Any spell.
A spell list refers the list of spells available to your class. Your personal spells are your "spells known". Spell trigger items (wands but not scrolls) can be used without a UMD check for any spell on the spell list for your class. Just give him this link.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Just show him the big long list in the rulebook with the heading "Sorcerer/Wizard Spell List." If that doesn't convince him that that is, in fact, what the rules mean by "spell list," then nothing will.
You're not going to get a developer to waste their time confirming that the part of the book labeled "spell list" is the spell list. At this point, I think you need to either accept it as a house rule, or find someone else to GM who is open to using the actual rules.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
AM DEVELOPER says "spell list means spell list"
Your GM is being a jerk. He's wrong. The rules clearly say he's wrong.
However, pointing that out rarely gets a GM to relent. Maybe have a talk with him outside of the game and see if you can convince him. Or bribe him with cookies, etc.
You're not likely to get one. Maybe some dev will take pity on you and post here in which case you got lucky, but the rules are very easy to understand and very clear. No FAQ or Errata is needed because everyone on the planet (except your GM) understands them just fine, which means they don't need to change or fix or explain the rules, so they don't need to post.
Maybe you'll get lucky.
Until then, open the Core Rulebook (yep, the big fat book with all the rules that he, as a GM, should be willing to read) and take him to the Magic Item section on page 458 and show him the paragraph on Spell Trigger. Point to the part I've bolded here:
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.
And then point out:
1. A spell-trigger item can be used by ANYONE whose CLASS can cast the spell. It does NOT say "anyone who can personally cast the spell.". My character's CLASS, sorcerer, can cast Magic Missile. Therefore, ANYONE, EVERYONE who is of the sorcerer CLASS can use a wand of Magic Missile.
2. Note that even characters who cannot cast any spell at all, such as the 3rd-level paladin mentioned right here in the core rulebook, can still use wands because there are spells on his CLASS list even though he cannot cast ANY spells at all. It's right here in black and white print. So OBVIOUSLY the ability to actually cast the wand's spell is NOT NECESSARY to use the wand as long as the wand's spell is on the wand's user's CLASS list.
If that doesn't help, well, then it's time to find a new GM who knows how to read, or else you just gotta learn to live with disappointment.
How does he reconcile his position with the example in the book about the pre-casting paladin who can activate wands?
If the GM is misinterpreting such an obvious rule written as plainly as it can possibly be written, I wonder how many other rules he is misinterpreting?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I love it when people pick up a new system and immediately begin houseruling stuff at random before they even learn how the system works.
Sorry that guy didn't work out. I hope there are other GMs in your area.
I would be curious to hear if this GM would allow a wizard to use a wand or scroll of a spell not in his spell book. Even if it was could the wizard not use the scroll/wand if he didn't prepare the spell that day? What if he did, but he already cast the spell?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
When did 3.5E have a "help line"?
I'm surely no expert, but I doubt they ever did.
Far more likely, it seems to me, that this dork made a bad ruling and then, when he had the chance to man-up and say "Oh, I guess I made a mistake" he took the coward's way out and made up a lie to rationalize his bad ruling "Yeah, see, this one time, yeah, I, ummmmm, uhhhh, called the hotline. Yeah, that's it. The hotline. And they TOLD me you have to prepare the spell to use the wand. Yeah, that's it. The hotline said so, so I'm right! Really! It's true! So, uhh, nyaa nyaa!"
Or something like that.
|
ah, my GM is currently saying, NO, i have to know magic missle to be able to cast it without resorting to the skill Use Magic Device. he's the sort that won't believe me unless i get a WOG ruling...thus my coming here. (hopefully a Dev will see this post and take pity..or enough people agreeing with me will sway my GM's opinion)
side note: i know the caster level check still applies if i cast a spell higher level than mine. (for instance, using a Magic Missle at CL 9 when i'm still only level 1, or using a wand of fireball at level 1). but that check is NOT the same as the Use magic item check.
Actually, the caster level check only applies for casting a spell from a scroll, not for using a wand.
If you have a class spell list, and the spell is on your list: You can use a wand of that spell.
If you don't have a class spell list, or the spell is not on that list, you have to use UMD, usually DC 20 for a known wand, to activate the wand.
