| 22 people marked this as FAQ candidate. Answered in the FAQ. |
Spell Mastery
You have mastered a small handful of spells, and can prepare these spells without referencing your spellbooks at all.
Prerequisite: 1st-level wizard
Benefit: Each time you take this feat, choose a number of spells that you already know equal to your Intelligence modifier. From that point on, you can prepare these spells without referring to a spellbook.
Normal: Without this feat, you must use a spellbook to prepare all your spells, except read magic.
I was planning on making a character that went from Witch to Magaambyan Arcanist (PrC), but then I noticed that Spell Mastery is a requirement for the prestige class and being a wizard is a requirement for Spell Mastery. Dreams shattered.
However, the Halycon Magic supernatural ability given by the Magaambyan Arcanist prestige class gives this description:
Halycon Magic (Su): At each class level, a Magaambyan arcanist chooses a spell from the druid spell list and treats it as if it were on the spell list of one of her arcane spell casting classes. A Magaambyan arcanist must choose a druid spell at least two levels lower than the highest-level spell she can currently cast. The spell's type becomes arcane and its save DC functions as normal for the arcane spellcasting class list she adds it to. The Magaambyan arcanist automatically learns this spell and adds it to her spellbook .
It seems that RAI this prestige class is meant for either wizards or witches, but with Spell Mastery as a requirement witches are put out to dry without a dip into wizard, which seems a bit weird and I highly doubt the author intended players to multiclass witch and wizard.
Because several other granted abilities of the PrC are dependent on Spell Mastery, I think the author believed (as I originally did) that Spell Mastery was allowed for witches. To fix the above awkwardness, I think the Spell Mastery feat needs to have an errata to allow witches to take it. The errata version could read as such:
Spell Mastery
You have mastered a small handful of spells, and can prepare these spells without referencing your spellbooks at all.
Prerequisite: 1st-level wizard or 1st-level witch
Benefit: Each time you take this feat, choose a number of spells that you already know equal to your Intelligence modifier. From that point on, you can prepare these spells without referring to a spellbook or familiar.
Normal: Without this feat, wizards must use a spellbook to prepare all spells except read magic and witches must commune with their familiars.
My main concern isn't with the prestige class but with the feat. The prestige class just brought the problem to my attention, because it seems like the author assumed it was open for classes other than wizards (as I originally did before I looked it up). It seems that it should be open for wizards, witches, magi, and alchemists, as they all gain the same benefit from it.
Spell Mastery
You have mastered a small handful of spells or formulas, and can prepare these spells or formulas without referencing your spellbook, formula book, or familiar at all.
Prerequisite: 1st-level wizard, 1st-level magus, 1st-level witch, or 1st-level alchemist
Benefit: Each time you take this feat, choose a number of spells or formula that you already know equal to your Intelligence modifier. From that point on, you can prepare these spells without referring to a spellbook, formula book, or familiar.
Normal: Without this feat, wizards and magi must use a spellbook to prepare all spells except read magic, witches must commune with their familiars, and alchemists must consult their formula book.
This would, of course, give a witch the same benefit as it would a wizard (i.e. if a wizard's spellbook is destroyed, stolen, lost, taken away, etc., he can still prepare spells that day, just as a witch would be allowed to prepare some spells if her familiar were killed, stolen, lost, taken away, etc.). It is a useful feat for both witches and wizards.
Or errata the PrC to no longer mention Witch. The PrC is based on studying in an ancient WIZARD college. So whether Witches can train in a Wizard college (or this specific one) is kind of the fundamental issue in terms of flavor coherence, and whether it should work with this PrC. Personally, I think Maguses should be a candidate for training in a Wizard college (and compatability with this PrC/Spell Mastery) before Witches are... Not that I'm set against Witches, but Maguses just have the strongest case IMHO, and for Witches to work but not Maguses would make even less sense than only Wizards. (Obviously, you can multiclass Wizard 1 / Witch or Magus X, although that is less than ideal)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Well, I believe it's an arcane college, I don't remember it ever being limited to just wizards.
But even despite this specific prestige class, I don't see any reason that the feat shouldn't be open to wizards, witches, alchemists, and magi, as they all gain the same benefit from it and it doesn't OP any of them.
Well, alchemist are a stretch, but sure...
Seems not to be an issue. You take a Level of Wizard... problem solved. Just like any of the Extra feats.. It would require you multi-class.
Well, I guess my main concern isn't with the PrC or that specific build but with the feat itself. It seems like it would be useful for of the prepared arcane casters.
Spell Mastery
You have mastered a small handful of spells or formulas, and can prepare these spells or formulas without referencing your spellbook, formula book, or familiar at all.
Prerequisite: 1st-level wizard, 1st-level magus, 1st-level witch, or 1st-level alchemist
Benefit: Each time you take this feat, choose a number of spells or formula that you already know equal to your Intelligence modifier. From that point on, you can prepare these spells without referring to a spellbook, formula book, or familiar.
