead of +1 from bless and +1/+1 from divine favor now, replaced with +1/+1.5 (and a host of skill and CMD changes) from ram's might the next fight.

[Psyren]

For short duration spells I'd say it's less about having to update all your math mid-fight, and more knowing that there is an action cost (if standard) or an additional resource cost (if swift) associated with reactivating that buff, on top of the opportunity cost of needing another spell slot for that instance. "My bless might go away mid-fight" is much rarer - combat seldom goes beyond 5 rounds. But "I need 3 blessings today" is a more straightforward strategic decision.

This is one thing I'll hand to 5e - most spell durations don't change no matter what your level is, whether that duration is 1 minute or 1 hour, and that simplifies things (and nerfs casters) without making them unfun.

[Vaern]

Did you change your Sig for this purpose, or was it always this reference?

Oh, I've had this sig for ages now. It seemed appropriate for the forum, since it often seems that debating whether or not something is technically RAW legal carries more weight than whether it makes sense :P

[Darg]

Eh. Vigors maybe, but for most spells the effect is closer to 4x or 16x: the spell is active on all four-ish of your daily encounters instead of just one, or all four-ish rounds of each of your four-ish encounters instead of just one round.


The point isn't tracking durations, its that your stats don't change. Instead of +1 from bless and +1/+1 from divine favor now, replaced with +1/+1.5 (and a host of skill and CMD changes) from ram's might the next fight.

If short term buffs are such a chore, instead of gaming the system to always have them why not simply not use them? An evoker wizard is not going to be putting out as many buffs as an illusionist or transmuter. The fact that persistent spell saves you 3 spell slots and a rod of persistent spell would save you up to 9 high level spell slots/slots you don't even have yet is the most unbalancing aspect. It would really be more balanced to simply make the spells you don't like to recast free actions and be done with it. The inconvenience of spellcasting is part of the balancing between casters and noncasters. If your party is simply full of wizards, clerics, and druids I could see giving such power concessions. And it's not like there aren't other short buffs that can't be persisted that make one recalculate stats.

[Quertus]

Not everyone agrees with this though. Persistent spell was balanced around requiring 6 extra spell levels.

Sure.

A) so wait until you can cast 7th level spells before casting Bless.

B) or find some way to persist it earlier.

But no matter what, Balance to the Table.


For short duration spells I'd say it's less about having to update all your math mid-fight, and more knowing that there is an action cost (if standard) or an additional resource cost (if swift) associated with reactivating that buff,

Eh, there's 3 things involved; I'm only concerned with it slowing down play. "Did you remember my +1". :smallmad:

Battletech is a great game. But it's filled with calculating fiddly math: "medium range is 6, I ran is 8, your defense is 11, 1 woods makes 12, I'm clan is 11, pulse is 9, targeting computer makes 8.". 10 combatants to a side, and you might not get in a 10 round combat in 10 hours. Whereas I can get in 10 entire encounters in a much shorter session of D&D at tables that *don't* fuss with fiddly math.


If short term buffs are such a chore, instead of gaming the system to always have them why not simply not use them?.

Generally my preference (sort of), but some people like to buff. So let them have their fun, *if* it doesn't make the game less fun.

Kinda applicable to everything, actually…

[Psyren]

Eh, there's 3 things involved; I'm only concerned with it slowing down play. "Did you remember my +1". :smallmad:

Battletech is a great game. But it's filled with calculating fiddly math: "medium range is 6, I ran is 8, your defense is 11, 1 woods makes 12, I'm clan is 11, pulse is 9, targeting computer makes 8.". 10 combatants to a side, and you might not get in a 10 round combat in 10 hours. Whereas I can get in 10 entire encounters in a much shorter session of D&D at tables that *don't* fuss with fiddly math.

Oh trust me, I don't like fiddly math either, for all that it makes a rules-heavy system feel more immersive when you get it right.

With that said, we primarily play on roll20 and have automated a LOT of bonuses (and penalties) that can be applied to a character with a click of a button. It required a lot of setup from our GM but makes PF1 games nearly seamless - I could easily see rules-heavy games getting back more in vogue if that sort of thing could be made more ubiquitous :smallsmile:

[Darg]

Generally my preference (sort of), but some people like to buff. So let them have their fun, *if* it doesn't make the game less fun.

Kinda applicable to everything, actually…

I tell my players to make a buff sheet ordered by bonus type. I also tell my players to have monster resources available for creatures they want to turn into, summon, or call. My players don't tend to use obscure material and don't generally have more than a few buffs at a time. Long term buffs are easy to keep track of by simply marking an aside and then you can add short term buffs. It generally isn't too hard or time consuming when a lot of the time the buffing has to be done in combat, taking up their actions.

What I mean by buff sheet is a grid of bonus type x stat affected with room on the side to list active buffs with starting durations. It makes it really easy and quick to cross reference base stats + modifiers to get the total. For a group buff, the caster calls out the bonus type and then lists the stats affected. For self buffs it's easy enough to do it off your turn because often it's done in combat after you spent your action.


