Wraithstrike: Welcome to the party! Aren't you soooo happy you joined this one? *grins*
- Gauss
All you have to do is take it post by post. :)I have asked you 3 questions you have yet to answer, 2 of them repeatedly.
What makes a spell valid for one list is whether or not it can be cast by a certain class. We already know that arcane classes can only cast arcane versions of spells, and divine classes can only cast divine versions of spells.
As an example confusion lesser that is scribed into a scroll by a bard can not be cast by a cleric because it is an arcane spell coming from the bard.
the lists in the GMG are not in relation ship to class or spell caster like scrolls are in the CRB, instead they have been broken down by Arcane and Divine.
so again, what make a spell by itself valid for one list and not the other?
and because we seam to be in the mood to quote James Jacobs right now
I have another question, Mystic Past Life doesn’t add spells as bonus spells it adds spells “to the spell list of your current spellcasting class”. If spells are determined to be arcane or divine by the spell list that they are on, wouldn’t this be a self satisfying requirement? Meaning any spell added to my spell list would inherently be of the proper type like the rest of the spells on that list?Again, thank you for your time and your help sorting this for me.
As for the second question, that could indeed be a self-satisfying requirement. As you may have noticed, our rules writing can be overly pedantic and overly wordy at times...
So with Mystic Past Life, pick any class you want, pick any spells from that class that you want and by picking them you have fullfilled the requirments set forth by the racial trait.
I don't think that was the intent of the writer though.
If I was making a list of spells by arcane or divine versions I would put spells are currently on the class list of casters that cause for a divine and arcane version to be on both list, but if a spell is only on one class list then it should only be listed once. I am assuming that is what was done. If that is not what was done, then the GMG is in error.
As for Mystic Past Life it says " The spells must be the same type (arcane or divine) as the spellcasting class you're adding them to."We know that a spell has an arcane and a divine version only if it exist on certain class list that allow it to have both versions. If not then the spell only has one version. For that class arcane or divine it is considered to be that type of spell. As an example cure light wound is an arcane spell for bards, but it is divine for casters. Guass's quote saying that classes dictate the spell type along with my post on Mystic Theurges and scrolls only work together if this logic is followed. Otherwise it falls apart, and it allows early entry into the MT PrC.
If the above paragraph is incorrect them please explain how.
Just in case you missed it this is Gauss's quote:
Spells come in two types: arcane (cast by bards, sorcerers, and wizards) and divine (cast by clerics, druids, and experienced paladins and rangers).
What you are debating is basic information. If this were college it would be Pathfinder 101. That is why Gauss is calling you expertise into question. Your refusal to answer my questions on the MT, and the scrolls, and how it falls in line with Gauss's quote is also not helping your case. If you can debunk my reasoning by the rules then you have a strong case, but by reading and the reading of the hundreds of the people I have gamed with or have interacted with online your interpretation is not correct.
So does that mean we can agree that arcane casters, who cast arcane and only arcane spells as is written in their class entries, do not need a DF when casting a spell that lists a DF in their components section?Do you mean like a witch (an arcane spell caster) casting the spell Divine Power?
Yes, as an arcane spell without the use of a DF.
Divine Power being described as a divine spell in the ARG p198Example Text.
and again in the GMG p132.A guideline, it talks about what general rules apply to spells and is easily identifiable as such.
Being described in the CRB p273 as having the components of V, S, DF and described as “Calling upon the divine power of your patron”?You're using described in different senses, but yes, this is all true when cast as a divine spell.
A witch with a patron of strength so they could have access to Divine Power in the first place?Which they cast as an arcane spell, without using a DF.
A witch that could probably use their familiar as their divine focus, the familiar being connected to their patron and all.No. Witches do not have DF's. Familiars are not listed as acceptable options for a DF and their familiar is described as a conduit between them and their patron, not a representation of it.
A witch that gains their power from communion with the unknown.Why did you cherrypick that part of the entry and leave out the bit about the familiar?