Note that it is possible for both Rangers and Paladins to wind up without a spell list, if they take certain archetypes. If they take one of those archetypes, they also lose the ability to use wands without UMD.
When did 3.5E have a "help line"?I'm surely no expert, but I doubt they ever did.
Far more likely, it seems to me, that this dork made a bad ruling and then, when he had the chance to man-up and say "Oh, I guess I made a mistake" he took the coward's way out and made up a lie to rationalize his bad ruling "Yeah, see, this one time, yeah, I, ummmmm, uhhhh, called the hotline. Yeah, that's it. The hotline. And they TOLD me you have to prepare the spell to use the wand. Yeah, that's it. The hotline said so, so I'm right! Really! It's true! So, uhh, nyaa nyaa!"
Or something like that.
I confess that I am more bemused by someone in one breath being 'new to the system' and 'playing fast and lose with the rules' on that basis, and yet in the next seeming to claim some extensive experience with 3.5 to the point that you know better than the printed rules. There are changes between PF and 3.5, however many of the core rules remain the same (the material wording in this instance is identical in D20 SRD vs PFSRD for spell trigger). It's not like you've sudden gone from THACO to BAB, nor save vs 'Wand, Staff or Rod / Death / Petrification etc' to 'Will / Fort / Ref'. He doesn't perchance refer to Wizards as 'Magic Users' and Rogues as 'Thieves' by any chance, does he?
Another thought occurs though given the above.... Not having ever dipped my toes into that particular pond with any depth, but he's not potentially getting something from 4th Ed muddled here, is he? Wasn't a wand in 4th nothing more than a way to improve a spell / power you could already cast?
A generic +X wand was that, but most weren't. Many of them gave you the ability to cast a spell you didn't have.
no, he didn't play 4th ed. and he said wizards still could, because "wizards are different from sorcerers" mostly because a wizard COULD theoreticaly know every possible spell if he had them in his book., whereas sorcerers can only know a few. I believe part of his justification, or at least his excuse, was that he is a jack arse.
I fixed that for you. I can't imagine anything comming out of his mouth on this topic that didn't actually sound like "hee-haw!" Best of luck finding a new group.
|
mmm...I tried Society for awhile...ran into too many TPKs where CE characters masquerading as CN,(or as I like to call it, LOLfull Evil)did fun things like set granaries on fire while the party was still in them, ignore their vows as a paladin and let the Big Bad of the module tear through us while they set the building on fire (no reason or faction goal, he was just a pyro), attack the "gnome" stuck in the summoning circle that was OBVIOUSLY a demon, thus breaking the circle and letting it loose, and walking into a bar and killing EVERYONE before remembering we needed to TALK to some of them to actually continue the module. Different people in each case, by the way. Maybe there's something in the water around Raleigh.
That being said, I recognize Pathfinder Society as a useful teaching tool and a good way for players who can't manage an ongoing campaign toget a game in, and recommend it to new players....I just prefer something a little more stable.
That's terrible to hear... I have literally never had an experience like this in Charleston, WV where I play PFS
When did 3.5E have a "help line"?I'm surely no expert, but I doubt they ever did.
Far more likely, it seems to me, that this dork made a bad ruling and then, when he had the chance to man-up and say "Oh, I guess I made a mistake" he took the coward's way out and made up a lie to rationalize his bad ruling "Yeah, see, this one time, yeah, I, ummmmm, uhhhh, called the hotline. Yeah, that's it. The hotline. And they TOLD me you have to prepare the spell to use the wand. Yeah, that's it. The hotline said so, so I'm right! Really! It's true! So, uhh, nyaa nyaa!"
Or something like that.
They had customer service, but those guys just happened to have a job there, and their answers were no better than any forum user, and often contradicted each other if you were to message them and get a different agent.
There was no actual call in line though, but they were good enough to answer basic rules questions so unless the GM can produce the email response he lying.
no, he didn't play 4th ed. and he said wizards still could, because "wizards are different from sorcerers" mostly because a wizard COULD theoreticaly know every possible spell if he had them in his book., whereas sorcerers can only know a few. I believe part of his justification, or at least his excuse, was that the two classes are too similar.
