RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
| 3 people marked this as FAQ candidate. |
I did some searching for past threads, but didn't feel satisfied with what I found.
The Question
Can a character whose domain grants a spell not normally accessible to that class activate a scroll of that spell? (Without UMD, I mean.)
The Text
• The spell must be of the correct type (arcane or divine). Arcane spellcasters (wizards, sorcerers, and bards) can only use scrolls containing arcane spells, and divine spellcasters (clerics, druids, paladins, and rangers) can only use scrolls containing divine spells. (The type of scroll a character creates is also determined by his class.)
• The user must have the spell on her class list.
• The user must have the requisite ability score.
Now, at a glance, it looks to me like the answer is "no". Scroll activation requires that the spell is "on her class list". The domain rules explicitly state that they sometimes grant spells that are NOT on the class's spell list (and does not say that it adds the spell to the list). So it seems to be a clear "no".
Thing is, when I was looking around, it seemed like the general consensus was "yes".
Why? Did I miss something?
|
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
Domain spells are concidered part of your class list.
According to what?
If a domain spell is not on the cleric spell list, a cleric can prepare it only in her domain spell slot.
It refers to spells not being on your spell list, and says nothing about adding them.
So where are you (and everyone else) getting that idea?
|
From the PRD HERE
Spell Completion: This is the activation method for scrolls. A scroll is a spell that is mostly finished. The preparation is done for the caster, so no preparation time is needed beforehand as with normal spellcasting. All that's left to do is perform the finishing parts of the spellcasting (the final gestures, words, and so on). To use a spell completion item safely, a character must be of high enough level in the right class to cast the spell already. If he can't already cast the spell, there's a chance he'll make a mistake. Activating a spell completion item is a standard action (or the spell's casting time, whichever is longer) and provokes attacks of opportunity exactly as casting a spell does.
Spell Trigger: Spell trigger activation is similar to spell completion, but it's even simpler. No gestures or spell finishing is needed, just a special knowledge of spellcasting that an appropriate character would know, and a single word that must be spoken. Spell trigger items can be used by anyone whose class can cast the corresponding spell. This is the case even for a character who can't actually cast spells, such as a 3rd-level paladin. The user must still determine what spell is stored in the item before she can activate it. Activating a spell trigger item is a standard action and does not provoke attacks of opportunity.
|
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
Alright, I'm going to respond in reverse order:
Spell Trigger: Spell trigger activation is similar to spell completion, but it's even simpler. No gestures or spell finishing is needed, just a special knowledge of spellcasting that an appropriate character would know, and a single word that must be spoken. Spell trigger items can be used by anyone whose class can cast the corresponding spell. This is the case even for a character who can't actually cast spells, such as a 3rd-level paladin. The user must still determine what spell is stored in the item before she can activate it. Activating a spell trigger item is a standard action and does not provoke attacks of opportunity.
I'm not even really asking about spell trigger items. Just scrolls. But thanks anyway. :)
From the PRD HERE
Spell Completion: This is the activation method for scrolls. A scroll is a spell that is mostly finished. The preparation is done for the caster, so no preparation time is needed beforehand as with normal spellcasting. All that's left to do is perform the finishing parts of the spellcasting (the final gestures, words, and so on). To use a spell completion item safely, a character must be of high enough level in the right class to cast the spell already. If he can't already cast the spell, there's a chance he'll make a mistake. Activating a spell completion item is a standard action (or the spell's casting time, whichever is longer) and provokes attacks of opportunity exactly as casting a spell does.
The sentence that you partially italicized is talking about your caster level ("must be of high enough level..."). Note that the sentence starts with "to use it safely" - this refers to the caster level check incurred when you activate a scroll that already meets the requirements I quoted in the OP but is of a higher CL than yours. There is no connection between what you italicized and the ability to even attempt to activate it in the first place.
|
|
It referes to trying to use a Scroll of a spell you can't normally cast, but is on your "class list". In otherwords you could otherwise cast it if you where higher level (only). In such a case, the spellcaster must make the LC check (rather than UMD).
But anyways, it says the only thing required is that the character be able to cast the spell already. No "Class Spell List", which is not defined, as far as I know.
If you read the whole section on scrolls, it says:
|
|
If you read the whole section on scrolls, it says:
<above>
Yes but what he is asking is where does it indicate that a Cleric can use a scroll of a spell that for the Cleric is a Domain spell, but that is not normally on the Clerics spell list.