A witch that is full capable of crafting their own divine focus the same way that some divine spell casters with no support structure do?
Crafting a holy icon? Yes. How does one craft an item that is specifically for the purposes of casting divine spells without the ability to cast divine spells?
Really? This is what you are worried about?
Not even a little. I was against the idea because you were using to prove that divine power is objectively a divine spell.
With or without a divine focus do you see how divine power pits in with the class? Spells like Raise Dead also fit in with the class even though they are being cast as arcane spells because a witch is connected to a patron.
I play 3.5, where Wizards can cast any cleric spell as Arcane with a single class. Where Ur-Priests can steal divine power to cast Miracle. Read: I care very little for class based fluff. Asked whether or not I think arbitrary spells fit in amongst the class list, I think the Witch list is weak because it was designed around thematically appropriate choices instead of mechanical ability.
Do you understand that a wizard using Mystic Past Life to gain access to the witch list then choosing a divine spell that relies on a patron or deity in its mechanics could cause a break down?In its fluff, you mean.
Calling upon the divine power of your patron, you imbue yourself with strength and skill in combat. You gain a +1 luck bonus on attack rolls, weapon damage rolls, Strength checks, and Strength-based skill checks for every three caster levels you have (maximum +6). You also gain 1 temporary hit point per caster level. Whenever you make a full-attack action, you can make an additional attack at your full base attack bonus, plus any appropriate modifiers. This additional attack is not cumulative with similar effects, such as haste or weapons with the speed special ability.That first sentence has no mechanical bearing, it's just fluff.
Isn’t it possible that the rule in Mystic Past Life was intentional to prevent wizards from running around with cure light wounds, raise dead, reincarnation and the like?The idea that those spells are game breaking on a Wizard is laughable, the idea that anyone would take those spells on a Wizard is also laughable.
That's a side-effect of having an arcane casting class with spells that were previously cleric/druid only. However, given that most of those spells are awful I fail to see a problem. The best list is on the Wizard, taking from the Witch list doesn't add much at all. Taking from the Summoner list, on the other hand...Isn’t arcane and divine magic described as
Arcane spells
Compared to divine spells, arcane spells are more likely to produce dramatic results.
So basically it sounds like some want to give any arcane spell caster free access to divine magic without any affiliation to a higher power and limit the divine casters to only what they already have.
Divine Spells
Unlike arcane spells, divine spells draw power from a divine source.
~~~
Divine spells tend to focus on healing and protection and are less flashy, destructive, and disruptive than arcane spells.
Is that right? Because that’s basically what this is breaking down to, let’s pretend that the written rule for mystic past life is referring to spell casting class and not individual spells and pretend that individual spells don’t have any type regardless of how many references are shown that they do, just so we can protect a loop hole that would allow arcane casters more power than was intended.
That isn't the intention and you haven't supplied anything that concretely (as in, a piece of rules text) says that. You just post something once, maybe twice, before it is debunked then add it to the list of "references".
Okay I found the section in the Game Master's Guide and it's about scrolls. Arcane scrolls. Not objectively arcane spells. Since a scroll type is determined by a caster, scroll cost is determined by caster, and cost of scrolls is assumed to be the lowest for a given scroll, you can tell these were made by a Wizard.
I just remembered who MLHagan was from this thread. Hello again Hagan.
I just remembered who MLHagan was from this thread. Hello again Hagan.
I guess I'll just sit back, open a bag of popcorn, and watch the show...
I just remembered who MLHagan was from this thread. Hello again Hagan.
Wow, I just wanted to say: way to sucker us in again Hagan. I will not be fooled again.
- Gauss
Let’s go with James Jacobs ruling and feel free to use Mystic Past Life to select any other spell casting class, then pick whatever spells you would like from that class, as soon as they are added to your spell list they are of the correct type because the type is determined by whatever list the spell is on.
Except that it checks the type of the spell when you pick it, it's not added and then checked. It does not fulfil it's own requirements.
