| 11 people marked this as FAQ candidate. Answered in the FAQ. |
So the wizard in my party plans on using that spell and it makes me wonder what spells he gets access to with that.
Obviously he can only get stuff that's on his spell-list as well, so even if he drinks the blood of a Cleric (he's a wizard himself) that only gives him spells that are on both spell lists.
But some things are unclear still, mostly what is the base list to choose from?
Does it give access to:
1) spells that were actually prepared that day?
2) Spells that could have been prepared? (ALL spells on a cleric spell list. All spells in a witch's familiar or a wizard's spellbook)
3) What about spells that were prepared but have already been cast?
4) A sorcerer or oracle seems more straight-forward, but let's say they cast all their 3rd level spells already for the day. Can Blood Transcription pick a 3rd level spell then?
5) A wizard with a bonded item technically has access to the entire spellbook, right? How does that work with this spell being used on his corpse?
6) Any other "crazy combinations" that might allow that player access to more spells than seen at first sight.
I had ruled in the session where it came up that he gets access to the spellcaster's prepared spells and not the entire spelllist (it was a druid), but that I would inquire more about the spell.
So any thoughts? Dev-quotes are also always welcome :)
|
If this ever came up in my campaign, I would rule it only applicable to the blood from spontaneous spellcasters, as to me that seems to fit the spell's description.
But I think it would apply to the spells prepared that day (including those already cast) if speaking about prepared spellcasters; but when it comes to spontaneous, I would say any spell they knew in life, since it is more restrictive than access to the entire spell list.
I could be completely wrong in both paragraphs, and would like an official statement clearing this up.
Thanks for your opinion. I can see the rule that it applies only to spontanous casters too but that seems a bit restrictive.
Yes FAQing it too now, maybe some more people do.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I FAQed it as well, although I would go with a more liberal interpretation myself. The spell states "any spell that spellcaster knew." For a memorization caster, this would clearly be any spell he was capable of memorizing that morning. I would, however, restrict it to casters of your "type"only. Just as a split class caster can't use slots from one class to cast spells from the other, you shouldn't be able to learn an arcane spell from a devine source. Doesn't work for scrolls, why should it work for this spell?
Well that's kinda where the interpreting starts.
The "a spell that spellcaster knew" part seems to still be fluff. In the crunch section it says "available to the dead spellcaster" and well the spells he didn't prepare aren't really available to him anymore.
And what's the logic behind it? Wizards have spellbooks and NEED it too, because they don't know all spells in their head. Why should a spell suddenly give you access to the contents of a spellbook somewhere in his backpack? (not to mention the wizard will most likely steal the spellbook anyway and learn everything he can from it)
Well, a wizard cannot scribe a spell into his spellbook until he has learned it, at which point he "knows" the spell. Whether or not he chose to memorize it that day, he still has access to it. And the victorious wizard only gets the spellbook if he can locate and retrieve it. ;-)
|
Once upon a time, there was only the wizard class; no sorcerers, alchemists, witches. Bards used spellbooks too and drew from the Wizard spell list. While this may be archaic 2nd edition stuff, it did simplify the acquisition of new spells; any arcane spellcaster will have spellbooks somewhere that you want to have.
Then came sorcerers, who didn't have cute spellbooks to loot. Then came witches, and you can't really loot a familiar, and witches and wizards can't really use each others' stuff.
Blood Transcription is meant to be one way of bridging this divide.
"A spell that the spellcaster knew" is precisely that. Wizards know the spells in their spellbook, even the ones they haven't prepared. Clerics know a LOT of spells, and quite a few that pop up on the wizard or witch list too.
Suddenly I see a story arc with a coven of witches butchering dozens of priests to learn their secrets...
Anybody else feel like Sylar from Heroes when casting this spell?
|
|
Anybody else feel like Sylar from Heroes when casting this spell?
I'm thinking about a gnomish necromancer, kind of chubby fellow, hair slicked back in the worst of fratboy traditions... great drinking a whole pint of blood in a single standard action, which earned him the name Chug. Chug the Necromancer.
