My understanding is this adds the spells directly to the spells known by the caster taking Spell Blending.
Benefit: When a magus selects this arcana, he must select one spell from the wizard spell list that is of a magus spell level he can cast. He adds this spell to his spellbook and list of magus spells known as a magus spell of its wizard spell level. He can instead select two spells to add in this way, but both must be at least one level lower than the highest-level magus spell he can cast.Special: A magus can select this magus arcana more than once.
Is my understanding correct or is there a RAW reason why Spell Blending would not work for:
1. A spontaneous caster/caster that does not use a spellbook.
2. A caster that is not a magus.
I ask this because
Airavata
Female human (Vudrani) spiritualist (phantom blade) 10/magus* (Pathfinder Player Companion: Psychic Anthology 4, Pathfinder RPG Occult Adventures 72)
N Medium humanoid (human)
Init +0; Senses Perception +23
--------------------
Defense
--------------------
AC 25, touch 11, flat-footed 25 (+9 armor, +1 deflection, +1 natural, +4 shield)
hp 88 (10d8+30)
Fort +11, Ref +5, Will +14
--------------------
Offense
--------------------
Speed 30 ft.
Melee phantom blade +17/+12 (1d6+11/18-20)
Special Attacks arcane pool (+2, 5 points), spell combat, spellstrike
Spiritualist Spell-Like Abilities (CL 10th; concentration +17)
. . At will—detect undead
. . 1/day—calm spirit[OA] (DC 11), see invisibility (10 min)
Spiritualist (Phantom Blade) Spells Known (CL 10th; concentration +17)
. . 4th (2/day)—dimension door, freedom of movement
. . 3rd (4/day)—haste, heroism, shield of darkness, vampiric touch
. . 2nd (5/day)—cure moderate wounds, false life, invisibility, resist energy, lesser restoration
. . 1st (7/day)—burst of adrenaline[OA], burst of insight[OA], chill touch (DC 16), cure light wounds, summon monster I
. . 0 (at will)—detect magic, guidance, light, mage hand, open/close (DC 15), read magic
--------------------
Statistics
--------------------
Str 22, Dex 10, Con 14, Int 12, Wis 20, Cha 9
Base Atk +7; CMB +13; CMD 24
Feats Advanced Armor Training, Power Attack, Shield Focus, Shield Proficiency, Unhindering Shield, Weapon Focus (scimitar), Weapon Specialization (scimitar)
Traits focused mind, seeker
Skills Acrobatics +2, Fly +5, Knowledge (arcana) +8, Knowledge (dungeoneering) +8, Knowledge (engineering) +5, Knowledge (local) +7, Knowledge (nature) +7, Knowledge (planes) +8, Knowledge (religion) +7, Linguistics +5, Perception +23, Sense Motive +11, Spellcraft +14, Use Magic Device +12
Languages Common, First Speech, Undercommon, Vudrani
SQ etheric focus, magus arcana (spell blending [2 spells of lower level][UM]), phantom blade: alertness, phantom blade: ectoplasmic pool, phantom blade: phantom tether, phantom blade: phantom touch, phantom blade: quick manifest, phantom blade: reshape, phantom blade: telepathy, phantom blade: weapon of the mind, spirit of war
Combat Gear wand of bless weapon (50 charges), wand of cure light wounds; Other Gear +3 mithral agile breastplate[APG], +2 mithral buckler, amulet of natural armor +1, belt of giant strength +4, cloak of resistance +2, handy haversack, headband of inspired wisdom +4, ring of protection +1, 95 gp
--------------------
Special Abilities
--------------------
Arcane Pool +2 (5/day) (Su) Infuse own power into a held weapon, granting enhancement bonus or selected item powers.
Armored Master (Ex) Gain an armor mastery or shield mastery feat.
Etheric Focus (Swift action) (Ex) Can center self more quickly.
Phantom Blade: Alertness (Ex) Gain Alertness when wielding or harboring phantom weapon.
Phantom Blade: Ectoplasmic Pool (10/day) (Ex) Spend points to manifest/harbor weapon, att vs. touch AC 1 rd, or apply weapon powers for 1 min.
Phantom Blade: Phantom Tether (Su) As a swift action, use 1 pool, recall blade in 1 mi to hand or consciousness.
Phantom Blade: Phantom Touch (Ex) Constant ghost touch. Instead of breaking, weapon harbored in consciousness for 1 day.