Normal: Without this feat, wizards and magi must use a spellbook to prepare all spells except read magic, witches must commune with their familiars, and alchemists must consult their formula book.
I think the feat should be errata'd to make it available to any memorizing arcane caster. In Pathfinder and 3.5, it's always debuted at a point when the wizard was the only class to use a spellbook.
I think the feat should be errata'd to make it available to any memorizing arcane caster. In Pathfinder and 3.5, it's always debuted at a point when the wizard was the only class to use a spellbook.
Yep. For some reason it never got updated the way Rapid Shot and other feats were updated when new classes were introduced.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Listing specific classes as prerequisite is what got us into this mess in the first place; it breaks down when new classes are added.
Maybe we should have terminology to easily distinguish classes with "automatic" spell knowledge (clerics, druids), "learned" (wizards, witches, magi, alchemists) and "limited" (sorcerers, bards, oracles).
Learned casters could be further ordered into Referencing casters, who reference a spellbook, familiar etc.
Then just let the feat apply to Referencing casters in general.
Listing specific classes as prerequisite is what got us into this mess in the first place; it breaks down when new classes are added.
Maybe we should have terminology to easily distinguish classes with "automatic" spell knowledge (clerics, druids), "learned" (wizards, witches, magi, alchemists) and "limited" (sorcerers, bards, oracles).
Learned casters could be further ordered into Referencing casters, who reference a spellbook, familiar etc.
Then just let the feat apply to Referencing casters in general.
That's not a terrible idea except that we already have "spontaneous" and "prepared" casters and we'd just be adding a whole new set of words to describe casters, with this feat being the only real need for such language. It would require another paragraph in the Magic chapter, whereas you could just errata the feat using the language I did above (including all the of "learned" casters) and all would be fine.
Edit: And please be sure to mark the first post as FAQ worthy if you agree that the feat should be updated.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
There's no need to add new words; simply use "1st level arcane prepared caster". That seems to cover everything (assuming, of course, that you want to expand the list of classes the feat is available to).
It would require another paragraph in the Magic chapter, whereas you could just errata the feat using the language I did above (including all the of "learned" casters) and all would be fine.
You mean change the prerequisite to:
Prerequisite: 1st-level wizard, 1st-level magus, 1st-level witch, or 1st-level alchemist
Bad idea. That limits it to only those classes. Should another spellcasting class be created that involves similar mechanics, you would then have to re-errata the Spell Mastery feat to include that new class as well. If you are going to errata the feat to make it useable to all similar spellcasters, then do so. Don't limit it to the currently available ones (which is what happened in the first place, with Wizard being the only class able to take the feat).
It would require another paragraph in the Magic chapter, whereas you could just errata the feat using the language I did above (including all the of "learned" casters) and all would be fine.You mean change the prerequisite to:
Prerequisite: 1st-level wizard, 1st-level magus, 1st-level witch, or 1st-level alchemistBad idea. That limits it to only those classes. Should another spellcasting class be created that involves similar mechanics, you would then have to re-errata the Spell Mastery feat to include that new class as well. If you are going to errata the feat to make it useable to all similar spellcasters, then do so. Don't limit it to the currently available ones (which is what happened in the first place, with Wizard being the only class able to take the feat).
You make a good point. I just didn't envision any new classes coming out any time soon. Those are just the classes it would affect currently and one way or another it needs to be rewritten to include those classes.
How about:
Spell Mastery
You have mastered a small handful of spells or formulas, and can prepare these spells or formulas without referencing your spellbook, formula book, or familiar at all.
Prerequisite: 1st-level arcane prepared caster
Benefit: Each time you take this feat, choose a number of spells or formulae that you already know equal to your spellcasting-stat's modifier. From that point on, you can prepare these spells without referring to a spellbook, formula book, familiar, etc.
Normal: Without this feat, arcane prepared casters have to reference their spellbook, familiar, formula book, etc. in order to prepare spells for that day.
| 1 person marked this as FAQ candidate. |
After a few good points made by several people, I'm starting to see some good reasons why alchemists should be excluded. They're not "casters" and they already prepare extracts on the go. Here's (hopefully) my final revision:
Spell Mastery
You have mastered a small handful of spells or formulas, and can prepare these spells or formulas without referencing your spellbook, formula book, or familiar at all.
Prerequisite: 1st-level arcane prepared caster
Benefit: Each time you take this feat, choose a number of spells that you already know equal to your spellcasting-stat's modifier. From that point on, you can prepare these spells without referring to a spellbook or familiar.
Normal: Without this feat, arcane prepared casters have to reference their spellbook or familiar in order to prepare spells for that day.
