3
\$\begingroup\$

A level 10 creator can use the feat Craft Wand to create a wand of snowball modified by the metamagic feats Intensified Spell and Empower Spell. Normally, the price of such a wand is 30,000 gp ([1 (spell level) +3 (metamagic adjustments to spell level)] ×10 (caster level) ×750 gp).

However, if the creator has the trait Magical Lineage (snowball), can the creator make a nearly identical wand except at a total adjusted spell level of 3 instead of 4 yet that has the same effect?

And if the creator possesses the supernatural ability elemental manipulation (or another ability that allows the creator to change one energy type to another), can that creator create a wand of snowball that's, instead, a wand of fire snowball that deals fire damage?

\$\endgroup\$
  • \$\begingroup\$ With the Staff-Like Wand arcane discovery, and if Magical Lineage can be used to craft a wand, it will cost 11.250 (CL 3 vs 3rd level spell x750) and the wizard could use his real caster level for all spell effects! \$\endgroup\$ – Rafael Santos Feb 3 '18 at 22:24
  • \$\begingroup\$ You got it right, tks! \$\endgroup\$ – Rafael Santos Feb 3 '18 at 23:45
  • \$\begingroup\$ You might consider splitting this into two questions; the two answers you currently have are by the same author, addressing the metamagic and supernatural ability questions separately, and both are quite long—suggesting that trying to combine these into one question makes for a question that is too broad. \$\endgroup\$ – KRyan Feb 26 '18 at 19:11
3
\$\begingroup\$

Can a Wand be created with a Metamagic Feat that Benefits from Magical Lineage?

RAW:

Answer: Yes

Explaination:

Benefit: Pick one spell when you choose this trait. When you apply metamagic feats to this spell that add at least 1 level to the spell, treat its actual level as 1 lower for determining the spell’s final adjusted level.

The trait Magical Lineage has a restriction only on which metamagic feats you can place on the chosen spell, namely metamagic feats that increase the spell's effective level. This is so that you cannot use a metamagic feat with an effective increase of 0, and use Magical Lineage to reduce it by 1 to cast the spell at a lower level than normal. Therefore, Magical Lineage does not have any restrictions upon being used in item creation.

With the right item creation feat, you can store a metamagic version of a spell in a scroll, potion, or wand. Level limits for potions and wands apply to the spell’s higher spell level (after the application of the metamagic feat). A character doesn’t need the metamagic feat to activate an item storing a metamagic version of a spell.

This final line suggests that the casting of the metamagic portion of the spell is independent of the wielder,

Spell Trigger: Spell trigger activation is similar to spell completion, but it's even simpler. No gestures or spell finishing is needed, just a special knowledge of spellcasting that an appropriate character would know, and a single word that must be spoken. Spell trigger items can be used by anyone whose class can cast the corresponding spell. This is the case even for a character who can't actually cast spells, such as a 3rd-level paladin. The user must still determine what spell is stored in the item before she can activate it. Activating a spell trigger item is a standard action and does not provoke attacks of opportunity.

and Spell Trigger activation is a method of casting in which a character basically has another caster cast the spell for them. The only part in which they take place is the tactical execution of the spell. So, a character needs only a certain compatibility with the spell, as made evident by the line "Spell trigger items can be used by anyone whose class can cast the corresponding spell."

All this means that there is nothing written preventing a caster from modifying a spell with metamagic while benefiting from Magical Lineage. The application of Magical Lineage is simply exercising an expertise or particular affinity with the given spell, and wands are dependent upon their creator, not the activator.


In Practice:

It is always a good idea to make a clear distinction between Rules-as-Written and In-Practice because the latter is your GM's call, not the community's, however, that to say, there are a few reasons a GM could question whether this would work one being the compatibility question.

Since the wand does not have the special lineage that the creator does (obviously), would it actually be able to benefit from the creator's expertise in casting the spell? Is the wand storing the creator's spellcasting ability to use at a later time by the wielder, or is the creator performing a sort of magical programming in the wand that enables it to produce the spell effect? If the latter was the case, then would the wand really benefit from the creator's affinity to that spell or would the wand produce the spell of its own power and abilities that are simply "taught" to it by its creator, making the creator's special affinity towards the spell all but irrelevant. On the other hand, wands may be viewed as a more sophisticated version of holding a charge such as when casting a touch spell without releasing it. In this case, a wand would be a stick full of already cast spells by its creator simply waiting for someone to come along and let one of the charges out. It is easy to expect that in this case a spell would be entirely benefited by Magical Lineage because it's simply tens of completed spells waiting to be let loose.

Again EXTREME emphasis on the fact that this is your GM's decision. It is his job to decide what is fair, and how to handle ambiguity, no one else's.

\$\endgroup\$
2
\$\begingroup\$

Can Elemental Manipulation be used in creating a wand?

Answer: Unclear - Probably not, but consult GM.

