|
| 10 people marked this as FAQ candidate. 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Hey all,
So this has been coming up a few times for a variety of reasons. Just who can you hire for spellcasting services in PFS, given access to a large enough city. My guess is that it's likely to be restricted in the same way as scrolls. wands, and potions--if you can hire the spell from a wizard, druid, or cleric, then you must, using the lowest level available, just like with wands, potions, and scrolls.
The only thing I know for sure is that there's a messageboard clarification that you cannot find a witch of a specific patron to cast you a spell from their patron list (which I assume would generalize to domains and bloodlines as well). There's a bunch of reasons why this matters a reasonable bit.
Price--If you can pay a paladin to cast a lesser restoration for you, you can get yourself restored for 1/6 the price of a cleric (something that was so undesired in wands and scrolls back in the day that the whole wand and scroll system for PFS was patched to prevent it, so I can't believe the same isn't true for spellcasting services). There are numerous other instances of money-savers here, particularly with summoners.
Spell Level--In situations where higher spell level is an advantage (light and darkness spells are a good example), if spellcasting services are unrestricted, you can pay a bit more to get the spell at the highest possible spell level by finding the caster that gets the spell late entry.
Spells of 7th level or higher are never available--If you can get spells from a summoner (or a bard, but they have fewer good spells), then you can bypass this restriction, since all their spells are actually level 6 or lower.
Arcane/Divine--Sometimes it matters if a spell is arcane or divine. For example, if you can hire spellcasting services from a summoner, in addition to the monetary savings you can get on certain early-entry spells, you can also get an arcane barkskin, allowing a sorcerer or bard to learn barkskin with a ring of spell knowledge.
Now, I can't find anything other than my logic that spellcasting services would not break the trend established with scrolls, potions, and wands to directly support my guess, and I don't want to introduce table variation if lots of other GMs are allowing this, so I'd like to find a definitive answer.
|
|
Would it be a situation where you would pay for a cleric or a wizard to cast the spell when possible?
It makes sense to me that in a situation where only a druid could cast a spell you need you would pay for a druid to cast it. But in a situation where you could can choose between a druid and a cleric you would need to pay the cleric to cast it.
In a situation with the ring of spell knowledge I don't see any issue with paying a summoner to load a spell into it, instead of paying a wizard if the summoner is the only person who knows the arcane version of the spell. Barkskin is also a very common summoner spell. Unfortunately high level summoners are not.
Interestingly enough it actually costs more gold to pay a summoner to cast barkskin because they don't get second level spells until level 4
I don't think that paying for spell casting services has the same break potential as scrolls and potions and wands because you can't take spell casting services into a dungeon with you.
Edit: To address the point of spell level mattering for some spells. Daylight is level 3 for everyone as is light. Continual flame seems to be the only one that matters.
|
|
Well, the earlier discussion of caster levels and the make whole spell ended with a ruling that, regardless of the item in question - even if it required a caster level in excess of 20 to fix - there was a hand-waved caster somewhere who could handle it; so, there's your precedent for purchased castings of spells above the minimum caster level.
Having to go with the minimum caster level for spellcasting services could get quite expensive (consider if all bough remove disease spells had to be cast at 5th level, for example, possibly requiring multiple castings before it was effective!)
The larger issue is whether one can purchase spells cast with metamagic enhancements - the obvious choice, here, being a heightened continual flame - to which my read would be no. The trend in listing resource access in PFS is that things which are not explicitly allowed are implicitly disallowed. That, combined with the fact that if everyone buys heightened continual torches it trivializes a number of scenarios' more dangerous encounters, seems to say "no, you can't buy metamagically enhanced spellcasting services."
|
|
In core can you buy metamagic spell services? I don't remember it saying you can.
I know in core you can buy services from any spell caster you like. And the question we really need to address here is whether or not you can choose which caster you can buy services from. And if you don't get to choose how does it default. For example is continual flame assumed to be a wizard casting it as a level 2 or a cleric casting it as a level 3. And can you default to a summoner to add barkskin to a ring of spell storing.
|
|
Well I just hit level 9 with my monk/bard which means I now have third level spells.
