That's a very good question. Since the sorcerer power says spells known, one possible, very legalistic interpretation, is that since clerics have no class feature called "spells known" the bond does not function for casting spells. The name "arcane bond" further suggests this because casting divine spells through an arcane bond seems rather hinky. However, I would tend to the more common sense interpretation that spells known means the spells you can cast so therefore all the cleric spells that she can cast count. I'm not sure what PFS would rule however. I would also say that effective sorcerer level should determine the ability to enhance the bonded item as a wizard could. The advantage that this would give would be offset by the vulnerability of losing the arcane bonded item which would greatly hurt a cleric's spellcasting.
|
I'd say that these are the important words.
"Once per day, your bonded item allows you to cast any one of your spells known"
So.
While the cleric can cast all the spells on the cleric list, there is no mention of "spells known".
Thus I would say that the cleric has no valid spells to use the arcane bond power on.
|
Well it is an arcane item not divine, so allow the cleric to have a spellbook. The cleric cant cast any spell from book except by use of the arcane bond.
Quoting core rule book about wizards arcane bond.
A bonded object can be used once per day to cast any one spell that the wizard has in his spellbook and is capable of casting, even if the spell is not prepared.
I would simply override the "capable of casting" and say that as long as it's of an equal or lower lvl then the cleric can currently cast.
Well it is an arcane item not divine, so allow the cleric to have a spellbook. The cleric cant cast any spell from book except by use of the arcane bond.
Quoting core rule book about wizards arcane bond.
A bonded object can be used once per day to cast any one spell that the wizard has in his spellbook and is capable of casting, even if the spell is not prepared.I would simply override the "capable of casting" and say that as long as it's of an equal or lower lvl then the cleric can currently cast.
The sorceror ability specifically says 'can cast any of your spells known' so the question is whether the spells the cleric knows count as spells known. I would say yes, from a common sense perspective, but I can sorta see how it might be interpreted otherwise.
|
|
The sorcerer ability is based directly on the wizards ability but was adjusted for the fact that sorcerers dont have spellbooks. So look at the wizards for the original Arcane Bond.
The pfsrd even has the sorcerer ability link directly to the wizard description of Arcane Bond.
Therefore it is safe to say that a spellbook would work since you do not have arcane spells known.
The cleric spells are divine otherwise they would work.
|
|
Nevermind, I just realized it said this,
For purposes of using that power, treat your sorcerer level as equal to your character level – 2
So that means that he would select spells known as a first level sorcerer and can cast one of those a day through his arcane bond.
He would be able to cast them without his arcane bond because he doesn't have arcane spell slots but that's okay.
I don't agree with using it with your divine spells simply because the ability is arcane, the fluff is arcane, and divine is not arcane.
The easiest way to adjudicate it is to ask yourself- what if a fighter did this, instead of a cleric?
It really makes the answer alot more clear.
The fighter, having no caster levels, gains either a familiar- or an object thats not all that impressive since he can't use its most obvious benefit- the freebie spell.
I do think though that the cleric would have issues with the object bond.
namely- they are still stuck with the penalties. (have to have it to cast spells) even though they get no spell casting benefit.
(the fighter has this prohibition too but since he casts no spells, it effectively means nothing- just like the ACF on his full plate)
Interestingly enough however it appears they (both the fighter and the cleric) would be able to utilize the Enchant feature of it- since the wording itself just says it gives them the appropriate feats. So the fighter would get that Craftsman feat that lets him enchant without being a spell crafter while a cleric would be treated as having forge ring (or whatever) and could go along with that.
Neat way to get a familiar but for the item I'm not sure its worth blowing in two feats to get the benefit of 1 item creation feat. (cept maybe for the fighter, who spends two feats to get two feats, but only applicable to this one item. still weird)
TL;DR:
wouldn't give the cleric a freebie spell per day, but the enchanting part would still work.
Familiar is a better option most likely, though you are blowing in 2 feats to get one.
-S
True, but.. i mean.. a cleric can take crafting feats anyway, and can use them to make anything not just tinker with one item.
A fighter can take two feats anyway and then make anything available to that feat- rather than just tinker with this one item.
the cleric benefits greatly by just taking 2 crafting feats instead but even the fighter gets alot more bang for his buck- potentially making both arms and armor with one feat (rather than just enchanting one single weapon).
Now in PFS its golden since it lets you enchant your item- though I'm not sure if that aspect of the bond works in PFS. (with the no-crafting thing)
-S
So the fighter would get that Craftsman feat that lets him enchant without being a spell crafter
What makes you think so? He acts as if he was class level -2 for the bonded object, so for the bonded object he has a casterlevel of characterlevel -2 and thus would count as having the right crafting feat for the object.
Slightly related:
Could the cleric take the familiar option, plant the familiar on someone's shoulder, and then cast their cure spells on that person from any distance by channeling them through the familiar?