Once upon a time, there was only the wizard class; no sorcerers, alchemists, witches. Bards used spellbooks too and drew from the Wizard spell list. While this may be archaic 2nd edition stuff, it did simplify the acquisition of new spells; any arcane spellcaster will have spellbooks somewhere that you want to have.
Then came sorcerers, who didn't have cute spellbooks to loot. Then came witches, and you can't really loot a familiar, and witches and wizards can't really use each others' stuff.
Blood Transcription is meant to be one way of bridging this divide.
"A spell that the spellcaster knew" is precisely that. Wizards know the spells in their spellbook, even the ones they haven't prepared. Clerics know a LOT of spells, and quite a few that pop up on the wizard or witch list too.
Suddenly I see a story arc with a coven of witches butchering dozens of priests to learn their secrets...
I am so pinching this idea for a Gravewalker Witch with Leadership!
Well that's kinda where the interpreting starts.
The "a spell that spellcaster knew" part seems to still be fluff. In the crunch section it says "available to the dead spellcaster" and well the spells he didn't prepare aren't really available to him anymore.And what's the logic behind it? Wizards have spellbooks and NEED it too, because they don't know all spells in their head. Why should a spell suddenly give you access to the contents of a spellbook somewhere in his backpack? (not to mention the wizard will most likely steal the spellbook anyway and learn everything he can from it)
If you going with RAW, this spell is worthless. The section reading "available to the dead spell caster" is controlling. The caster is now dead. No spells are available to him.
Assuming that the developers did not intend to create a spell that did nothing, you must give a broader interpretation, a la RAI. The only other section to be interpreted uses the phrase "a spell that spellcaster knew". You know a spell that is either written in your spell book for prepared casters or is on your spells known list for spontaneous casters. So, all of the aforementioned spells are accessible with this spell.
|
|
The wording of the spell suggests that to the writer, knowing = having available. A wizard doesn't un-know spells that he doesn't have prepared, he just doesn't have them prepared; they're available to him in the sense that he knows them and could prepare them.
In other words, the spell gives you access to all the spells the spellcaster actually had, not just the ones he's got prepared.
Yeah, that's powerful, but it cuts across the wizard-witch-sorcerer-bard-magus-alchemist-whatever red tape; wizards are supposed to learn most of their spells "in the field", but after a few editions the field is cluttered with people who don't use spellbooks. This is one way of fixing it; I wish there were more (and more fastidious) little fixes.
|
|
The spell says "you can attempt to learn a spell that spellcaster knew. Select one spell available to the dead spellcaster"
The first reference is made to knowing; to me it reads like the writer didn't want to write "you can attempt to learn a spell that spellcaster knew. Select one spell that the dead spellcaster knew", because that would read rather repetitive. But "available" comes immediately after "knowing", so I think it's meant to be the same thing. There's no indication the writer meant to make a distinction between knowing and having available.
So that brings up the question what it means to know a spell in pathfinder.
A wizard may know any number of spells. He must choose and prepare his spells ahead of time by getting 8 hours of sleep and spending 1 hour studying his spellbook. While studying, the wizard decides which spells to prepare.
A wizard may know any number of spells; clearly more than he can prepare at any single moment. The witch class uses the same text: a witch may know any number of spells.
And wouldn't it be really weird to talk about a wizard not knowing those spells in his spellbook that he knows how to cast, but hasn't prepared? He's learned them and written them down, but he doesn't know the things he learned?
I haven't read all the posts on this thread and I may repeat something someone already said but I am going to tell my opinion anyway :
For spontaneous casters (oracles, sorcerer, inquisitor, etc.) : any spell known he had may be learned
For memorizing (wizard, magus, etc.) : any spell he preapred that day or the day before (if you killed it during his 8 hours rest).
More importantly, how many pints can you get from each size caster? I assume you can bottle the blood and take it with you so you can rest and prepare the spell. Easier than dragging the corpse along with you. :)
You know, I just might know a thread all about that. The answer? However much you can convince your DM is okay. RAW there is no limit though...