I really hope that we can get a clarification for how spell casting services work in PFS because I really want to load barkskin into a ring of spell knowledge III.
Shoot if I could just get a yes or no on barkskin alone, that would make me happy.
I'm very concerned about buying the ring loading it with barkskin and then having it ruled to not work in PFS. That would leave me with a very expensive ring which I have no use for. (I don't want any other second level spells from any other casters)
|
From the FAQ
Can I buy a magic item or spellcasting services with a metamagic feat applied, such as a scroll of maximized fireball, a wand of empowered shocking grasp, or employ the services of a wizard to cast extended mass bull's strength?
Generally, no. Magic items or spellcasting services must be purchased as listed in the Core Rulebook, including wands and scrolls. You may not apply metamagic feats when purchasing magic items or spellcasting services. The only exception is when the item or service is specifically listed as a reward on a Chronicle sheet.
|
|
That's great, now I know why I thought you couldn't buy a metamagiced spell from a spell caster.
But I still need to know if I can pay a summoner to cast barkskin so I can put it into a ring of spell storing.
According to core I may, and I have found nothing in PFS to tell me that I cannot.
I just want to make sure I'm not violating some PFS rule by doing so. I think I'm in the clear, but I could also see Mike not liking it.
|
|
There are rules for scrolls, wands, and potions, which it make it so you can't get a summoners barkskin. But there are no rules for spellcasting services other than what is in core. Not that I can find anyway.
This makes me think one of three things.
1: It slipped Mike's mind to include spell casting services and he intends for them to be limited in the same way (which sucks for me)
2: It slipped his mind at the time and he hasn't considered it important enough to readdress (which I don't know what to do with)
3: Mike didn't make rules further restricting spell casting services because spell casting services are already pretty restricted. You can't take the spell caster with you after all, and I believe PFS limits what level of spells you can buy. (this would be wonderful for me)
The issue with barkskin, summoners, and the ring of spell knowledge is only one of many problems that the Boston lodge has run into because of the house rules on scrolls, potions, and wands.
Edit: You are allowed to buy scrolls, potions, and wands, which are made by casters that are not clerics/wizards, if the other caster is the only who can cast the spell. For example a potion of barkskin must be made by a druid, ranger or summoner.
Assuming option 1 above, would this mean that I could buy a spell casting service from a summoner if they were the only spell caster who could provide the spell I needed. Such as an arcane version of barkskin to put into a ring of spell knowledge?
|
Assuming option 1 above, would this mean that I could buy a spell casting service from a summoner if they were the only spell caster who could provide the spell I needed. Such as an arcane version of barkskin to put into a ring of spell knowledge?
I'm with BNW as well. You cannot get a Paladin to cast lesser restoration for you, you need the cleric version. And for the same reason I believe that you wouldnt be able to get the summoner version of barksin. The only exceptions as noted before are spells that are ONLY castable by a non-wizard/druid/cleric such as oracle's burden.
|
|
I'd suggest that this is likely your theory #1 (i.e. most restrictive, but you'll have to wait for Mike or Mark to weigh in on the issue to be certain). As evidence: Mike's Response #1 in Rogue Eidolon's other thread on this same/similar topic; and then Mike's Response #2 and #3 (which you should know about since you posted in that thread).
Mike nixed getting an "arcane" scroll of divine favor from a strength patron witch to do exactly what you want to do, you're probably not allowed to do almost the same thing with barkskin (or else you could just get the Spellcasting services of a strength patron witch to cast divine favor for you).
That said, if you play with a summoner who has barkskin as a spell known and get him to cast it into your ring (as many people suggested regarding divine favor and a witch with the strength patron) on the same thread, and get the GM to note it on your chronicle, it would likely be acceptable.
|
|
The difference between Barkskin and Divine Favor, is that Barkskin is on the core list for summoners. Divine Favor does not normally exist as an arcane spell but barkskin does. At least I think it can be considered to normally exist as an arcane spell because it is on an arcane spell casters core spell list. Continual flame also exists as both an arcane and a divine spell.