Aioran: Give it up, I think he knows this. He is just trolling.
- Gauss
...popcorn, anyone?
Nice trolling Hagan. Normally I don't do call people out as trolling, but James never said you can add any spell to any class list. Only your interpretation supports that.
I don't like to see James lied on so I will quote what James said, which is actually what myself and the others have been saying.
If you take the Mystic Past Life trait, you need to have a spellcasting class already. In other words, you need at least 1 level in a spellcasting class. So, by taking that 1 level, you know whether or not that class is a divine or arcane spellcasting class. And you know what spell list that class has.
What this power lets you do is look at your chosen spellcaster class's spell list and add in spells that aren't on that list, but those spells from the same type of magic (be it arcane or divine). In this case, what determines whether or not a spell is arcane or divine is merely the fact that the spell is on an arcane spellcaster's list or a divine spellcaster's list.
In short the class determines if a spell is arcane or divine so you must choose an arcane or divine spell depending on the class you already have. They way to determine if a spell is arcane or divine is by the class that is casting it, which is what James said, and what the quote from Gauss says which is repeated in my last post.
2. It should also be noted that Hagan never answered my questions from my last post about the MT and the scrolls because if he were to do so he could nor formulate an answer that made sense if it and fit his interpretation of event.
3. This post is not really for Hagan, but any other poster reading this.
I don't know... that last post sounded a little bitter.
I guess it's over either way anyway.
EDIT: Or I could be totally wrong.
Nope, acording to James Jacobs it is
As for the second question, that could indeed be a self-satisfying requirement. As you may have noticed, our rules writing can be overly pedantic and overly wordy at times...
*Fix'd.
whatever spell you add to your spell list will be the same type as your spell list.
you want Wish and Mirical on the same caster even an oracle or sorcer by level 19? not a problem.
this is what people have been fighting so hard for, to the point of predation.
Wish+Miracle? No chance! Scintillating Pattern on my Heaven's Oracle? Without a doubt. Joking aside, I notice you change from adding spells to the wizard to the oracle. I should mention that oracle still has a set known spell so it's hardly imbalanced anyway.
|
who's trolling, i am the one who started this thread wasn't i?Aioran: Give it up, I think he knows this. He is just trolling.
- Gauss
So if I start a thread that is titled, hypothetically, "4E BLOWS GOATS AND MIKE MEARLS IS A GOAT TOO" and the opening post will be an essay on the topic matter, that won't be trolling? Jolly!
There is also the fluff, flavor and intent that interests me, I yield to the hack and slash video game mentality that has overrun this thread.
</3
This is what happens when I say I play 3.5.
Should we start flagging? Is this flag worthy?
No. I say we just ignore him. He is now trying to say we supported a viewpoint we did not even support, just to get a response, but he can find no statement to support his claims.
Assuming you are serious the best you can do is show a rules contradiction and/or a bad choice of words. You have yet to answer my previous questions or provide a rules quote that shows how a spell starts off.
In case you need a reminder I asked you about the mystic theurge, more than once. I am sure you saw them. This is my last response until provide a rules quote that specifically says a spell is only divine or arcane, and you answer my other questions. If there is no answer I will just have to assume that you have no answer.
I will be nice and give you a freebie. click here
The other questions are probably on page 4. Due to how my questions interact with the rules that everyone uses you will have to answer them in order to prove you are right, otherwise you will convince nobody that 99% of the D&D/PF population has been doing it wrong.
PS:Your above post proves nothing. We never said there were no divine spells. We said that there can be a divine or arcane version of a spell, and that it is normally referred to as arcane or divine depending upon the version of the spell which depends on which class is casting it. <---That is the basis to a large extent of my Mystic Theurge and scroll questions, so I really don't know why you went and listed all of those spells unless you misunderstood what everyone has been saying.
