| 1 person marked this as FAQ candidate. |
Can a Magus perform research to create a completely new spell, according to the rule books?
[Note if it matters: Not simply as a way to get around spell blending to learn a preexisting spell not already on the list, but as a way to create 100% custom Magus spells]
Pg 219-220 of the Core book only lists Wizards as a class that can perform independant research, specifically placing other Arcance classes into a different notation. Though that was obviously pre-Magus as a class, nothing in the Magus section of UM appears to directly add them to it. Pg 128-139 of UM don't mention much about classes at all.
[Side question: Is their any errata/FAQ clearly granting independant research to Sorc or Bards?]
The posts that I could find via search here were from Rnd 1 and Rnd 3 of the class development, pre-release of UM. Since then I can't find any mention of it except for GM's and players personal opinions, and I'm concerned Solely with what's written in the books, and what Paizo has officially said.
If a GM declared his game "strictly by the books", would Magus performing spell research be allowed, or not allowed?
I would hardly expect for the CRB to mention magi.
But let's go ahead and explore the folly that is going by RAW rather than RAI. I mean, RAW summoners, magi, witches, etc don't take any penalties from using metamagic. They don't increase their spell levels for applying metamagic because the part about spellcasters and metamagic doesn't mention them! And Oracles and Inquisitors have to prepare metamagic spells. Good luck with that, bros.
So, no. Magi cannot independently research new spells, by RAW. Just like how oracles and inquisitors can't use metamagic *at all*, and summoners, witches, and magi don't have any penalties for applying metamagic spells at all.
Read as Intended? The answer to that question is "of course they can, why is this even a question?!".
Damn Cheapy, don't hold back or anything.
^.^
I concur with Cheapy's view. Of course they can.
I would hardly expect for the CRB to mention magi.
Which is why I noted that in my original post. However no, their is certainly no reason UM, or a FAQ/Ert., couldn't have. In the age of the internet it takes 5 seconds of typing and clicking 'post' for a designer to clarify intention for those of us that would like the designers, not other players, to clarify issues with strong balance implications throughout the whole system.
But let's go ahead and explore the folly that is going by RAW rather than RAI. I mean, RAW summoners, magi, witches, etc don't take any penalties from using metamagic....
The question here isn't metamagic, it's independant research. The metamagic section makes references to classes only in clear cut reference to prepared vs spontaneous casting with no subdivision, so sorting later classes is common sense.
The independant research subsection doesn't just divide by arcane/divine, but within arcane singles out the Wizard as the class that can perform it, while moving the Bard and Sorceror into a seperate catagory. It does not clarify if that's a further prepared vs. spontaneous design subdivision, or by what standard wizards were allowed by sorcerors were not because several differences between the class types exist in that case. At best it can be implied Magi can, or even Sorcerors, but this isn't some minor 'oops' on a RAW point, it's specifically one that relates with how Paizo felt the classes were balanced against one another.
Your tone aside, I'm not saying it's not what was intended. Only that no, just off the rules, RAI can't be determined by the metamagic section for the independant research section.
Read as Intended? The answer to that question is "of course they can, why is this even a question?!".
Humor me. I failed Psychic 101 in college so I can't read the minds of the developers, and independant research has larger overall balance implications then metamagic (which had a simpler system for determining what was intent) since you're discussing a class which was deliberately built with a limited spell list to accompany it's unique rules approach to what actions it can perform in a turn.
you might enjoy the reading of this link on researching. basically its a completely grey area that is heavily rule 0'd
you might enjoy the reading of this link on researching. basically its a completely grey area that is heavily rule 0'd
I'd say yes, but a DM should give such a spell a through review. It should be a spell that one might expect to find on a magus list, not a way to work around the limitations that are part of the class design.
Thank you both. I'll give that thread a read Glutton, and I think the answer to this question is going to be "Paizo has no formal stance yet/Entirely the call of the individual GM".
The one book based point I could come up with used the spell Frostbite from the UM as an example. It's a spell avaliable to Magi, Witches, and Druids, but not to Wiz/Sorc. Spells like that... that Magi have but not Wiz/Sorc... could be taken as a sign that a Magus can research and create spells, and is not just limited to spell blending off the Wizard list. [it's not a concrete rules arguement, but at least could imply it based off the current rules]
Actually sorcerers can add "unusual spells that the sorcerer has gained some understanding of through study" to their spells known. That seems to provide for their creating custom spells.