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.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
I agree with Chort in this as well.
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.
...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.
Sigh, in the core book under arcane school. Guys if ya want to try to use a loophole be my guest. You have been shown where it says you have this limit, you choose not to apply this limit because the feat does not say you must, the class takes precedent unless the feat says it bypass the class. It does not in this case.
You have also been shown "spontaneous" casting does not bypass the restriction. The feat is Not A wizard only feat. It over rules you class only in the way it says, it does not say it allows you to bypass the restriction written under wizard schools, the very restriction you chose to have.
In a case where the class is more restrictive and the feat is unclear if it over rules the class, then it does not over rule the class.
A general spell caster feat simply does not over rule your wizard specialist restriction unless it states it does so. This feat has no such statement.
And I am done here, you guys clearly wish a loop hole and ignore any and all text or game rules that shots that loophole down. Your looking at only a small part and not the whole context, choosing what to keep and what to ignore.
You have also been shown "spontaneous" casting does not bypass the restriction.
Really? Where? That looks to me like a blanket ruling. Not being able to use your bonded items with spells from your prohibited school is a specific rule that applies only to bonded items.
I do not see a blanket ruling like the one that you describe anywhere within the rules.
|
Sigh, in the core book under arcane school. Guys if ya want to try to use a loophole be my guest. You have been shown where it says you have this limit, you choose not to apply this limit because the feat does not say you must, the class takes precedent unless the feat says it bypass the class. It does not in this case.
We have been shown where it says that a wizard has to spend 2 spell slots to prepare a spell from his opposition school and we wholeheartedly agree with this.
We just underline the fact that the feat does not in any way deal with preparing a spell but with casting a spell.
I must say that I am a bit confused why so many people want to read "prepare" as the same thing as "cast".
You have also been shown "spontaneous" casting does not bypass the restriction. The feat is Not A wizard only feat. It over rules you class only in the way it says, it does not say it allows you to bypass the restriction written under wizard schools, the very restriction you chose to have.
Verily, the feat does not say so, because it in no ways affect how spells are prepared (the restriction you are talking about), but how a spell is cast.
In a case where the class is more restrictive and the feat is unclear if it over rules the class, then it does not over rule the class.
The feat is very clear. It deals with casting a spell, not with preparing one. Thus the restriction on preparing spells of your opposition school does not apply.
A general spell caster feat simply does not over rule your wizard specialist restriction unless it states it does so. This feat has no such statement.
The feat has no such statement because it does not over rule the wizard specialist restriction.
And I am done here, you guys clearly wish a loop hole and ignore any and all text or game rules that shots that loophole down. Your looking at only a small part and not the whole context, choosing what to keep and what to ignore.
Funny, because I have the exact same feeling but the other way around. I still have not seen anything anywhere saying that I have to sacrifice 2 prepared spells to cast a spell from my opposition school if I have the Preferred Spell feat for it.
I'm really not sure why this is causing so much of a stir. There is a lot of house-ruling going on saying that you can't use it with a spell from a restricted school, or inventing a penalty for that usage based upon a similarly flavored mechanic.
Similarly flavored does not mean that the mechanics are the same. 'Restricted school' is a mechanic. 'Arcane Bond' is a mechanic that interacts with 'restricted school'. 'Preferred Spell' is a mechanic that doesn't interact textually with either. It's an extremely simple feat that is being needlessly complicated because it rubs certain people the wrong way when used in this manner.
The feat is written the way it is. Whether this is through some mistake by the designers, accidental omission of certain words or guidelines, or any number of possible reasons that they would have chosen to word it the way it is - is all irrelevant to what the feat specifies that it can do. It is entirely possible that it was meant to be a potential workaround for a single spell of a restricted school in addition to its other uses. It does break the game by doing that.
Why the fuss? Feats often allow creatures to circumvent rules or restrictions. In fact, the Core Rulebook says so - verbatim - on page 12. There are two mechanics for restricted schools: A wizard who prepares spells from his opposition schools must use two spell slots of that level to prepare the spell; and specialist takes a –4 penalty on any skill checks made when crafting a magic item that has a spell from one of his opposition schools as a prerequisite. Again, verbatim, pg. 79.
Preferred Spell, as it is worded, does not interact with either of those restriction. The mechanics are completely separate. In other words, Preferred Spell knows no Specialization. The feat doesn't care if you're an Enchanted, an Invoker, a Necromancer - anything. The feat only cares that you can, through one method or another, cast the spell you want to apply the feat to. It cares if you have a prepared spell or spell slot to sacrifice in order to spontaneously cast the spell.
There are no blanket rules regarding specialization and spontaneous casting. There is only Arcane Bond, which highlights its own limitation. That does not make the limitation an all-encompassing game mechanic. Arcane Bond and the limitations thereof are not mentioned in the rules text of Preferred Spell.
All the rules being cited in an attempt to justify a house-ruling for this feat are completely autonomous from the feat itself, just as Preferred Spell is autonomous from them. There are no dots to connect.
There are two ways in which Preferred Spell will not operate exactly as it is written, bereft of restrictions. A) The GM houserules otherwise. That's his choice, but houserules are not the subject of this forum. Or B) Paizo releases an errata altering the specifics of the feat. For the life of me, I don't know why they would go to the effort. There is nothing wrong with the feat as written.
That's what the books say. That's the rules. Until I find myself confronted with a text citation that specifies otherwise, I really don't understand why this is worth arguing about. It seems like a waste of energy to get so emotionally invested. Relax, people. It's a game. If someone wants to play it a different way, go for it. If you're certain you're right and the other guy is wrong, take comfort in your confidence and let them have their fun the way that they want to. I don't know about the rest of you, but I play the game to get away from stress, not to contribute to it.
|
|
I agree, the rule as written seems perfectly clear to me. You can spontaneously cast your preferred spell, expending a prepared spell or a spontaneous spell slot for the day. How much it costs you to prepare a spell from a prohibited school is irrelevant. Spontaneously casting a spell is a completely different mechanic than preparing a spell.
The rule does seem goofy at first, but actually it makes the feat kinda cool; As a GM I would probably allow it as written, but I could see changing the rule to not allow you to use the feat on a spell from a prohibited school.