Paizo Top Nav Branding
  • Hello, Guest! |
  • Sign In |
  • My Account |
  • Shopping Cart |
  • Help/FAQ
About Paizo Messageboards News Paizo Blog Help/FAQ
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game
Pathfinder Society

Pathfinder Beginner Box

Pathfinder Adventure Card Game

Pathfinder Comics

Pathfinder Legends

Ring of Spell Knowledge and Scrolls in PFS


Pathfinder Society® General Discussion

1 to 50 of 68 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>
*****

Had a player ask me this today--the new Ring of Spell Knowledge from UE allows arcane spontaneous casters to gain additional arcane spells known, even from another arcane spell list. However, the player would like to gain spells known that are traditionally found on divine lists (such as divine favor) by using the fact that certain witch patrons have these spells on their patron lists. Now, it seems open and shut that a witch with strength patron could cast divine favor into the ring. And in a home game that doesn't use PFS's special campaign ruling on scrolls, it is also clear that only a Strength patron witch could even possibly make an arcane scroll of divine favor.

But in PFS, with the campaign ruling that all scrolls are both arcane and divine, the player is wondering if that means he can't just buy a basic scroll of divine favor for 25 gold (or any other spell on any witch patron list for that matter) and have it added to the ring, treating the scroll as arcane on the grounds that there is a witch patron out there that grants it. My gut thought is that the answer is no, since this brings us back to something like the 3.5 Archivist class where you try to search through as many books as possible to find an obscure domain that granted the spell you wanted (in this case, searching for witch patrons instead), but I certainly don't want to nix it if it's legal.

****

Pathfinder Companion Subscriber

I'm not convinced this will be as bad as the archivist in 3.5 because the character would only be able to learn as many spells as they had rings, and would only be able to learn up to fourth level.

Of course since I am the player who asked you I'm probably pretty biased in this.

Cheliax ****

Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

Technically, in PFS there are no arcane or divine scrolls.

I would say no, because divine favour is not on the witch spell list; it is merely on a patron list that some witches may have. Of course there may be some precedent somewhere that would allow this?

To be honest, learning divine favour as a second level spell is not in the least overpowered. It's a neat trick that would cost 6,000 gp to pull off.

****

Pathfinder Companion Subscriber

I am curious as to why the spell would need to be on the witches normal spell list? Wouldn't it just need to be an arcane spell that the character in question gets access to somehow?

*****

Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

Just because a witch can cast a certain spell, does not make it an "arcane spell." It's unfortunate that some people will not be willing to accept that until Mike is forced to come in here and state the obvious. Tell your player to stop trying to "break the game" and accept that the ring is already all sorts of awesomeness without trying to get access to divine spells.

****

Pathfinder Companion Subscriber

Ok so it looks like there is a subset of rules I am not very familiar with.

What defines a spell as being arcane or divine. I thought it was based on whether the person casting said spell was a divine spellcaster or an arcane spellcaster.

How does this work for what are normally divine spells that are on the witches normal spell list, such as remove disease? Does it also not count as an arcane spell even if a witch casts it? And if so does it ignore spell failure for wearing armor? (since divine spells don't have an arcane spell failure rate)

Also I don't even know if there are any spells I want off the divine list. I'm wondering if I can get to them (assuming they are on the witch patron spells) before I even bother crunching numbers. Divine favor was an example of a spell that is usually only castable by divine spell casters but which the witch, who is an arcane spell caster, can cast.

Grand Lodge ** RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

Kyle Baird wrote:
Just because a witch can cast a certain spell, does not make it an "arcane spell."

Actually, the arcane/divine-ness of any given spell is determined solely by who casts it. In a non-PFS game, a scroll of cure light wounds scribed by a bard would be arcane, and a cleric would need UMD to activate it.

Grand Lodge ** RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

By the way, when asked about off-list spells granted to a spellcaster (domain spells, bloodline spells, etc) and how that interacts with activating scrolls and wands, Sean K Reynolds said "Yes, you should consider those spells as part of the character's class spell list."