For example, a 5th level Cleric with the Fire Domain gets Fireball, not normally a Cleric spell.
|
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
If you read the whole section on scrolls, it says:
<above>
Yes but what he is asking is where does it indicate that a Cleric can use a scroll of a spell that for the Cleric is a Domain spell, but that is not normally on the Clerics spell list.
For example, a 5th level Cleric with the Fire Domain gets Fireball, not normally a Cleric spell.
Not asking where it says that; asking if it says that.
I think SKR was pointing out the very thing I was pointing out in the OP - you have to have the spell on your class list to activate a scroll, and your domain spell might not be on said list. In such a case, you can't activate it.
So unless I'm wildly misinterpreting SKR's post, he and I are on top of things and everybody else is crazy.
;)
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
If the question is "can a cleric with speak with animals as a domain spell cast a divine speak with animals spell?" (which would be the spell scribed by a druid, ranger, or a cleric with the Animal domain) then the answer is yes.
If the question is "can a cleric with speak with animals as a domain spell cast a arcane speak with animals spell?" (which would be the spell scribed by a bard) then the answer is no, because it fails the "spell on the scroll must be of the correct type (arcane or divine)" rule.
Basically, I don't see any benefit in splitting hairs as to whether or not a cleric's domain spells are on her class spell list. It's simpler to say they are on her class spell list.
If the question is "can a cleric with speak with animals as a domain spell cast a divine speak with animals spell?" (which would be the spell scribed by a druid, ranger, or a cleric with the Animal domain) then the answer is yes.
If the question is "can a cleric with speak with animals as a domain spell cast a arcane speak with animals spell?" (which would be the spell scribed by a bard) then the answer is no, because it fails the "spell on the scroll must be of the correct type (arcane or divine)" rule.
I think the question actually is: do the Domain spells (also Revelation spells, Bloodline spells or any other bonus spells gained from beyond the regular class spell list) count as part of the character's class spell list for the purpose of using spell-completion (or spell-trigger items as I think that both types of items should use the same rules of determining accessible spells).
Basically, I don't see any benefit in splitting hairs as to whether or not a cleric's domain spells are on her class spell list. It's simpler to say they are on her class spell list.
With the caveat that this only applies to using spell-completion and spell-trigger items otherwise someone somewhen will quote you in the future that this his Cleric should be able to prepare Domain spells in normal slots as according to official sources domain spells are part of spell list and cleric can prepare any spell of available level that is on his spell list ;)
|
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
If the question is "can a cleric with speak with animals as a domain spell cast a divine speak with animals spell?" (which would be the spell scribed by a druid, ranger, or a cleric with the Animal domain) then the answer is yes.
If the question is "can a cleric with speak with animals as a domain spell cast a arcane speak with animals spell?" (which would be the spell scribed by a bard) then the answer is no, because it fails the "spell on the scroll must be of the correct type (arcane or divine)" rule.
Basically, I don't see any benefit in splitting hairs as to whether or not a cleric's domain spells are on her class spell list. It's simpler to say they are on her class spell list.
Oh well. On the bright side, I guess I'll buy some scrolls of create pit for my druid. :D
| 26 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think the question actually is: do the Domain spells (also Revelation spells, Bloodline spells or any other bonus spells gained from beyond the regular class spell list) count as part of the character's class spell list for the purpose of using spell-completion (or spell-trigger items as I think that both types of items should use the same rules of determining accessible spells).
I posted a specific question, you posted a general question. :) Yes, you should consider those spells as part of the character's class spell list.
With the caveat that this only applies to using spell-completion and spell-trigger items otherwise someone somewhen will quote you in the future that this his Cleric should be able to prepare Domain spells in normal slots as according to official sources domain spells are part of spell list and cleric can prepare any spell of available level that is on his spell list ;)
Honestly, I know the rules forbid it, but I don't think it's that much of a big deal if a cleric could use any of her slots to prepare domain spells. It used to be you'd say, "I'm a fire cleric! I have access to lots of fire spells!" but now it's just "I'm a fire cleric! I have one more fire spell available at each level than a water cleric!" Which is kinda sad. Clerics already get access to a hundred zillion spells each time they hit a new spell level, and a zillion more each time a new book of spells is published. What's the big deal about letting a level 5 fire cleric prepare fireball in all his 3rd-level slots instead of dispel magic, prayer, or stone shape? Is it wrong to let a fire cleric be a fire cleric, rather than a cleric who has a little bit of fire?
(Yes, I know cleric is the best and most powerful class, but we're talking about making NINE spells open to the regular cleric domain slots, big whoop... Ultimate Combat added 42 new spells to the cleric spell list and that's apparently not a big deal...)