Alchemists should be included, they can lose their formula book just as easily as a caster can lose their spell books.
Pre-req should be anyone whose class requires use of a spell book, formula book, or similar item.
Alchemists should be included, they can lose their formula book just as easily as a caster can lose their spell books.
Pre-req should be anyone whose class requires use of a spell book, formula book, or similar item.
Well, that was my original thought too. It would allow them to prepare a few extracts even if their formula book got stolen.
For me, alchemists are debatable. But I see no reason why witches or magi should be excluded from this feat.
I'd allow it. I don't think it's game breaking for witches or magi to be able to use Spell Mastery.
Honestly, I would just drop the prerequisites entirely. Saves the trouble of having to word it carefully so it covers all possible classes that could benefit from it.
Yes, that does manes a 1st level fighter could take the feat if he wanted. It would just be totally useless, even if he later planned on multiclassing into wizard, as the feat requires to to choose spells you already know, not spells you might know at a later time. So even with no prerequisites, its really only going to be spellcasters who can use the feat that would take it.
And for the same reason you shouldn't limit the feats usefulness to only the existing casters, the feat should not require an arcane spellcaster. There may be none now, but there is always the possibility of a divine spellcaster who uses something similar to a spellbook. IF you want to open the feat up to all applicable users, then you need to keep the wording as broad as possible.
| 2 people marked this as FAQ candidate. |
Honestly, I would just drop the prerequisites entirely. Saves the trouble of having to word it carefully so it covers all possible classes that could benefit from it.
Yes, that does manes a 1st level fighter could take the feat if he wanted. It would just be totally useless, even if he later planned on multiclassing into wizard, as the feat requires to to choose spells you already know, not spells you might know at a later time. So even with no prerequisites, its really only going to be spellcasters who can use the feat that would take it.
And for the same reason you shouldn't limit the feats usefulness to only the existing casters, the feat should not require an arcane spellcaster. There may be none now, but there is always the possibility of a divine spellcaster who uses something similar to a spellbook. IF you want to open the feat up to all applicable users, then you need to keep the wording as broad as possible.
Yes, you make very good points. How about this:
Spell Mastery
You have mastered a small handful of spells or formulas, and can prepare these spells or formulas without referencing your spellbook, formula book, familiar, etc.
Benefit: Each time you take this feat, choose a number of spells or formulas that you already know equal to your spellcasting-stat's modifier. From that point on, you can prepare these spells or formulas without referring to a spellbook, formula book, familiar, etc.
Normal: Without this feat, some prepared casters have to reference their spellbook, formula book, or familiar in order to prepare spells for that day.
I see the first post is marked "Answered in the FAQ" but I can't seem to find the answer anywhere. Has the FAQ just not been updated yet or am I looking in the wrong place?
I see the first post is marked "Answered in the FAQ" but I can't seem to find the answer anywhere. Has the FAQ just not been updated yet or am I looking in the wrong place?
It most likely was simply marked as "Answered" to get it off the waiting list of FAQ-marked posts. Based on a developer post from earlier in the year, marking a post as "answered" is the only way they can do that, even if they haven't actually answered it.
Likely reasons for not actually having answered could be either that the FAQ'ed post doesn't contain a simple, straight-forward question that they can answer, or they simply don't see a reason to answer it (after all, the rules are clear as they are), or perhaps they've marked it as a potential future errata (which wouldn't be appropriate for a FAQ).
See this post by Sean K Reynolds for a more in-depth explanation.
Official Rules Response
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
FAQ answer: http://paizo.com/paizo/faq/v5748nruor1fm#v5748eaic9qny
Spell Mastery: Can an alchemist, magus, or witch select this feat?
As written, no, as the feat's prerequisite is "1st-level wizard."
However, the feat was written before the existence of the alchemist, magus, and witch classes, and it is a perfectly reasonable house rule to allow those classes to select the feat and apply its benefits to an alchemist's formula book, magus's spellbook, or witch's familiar.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Thanks for the update! This response, however, does not change the feat for PFS purposes. I was sort of hoping it would just be opened up to alchemists, magi, and witches for good rather than just a "perfectly reasonable house rule", which won't fly in PFS.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It's the best an FAQ can realistically do, since by RAW obviously it's only for wizards.
That said, PFS houserules the hell out of PF, I don't see why they couldn't houserule this if enough people asked...
An actual errata would be preferred, though.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
We can't errata Spell Mastery in the Core Rulebook to mention three classes that aren't in the Core Rulebook, that'll just confuse people who only have the Core Rulebook.
We can give the green light for anyone to houserule it to affect those classes, and that sets a precedent for the PFS team to make that an official ruling for PFS play.
We can't errata Spell Mastery in the Core Rulebook to mention three classes that aren't in the Core Rulebook, that'll just confuse people who only have the Core Rulebook.