How odd. While a wizard can theoretically learn every spell, a sorcerer can certainly learn any spell. Fundamentally, each of those arcane classes have access to every spell on the arcane caster class list, and each of those two classes can automatically select new spells every time they level - they don't have to find or research or pay for their automatic spells because they learn them automatically - so automatically that there is no way (other than house rules) to prevent one of these characters from learning any particular arcane spell; if they want it, they just automatically know it when they get tot he right level. Period.
Since they both have full access to the arcane CLASS LIST, there seems to be no basis for this ruling. It feels a whole lot more like he's trying to screw with YOU (or at least with your character) personally. Maybe you threaten him in some way, maybe because you know the rules better than him. Or maybe your character is killing all his monsters and he feels like he must hold you back. or whatever. But it feels like this is somehow personal.
@Tolvin, have you seen the rule quoted by DM_Blake above?
I repeat it here: "Spell trigger items can be used by anyone whose class can cast the corresponding spell."
The problem comes when you say "I define spell list to..."No, stop there. You do not get to define terms that are part of the game rules. Those terms are defined by the game. The term "spell list" refers to the set of spells available to your class.
No, you stop there. He's the game master and can do any d--n thing he wants at his table.
While I agree that Tolvin's ruling is clearly erroneous, it's of more concern to me that he'd break the group over the definition of "spell list."
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The problem comes when you say "I define spell list to..."No, stop there. You do not get to define terms that are part of the game rules. Those terms are defined by the game. The term "spell list" refers to the set of spells available to your class.
No, you stop there. He's the game master and can do any d--n thing he wants at his table.
While I agree that Tolvin's ruling is clearly erroneous, it's of more concern to me that he'd break the group over the definition of "spell list."
You're both right.
Seebs is right because nobody can arbitrarily define game terminology any way they want - the terms are there for a reason. That reason is to build a foundation for a massively complex set of rules used by millions of players that can hopefully all understand the same rules the same way.
Orfamay is right because the GM can do whatever he wants. It's his game, his rules.
The difference is: it is CRITICAL for a GM to understand the actual rules and then he can make HOUSE RULES to make any changes he wants - but he must make it ABSOLUTELY clear to his players that he's making up a house rule. If not, he gets this problem where a player reads a rule (correctly) and argues with the GM.
Had Tolvin said "Chaotik, you're right, sorcerers should have access to every spell but I have a house rule that says they don't" then there would have been no argument. Chaotik could decide to play with this house rule or leave.
I get it. Tolvin thinks he is correctly reading the rules so he would not have said such a thing. My example was a hypothetical in this situation.
As a GM, I submit every house rule to my group of players and ASK them if they approve of the each rule. The ones they don't like, I throw away. My game, my rules, BUT it's the players' game too and I want everyone to have fun. I hope my house rules improve the fun for everyone and, if my players tell me they don't like some of them, then I dump the unwanted rules.
Tolvin,
Sounds like your player was a difficult player. We've all had them. I sympathize. Taking your side of the story to be entirely true, I can see the difficulty you had with him. But he's not here to give his side, so I'll take that at face value.
However, your own post should answer your question here. I'll quote part of it:
So I based my decision on what I saw, which was that Pathfinder used the same definition as D&D for UMD. And since Sorcerer’s may select known spells from the Sorcerer/Wizard Spell list but “A Sorcerer’s selection is extremely limited,” I determined that Pathfinder hasn’t changed the rule whatsoever.
Note my first two bolded points:
The sorcerer has "known spells". Even the game definition calls it that, not "spell list". He can select his "known spells" from the sorcerer/wizard "spell list" - that's the only time the phrase "spell list" is used, to describe the one big list that all sorcerers and wizards choose their "known spells" from.
Your own quote with Pathfinder's specific game terms should be all the answer you need.
I hope that helps.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
It's only a house rule if you know how the official rule works first, and you are intentionally changing it.
Otherwise, you're simply wrong.