I suspect you are correct that theory #1 will be the correct one. Unfortunately the general trend with spells in Pathfinder is to be more restrictive, not less.
Assuming theory one is correct, a player could still pay a paladin to cast Holy Shield. It is a spell that is exclusive to paladins, and has a long enough duration that a person might actually want it.
So that still leaves me with the question: Assuming the strictest theory can I pay a summoner to cast a spell that normally exists in arcane form on their spell list and only on their spell list(such as barkskin, or magic fang) into a ring of spell knowledge which only takes arcane spells?
As far as I know Barkskin is on the alchemist, druid, ranger, and summoner spell lists normally. It can be added to the cleric spell list through the defense or plant domains.
I would pay an alchemist for the spell, but his infusions don't have a type so I'm not sure it would count. I would only need to study the effects of the spell if it did. I think I will take that over to the rules forum.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The basic intent of the PFS rules regarding meta-magic, magic items like scrolls/wands and spell-casting services is that (1)the spell is at the minimum caster level, and (2) no meta-magic can be applied. Now, the FAQ has clear language covering the magic item issue, but spell-casting services are less clear. The best advice I can give is to apply the same concepts to spell-casting services which will likely mean the most restrictive. The reason for that approach is to prevent the appearance of "cheating" (as some will see it) and having to take a lot of corrective action if/when Mike provides an official ruling. You may not agree with the current position on magic items, but not everyone will agree with all the rules all the time. Mike has decided the current rule is in the best interest of society play.
That being said, I will bring this thread to Mike's (and the Venture-Team) attention and see if he can/will address the issue and perhaps add clear language that applies to spell-casting services.
|
|
Also, here's a thought. I believe you would also be able to do this legally as follows:
1. Buy a scroll of barkskin*.
2. UMD it into the ring (or get one of your friends to do it if you don't have the skill).
3. Make the spellcraft check.
4. Profit.
*scrolls of spells that appear on divine and arcane lists are, for ease of use in PFS, not considered one or the other IIRC. So as far as I can tell this should work.
|
|
I also think it is most likely. I just really don't want it. If that is the way it ends up being then I will live with it. Even with number one I may still be able to learn barkskin if I can encounter a summoner.
I'm still hoping that Mike rules that because the summoner is the only caster with an arcane barkskin that you can pay one to load the ring with barkskin. Or if you wanted to put timely inspiration into a ring of spell knowledge it would be nice if you could pay a bard to do it, since bards are the only one who cast that spell.
|
|
Also, here's a thought. I believe you would also be able to do this legally as follows:
1. Buy a scroll of barkskin*.
2. UMD it into the ring (or get one of your friends to do it if you don't have the skill).
3. Make the spellcraft check.
4. Profit.
*scrolls of spells that appear on divine and arcane lists are, for ease of use in PFS, not considered one or the other IIRC. So as far as I can tell this should work.
The last question asked involving the Ring of Spell Knowledge I was looking at the theoretical possibility of adding divine favor from a witches patron to the ring using a scroll. Mike ruled that you could not use a scroll to do this.
Now I took that to mean you couldn't use scrolls to add spells to the Ring of Spell Knowledge, but maybe I was too hasty in that assumption. My Bard can easily make the DC 23 UMD check to cast barkskin from a scroll.
|
|
Also, here's a thought. I believe you would also be able to do this legally as follows:
1. Buy a scroll of barkskin*.
2. UMD it into the ring (or get one of your friends to do it if you don't have the skill).
3. Make the spellcraft check.
4. Profit.
*scrolls of spells that appear on divine and arcane lists are, for ease of use in PFS, not considered one or the other IIRC. So as far as I can tell this should work.
The last question asked involving the Ring of Spell Knowledge I was looking at the theoretical possibility of adding divine favor from a witches patron to the ring using a scroll. Mike ruled that you could not use a scroll to do this.
Now I took that to mean you couldn't use scrolls to add spells to the Ring of Spell Knowledge, but maybe I was too hasty in that assumption. My Bard can easily make the DC 23 UMD check to cast barkskin from a scroll.
