| 9 people marked this as FAQ candidate. Staff response: no reply required. 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If my abjurer has conjuration as a prohibited school, and he chooses teleport as his preferred spell (as per the PREFERRED SPELL feat in the APG), can he from then on spontaneously cast it by dropping a single spell slot? Or does he have to drop two?
If my abjurer has conjuration as a prohibited school, and he chooses teleport as his preferred spell (as per the PREFERRED SPELL feat in the APG), can he from then on spontaneously cast it by dropping a single spell slot? Or does he have to drop two?
2, it is an opposition school the penalty should take precident.
if you want a reason, I think in the spirit of the rules opoosition school were meant to always make it harder to cast spells from them regaurdless of what you do with feats.
e.g. metamagic'd opposition spells take up 2 spell slots at whatever higher level the spell is increased to.
I don't think this should be any differen't
Anyone know the answer for sure?
|
Usually the rule of thumb when two things conflict is first "more specific trumps less specific."
In this case a feat specific to spellcasters is less specific than a class ability of a single spellcasting class, so IMO the "2 slots" trumps the "exchange for one" text of the feat (which has to be generalized to "most" casters and shouldn't need to reference wizards specifically).
YMMV
Usually the rule of thumb when two things conflict is first "more specific trumps less specific."
In this case a feat specific to spellcasters is less specific than a class ability of a single spellcasting class, so IMO the "2 slots" trumps the "exchange for one" text of the feat (which has to be generalized to "most" casters and shouldn't need to reference wizards specifically).
YMMV
Interesting. I've always considered feats to be more specific than class abilities since they often modify class abilities.
The feat however is a general spellcasting feat. Not a feat made for just one school. Nothing in the feat allows you to overcome a class based rule.
If the feat said you could ignore a class restriction then you could, but it does not allow that.
So if you selected a prohibited school {which I would not allow} then you would suffer the class drawl back every time it was used.
Is not the two slots only for preparing a spell or am I remembering incorrectly. If I am not and this feat bypasses preparation as I also seem to recall then it takes only one slot.
I'm inclined to agree:
There's nothing in there that would prevent you from using an opposition spell like any other spell when using Preferred Spell.
Prerequisites: Spellcraft 5 ranks, Heighten Spell.
Benefit: Choose one spell which you have the ability to
cast. You can cast that spell spontaneously by sacrificing
a prepared spell or spell slot of equal or higher level. You
can apply any metamagic feats you possess to this spell
when you cast it. This increases the minimum level of the
prepared spell or spell slot you must sacrifice in order to
cast it but does not affect the casting time.
Special: You can gain this feat multiple times. Its
effects do not stack. Each time you take the feat, it applies
to a different spell.
Ban Illusion, Preferred Spell Invisibility, anyone? There are probably better examples, but you get the idea; Preferred Spell can ease the pain of specializing, amongst other things.
If one interpretation of the rules is fair, and the other is absolute, unadulterated pure Limburger CHEEEEEESE, I'm going with the fair version. No free specialization there sparky.
If one interpretation of the rules is fair, and the other is absolute, unadulterated pure Limburger CHEEEEEESE, I'm going with the fair version. No free specialization there sparky.
How on earth is it "free" specialization? I had to spend a feat on it! Said feat is doing exactly what it says it is supposed to do and nothing more.
The more I look at it the more I agree with The Chort. I have yet to even see this "specific beats general" blanket rule (at least not in Pathfinder).
Contributor, RPG Superstar 2008 Top 6
|
How on earth is it "free" specialization? I had to spend a feat on it! Said feat is doing exactly what it says it is supposed to do and nothing more.
Well, except it isn't doing exactly what it says. It's taking a spell that takes 2 2nd level slots to cast (invisibility) and letting you do it with one. That's an extra benefit beyond what the feat normally grants. The feat's whole mechanic is based on an equal-or-greater sacrifice, not a lesser sacrifice.
Sometimes you need to infer a little.
Gonna agree with Russ, nothing in the feat states it bypasses restrictions on spell selection.
I admit that this may be an unintended consequence, but the way Preferred Spell is worded, it doesn't even "override" the opposition school rule; there was nothing blocking it to begin with.