So per SKR, a fire cleric (for example) could activate a wand of fireball without UMD.

That seems relevant to this discussion, no?

Cheliax ****

Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Jiggy wrote:
Kyle Baird wrote:
Just because a witch can cast a certain spell, does not make it an "arcane spell."
Actually, the arcane/divine-ness of any given spell is determined solely by who casts it. In a non-PFS game, a scroll of cure light wounds scribed by a bard would be arcane, and a cleric would need UMD to activate it.

That is the problem that's actually introduced by PFS' houserule on scrolls.

Kyle, I don't think it's a good idea to accuse a player of attempting to break the game based on a tactic they're interested in trying, especially because the player who wanted to try it is reading the thread.

EDIT: Jiggy, based on that from SKR, I would call it technically legal. :/ Huh.

Grand Lodge ** RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

Mergy wrote:
Jiggy wrote:
Kyle Baird wrote:
Just because a witch can cast a certain spell, does not make it an "arcane spell."
Actually, the arcane/divine-ness of any given spell is determined solely by who casts it. In a non-PFS game, a scroll of cure light wounds scribed by a bard would be arcane, and a cleric would need UMD to activate it.
That is the problem that's actually introduced by PFS' houserule on scrolls.

I don't follow. What problem's being created, exactly?

*****

Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

Isn't the PFS rule that a scroll is made by wizards and clerics if possible first? So if it's on the cleric list and not the wizard list, the scroll is always divine?

Grand Lodge ** RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

Well if we're talking about PFS-specific rules, there's also no arcane/divine split for scrolls or wands. So a scroll of X is just a scroll of X, and a wand of Y is just a wand of Y, so anyone with X or Y spell on their class list (including, according to SKR, via domains and bloodlines and such) can activate it without UMD.

So in PFS, a scroll of CLW would be crafted by a cleric but could be activated by a bard or witch without UMD.

And if you go with SKR's ruling, then a scroll of fireball in PFS would be crafted by a wizard but could be activated by a cleric with the fire domain without UMD.

*****

Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Mergy wrote:
Kyle, I don't think it's a good idea to accuse a player of attempting to break the game based on a tactic they're interested in trying, especially because the player who wanted to try it is reading the thread.

I don't see why not. Looking into spells that are not traditionally arcane is at its core trying to get something out of an item that is obviously not the intention of the item. I say obvious because if you start including patron spells, you have to start looking at all archetypes and prestige classes. It basically gives you access to every spell since there's almost always something available from some obscure source. What about a mystic theurge? If they cast a traditionally divine spell with one of their arcane slots, is it an arcane spell? Does that mean this ring should be able to learn that spell?

Going down that path is always a dangerous route and rarely ends in something that's best for the game.

FWIW, breaking the game may have a negative connotation to you, but it shouldn't necessarily be that way. I also don't care if the "player in question" is reading this thread or has already posted in this thread. I would never say something to anyone that I wouldn't say to another persons face.

*****

Kyle Baird wrote:
Isn't the PFS rule that a scroll is made by wizards and clerics if possible first? So if it's on the cleric list and not the wizard list, the scroll is always divine?

Kyle, that was what I had thought as well, but the player pointed out the PFS houserule that all scrolls are both arcane and divine. Given SKR's ruling, there now seems a better chance that this would work, but it's still possible that the ring wouldn't work, since the spell being on one particular type of witch's spell list may not make it arcane in general--perhaps only for that one character. Again, it comes down to the houserule on universal scrolls for PFS, which SKR probably wasn't thinking about when he made that other ruling.

*****

Kyle Baird wrote:
Mergy wrote:
Kyle, I don't think it's a good idea to accuse a player of attempting to break the game based on a tactic they're interested in trying, especially because the player who wanted to try it is reading the thread.