The Ring of Spell Knowledge is a type of spell storing item. As per the most recent update on those:
Yes. An NPC spellcaster may be paid to cast a spell into a spell-storing item and it can be carried over to the next scenario if unused. The GM should note the purchase on the Chronicle sheet. Once the stored spell is used, it should be noted on that scenarios Chronicle sheet in the Conditions Cleared box.
A PC with the ability to cast spells may cast a spell into a spell-storing item that he owns and it may be carried over to the next scenario. As noted above, the GM should notate on the Chronicle sheet, in the Conditions Gained box, that the spell-storing item contains a spell at the conclusion of the scenario. Once expended, treat as above.
PCs may fill one another's spell-storing items, but if such spells are not cast during the same adventure, they are lost and are not recorded on Chronicle sheets for future use.
So scrolls are not one of the approved means of filling such an item. Also it looks like, unfortunately, having other PCs fill your ring will not last past the scenario.
RPG Superstar 2013 Top 8
|
So scrolls are not one of the approved means of filling such an item. Also it looks like, unfortunately, having other...
Scrolls don't need to be approved by a FAQ, because they are explicitly allowed by the base rules (at least for the ring of spell storing and any items which reference it). The only way using a scroll to fill a ring of spell storing-based item wouldn't be allowed is if a FAQ explicitly said that it doesn't work, which from the text that you have quoted it does not.
"A spellcaster can use a scroll to put a spell into the minor ring of spell storing."
http://paizo.com/pathfinderRPG/prd/magicItems/rings.html
|
|
So you are or you are not allowed to use a scroll to load a spell storing item?
Either way that is not the main question of this thread which is "Are spell casting services limited in the same way that scrolls wand and potions are limited?"
It seems that it is likely the intent for them to be, but that there is no official ruling spell casting services.
So I will not be using spell casting services to load rings of spell knowledge, unless Mike says it is ok to pay a summoner for a spell casting service.
|
|
So scrolls are not one of the approved means of filling such an item. Also it looks like, unfortunately, having other...Scrolls don't need to be approved by a FAQ, because they are explicitly allowed by the base rules (at least for the ring of spell storing and any items which reference it). The only way using a scroll to fill a ring of spell storing-based item wouldn't be allowed is if a FAQ explicitly said that it doesn't work, which from the text that you have quoted it does not.
"A spellcaster can use a scroll to put a spell into the minor ring of spell storing."
http://paizo.com/pathfinderRPG/prd/magicItems/rings.html
Let's leave the side topic aside after this
|
|
Scrolls are spell completion items. If you use the scroll you are casting the spell, so it would stay. If someone else uses the scroll, then they are the caster so it would empty after the scenario.Do it yourself: stays full
Buy it: stays full.
Other party member does it: Empties.Scroll would seem to fall under "buy it"
Mike specifically ruled in another thread that you can't get a divine spell like divine favor into a Ring of Spell Knowledge off a scroll, even though PFS scrolls are neither arcane nor divine and some witch patrons have the spell as an arcane spell, unless you youself are that type of witch.
If scrolls are being allowed by the FAQ, I guess the precedent that sets may be the following (to bring the thread a little more back on topic):
1 (PFS RULE) Scrolls are treated as both arcane and divine for the purposes of whether a character cannot activate them without resorting to Use Magic Device--This we know is true in PFS by PFS houserule.
2 (SPECULATION) If you don't have the spell on any of your spell lists and attempt a Use Magic Device check on the scroll, the spell is arcane if it is on the sorcerer/wizard list, divine if it is on the cleric or druid list, either if it is on both, and if it's none of those three but on a solitary other class's list (like shadow bard), then whatever that class is--This second half is speculation based on Mike's previous ruling, but it seems at least a firm fast rule, and one that I will likely be using until I hear otherwise.
I'll probably also use the speculated rule for spellcasting services.
|
|
This is what I assumed it was too, for scrolls. For spellcasting services, as I have said before I think you're most likely correct to extend it to spell casting. I personally don't like restricting things that have not specifically been said to restrict, but it does follow logically that spell casting services would be affected the same way as scrolls.