There are two consequences for having a school as your opposition school:
1. When you prepare a spell from that school, it takes two slots.
2. You take a -4 penalty to skill checks for crafting items that has an opposition spell as a prerequisite.
...there's nothing in there that would prevent you from using Preferred Spell as written: Sacrifice a spell slot to spontaneously cast your chosen spell.
The only requirement for Preferred Spell is that it must be a spell that you can cast, and indeed, even if Illusion is your opposition school, you can still cast Illusion spells.
Finally, this doesn't completely "break the game" by allowing you to get around opposition rules. First, it takes two feats: Heighten Spell and Preferred Spell. Second, it's only one spell, not an entire school. If you want more spells, you're going to have to burn more feats.
Finally, this doesn't completely "break the game" by allowing you to get around opposition rules. First, it takes two feats: Heighten Spell and Preferred Spell. Second, it's only one spell, not an entire school. If you want more spells, you're going to have to burn more feats.
Couldn't have said it better myself.
Still not seeing where it says "prohibited spells from a prohibited school only use one slot not the standard 2 slots"
But ask your GM about it. He may allow it.
Assuming for a moment, that a wizard's player was able to convince me that it's not completely nonsensical to have a spell from a prohibited school be one that she has a particular knack for casting, I would certainly require her to maintain the restriction of forfeiting two prepared spells rather than one to cast it.
If spontaneous casting were supposed to trump this restriction, prohibited spells would be a valid target for the Arcane Bond, and they're not.
If spontaneous casting were supposed to trump this restriction, prohibited spells would be a valid target for the Arcane Bond, and they're not.
That is a very good point, as it does more or less the same thing as the feat.
If y'all want to get picky then by RAW it says a spell not a prohibited spell which is not "a" spell but a spell of a prohibited school. Not the same thing.
He is trying a loophole where none is intended. "A spell" and "A prohibited spell" are not the same animal. You guys seem to keep leaving off the "prohibited" part which the feat does not say it circumvents.
It is a generalist feat, which says nothing about a spell school or class. It is a spellcaster feat with no class rules built into it. Meaning it does not overrule the schools limits as it is not made just for your school or your caster class.
If a feat changes how your class work {or sub class in this case" it spells out how it changes. In this case it says what it does, but does not say it overrules your school restriction.
But I am gonna flag it for FAQ.
If y'all want to get picky then by RAW it says a spell not a prohibited spell which is not "a" spell but a spell of a prohibited school. Not the same thing.
Wow. That is a stretch. A prohibited spell is still a spell. Preferred spell allows you to drop a spell to cast your preferred spell. It does not specify that the spell must be prohibited or not, it just needs to be a spell.
For those people saying that Preferred Spell should work like Arcane Bond (item): You are comparing apples to oranges. One does not necessarily apply to the other.
For those people saying that Preferred Spell should work like Arcane Bond (item): You are comparing apples to oranges. One does not necessarily apply to the other.
As far as I'm aware, it's the only other example in Pathfinder rules that allows a wizard to cast a spell spontaneously. So, if we're adjudicating whether a prohibited spell cast spontaneously should suffer the "two slots" restriction of the specialist wizard, it's the closest example we have to compare with.
Wow. That is a stretch. A prohibited spell is still a spell. Preferred spell allows you to drop a spell to cast your preferred spell.
No its not. Its a type of spell you have restrictions on. Restriction the feat does not say it overrides.
The feat is not made for just specialist wizards, but any prepared caster. If it does not say it overrides a class restriction then it does not.
This feat tell you what it does, very simple. Now you need to apply any and all class rules that the feat does not over ride. Which would be the restriction penalty.
The feat simply as written does not over ride them.
But he should ask his GM they may allow it, unlikely it seems as even the folks that agree with him don't seem like they would allow it. But we are not his GM
No its not. Its a type of spell you have restrictions on. Restriction the feat does not say it overrides.
The feat is not made for just specialist wizards, but any prepared caster. If it does not say it overrides a class restriction then it does not.
A car lot is going to move all of its jeeps to Lot A while moving all of its SUVs to Lot B. It is also going to paint all of its vehicles red since red is in this year.
There is no relation. It doesn't matter whether a vehicle is a jeep or an SUV, nor does it matter which lot it is being moved to. In the end, they are all going to be painted red.