Phantom Blade: Quick Manifest (Ex) Manifest phantom blade from consciousness as a swift action.
Phantom Blade: Reshape (Ex) Can choose new form for weapon when refreshing daily spells.
Phantom Blade: Telepathy (Su) The spiritualist can telepathically communicate with his phantom blade if it is worn or held.
Phantom Blade: Weapon of the Mind (Ex) 1 min store weapon in mind and gain unarmed strike enhance, full-rd to re-manifest blade.
Power Attack -2/+4 You can subtract from your attack roll to add to your damage.
Spell Combat (Ex) Use a weapon with one hand at -2 and cast a spell with the other.
Spellstrike (Su) Deliver touch spells as part of a melee attack.
Spirit of War (Ex) Gain several bonus feats, as though BAB were higher and full fighter levels.
Unhindering Shield Still gain buckler's AC bonus when use that hand for other purpose. Hand is considered free.
Was curious to see what the consensus was before I filed a bug report. Hero Lab is not only not allowing the selection of spells higher level than cantrip, but is not adding selected spells to spells known.
Touch of Fatigue is kinda important since the spiritualist does not normally have any cantrips with a range of touch.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The Spell Blending arcana works only with Magus spellcasting. As a VMC character you do not have Magus spellcasting, therefor you do not meet the qualifications and cannot take Spell Blending. Even if you could take it, the spell is added to your Magus spell list and not your Spiritualist spell list anyways. I could see a GM being a bit more permissive here and interpreting the rules text less literally to work better with VMC, but by RAW this arcana does work at all for VMC characters.
A strict reading requiring the class name instead of "Magus" in an ability leaves the Phantom Blade a broken archetype.
Both the phantom blade's Spellstrike and Spell Combat abilities defers to the magus's version of each ability. The magus version of each ability specifies it can only be used with spells on the character's magus spell list. It becomes the Arcane Deed fiasco all over again, where you can write abilities on your character sheet, but they don't do anything in game.
This functions as the magus’s spell combat class ability.
and can also cast any spell from the magus spell list
This functions like the magus’s spellstrike class ability except the only weapon the spiritualist can use to deliver spells is her phantom weapon.
At 2nd level, whenever a magus casts a spell with a range of “touch” from the magus spell list,
I.E. if it is ruled an ability does not work without text replacing the word 'magus' with 'phantom blade', two of the archetypes primary features do not function.
*I'm not disagreeing with your interpretation of RAW, just pointing out the same issue exists with more than just the Spell Blending arcana granted by VMC.
A strict reading requiring the class name instead of "Magus" in an ability leaves the Phantom Blade a broken archetype.
Nothing here is broken. The Spellstrike and Spell Combat class features say that the spell must be on the Magus spell list, not that you must cast it with Magus spellcasting (these are two separate things!). You can still use Spell Combat and Spellstrike using Spiritualist spellcasting, provided the spell is on the Magus class list. It may well be that this restriction was not intended (for the record I'd definitely allow a more liberal interpretation at my table), but as written that's how it works.
Moreover, the context here would make me significantly more lenient with my reading of the archetype than the arcana. It's very clear that this Spiritualist archetype is supposed to work with Spiritualist spellcasting (as you correctly point out, it's broken otherwise). However, the Spell Blending Magus Arcana was clearly written with verbiage to prevent it from being used by multiclass characters. It applies to your Magus spellcasting, not other spellcasting classes you may have. Reading it broadly to work with VMC when it there is clear wording to prevent it from being used by multiclass characters is not a good faith rules interpretation.
A strict reading requiring the class name instead of "Magus" in an ability leaves the Phantom Blade a broken archetype.Nothing here is broken. The Spellstrike and Spell Combat class features say that the spell must be on the Magus spell list, not that you must cast it with Magus spellcasting (these are two separate things!). You can still use Spell Combat and Spellstrike using Spiritualist spellcasting, provided the spell is on the Magus class list. It may well be that this restriction was not intended, but as written that's how it works.
Moreover, I would be much more lenient with my interpretation of rules text specifically designed to work with a Spiritualist spellcasting than I would with a Magus Arcana that was explicitly written in such a way as to not work for multiclass characters.
Magus, Spell Combat: What spells can I cast when using spell combat?
The relevant text of the ability is:
"As a full-round action, he can make all of his attacks with his melee weapon at a –2 penalty and can also cast any spell from the magus spell list with a casting time of 1 standard action (any attack roll made as part of this spell also takes this penalty)."