I don't see why not. Looking into spells that are not traditionally arcane is at its core trying to get something out of an item that is obviously not the intention of the item. I say obvious because if you start including patron spells, you have to start looking at all archetypes and prestige classes. It basically gives you access to every spell since there's almost always something available from some obscure source. What about a mystic theurge? If they cast a traditionally divine spell with one of their arcane slots, is it an arcane spell? Does that mean this ring should be able to learn that spell?

Going down that path is always a dangerous route and rarely ends in something that's best for the game.

FWIW, breaking the game may have a negative connotation to you, but it shouldn't necessarily be that way. I also don't care if the "player in question" is reading this thread or has already posted in this thread. I would never say something to anyone that I wouldn't say to another persons face.

While I'm not sure I agree with your definition on gamebreaking, I definitely agree about the searching through PrCs, patrons, archetypes (some bard archetypes get new spells, right?), and the like for spells can lead to weirdness, having played an Archivist in 3.5. I believe that in both cases, it's cool for a home game where the GM can just decide if you find somebody from that obscure PrC or archetype or patron, but in Organized Play, it could lead to issues down the road, even if not now (for example, imagine a PrC that has its own casting chart and requires level 7 to start taking it at all. Maybe it hates undead. Now imagine it got death ward as a 2nd level spell. Suddenly we have sorcerers running around with this ring and a 3rd-level death ward as a spell known)

Grand Lodge ** RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

Yeah, the half-removal of the arcane/divine split in PFS interacts weirdly with this particular ring. Perhaps it deserves a PFS ruling of its own?

*****

Jiggy wrote:
Yeah, the half-removal of the arcane/divine split in PFS interacts weirdly with this particular ring. Perhaps it deserves a PFS ruling of its own?

I concur, which is why I made the thread here in the PFS forum. It seems clear that the PFS houserule has opened up an ambiguity that the ring's author never intended.

*****

Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Rogue Eidolon wrote:
I'm not sure I agree with your definition on gamebreaking

I don't think "breaking the game" is an inherently bad thing. Sometimes it's cool to see what you can do within the rules presented. For example, just because you find a way to deal massive amounts of damage in a single turn doesn't make it bad. Bringing that to the table and dominating all the action makes it bad. I've seen players with builds like that, who could have probably solo'd the scenario at most GM's tables [certainly not mine ;-)], but they held back, let everyone participate and when things got dicey they stepped up and saved the day.

I digress. Back to your regularly scheduled debate about something that shouldn't be a debate, but will be one until Mike or Mark comes in and ends it.

*****

Kyle Baird wrote:
Rogue Eidolon wrote:
I'm not sure I agree with your definition on gamebreaking
I don't think "breaking the game" is an inherently bad thing. Sometimes it's cool to see what you can do within the rules presented. For example, just because you find a way to deal massive amounts of damage in a single turn doesn't make it bad. Bringing that to the table and dominating all the action makes it bad. I've seen players with builds like that, who could have probably solo'd the scenario at most GM's tables [certainly not mine ;-)], but they held back, let everyone participate and when things got dicey they stepped up and saved the day.

Agreed on all points. I think we just have a different definition of breaking the game, though, where, like in your example here, I think game breaking requires doing something very powerful like that huge damage you describe, whereas I'd call the ring thing more of a rules exploit, since it's an attempt to exploit a rules interaction in order to get an advantage that was not originally intended.

Quote:
I digress. Back to your regularly scheduled debate about something that shouldn't be a debate, but will be one until Mike or Mark comes in and ends it.

I honestly wasn't expecting this much action--probably just to have a few posts, eventually followed by a ruling, most likely that the ring doesn't work that way.

*****

Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Rogue Eidolon wrote:
attempt to exploit a rules interaction in order to get an advantage that was not originally intended.

Tomato, tomato? Exploits lead to breaking?

Cheliax ****

Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Kyle Baird wrote:
I digress. Back to your regularly scheduled debate about something that shouldn't be a debate, but will be one until Mike or Mark comes in and ends it.

It's an attitude like this that I don't appreciate. Pathfinder is a remarkably rich set of rules with a huge number of ambiguities and degrees of experimentation. By shutting down such a debate with a statement like the one above, you're not allowing people to look at these rules and see what is possible within them.