This feat tell you what it does, very simple. Now you need to apply any and all class rules that the feat does not over ride. Which would be the restriction penalty.
The feat simply as written does not over ride them.
It doesn't have to override anything. It doesn't seem to even really be related.
To be blunt, every time you post something like this you are looking for a loophole. You know how it was meant to work, but you seem to want to twist it to work another way or ignoring class features it was never made to bypass.
So you start picking it apart word for word, then ignore anything that points to not including a word like "prohibited" or another class feature as simpler enough to drawl a parallel from as not related.
Ask your GM. Even the folks that agree its technically allowed have more or less said they would not allow it. Just ask him, he may agree with you. I would not.
To be blunt, every time you post something like this you are looking for a loophole. You know how it was meant to work, but you seem to want to twist it to work another way or ignoring class features it was never made to bypass.
Do you normally try to gain the moral high ground by painting those who disagree with you in a negative light via unprovable accusations?
So you start picking it apart word for word, then ignore anything that points to not including a word like "prohibited" or another class feature as simpler enough to drawl a parallel from as not related.
I'm not the one who seems to be ignoring things. It has been pointed out by multiple people that the rules you are using to support your interpretation don't really apply here.
Even the folks that agree its technically allowed have more or less said they would not allow it.
Where's that? I must have missed it.
I would have to agree that it would be strange to have an opposition spell as a Preferred Spell. Why would you? Maybe it runs in the family? *shrugs*
...but as currently written, you can choose a prohibited spell as your Preferred Spell. Like I said before, it doesn't even override anything. If you read what it means for a school to be an opposition school, you'll see that it wouldn't interact with the Preferred Spell feat.
...as for the intention? I wouldn't be surprised if they errata'd it to say you can't choose an opposition spell. But I don't see them going the "sacrifice two slots instead of one" route. That only applies when preparing spells.
In the meantime, expect GM's to rule against choosing a prohibited spell unless you can give a good reason. "My dad was a Sorcerer, I have a special bloodline, someone in my family had this as a Preferred Spell, blah blah blah." :B
Do you normally try to gain the moral high ground by painting those who disagree with you in a negative light via unprovable accusations?
Nope, just calling it like I see it. You start all kinda of theses threads, normally about your pc who is trying to loophole around a restriction or drawback you yourself took.
In this case your trying to work around a class restriction by using a feat in a way it wasn't meant to be used.
Bonded item doesn't allow you to bypass the restriction then unless it says it does a feat would not either.
But eh, I will say again ask your GM he might allow it.
Do you normally try to gain the moral high ground by painting those who disagree with you in a negative light via unprovable accusations?
Nope, just calling it like I see it. You start all kinda of theses threads, normally about your pc who is trying to loophole around a restriction or drawback you yourself took.
In this case your trying to work around a class restriction by using a feat in a way it wasn't meant to be used.
Bonded item doesn't allow you to bypass the restriction then unless it says it does a feat would not either.
But eh, I will say again ask your GM he might allow it.
Whoa. Relax. This is a rules forum, and he's asking about what the rules allow a character to do. If he's out in search of loopholes, good for him. The more loopholes that get noticed, posted, and potentially errata-ed, the less unbalanced the game is going to be.
The question is about a ruling. This isn't really the place for judging the character of other posters. It's just not productive.
What he found here, by a strict reading of the rules, is allowed. DM discretion might flag this as an abuse of the rules, but that's for a game-by-game basis. Perhaps despite a lax study of the restricted school, the wizard found that one of the spells just made a whole lot of sense to him. Allowing the feat to provide for that isn't exactly gamebreaking abuse.
The 'restriction' applied to spells of restricted schools is laid out - in it's entirety. This particular application is not mentioned in those restrictions, thus is not governed by them. As with any other spell use, feat application, or other item unmentioned in the restriction, the spell is treated as a normal spell in every way.
Considering every use of 'spell' instead of the phrase 'restricted spell' as a different denotation would throw the entire magic chapter of the book into chaos.
For the record, I would not rule that 2 spell slots should be used. That ruling completely undermines the flavor of the feat - that being that the spell is 'easy' for this particular wizard to cast. 2 spell slots is anything but easy.
Do you normally try to gain the moral high ground by painting those who disagree with you in a negative light via unprovable accusations?