Explaination:

Replacement Powers: The following school powers replace the force missile and elemental wall powers of the evocation school.

Elemental Manipulation is the 8th-level replacement of the class ability Elemental Wall for the evocation wizard that chooses Admixture.

Elemental Manipulation (Su):

At 8th level, you can emit a 30-foot aura that transforms magical energy. Choose an energy type from acid, cold, electricity, and fire, and a second type to transform it into. Any magical source of energy of this type with a caster level equal to or less than your wizard level is altered to the chosen energy type. This includes supernatural effects from creatures with Hit Dice no greater than your caster level. For example, you could transform a white dragon’s frigid breath weapon (a supernatural ability), but not a fire elemental’s fiery touch (an extraordinary ability). If an effect lies only partially within your aura, only the portions within the aura are transformed. You can use this ability for a number of rounds per day equal to your wizard level. The rounds do not need to be consecutive.

The Replaced Feature:

Elemental Wall (Sp)

At 8th level, you can create a wall of energy that lasts for a number of rounds per day equal to your wizard level. These rounds do not need to be consecutive. This wall deals acid, cold, electricity, or fire damage, determined when you create it. The elemental wall otherwise functions like wall of fire.

The questions that need to be answered are

  • Whether or not Elemental Manipulation affects the source of the energy effect or whether it affects the effect itself.

Firstly, it would appear from the description of Elemental Manipulation that the source of the energy effect in question is the restricting factor, namely, extraordinary abilities cannot be affected. This suggests that the Elemental Manipulation does, in fact, affect the source, not the effect itself.

  • Whether the Elemental Manipulation temporarily transforms the effect/source, permanently transforms the effect/source, or simply filters the energy passing through it into another type of energy.

This is not clearly stated in the description of Elemental Manipulation, therefore, it is open to interpretation, however, simple logic can help guide decision making in this matter. The ability Elemental Manipulation replaces Elemental Wall, and therefore, should be similar, if not equal in power to Elemental Wall. Elemental Wall does not allow the wizard to create a permanent wall of elemental energy, so allowing an Admixture evocation wizard to permanently transform an energy source from another creature into another energy type, does not seem like an equally powerful replacement. For example, if a group of adventurers had somehow gained access to fire immunity, and ventured into a white dragon's lair, should the wizard of the group be able permanently replace the white dragon's cold breath attack to a fire breath attack? Probably not. That would not be an equally powerful tool compared to making a wall of ice, and it can be assumed that this was not the intention.

  • How this translates to wand making.

If the wand was affected by the supernatural ability Elemental Manipulation at the time of creation, this would not permanently transform the spell cast into the wand into another energy type, because the effects of the ability are assumed to only be in effect while the supernatural ability is active. However, your GM could say one or more of the following that would allow you to use this ability while creating a wand.

  • (My interpretation as your GM is that) the spells cast from a wand are stored instances of spells already cast that you release on command, therefore, when the spells were cast into the wand they were affected by this ability and therefore, continue to act that way as if Elemental Manipulation were cast on it as the spell was released.
  • (My interpretation as your GM is that) the ability Elemental Manipulation does, in fact, permanently alter the source of the energy, in which case, the wand would be altered to cast spells of the altered energy type.
  • I'm your GM and I say you can.

Never forget that that is a valid reason, players.

\$\endgroup\$
  • \$\begingroup\$ I’m not seeing why this is a separate answer instead of an edit to your previous one. Can you either merge them, or explain why they are two separate answers? Multiple answers are allowed, but usually they have to be separate for a reason—offering different perspectives, different approaches, etc. These two answers, though, seem to both kind of work together? I might be missing something though. \$\endgroup\$ – KRyan Feb 26 '18 at 18:30
  • \$\begingroup\$ @KRyan they have been separated because one was pretty clear in the way the interaction was allowed by RAW and therefore a justification for why the answer was such, the other was pretty much left for the GM to decide what he felt would be appropriate in his campaign and was simply a logical walkthrough of how that ability might work, but without any authority to declare what is right or wrong, and concluded with the fact that there is no clear ruling. \$\endgroup\$ – Jobi-Wan Kenobi Feb 26 '18 at 18:37
  • \$\begingroup\$ @KRyan If you believe that they would make more sense together, I will merge them. I am new to the sight and don't suggest that I understand fully the formatting that this site prefers. That was simply my reasoning. \$\endgroup\$ – Jobi-Wan Kenobi Feb 26 '18 at 18:38
  • \$\begingroup\$ I think this answer would be better if it made a stronger case for why the “clear ruling” in the first isn’t clear, why it has to be GM adjudication. \$\endgroup\$ – KRyan Feb 26 '18 at 18:44
  • \$\begingroup\$ @KRyan the two answers are not intended to be contradictory or even opposing. They were answering two different questions presented in the post. If you think they should be combined, I'll just do that. \$\endgroup\$ – Jobi-Wan Kenobi Feb 26 '18 at 19:07

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.