Basically, I don't see any benefit in splitting hairs as to whether or not a cleric's domain spells are on her class spell list. It's simpler to say they are on her class spell list.
Or you could just say that a cleric has three class spell lists: the cleric spell list, the Domain(1) spell list, and the Domain(2) spell list.
Basically, I don't see any benefit in splitting hairs as to whether or not a cleric's domain spells are on her class spell list. It's simpler to say they are on her class spell list.Or you could just say that a cleric has three class spell lists: the cleric spell list, the Domain(1) spell list, and the Domain(2) spell list.
What is the benefit of making that distinction?
|
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
What is the benefit of making that distinction?Basically, I don't see any benefit in splitting hairs as to whether or not a cleric's domain spells are on her class spell list. It's simpler to say they are on her class spell list.Or you could just say that a cleric has three class spell lists: the cleric spell list, the Domain(1) spell list, and the Domain(2) spell list.
Good question.* I think it'd be simpler to alter the "class list" wording in the scrolls section to be more like the "member of a class that can cast" wording of wands.
*Know what else is a good question?
<.<
Yeah clerics are the best -- but again I kind of expect it, after all gods cheat all the time, why wouldn't their followers?
I have no problem with this (other than my 'divinity envy' as one fool put it).
What is the benefit of making that distinction?
None.
Simple, elegant:
Cleric with fire domain and Scribe Scroll feat creates scroll of fireball and can thereafter use it.
Non-intuitive, pointless:
Cleric with fire domain and Scribe Scroll feat creates scroll of fireball and his/her deity forbids him/her from activating it without relying on Use Magic Device to "fool" the scroll because his/her deity doesn't believe clerics are entitled to fireball despite having been the divine source of power for the original casting used to create the scroll.
Drawing differentiation between the "class list" and the "domain list" for any other reason than "you can only prepare one domain spell per spell level"* is silly. Different gods customize the cleric spell list for their followers. Done.
* I agree that it's also more elegant to excise this rule, for the same reason.
Honestly, I know the rules forbid it, but I don't think it's that much of a big deal if a cleric could use any of her slots to prepare domain spells. It used to be you'd say, "I'm a fire cleric! I have access to lots of fire spells!" but now it's just "I'm a fire cleric! I have one more fire spell available at each level than a water cleric!" Which is kinda sad. Clerics already get access to a hundred zillion spells each time they hit a new spell level, and a zillion more each time a new book of spells is published. What's the big deal about letting a level 5 fire cleric prepare fireball in all his 3rd-level slots instead of dispel magic, prayer, or stone shape? Is it wrong to let a fire cleric be a fire cleric, rather than a cleric who has a little bit of fire?
Start working on convincing rest of developers. I would be in favor of making cleric spell lists more customizable, depending upon the actual portfolio of their patron. Making it a step backwards toward the 2nd edition sphere system, instead of one bland spell list and a mere bonus spell on each level selected from two domains.
(Yes, I know cleric is the best and most powerful class, but we're talking about making NINE spells open to the regular cleric domain slots, big whoop... Ultimate Combat added 42 new spells to the cleric spell list and that's apparently not a big deal...)
What?! Nooo! It can't be! In no way we could allow Clerics to cast fireballs! What would be next step? Wizards that do healing?! (seriously, I am sick of that arcane magic can't heal paradigm... or by the very arcane vs divine division but it's matter for another thread - NO there is no way we threadjack this thread that way ;)
What is the benefit of making that distinction?Basically, I don't see any benefit in splitting hairs as to whether or not a cleric's domain spells are on her class spell list. It's simpler to say they are on her class spell list.Or you could just say that a cleric has three class spell lists: the cleric spell list, the Domain(1) spell list, and the Domain(2) spell list.
Because then you can have the rules work as they're supposed to, instead of getting sucked into a bunch of blarf-de-blarf about whether clerics can memorise domain spells in regular cleric spells slots, etc., etc.
|
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
If there was a concern about power level and domain spells, you could just replace the domain slot with the ability to actually add the spells to your list. So you gain full access to your domain spells, but get no bonus slots. Seems reasonable, yes?
I think I feel a future houserule coming on.
|
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
wait - but then can a cleric do it the other way around and prep a regular spell in the Domain Slot? Or swap a Domain spell for a healing (or inflict) spell?
Nope. You can only prepare a domain spell in a domain slot, and you can't sacrifice a domain spell for spontaneous cure/inflict castings. Says so in the class description.