In short if a spell is only a on divine class list then there is only a divine version. That same spell may at any point end up on an arcane class list due to a new archetype or PrC. That is why no spell is divine or arcane in and of itself, but only due to the class that cast it.
In case you missed it this is from the book.
Spells come in two types: arcane (cast by bards, sorcerers, and wizards) and divine (cast by clerics, druids, and experienced paladins and rangers).
<---At least the 3rd time it has been quoted.
As I said already since you like to skip my questions answer them or you get no more replies.
edit:I see you did reply to my scroll question, well you tried to but you ignored the rules I showed to you so the next post will present the question again.
edit 2:link to my mystic theurge question
edit 3:Is English a 2nd language for you? Did you try to post this question to other forums?
edit 4:I am really bored. Oh I see I have a PM. Sorry Hagan. If you wish to distract me from my PM then come up with a good response. :)
By divine spells, they mean the divine version of the spell. That is why I brought up the scroll issue earlier which you seem to not want to comment on, and the mystic theurge issue.sorry, there have been a lot of comments, can reply to them all at the same time and alot are getting shuffled under the board.
so the question of scrolls, if spells are only determined by the caster then how could there be diffrent list of divine and arcane spells for use as scrolls. mind you that these list are not in reguards to any class that created them, and any class can use them as well with Use Magical Divice, so how is it that some spell are on the arcane list only and other spells are on the divine list only?
and what about refrence to DF in spells? people seam to be trying to turn that around and avoid it as much as possable.
i am sorry, my mind is a bit rattled right now, what did you want to know?
The scroll rules say that to use a scroll naturally(without UMD) the caster type must match the scroll type. That is basic knowledge. It is also basic knowledge that caster can only create a scroll corresponding to his caster type.
Here are the rules for you again:
To have any chance of activating a scroll spell, the scroll user must meet the following requirements.
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.)
This is the second time I have presented these rules to you.
The user must have the spell on her class list.
The user must have the requisite ability score.
This thread is funny.
Alchemist is neither an arcane or divine class though it should probably be arcane, at least JJ put the alchemist in the Arcane pile of classes when answering questions on the samsaran.
fireball is an arcane spell when cast from an arcane caster class' spell list and divine if from a divine list. In the case of a fireball scroll scribed by a divine caster it is a divine scroll, but it would only be usable by casters that have fireball effectively added to their spell list in some way, since it is not on the cleric or druid list. A character can add spells to their list in several ways but that only adds it to their list for that specific character.
Only divine casters use DF components, most people seem to agree with that, JJ did comment on that as well and pretty much said that arcane casters ignore the DF component. I assume that alchemists don't use a DF component either since that would make much more sense.
Potions are not divine or arcane, it simply doesn't matter for potions.
Alchemists might not be able to create spell completion items like wands or scrolls since they are neither arcane or divine, if you rule they can I'd treat them as arcane, in some cases this might mean that they are the only ones that can activate an item without UMD.
Alchemist are not really casters. They get to use spells as a part of their special abilities, but they don't cast spells.
When looking at the Maximum Damage tables, also keep in mind that arcane spells usually use d6s for damage and divine spells usually use d8s
I have also told you that when the they say divine spell they mean the divine version of the spell. The same thing goes for arcane spells. I even quoted a rule telling that class certain spells are only cast by certain classes. You should also realize that if a class is primarily made for an arcane or divine class it will be listed as that type of spell when examples are used.
You still did not answer the mystic theurge question, and you have yet to provide a rules quote for determining if a spell is arcane or divine. Yet I have provided a rules quote back by other supporting rules(scrolls and mystic theurge) that make sense within that interpretation.
This thread is funny.
I am starting to think he just has a very poor understanding of the rules. :)
Oh well, I am off again until he can answer the mystic theurge question, and not the alchemist section which says nothing about an alchmist casting anything.
At Hagan:
Rather than cast magic like a spellcaster, the alchemist captures his own magic potential within liquids and extracts he creates, infusing his chemicals with virulent power to grant him impressive skill with poisons, explosives, and all manner of self-transformative magic.