If I had not mentioned something on the rules forum about the interaction between Vicious Stomp and Greater Trip (with a massive thread blowup as well), people would not know that the two feats stack and a build centred around them is possible. Was I breaking the game by asking this question?

Now it could well be not something that Mike or Mark want in their game, and it could be that an FAQ on Ultimate Equipment comes in and announces errata regarding this ring so that only spells on the core lists apply, but to shut down debate by saying there shouldn't be any is not helpful.

*****

Kyle Baird wrote:
Rogue Eidolon wrote:
attempt to exploit a rules interaction in order to get an advantage that was not originally intended.
Tomato, tomato? Exploits lead to breaking?

Completely fair. I can see your definition too. For me, I can't see the break yet from this exploit, but I haven't done an exhaustive check of what spells this would allow (if it did allow the example I gave with Death Ward as a 3rd level arcane spell or something like that, then I would call it gamebreaking)

****

Pathfinder Companion Subscriber

Even with the divine/arcane scrolls in PFS there is a point that is being glossed over.

The ring clearly intends to be used with arcane spells. So for a spell to be storable it needs to exist as an arcane spell.

I view scrolls as being neither arcane nor divine, but they can be used to learn arcane or divine spells. If a given spell does not exist as an arcane spell then there would be no way to teach it to the ring because the ring clearly is intended to only learn arcane spells.

Bless, Divine Favor, Shield of Faith, Prayer, Charm Animal, Calm Animal, and a few others which I can't remember of the top of my head exist as arcane spells through the witches patron. There are also numerous spells that are normally divine which exist on every witches spells list.

I take no offense at Kyle Bairds accusation that I am trying to break the game. I am a weasley ferret who looks and rules and asks, "Hmm what does this let me do? Does that work.?"

Paizo Employee ***** Pathfinder Society Campaign Coordinator

Rogue Eidolon wrote:

Had a player ask me this today--the new Ring of Spell Knowledge from UE allows arcane spontaneous casters to gain additional arcane spells known, even from another arcane spell list. However, the player would like to gain spells known that are traditionally found on divine lists (such as divine favor) by using the fact that certain witch patrons have these spells on their patron lists. Now, it seems open and shut that a witch with strength patron could cast divine favor into the ring. And in a home game that doesn't use PFS's special campaign ruling on scrolls, it is also clear that only a Strength patron witch could even possibly make an arcane scroll of divine favor.

But in PFS, with the campaign ruling that all scrolls are both arcane and divine, the player is wondering if that means he can't just buy a basic scroll of divine favor for 25 gold (or any other spell on any witch patron list for that matter) and have it added to the ring, treating the scroll as arcane on the grounds that there is a witch patron out there that grants it. My gut thought is that the answer is no, since this brings us back to something like the 3.5 Archivist class where you try to search through as many books as possible to find an obscure domain that granted the spell you wanted (in this case, searching for witch patrons instead), but I certainly don't want to nix it if it's legal.

Your gut reaction was correct. The answer is no.

Mahtobedis wrote:


The ring clearly intends to be used with arcane spells. So for a spell to be storable it needs to exist as an arcane spell.

Look no further than your own statement here.

*****

Michael Brock wrote:


Your gut reaction was correct. The answer is no.

Thanks Mike--you rock!

Grand Lodge ** RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

Well, you can still get cure light wounds, at least! :D

****

Pathfinder Companion Subscriber

Ah well it was an interesting idea.

Would it still be no if I found a witch who had the strength patron and cast divine favor in my presence?

Andoran ***

Mahtobedis wrote:

Ah well it was an interesting idea.

Would it still be no if I found a witch who had the strength patron and cast divine favor in my presence?

Yes, the answer would still be no.

Grand Lodge ** RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

kinevon wrote:
Mahtobedis wrote:

Ah well it was an interesting idea.

Would it still be no if I found a witch who had the strength patron and cast divine favor in my presence?