If you change the wording to "prepared arcane spellcaster" rather than any specific class, no one need be confused and it would avoid any issues when/if new classes or prestige classes are released.
But then alchemists wouldn't be able to use it.
Nor would witches, because witches don't have spellbooks.
(And alchemists couldn't because they don't have spellbooks and they're not actually spellcasters.)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
We can't errata Spell Mastery in the Core Rulebook to mention three classes that aren't in the Core Rulebook, that'll just confuse people who only have the Core Rulebook.
We can give the green light for anyone to houserule it to affect those classes, and that sets a precedent for the PFS team to make that an official ruling for PFS play.
Ok, that's understandable. Maybe instead of an errata then, the FAQ should just say outright:
"This feat was written before the existence of the alchemist, magus, and witch classes, but those classes are allowed to select the feat and apply its benefits to an alchemist's formula book, magus's spellbook, or witch's familiar."
That would solve any issue of language about "prepared arcane casters" and "spellbooks" involved in rewriting the feat and would end any doubt about PFS legality without giving the PFS team more to worry about with making the FAQ-suggested-houserule PFS-legal.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
We can't errata Spell Mastery in the Core Rulebook to mention three classes that aren't in the Core Rulebook, that'll just confuse people who only have the Core Rulebook.
We can give the green light for anyone to houserule it to affect those classes, and that sets a precedent for the PFS team to make that an official ruling for PFS play.
Rapid Reload follows the same sort of precedent - it was modified to allow it to work with firearms instead of just bows and crossbows.
Will the same sort of thing apply here with Spell Mastery? The Rapid Reload fix wasn't considered a "houserule".
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
The difference is that Rapid Reload was updated in a print book (Ultimate Combat) to account for the new firearms rules. The Core Rulebook doesn't have firearms rules or firearms, so the text in that book shouldn't be changed to refer to firearms; the Core Rulebook version of Rapid Reload (and the text of it in the PFSRD) does not refer to firearms. Likewise, Spell Mastery in the Core Rulebook can't refer to the alchemist, magus, or witch.
Knowing what we know now, it would have been smart to do the Rapid Reload thing for the APG, printing an updated version of Spell Mastery that allows for alchemists and witches to select it, and hopefully wording it so it would be obvious that the magus (which wasn't published until 8 months later) could select it as well. Or (less efficiently) make feats equivalent to Spell Mastery for the alchemist and witch, and note in Ultimate Magic that magi can select Spell Mastery. But hindsight is 20/20.
We run into the same problem with oracles casting spells that explicitly rely on Wis, such as spiritual weapon. Rewriting those spells would require weird text in the context of the Core Rulebook, something like That text would be "weird" because only clerics get that spell in the Core Rulebook, so writing it in such general terms would mean we'd get questions about "why is it written like this when only clerics get the spell and therefore could just refer to Wisdom?" (We've had that for other "forward-looking" rules that are inclusive of potential future content.) (And have been criticized for not providing an in-rules or in-lore explanation for certain rules.)
Again, knowing what we know now, it would have been useful for the Core Rulebook to define a game term such as "power score," meaning "the ability score you use to determine bonus spells, spell DCs, and the highest-level spells you can cast," and perhaps "power bonus," meaning "the numerical bonus from your power score," and then spiritual weapon could just say (Yes, "power score" and "power bonus" are lame, generic terms, it's just an example for this discussion.)
We really try to avoid making changes in book reprints except to correct errors. The Spell Mastery thing isn't really an error, it's an inconvenience. Trust me, though, I get why this is annoying.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Knowing what we know now, it would have been smart to do the Rapid Reload thing for the APG, printing an updated version of Spell Mastery that allows for alchemists and witches to select it, and hopefully wording it so it would be obvious that the magus (which wasn't published until 8 months later) could select it as well. Or (less efficiently) make feats equivalent to Spell Mastery for the alchemist and witch, and note in Ultimate Magic that magi can select Spell Mastery. But hindsight is 20/20.
Understandable. But that's why there are erratas, FAQs, and messageboards. Thanks for the ruling and quick replies. I've always been impressed over and over again how much Paizo listens to and responds to their fans. I made a separate post over in the PFS section to see if they'll make the FAQ ruling PFS-legal, so we can let them worry about it now.
I know that i am late to the party but in my opinion witches, magi and alchemists should benefit from this feat. That said i also believe that the Magaambyan Arcanist PrC should be wizard only (maybe also magus but i am stretching it).
... which might have unexpected consequences. We try to be conservative about sweeping rules changes, as corner cases can make things get really weird or even broken. That change has been discussed, but we haven't decided to act on it yet.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Try not interpret what I'm saying in the worst possible way. There are GMs who only allow what's in the books, or only allow it if a developer confirms it; that's the "green light" I'm talking about. Other GMs are more lenient and don't care what the books or developers say. :)