Like we keep saying they are not casters so their magic is not arcane or divine.
Game, Set, Match ? :)
Should we start flagging? Is this flag worthy?
No, please don't, I'd like to see where this is going.
Should we start flagging? Is this flag worthy?No, please don't, I'd like to see where this is going.
To Hell because we didn't change our ways. Duh :D
- Gauss
Should we start flagging? Is this flag worthy?No, please don't, I'd like to see where this is going.To Hell because we didn't change our ways. Duh :D
- Gauss
Not I. I'm just an innocent bystander.
For some reason this is entertaining, and mildy educational.
Wraithstrike: It lost its entertainment value last wednesday. And I think I can do without the education on how to misquote the rules. :)
- Gauss
Oh, this is still going.
Spells come in two types: arcane (cast by bards, sorcerers, and wizards) and divine (cast by clerics, druids, and experienced paladins and rangers).
which ones duplicate divine spells?
The ones that duplicate spells on the lists of divine casters. So... from the above quote: clerics, druids, rangers, paladins, by extension: inquisitors.
and how do we determine that if and when the spells in question appear on both divine and arcane spell caster spell lists?
We don't, that's what the Paizo devs do.
Creating extracts consumes raw materials, but the cost of these materials is insignificant—comparable to the valueless material components of most spells. If a spell normally has a costly material component, that component is expended during the consumption of that particular extract. Extracts cannot be made from spells that have focus requirements (alchemist extracts that duplicate divine spells never have a divine focus requirement).
The whole quote if you read what its talking about is that when a divine caster cast spells they typically have a focus eg. holy symbol, miseltoe etc. This is pointing out that even though these spells have this type of focus (which would render them ineligible for extracts) the loose the DF component for the focus making the prepareable by the alchemist.
Like we keep saying they are not casters so their magic is not arcane or divine.Game, Set, Match ? :)
not quite,
alchemist extracts that duplicate divine spells...
which ones duplicate divine spells? and how do we determine that if and when the spells in question appear on both divine and arcane spell caster spell lists?
Game, Set & Match?
They are still not casters by the book, and they don't "cast" spells.
For the purpose of this quote you keep using concerning alchemist and divine spells the rules are only saying that if a spell has DF listed that the alchemist does not need it, and that makes sense because the DF is intended to for divine classes as a spiritual focus for their divine powers.
Divine Focus (DF): A divine focus component is an item of spiritual significance. The divine focus for a cleric or a paladin is a holy symbol appropriate to the character's faith. The divine focus for a druid or a ranger is a sprig of holly, or some other sacred plant.
Ok so the book say "spiritual significance", but I was close enough that the idea is the same.
This is no way disagrees with Talonhawke's post. The two actually work well together. It also fits the scroll rules, and the Mystic Theurge rules which you refuse to address. I did provide you a link. :)
I understand that alchemists are not arcane or divine casters.
I also understand the reasoning behind the rule that alchemist do not require a divine focus for divine spells.
I am noting that such spells are defined as divine spells themselves without reference or being in regards to a divine spell caster or divine casting spell list.
That is my point.
It also appears that having a divine focus as a requirement or component for a spell is or can be a fairly good indicator that the spell itself is a divine spell by itself or in its own regards.
So are we in agreement with this?
Only on the first two sentences.
It makes no sense to say that a spell is divine in nature only until splatbook X comes out. Your statement does not fit into the rules neatly while mines does. An arcane version of a spell is arcane, and the divine version is divine, as I have been telling you. By your logic the lack of a divine focus also marks a spell as arcane, but there is no rule to support either of your views while the quotes presented do support my version.PS:I still think you are arguing to the sake of arguing, but I don't want anyone to be swayed by this non-logic you are presenting, plus I am bored.
It is true that you can choose to interpret it that way. But by trying to use loopholes you force developers toward a legalese style of rules design which makes it harder for the rest of us to understand the intent of the rules.