The spell you cast when using spell combat has to be a magus spell you know, and it must be a magus spell prepared with one of your magus spell slots.
(Other magus abilities may modify what spells can be used with spell combat. For example, the broad study magus arcana explicitly states the magus can use spell combat to cast spells from the selected non-magus spellcasting class.)
Just because the spell appears on the magus spell list does not make it a magus spell when cast using another class.
The VMC version of Spellstrike further reinforces this
Spellstrike: At 11th level, he gains the spellstrike class feature, but he can use it only with spells that are on the magus spell list, even though he can cast them using another class’s spell slots
Here the Spellstrike ability is modified to explicitly permit spells cast by a class other than magus.
Just because the spell appears on the magus spell list does not make it a magus spell when cast using another class.
Then yes, the literal text of the Phantom Blade archetype is broken and should have included an explicit exemption. As written it cannot actually use its class features since they're restricted to Magus spellcasting, which it does not have. This is clearly wrong so a GM should interpret it to have an implicit clause to allow its class features to work with Spiritualist spellcasting. This is fortunately a fairly intuitive fix.
However, VMC is in a different category. There is no specific reason to believe why a VMC character should necessarily be able to benefit from Magus arcana that modify a class feature he doesn't have (magus spellcasting in this case), so I see no reason to infer an equivalency clause where there is none. The Spell Blending arcana is written in such a way as to preclude use by multiclass characters, so it shouldn't work with VMC either.
My interpretation is that it definitely doesn't work on spontaneous casters, and possibly doesn't work on anything but a magus.
My interpretation is that it definitely doesn't work on spontaneous casters, and possibly doesn't work on anything but a magus.
Interesting, given there are spontaneous casting magi.
Personally, I would think the spells known wording of Spell Blending almost exactly aligns with the spells known wording used by spontaneous casters, even if that was not the intent.
I don't see why Spell Blending wouldn't work with spontaneous casting Magus archetypes. The arcana adds the spell to your list of spells known, which is all that spontaneous casters need to be able to cast it. I don't see any issues on that front. You obviously don't gain the benefit of adding it to your spellbook, but as a spontaneous caster you didn't need that anyways.
My interpretation is that it definitely doesn't work on spontaneous casters, and possibly doesn't work on anything but a magus.Interesting, given there are spontaneous casting magi.
Personally, I would think the spells known wording of Spell Blending almost exactly aligns with the spells known wording used by spontaneous casters, even if that was not the intent.
Not to me it's not. That arcana just doesn't work for the spontaneous casting archetype.
Spells known was bad wording on the part of the author who wrote the arcana, as only spontaneous casters have spells known, which is not how a wizard or magus functions.
There is a notion of "knowing" a spell for a prepared spellcaster
A wizard can use a borrowed spellbook to prepare a spell he already knows and has recorded in his own spellbook, but preparation success is not assured ...
A wizard can use the procedure for learning a spell to reconstruct a lost spellbook. If he already has a particular spell prepared, he can write it directly into a new book at the same cost required to write a spell into a spellbook. The process wipes the prepared spell from his mind, just as casting it would. If he does not have the spell prepared, he can prepare it from a borrowed spellbook and then write it into a new book.
So yes, a Wizard also has a concept of a "known" spell that comes into play when he loses his spellbook. The wizard can prepare spells he knows from borrowed spellbooks, even if his own spellbook has been lost or destroyed.
While the mechanics of spontaneous and prepared spellcasting may differ, the way the Spell Blending arcana is written it applies logically and consistent to both varieties. I see no reason why spontaneous Magus archetypes would be restricted from benefiting from it.
So it references it, but never actually explains what "knowing a spell" is supposed to entail for a prepared spell caster.
I still say that it wasn't intended to be functional with spontaneous casters, and probably not with non-magi.
My interpretation is that it definitely doesn't work on spontaneous casters, and possibly doesn't work on anything but a magus.Interesting, given there are spontaneous casting magi.
Personally, I would think the spells known wording of Spell Blending almost exactly aligns with the spells known wording used by spontaneous casters, even if that was not the intent.
Not to me it's not. That arcana just doesn't work for the spontaneous casting archetype.
Spells known was bad wording on the part of the author who wrote the arcana, as only spontaneous casters have spells known, which is not how a wizard or magus functions.
It may have been a poor choice of wording at the time, but regardless of original intent the phrase chosen does have specific meaning for spontaneous casters. The words, as written, add the selected spells to a casters spells known.