Oh trust me, I don't like fiddly math either, for all that it makes a rules-heavy system feel more immersive when you get it right.

With that said, we primarily play on roll20 and have automated a LOT of bonuses (and penalties) that can be applied to a character with a click of a button. It required a lot of setup from our GM but makes PF1 games nearly seamless - I could easily see rules-heavy games getting back more in vogue if that sort of thing could be made more ubiquitous :smallsmile:

Mechanical automation is great. It's part of what makes video games so appealing. I want to give neverwinter nights as a medium a try, but any mention of "video game" immediately shuts their emergency blast doors. I could understand if there was a reason like it wouldn't be able to accurately reflect what they want. The only thing I can get out of them is that they basically stigmatized it and refuse to be open minded about the subject.

[Quertus]

Oh trust me, I don't like fiddly math either, for all that it makes a rules-heavy system feel more immersive when you get it right.

I'm not sure about "immersive" (got a good example?), but I like the fiddly math in Battletech because that *is* the game. But it's just a single, slow, horribly unloved optional minigame in 3e, that gets in the way of all the other fun minigames by slowing the game down to a crawl, when my tables prefer "speed D&D".


With that said, we primarily play on roll20 and have automated a LOT of bonuses (and penalties) that can be applied to a character with a click of a button. It required a lot of setup from our GM but makes PF1 games nearly seamless - I could easily see rules-heavy games getting back more in vogue if that sort of thing could be made more ubiquitous :smallsmile:

Oooooooh. Yeah, that would make a huge difference. :smallbiggrin:


I tell my players to make a buff sheet ordered by bonus type. I also tell my players to have monster resources available for creatures they want to turn into, summon, or call. My players don't tend to use obscure material and don't generally have more than a few buffs at a time. Long term buffs are easy to keep track of by simply marking an aside and then you can add short term buffs. It generally isn't too hard or time consuming when a lot of the time the buffing has to be done in combat, taking up their actions.


What I mean by buff sheet is a grid of bonus type x stat affected with room on the side to list active buffs with starting durations. It makes it really easy and quick to cross reference base stats + modifiers to get the total. For a group buff, the caster calls out the bonus type and then lists the stats affected. For self buffs it's easy enough to do it off your turn because often it's done in combat after you spent your action.

So… a big, gridded, erasable sheet? Where they constantly do maths of "Fortitude: +6(base) + ???(see current stat) + 1(luck)(permanent) + 3(luck)(5 minutes) + 1(morale)(6 hours) + 3(morale)(10 minutes) + 1 (alchemical) (1 good hour) + 3 (profane) (permanent) +…"? And your group(s) can do that quickly and accurately? And don't groan when asked to update their math again for your +1?


Mechanical automation is great. It's part of what makes video games so appealing. I want to give neverwinter nights as a medium a try, but any mention of "video game" immediately shuts their emergency blast doors. I could understand if there was a reason like it wouldn't be able to accurately reflect what they want. The only thing I can get out of them is that they basically stigmatized it and refuse to be open minded about the subject.

Eh, when the rest the group can clear out 2 dungeons in the time I can get the GM to let me babe a cupcake with blue frosting, it's an issue.

In other words, it's too hard to do the things that aren't programmed in.

Of course, if I can run a proper undead army, animating and commanding everything without needing GM intervention, my disposition might improve. :smallwink:

[Hua]

In general, I think the +0 meta-magic feats are frequently over powered, but aside from that:

Craft rods requires a caster level 12.
Most 12th level casters don't need to spend their hard earned exp for gold, they have their own.
Market for ANY rod in my games is highly restrictive because of a deep scarcity of people who both can, and will, craft them.

Of course a PC doing it for himself or party member is a different thing, but at least then he has to take the feat.

[Psyren]

Mechanical automation is great. It's part of what makes video games so appealing. I want to give neverwinter nights as a medium a try, but any mention of "video game" immediately shuts their emergency blast doors. I could understand if there was a reason like it wouldn't be able to accurately reflect what they want. The only thing I can get out of them is that they basically stigmatized it and refuse to be open minded about the subject.

I'm not even asking for full-on video game - just for the GM to get tools that take some of the burden off their plates and let them focus on storytelling. A savvy GM can build a lot of it in roll20, but if Paizo were truly on the ball with attracting people to a rules-heavy game they'd pre-build most of it (and sell it).


I'm not sure about "immersive" (got a good example?), but I like the fiddly math in Battletech because that *is* the game. But it's just a single, slow, horribly unloved optional minigame in 3e, that gets in the way of all the other fun minigames by slowing the game down to a crawl, when my tables prefer "speed D&D".

When I say "immersive" I'm referring to the key strength of a rules heavy system, fidelity. I don't just want to know what happens if I'm firing a bow at someone through a window - I want to know what happens if I'm shooting from horseback, the window is ajar, I'm 45 ft away, it's raining, the horse is scared, my target didn't realize I was there, etc. 5e is content to abstract all that down to a single instance of advantage/disadvantage/neither, and that's fine for a pen and paper game, but I'd be much more excited for a game that can actually keep track of all those conditions (and better yet, do so for me.)