EDIT: Seeing your edit now... better keep track of what you cast. ;) Or just always cast domain spells first if you have it in both spots.
EDIT2: I do wonder this: can I prepare a lower-level domain spell in a higher-level domain slot, like I can with regular spells?
EDIT2: I do wonder this: can I prepare a lower-level domain spell in a higher-level domain slot, like I can with regular spells?Answer to Edit2 is a yes (I think).
It was specifically mentioned as possible in the 3.5 FAQ. Likewise for metamagicked domain spells in higher level slots.
Because then you can have the rules work as they're supposed to, instead of getting sucked into a bunch of blarf-de-blarf about whether clerics can memorise domain spells in regular cleric spells slots, etc., etc.
The way it's supposed to work, clerics don't memorize spells.
Also, just to be clear, the blarf-de-blarf is equally easily avoided if we just do the sensible thing and accept that a cleric's class spell list is the union of the set of all-cleric-spells and the set of this-cleric's-spells. That brings the grand total number of "special" rules associated with cleric spells down to one: you may only prepare one spell appearing on the set of this-cleric's-spells per spell level.
Because then you can have the rules work as they're supposed to, instead of getting sucked into a bunch of blarf-de-blarf about whether clerics can memorise domain spells in regular cleric spells slots, etc., etc.The way it's supposed to work, clerics don't memorize spells.
No one memorizes spells. No one.
What is the benefit of making that distinction?Basically, I don't see any benefit in splitting hairs as to whether or not a cleric's domain spells are on her class spell list. It's simpler to say they are on her class spell list.Or you could just say that a cleric has three class spell lists: the cleric spell list, the Domain(1) spell list, and the Domain(2) spell list.
Because some people are very literal with the rules. I have seen more than one post not allowing haste to work with natural weapons as an example because the spell says something about held weapons.
I am not as much a stickler for the rules as to forbid that(the haste or domain spell situation), but many are. I am not saying it is wrong to be that exact, but it is what it is.
What is the benefit of making that distinction?Because some people are very literal with the rules. I have seen more than one post not allowing haste to work with natural weapons as an example because the spell says something about held weapons.
That's being fixed in the next errata. As written, yeah, haste only affects held weapons, not natural weapons. But it'll be changed in the next printing
The question is, "What is the benefit of dividing up the spell list as Hogarth describes, as opposed to saying A cleric with this domain adds the following spells to her cleric class spell list?" And I don't see any benefit of it.
What is the benefit of making that distinction?Because some people are very literal with the rules. I have seen more than one post not allowing haste to work with natural weapons as an example because the spell says something about held weapons.That's being fixed in the next errata. As written, yeah, haste only affects held weapons, not natural weapons. But it'll be changed in the next printing
The question is, "What is the benefit of dividing up the spell list as Hogarth describes, as opposed to saying A cleric with this domain adds the following spells to her cleric class spell list?" And I don't see any benefit of it.
I misunderstood. In that case I agree that the italicized sentence should suffice.
|
|
EDIT2: I do wonder this: can I prepare a lower-level domain spell in a higher-level domain slot, like I can with regular spells?
Yes. A spellcaster can always prepair lower level spells in a higher level slot, even for Domains, and in fact some Clerics must do that because of alignment restrictions (like Pharasma & Death Domain), or lose that spell level.
What?! Nooo! It can't be! In no way we could allow Clerics to cast fireballs! What would be next step? Wizards that do healing?! (seriously, I am sick of that arcane magic can't heal paradigm... or by the very arcane vs divine division but it's matter for another thread - NO there is no way we threadjack this thread that way ;)
Yes, Clerics can in fact cast Fireball (as a 3rd level Fire Domain spell). Which is something people complained of sine 3.0.
I agree that the split between Arcane and Divine really does need a lot more work, but I think it is much more because Wizards get too many spells rather than the other way around. I'm honestly hoping that more spells, especially along the protection/buffing themes are taken from Wizard/Sorcerers, in all honesty.
What is the benefit of making that distinction?Because some people are very literal with the rules. I have seen more than one post not allowing haste to work with natural weapons as an example because the spell says something about held weapons.That's being fixed in the next errata. As written, yeah, haste only affects held weapons, not natural weapons. But it'll be changed in the next printing
The question is, "What is the benefit of dividing up the spell list as Hogarth describes, as opposed to saying A cleric with this domain adds the following spells to her cleric class spell list?" And I don't see any benefit of it.
Is this to be taken as the general rule when an ability says "held weapon"? The question of Arcane Pool's enhancements affecting natural weapons is what spurned this.