Yes, the answer would still be no.

Why? Mike seemed to only be answering "no" to the issue with scrolls. If a witch casts divine favor (or anything else, for that matter), it is in fact an arcane spell. Period.

As the ring in question can function when the wearer witnesses the casting of an arcane spell, it would work, unless Mike nixes it.

Cheliax ****

Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

It would need to be noted by the GM on the chronicle; I don't think witches with the strength patron are a common thing.

*

Yeah. Str is not exactly a great patron. Not many Witch's want a bunch of self only melee buffs. Although I could see a buffed witch duking it out with their hair.

****

Pathfinder Companion Subscriber

That is true,

A more relevant question may be for Shield of Faith, which can be gained through the Wisdom Patron which is a much more useful patron.

Also I could see a person using the level 1 rebuild rules to make a witch with the strength patron casting the spell for their level 3 friend who has that ring and then rebuilding out of the strength patron.

Cheliax ****

Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Mahtobedis wrote:

That is true,

A more relevant question may be for Shield of Faith, which can be gained through the Wisdom Patron which is a much more useful patron.

Also I could see a person using the level 1 rebuild rules to make a witch with the strength patron casting the spell for their level 3 friend who has that ring and then rebuilding out of the strength patron.

How would they do that, when you only get patron spells on even levels?

Silver Crusade ***

Lab_Rat wrote:
Yeah. Str is not exactly a great patron. Not many Witch's want a bunch of self only melee buffs. Although I could see a buffed witch duking it out with their hair.

It can get pretty grotesque when not playing a scenario that has difficult-to-grapple enemies, 'cause then you've just got a Witch who (in most cases) will only have hexes (since you've likely chosen your actual spells to melee things better.)

****

Pathfinder Companion Subscriber
Mergy wrote:
Mahtobedis wrote:

That is true,

A more relevant question may be for Shield of Faith, which can be gained through the Wisdom Patron which is a much more useful patron.

Also I could see a person using the level 1 rebuild rules to make a witch with the strength patron casting the spell for their level 3 friend who has that ring and then rebuilding out of the strength patron.

How would they do that, when you only get patron spells on even levels?

Good catch, the spell isn't even on their list of possible spells until level 2.

So let us replace divine favor with shield of faith which is from the Wisdom Patron.

or Bless from the Ancestor Patron.

Same question. Can those be put into the ring if they cast it into the ring.

White Haired Witch with the Strength Patron could be fun to play.

Grand Lodge ** RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

Any spell cast by a witch is arcane. Period.

****

Pathfinder Companion Subscriber

So if it is possible to put spells such as bless, and shield of faith into the ring, assuming the spell is cast by a witch, what prevents a person from simply purchasing spell casting services to get the spell they want.

I'm sure there must be a rule in PFS limiting spellcasting services in a similar manner as scrolls are. I just can't seem to find it.

Cheliax ***

"Patron Spells
At 1st level, when a witch gains her familiar, she must also select a patron. This patron is a vague and mysterious force, granting the witch power for reasons that she might not entirely understand. While these forces need not be named, they typically hold influence over one of the following forces.

At 2nd level, and every two levels thereafter, a witch’s patron adds new spells to a witch’s list of spells known. These spells are also automatically added to the list of spells stored by the familiar. The spells gained depend upon the patron chosen. Each patron is listed by its theme. Its actual name is up to the GM and the witch to decide."

Note that patron spells are not actually added to the witch spell list, merely to the witches spells known, so the spells you are indicating do not appear on any arcane casters class list, and thus would not be a valid option to place in a ring of spell storing.

Grand Lodge ** RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

1. Who was talking about a Ring of Spell Storing?

2. Check the quote from Sean K Reynolds, earlier in the thread.

****

Pathfinder Companion Subscriber

Well I should have been referring to the ring of spell knowledge the entire time. This entire question started when between my GM and I when I started wondering about what can and cannot be used to put a spell into a ring of spell storing.