Because let's be clear - the intent of this ability is completely clear. This is a well-worded ability in that nearly all players will understand exactly what it is supposed to do.
When game developers are forced to write in a legalese style to hinder a few munchkins that try to "break" the game in any way possible, it becomes harder for the rest of us - who care more about how the game is supposed to be played than proving that "this can be misread in such a way that it's broken" - to understand the intent.
If the spellcaster is shaping and channeling the magical energies himself, then the spell is arcane.
If the spellcaster appeals to some higher power to shape and channel the magical energies THROUGH her, then the spell is divine.
Anything else is just semantics.
Witches get their spells through their patrons, but those spells are arcane.
If I've understood things correctly, witches gain _knowledge_ of their spells by patrons, but not the spellcasting ability itself. Basically, they use outsiders instead of scrolls to learn new spells but still casts spells basically the same way as wizards.
This may help, or may be useless, but since I explain magic a little more "physicsy" in my campaign, it may open a different road of thought.
Okay, so in my campaign world magic is the side-effect of femtites. Machines smaller than nanites that infuse all matter and all energy on the planet.
An Arcane caster effectively "hacks" these machines with a combination of archaic command words (verbal), hand gestures (somatic), and base materials (spell components). So the rose petals for Sleep are because the spell requires the atomic resources of the petals.
A Divine caster instead controls their own internal femtites to go forth from their body and change the world. Their faith and belief in themselves allows them to hack their own body with pure will.
A Psionicist has evolved to mentally manipulate the femtites with a simple thought. I include Ninjas and Monks as psionic users though they instead meditate and use their mind to modify their internal femtites.
So if you ditch my idea of femtites but keep the basic premise, it kind of explains the difference between Arcane, Divine, and Psionics (if you use them).
If someone uses a 13mm wrench to turn an imperial bolt with a half in head, does that make the bolt a metric bolt? No of course not.
So why would a Witch using arcane power to cast Death Ward change the spell itself from divine to arcane? Sure it is being cast as an arcane spell but the imperial bolt was being turned as a metric one with the 13mm wrench, right?
Your logic is flawed because a witch casting a spell does not make it arcane. The spell itself does not have a designation. It's desination is decided by who cast it. There was a quote that said arcane caster cast divine spells, which is supported by the scroll rules.
You are also misinterpreting Mystic Life. Let's try this again.
If you take the Mystic Past Life trait, you need to have a spellcasting class already. In other words, you need at least 1 level in a spellcasting class. So, by taking that 1 level, you know whether or not that class is a divine or arcane spellcasting class. And you know what spell list that class has.
What this power lets you do is look at your chosen spellcaster class's spell list and add in spells that aren't on that list, but those spells must be chosen from the same type of magic . In this case, what determines whether or not a spell is arcane or divine is merely the fact that the spell is on an arcane spellcaster's list or a divine spellcaster's list.
As an example if cure light wounds is a "divine and arcane" spell because both an arcane and a divine class have it on their class list. If a spell is only on one list then you are out of luck.
As you can see the list determines the spell
I have already told you that when we say a spell is divine it means the divine version. This logic is supported by the scroll rules and the mystic theurge rules which you refuse to comment on because you have no logical answer for the post which I gave you a link to. If you logic was correct then you would be able to quote a rule that says X determines the base type of a scroll before splat book X comes out. You have yet to produce such a rule.
Every time you post my reply will be Mystic Theurge. I won't even type anything else until you answer the post I presented to you or show me a quote that supports your point as a rule, and not as a random example.
MLHagan I don't why you keep asking the same question that have already been answered. Oh yeah, you are trolling. Why do you wish to mislead people. It is not productive. I think I have provided enough evidence which you have yet to explain away. By the way asking me a question is not explaining it away. Knocking down my reply like we did with your alchemist example is explaining it away.
I think we should go into silent mode until stop repeating yourself and start to explain why you are correct with rules.