Nope, just calling it like I see it. You start all kinda of theses threads, normally about your pc who is trying to loophole around a restriction or drawback you yourself took.
In this case your trying to work around a class restriction by using a feat in a way it wasn't meant to be used.
Bonded item doesn't allow you to bypass the restriction then unless it says it does a feat would not either.
But eh, I will say again ask your GM he might allow it.
Whoa. Relax. This is a rules forum, and he's asking about what the rules allow a character to do. If he's out in search of loopholes, good for him. The more loopholes that get noticed, posted, and potentially errata-ed, the less unbalanced the game is going to be.
The question is about a ruling. This isn't really the place for judging the character of other posters. It's just not productive.
What he found here, by a strict reading of the rules, is allowed. DM discretion might flag this as an abuse of the rules, but that's for a game-by-game basis. Perhaps despite a lax study of the restricted school, the wizard found that one of the spells just made a whole lot of sense to him. Allowing the feat to provide for that isn't exactly gamebreaking abuse.
The 'restriction' applied to spells of restricted schools is laid out - in it's entirety. This particular application is not mentioned in those restrictions, thus is not governed by them. As with any other spell use, feat application, or other item unmentioned in the restriction, the spell is treated as a normal spell in every way.
Considering every use of 'spell' instead of the phrase 'restricted spell' as a different denotation would throw the entire magic chapter of the book into chaos.
For the record, I would not rule that 2 spell slots should be used. That ruling...
+1
Exactly. This may not have been the intent of the creator, but as written, Preferred Spell treats an opposition spell like any other spell.
The reason your Bonded Object doesn't allow you to use an opposition spell isn't because it's a breach of what it means for a spell to be from an opposed school; the reason you can't use an opposition spell with your Bonded Object is because it explicitly says you cannot.
|
|
In total agreement with the Chort.
By RAW, the Preferred Spell feat allows you to lose a prepared spell to cast your preferred spell.
There is no mention of opposition school, thus it works with a spell from an opposition school.
The fact that Arcane Bond specifically mentions that it does not work with opposition school and Preferred Spell does not mention it strengthens this.
Opposition school is all about preparing spells, not about casting them.
For those who believe that it should not be allowed, how would you manage the following ?
Wizard has Preferred Spell for a spell from his specialty school (let's say Necromancy - Chill Touch).
While preparing his daily spells, he expends 2 slots to prepare one spell from one of his prohibited schools (let's say Conjuration - Mage Armor).
During the following day, he uses the Preferred Spell feat and sacrifices his prepared Mage Armor (which cost him 2 slots) to cast Chill Touch (which would have cost only 1 slot to prepare).
Would you give him 1 slot back ?
|
|
In total agreement with the Chort.
By RAW, the Preferred Spell feat allows you to lose a prepared spell to cast your preferred spell.
There is no mention of opposition school, thus it works with a spell from an opposition school.
The fact that Arcane Bond specifically mentions that it does not work with opposition school and Preferred Spell does not mention it strengthens this.
Opposition school is all about preparing spells, not about casting them.
For those who believe that it should not be allowed, how would you manage the following ?
Wizard has Preferred Spell for a spell from his specialty school (let's say Necromancy - Chill Touch).
While preparing his daily spells, he expends 2 slots to prepare one spell from one of his opposition schools (let's say Conjuration - Mage Armor).
During the folowing day, he uses the Preferred Spell feat and sacrifices his prepared Mage Armor (which cost him 2 slots) to cast Chill Touch (which would have cost only 1 slot to prepare).
Would you give him 1 slot back ? I wouldn't.
That's your answer right there. Opposition schools require TWO spell slots to fire off. IF the feat can only accomodate one than that puts the rightful kibosh on using this feat on a "forbidden" spell.The feat states that you sacrifice "A" prepared spell or spell slot. RAW it costs one slot.
Two spell slots are required to "Prepare" a spell from an opposed school. Firing it off requires only that it be prepared (or cast through some other means).
"Firing Off" a Prefered spell takes A prepared spell or A spell slot that is unused.
Is it not enough penalty that I would lose two spell slots if I dropped a prepared spell from a prohibited school to cast a preferred spell?
Under some posters' interpretation it cold possibly lose FOUR spell slots to fire off a single spell from a prohibited school!