Spells known is the terminology used for spontaneous casters.
I still say that it wasn't intended to be functional with spontaneous casters, and probably not with non-magi.
No spontaneous Magus archetype existed at the time that the Spell Blending arcana was published, so there is no way the designers at that time could possibly have had a stance on the matter.
This is no different from any time we must interpret an old ability in light of a new one. There is no question that spontaneous casting magus archetypes qualify for the arcana, and the plain text applies to them in a fashion that is logically consistent with the standard prepared casting variant. This is not a case of a rules technicality or stretching the wording. The application is logically consistent and there's no reason to believe that spontaneous casters should be arbitrarily excluded because the ability was originally written for the class at a time when it only had prepared casting variants.
My interpretation is that it definitely doesn't work on spontaneous casters, and possibly doesn't work on anything but a magus.Interesting, given there are spontaneous casting magi.
Personally, I would think the spells known wording of Spell Blending almost exactly aligns with the spells known wording used by spontaneous casters, even if that was not the intent.
Not to me it's not. That arcana just doesn't work for the spontaneous casting archetype.
Spells known was bad wording on the part of the author who wrote the arcana, as only spontaneous casters have spells known, which is not how a wizard or magus functions.
It may have been a poor choice of wording at the time, but regardless of original intent the phrase chosen does have specific meaning for spontaneous casters. The words, as written, add the selected spells to a casters spells known.
Spells known is the terminology used for spontaneous casters.
I don't care about RAW though. I find the intention to be what's actually important, and I don't think the intention was to add spells to a spontaneous caster since at the time the arcana was written there wasn't a spontaneous magus and there was no VMC to get you into a grey area of "magus but not really" and questioning whether it affects non-magus casting.
I take the opposite approach here. We cannot know the minds of the developer, and especially cannot know how the writers of Ultimate Magic might have viewed future archetypes or game mechanics that did not exact at that time. Instead what we have to work on is the literal rules they left us, the RAW.
This doesn't mean we can't put together evidence in support of a RAI conclusion that is at odds with the RAW, or to point out strange interactions between abilities published in different sources, but conjecture on develop intent with no further evidence is a very weak case to diverge from the literal text. The written rules are very clear in this case, and apply logically and consistently to spontaneous archetypes. There are no problems, gameplay or balance-wise, created through such an application of the rules.
VMC is different, since the Spell Blending arcana specifically states that it only benefits Magus spellcasting. There is nothing in the VMC rules to indicate transitivity, so you cannot benefit from an arcana that improves a class feature (magus spellcasting) that you don't have, nor you can redirect the benefit to an equivalent but different class feature (spiritualist spellcasitng, in this case)
I don't care about RAW though.
You are in the wrong forum.
I don't care about RAW though.You are in the wrong forum.
RAI is equally valid (if not more so) than the purported RAW that some people would like to use. RAW, the dead condition doesn't say you can't take actions.
The rules as intended are always more important, without question, than the rules as written. We obviously disagree over this, and both will not budge so not point in going further into it.
Also this is the rules forum, not the RAW forum.
I don't care about RAW though.You are in the wrong forum.
RAI is equally valid (if not more so) than the purported RAW that some people would like to use. RAW, the dead condition doesn't say you can't take actions.
The rules as intended are always more important, without question, than the rules as written. We obviously disagree over this, and both will not budge so not point in going further into it.
Also this is the rules forum, not the RAW forum.
Nobody is saying don't apply common sense, but common sense tells me to question why you would alter RAW to stop the mindblade from benefiting from the same arcana as every other magus.
1. RAW supports it.
2. It does literally nothing for the mindblade that it does not already do for every other magus.
Intent in this case is irrelevant, the RAW was accidentally written in a way that future proofed it for once instead of breaking when a new archetype was written.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
RAI is equally valid (if not more so) than the purported RAW that some people would like to use. RAW, the dead condition doesn't say you can't take actions.
If we could simply know the RAI, either through some psychic powers or a supernaturally responsive PDT that responds to every rules question, then that might be a valid point. But we don't know the RAI, people actively disagree on the RAI, and one person's common sense is another's munchkin rules lawyering. I see no reason to believe that the RAI is different from the RAW in this case, and thus I take the default stance that the RAW=RAI and spontaneous casting Magus archetypes are supposed to be able to benefit from Spell Blending.