*edited to say spell knowledge instead of storing*

Grand Lodge ** RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

The original post mentioned the Ring of Spell Knowledge, so now I'm confused. :/

****

Pathfinder Companion Subscriber

Because I am stupid and mixed the two up. Ring of spell knowledge is what I should be saying.

Cheliax ***

Actually I think I typed the wrong item name not you Mahtobedis as I was refering to the ring of spell knowledge.

I disagree that Seans post would apply, as he is explicitly referring to spell trigger and spell completion items (such as wands etc) which key off spells known (which includes domain, patron and bloodline spells).

Where as the ring is not a spell trigger or completion item and keys off spell lists (which do not include domain, patron, bloodline spells unless they come from the class list).

However thats my own feelings on this so I wouldnt use it.

****

Pathfinder Companion Subscriber

ok so at this point this is what I am thinking.

1) Ring of Spell Knowledge only works on arcane spells (that seems to be the intent anyway)

2) Witches get some traditionally divine spells as arcane spells

3) Scroll are always made by cleric or wizards when possible and the crafter of the scroll determines what type of caster can learn from it. (I think this is Mike's reasoning)

4) If a witch were to cast one of their spells into the ring it wouldn't matter if it were a traditionally divine spell, or if it were a patron spell. (since the patron spells are still cast by the witch and must be arcane because the witch is an arcane spellcaster)

5) Can you pay for spell services from a witch to have them cast the spell for you? I think you can't because of the rule applying to scrolls seems to be intended to stop this sort of behavior, but I also cannot find where it says you can't specify the caster when buying spellcasting services.

Cheliax ****

Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

To err on the side of caution, I would say you should find a witch. See if you can convince a friend to suck up a few chronicles as a strength patron witch. In fact, I would love to see a hair-based witch with the strength patron.

Grand Lodge ****

Michael Brock wrote:
The answer is no.

Looks like a definitive ruling to me.

****

Pathfinder Companion Subscriber
Scott Young wrote:
Michael Brock wrote:
The answer is no.
Looks like a definitive ruling to me.

On the use of scrolls to learn spells in a form that they traditionally are not yes.

Paizo Employee ***** Pathfinder Society Campaign Coordinator

Or I could just ban the ring and make this entire argument moot since there is so much confusion about the item.

****

Pathfinder Companion Subscriber

You could do that too.

I"ll take the hint and drop it, but I"m still not sure what I can and cannot do with the item.

Paizo Employee ***** Pathfinder Society Campaign Coordinator

It wasn't a hint. It was advising that since the item is so confusing, as you pointed out (don't know what you can and can't do with it), and is probably confusing for more people, then the item is probably best removed from organized play.

1 to 50 of 68 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>
Paizo / Messageboards / Paizo Publishing / Pathfinder® / Pathfinder Society® / General Discussion / Ring of Spell Knowledge and Scrolls in PFS All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.

©2002–2014 Paizo Inc.®. Need help? Email customer.service@paizo.com or call 425-250-0800 during our business hours: Monday–Friday, 10 AM–5 PM Pacific Time. View our privacy policy. Paizo Inc., Paizo, the Paizo golem logo, Pathfinder, the Pathfinder logo, Pathfinder Society, GameMastery, and Planet Stories are registered trademarks of Paizo Inc., and Pathfinder Roleplaying Game, Pathfinder Campaign Setting, Pathfinder Adventure Path, Pathfinder Adventure Card Game, Pathfinder Player Companion, Pathfinder Modules, Pathfinder Tales, Pathfinder Battles, Pathfinder Online, PaizoCon, RPG Superstar, The Golem's Got It, Titanic Games, the Titanic logo, and the Planet Stories planet logo are trademarks of Paizo Inc. Dungeons & Dragons, Dragon, Dungeon, and Polyhedron are registered trademarks of Wizards of the Coast, Inc., a subsidiary of Hasbro, Inc., and have been used by Paizo Inc. under license. Most product names are trademarks owned or used under license by the companies that publish those products; use of such names without mention of trademark status should not be construed as a challenge to such status.