[Lilapop]

A savvy GM can build a lot of it in roll20.

It took me multiple weeks to wrap my head around the conditional syntax in Roll20 macros, and I'm a software developer. Because it ISN'T conditional, it just counts successes (which is why the return value can only be an integer) and you can kinda abuse it for conditions. But hey, I ultimately did get the arrow dropdown and the bloodglass damage bonus to work.

Buffs are an entirely different matter though. Macros making live changes to your stats instead of just posting in chat "Snag rages, increase current and maximum HP by [HD*2] and also do all the other stuff" is a premium feature as far as I can tell.

[Psyren]

It might be - we do use the pro version for our campaigns so I'm unaware of what features are not available to free users or not.

But yes, we have a series of very common buffs "bookmarked" to where we only have to check a box, e.g. the bard's Inspire Courage/Competence, my alchemist's mutagen, our tank's bloodrage, shield/barkskin/stoneskin and several more.

[Kitsuneymg]

It took me multiple weeks to wrap my head around the conditional syntax in Roll20 macros, and I'm a software developer. Because it ISN'T conditional, it just counts successes (which is why the return value can only be an integer) and you can kinda abuse it for conditions. But hey, I ultimately did get the arrow dropdown and the bloodglass damage bonus to work.

Buffs are an entirely different matter though. Macros making live changes to your stats instead of just posting in chat "Snag rages, increase current and maximum HP by [HD*2] and also do all the other stuff" is a premium feature as far as I can tell.

Macros are premium. Buffs are not. If you use the community pathfinder sheet, you can directly edit macros for things. Buffs can’t do dice rolls (for some reason) but you can do something like [[${repeating_buff2-$idcodehere-enable_toggle} *(1d6+${wis-mod})]][battle dragon stance] and add it to your damage macro. That always rolls d6 plus wisdom, but multiplies it by 0 when the buffs checkbox isn’t checked.

When it comes to super complicated sets of options (like multi attack maneuvers or spheres of might barrage) I tend to use sheets to make a macro builder then copy and paste it into roll20. this ( https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1HO1x0SO5MTj84fdcG6jvCI1vy4TnUjy28iFNmvF2arc/edit) is an example.

[Zanos]

I'm not even asking for full-on video game - just for the GM to get tools that take some of the burden off their plates and let them focus on storytelling. A savvy GM can build a lot of it in roll20, but if Paizo were truly on the ball with attracting people to a rules-heavy game they'd pre-build most of it (and sell it).
Foundry is a much better VTT for a power user. And even for casual users, IMO. I can just make a buff widget and put it in a compendium, and they can just drag it onto their own character sheet and click a checkmark to toggle it on/off.

[Arkain]

It took me multiple weeks to wrap my head around the conditional syntax in Roll20 macros, and I'm a software developer. Because it ISN'T conditional, it just counts successes (which is why the return value can only be an integer) and you can kinda abuse it for conditions. But hey, I ultimately did get the arrow dropdown and the bloodglass damage bonus to work.

Buffs are an entirely different matter though. Macros making live changes to your stats instead of just posting in chat "Snag rages, increase current and maximum HP by [HD*2] and also do all the other stuff" is a premium feature as far as I can tell.

As somebody who has used the free version of Roll20 to GM, the buffs can work wonderfully there. For my players I basically added all the relevant (i.e. spontaneous casters are fixed anyhow, others have a tendency to use certain spells) buffs to their characters' sheets, including stuff like Dead Aim or Power Attack. It's even possible to fiddle with types, so you don't have various luck bonuses accidentally stacking and such. You check the box, your character sheet is dynamically updated, boom. Some things don't always work out nicely, like new senses, but numbers are mostly. Maybe a bit of an effort with equipment and enhancement bonuses, but eh, you can make it work. Now, if only people wouldn't always forget about their stuff though :smallbiggrin:

[Psyren]

Foundry is a much better VTT for a power user. And even for casual users, IMO. I can just make a buff widget and put it in a compendium, and they can just drag it onto their own character sheet and click a checkmark to toggle it on/off.

Ooh, hadn't heard of this one. *goes to check it out*

[Lilapop]

community pathfinder sheet

Dead Aim

Huh, that setup is certainly convenient (or would be, if we were playing with Paizo's houserules instead of my own). If the entire sheet is built around checking those for everything, it works... but if I simply want to run a macro that directly writes into an attribute, because that is what I need to do this on Diana's sheet (unless I want to update all my attack macros with tempMod=floor(baseStr+buff1Str+buff2Str+buff3Str)/2 or something along those lines), all I can find is mentions of the API. Hmm. I mean, I could add a custom attribute that contains that and call it instead of the regular strength mod... but it would still not display for human users checking the frontpage of the sheet.