The RAW is the best window we have into the intent of the developers, and it is completely reasonable to start with the presumption that the rules as written are the rules as intended. This is not always true, but the onus is on the person asserting that the RAI is different to provide evidence for that. So far you've provided nothing but your gut assertion for this case. The famous example of the dead condition is one where there are very obvious and catastrophic gameplay issues caused by following the letter of the rule. Every sane player agrees on the matter. There are no gameplay or balance issues brought up by allowing Spell Blending on spontaneous casting Magus archetypes, no problems created by the straightforward application of RAW, and no particular reason to believe there was any other developer intent on this matter. I believe it's far more likely that the RAI here is in line with the RAW and spontaneous casting magus archetypes are intended to be able to benefit from Spell Blending.
Yes, everyone sanely agrees on what happens when a character is dead. But that doesn't mean using RAW is always a good idea, which is my point.
However, this has become a discussion about RAW vs RAI which is not the purpose of this thread, and there have been plenty of threads in which it has been discussed and basically every time it just becomes a yelling match. I am stubborn and obstinate and hate "RAW IS GOD" types but...
Sorry...not trying to go down that path. Back on topic.
The arcana was poorly written, spells known has no meaning for prepared casters except for one reference where it still doesn't explain the context of it. Since spontaneous magi didn't exist, they couldn't have intended for it to work.
All that along with the fact I always take a more conservative approach with the rules if it is unclear, leads me to say no it doesn't work for spontaneous magus. It also doesn't work for a normal multiclassed magus with another caster, so I don't think it works on a variant multiclass, which I believe also was in question.
The arcana was poorly written, spells known has no meaning for prepared casters except for one reference where it still doesn't explain the context of it. Since spontaneous magi didn't exist, they couldn't have intended for it to work.
Intended or not, the rules as written have a very specific context when applied to spontaneous casters.
It's no different than applying the RAW for Spiritual Weapon to an Oracle. The only difference is the unintended RAW happens to break in favor of the spontaneous magus.
That's another great example of stupid RAW, which is of course stupid.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I am stubborn and obstinate and hate "RAW IS GOD" types but...
For my part, I start with the presumption that the developers meant what they said. This means my starting position is that the RAW is the RAI.
Since spontaneous magi didn't exist, they couldn't have intended for it to work.
This goes both ways. If the developers didn't consider the possibility of spontaneous magus archetypes then they couldn't have intended to preclude the option either.
What we have to go on from their intent was the verbiage they chose at the time when writing this ability. Let's set aside the technical meaning of "spells known" in the game system and instead look at it instead as a statement of intent. That is the choice of words conveys a strong sense that the spell now belongs to your character and can be cast like any other spell at your disposal. When I look at a spontaneous casting archetype and ask how Spell Blending should apply to them, the answer intuitively to me that they should have full access to that spell like any other spell. This is a consistent and logical application of the arcana, and it works just fine for both spontaneous and prepared casters. So it makes perfect intuitive sense to me that the RAI is that should be a spell known.
But let's consider it from the opposite perspective. Suppose that the developers really did consider the possibility of a spontaneous casting archetype at the time they wrote the arcana (to be clear, I agree this is unlikely). How would an author future-proof the arcana to work with a spontaneous casting magus? They would have written it exactly the way it appeared in Ultimate Magic.
Or consider it another way, suppose the authors of the Eldritch Scion (the first spontaneous casting Magus archetype) wanted Spell Blending to work with their archetype? What would they have changed rules-wise? Nothing, the literal RAW works just fine, there is no need for them to specify their intent.
So my interpretation that RAW and RAI are consistent in this case is well-supported. Even if the authors had explicitly written these rules to allow this combination they would have still written them exactly the same way, and if they didn't consider it then at very least they wrote the rules broadly enough that they apply sensibly. On the other hand, your assertion that the RAW and RAI are different rests on the notion that the developers never explicitly okayed this specific combination and the fact that the rules text works flawlessly is coincidental. That is purely speculative, and an extremely weak rules argument.
It also doesn't work for a normal multiclassed magus with another caster, so I don't think it works on a variant multiclass, which I believe also was in question.
I'm in agreement on that one. The arcana explicitly says it benefits your Magus spellcasting, so you can't arbitrarily reapply the benefit to another spellcasting class.
It also doesn't work for a normal multiclassed magus with another caster, so I don't think it works on a variant multiclass, which I believe also was in question.
Nobody has been contesting this point.