Say Evocation is my prohibited school. I prepared two lightning bolts since I really need some direct damage today and plan on being in narrow dungeon corridors through most of it. This uses up 4 of my 3rd-level daily slots. I end up in a large cavern where using my preferred spell (fireball) will wipe out all the clumped up enemies in one blow. I drop two spells (as per your interpretation) lose the lightning bolts, and fire off one fireball.
I seriously doubt that was the intent of the game designers.
I prefer the most simplistic interpretation. 1 spell (of any kind) in exchange for 1 preferred spell. The text everywhere supports this interpretation and all other interpretations I've seen require stretching the rules or of logic itself.
I prefer the most simplistic interpretation. 1 spell (of any kind) in exchange for 1 preferred spell. The text everywhere supports this interpretation and all other interpretations I've seen require stretching the rules or of logic itself.
Of coarse you do, it ignores the very class restriction you chose. Something that is not intended and I am pretty sure the designers never meant for it to work the way your trying to twist it to work.
The only way the text supports your clam is by ignoring the wizard class restriction. Something the feat does not say is allowed.
Here is my view guys: Unless it states outright it over rules a class restriction , then it does not. The feat is not a specialist wizard feat. It is not written with just that one sub class of caster in mind. So it does not over rule that one restriction.Which is an exception to the rule, not the norm.
It needs to state it over rules a restriction or it does not. For a specialist wizard restricted spells can not fit in one spell slot. The feat does not contain wording that says this restriction may be by passed.
I prefer the most simplistic interpretation. 1 spell (of any kind) in exchange for 1 preferred spell. The text everywhere supports this interpretation and all other interpretations I've seen require stretching the rules or of logic itself.Of coarse you do, it ignores the very class restriction you chose. Something that is not intended and I am pretty sure the designers never meant for it to work the way your trying to twist it to work.
The only way the text supports your clam is by ignoring the wizard class restriction. Something the feat does not say is allowed.
Here is my view guys: Unless it states outright it over rules a class restriction , then it does not. The feat is not a specialist wizard feat. It is not written with just that one sub class of caster in mind. So it does not over rule that one restriction.Which is an exception to the rule, not the norm.
It needs to state it over rules a restriction or it does not. For a specialist wizard restricted spells can not fit in one spell slot. The feat does not contain wording that says this restriction may be by passed.
-1
There's no such class restriction! It's not there! The only consequences of an opposition school is in regards spell preparation and item creation.
RAW, the feat works with any spell. Whether or not that was the intent, we'll find out soon enough via the erratas.
EDIT: Once again
I'm not trying to say that it isn't cheesy and that it won't cause that seemingly all to common "suspension of disbelief," but as written, it works.
...so wait for the errata, or rule against it in your group if you don't like it. RAW, Preferred Spell does what it says it does.
...so wait for the errata, or rule against it in your group if you don't like it. RAW, Preferred Spell does what it says it does.
Yep just what it says> I am still not seeing where it says it may bypass that class restriction.
You guys are giving it something the feat does not say it does.
...so wait for the errata, or rule against it in your group if you don't like it. RAW, Preferred Spell does what it says it does.Yep just what it says> I am still not seeing where it says it may bypass that class restriction.
You guys are giving it something the feat does not say it does.
Document where this restriction is, because as far as I know, it doesn't exist. Given that it doesn't exist, the feat has nothing to bypass.
I'm a 1st time GM and nothing like this has come up in my campaign yet. I tend to make rulings on things that are unclear based on what makes logical sense to me (and what I convince my players is logical).
It seems to me that the justification for having opposition schools is that each school of magic takes its own talents and disciplines to master. Mastering some schools makes mastering others harder because those abilities are in conflict with each other. A real world comparison would be athletes. The things which go into making a person a good football lineman are different from those that make a good gymnist.
So in my game (baring a ruling from Paizo) I would likely not allow taking a preferred spell from an opposition school despite it not being prohibited by the feat. If I did, it would certainly take 2 spell slots as it comes from a school that is not the focus of your training and requires disciplines that run counter to those you're best at.
Pooh
My only point is that by RAW, you can do it. But GM's are entitled to forbid or adapt whatever material they choose. Your interpretation would be a logical ruling that your players should abide by.