While I'm at it, let me quote the official DnD 3.5 FAQ:
Who can use a wand or other item that is activated with
a spell trigger? I would think that you would have to be
able to cast the stored spell. That is, you must have levels in
a class that can cast the spell, have enough levels in that
class to cast the stored spell, and have an ability score
sufficient to cast that spell. If you’re a fighter with an
Intelligence score of 9, you can’t just pick up a level of
wizard and start using a wand of fireball, can you? Wands
and other spell trigger items are for dedicated spellcasters
who use them to carry around a few extra spells in case
they run out, right? These are not items that allow dabblers
to mimic true spellcasting ability. Still, some of my friends
insist that you can use any spell trigger item (wand or staff)
if you have at least one level in a class that could possibly
cast the spell. They point to the term “spell list” in the
description of spell trigger items in the DMG. Surely, that
refers to the list of spell you can conceivably cast, not to a
class’s entire spell list. After all, the DMG does not use the
term “class spell list” when talking about spell trigger
items. Please preserve play balance in our local campaign
by telling me that I’m right.
Sorry, but your friends are correct. If you’re a member of a
class that has spellcasting ability, you can use any spell trigger
item that stores a spell that’s on your class’s spell list, even
when you don’t have the class level or the ability score to cast
the stored spell. This even applies when you don’t have enough
class levels to cast any spells at all. For example, a paladin of
1st, 2nd, or 3rd level has not yet gained any spellcasting ability,
but she still can use spell trigger items that store spells on the
paladin class list. If you’re a specialist wizard, spells from your
opposition schools aren’t part of your class spell list, and you
can’t use spell trigger items that store those spells.
It’s true that the spell trigger text on page 213 in the DMG
does not use the words “class spell list,” but it should because
having a spell on your class spell list is what’s required to use
spell trigger items. Membership in a class gives you a
smattering of magical knowledge, and that is sufficient to use a
spell trigger item, even when you could not hope to cast the
spell on your own or even read it correctly from a scroll—the
character who made the spell trigger item has done all the hard
work for you.
Your example fighter/wizard could indeed lob fireballs out
of a wand (provided the character is not a specialist wizard with
evocation as an opposition school). Doing so isn’t much of a
threat to the play balance in a campaign, nor will it make
single-classed wizards or sorcerers in your world irrelevant.
Fireball spells from dedicated spellcasters will, on the whole,
deal more damage, penetrate spell resistance more readily, have
higher save DCs, and have better range than fireballs from
wands. The D&D game also includes other balancing factors,
such as the experience penalty for multiclassing (although one
can get around that by choosing the right race). Someone also
has to make or pay for the wand, and that will prove an
impediment to characters if the DM follows the DMG
guidelines for character wealth and awarding treasure. Your
example character would be far better off packing wands that
boost fighting abilities (shield and true strike are some the
Sage’s favorites here).
Tolvin,
Getting developers to come out and directly address your specific problem because of a misunderstanding of the rules is unlikely. It's not impossible. Developers do occasionally come in and address threads they see. I think sometimes they're just bored and they read through the open threads and see something that interest them, but it's not often. So you were essentially giving your player one option.
Except it. Which by the way is spelled accept, except is an exception. I say this because your ruling was such that he would have to use UMD under your ruling to accomplish what he wanted to do. You gave him no options. Not only that, you are wrong. I doubt we can get a developer to come to this thread and confirm it, but you are wrong. I'm sorry you got a bad ruling from some hotline some years ago, and I really doubt your going to accept the words that I'm saying. Maybe enough people telling you will convince you, but probably not. Now, if you wanted to tell us that it's a house rule because you don't like the normal rules (despite understanding them) then I could understand your position and would support your right as a GM to make house rules. But such rules should be communicated to your players as far in advance of the actually game as possible.
I can also understand being frustrated by a player that willfully misinterprets the rules, but that doesn't mean you should misapply the rules to hurt an individual player. If someone is causing a problem ask them to leave. Don't be passive aggressive about it and punish them for their actions. That's how children behave. Discuss the problem like adults and if they refuse to correct their actions ask them to leave.
Edit: Further did you intend for this to equally affect sorcerers, bards, inquisitors, oracles, and summoners? (And any other spontaneous casters I may have left out)
|
This sounds like the DM is an old time 1st edition AD&Der that dabbled in the 2nd edition and hated the Sorcerer being in the game in 3.0 as it completely changed the magic system from that point on.
Hamstringing the Sorcerer in some way such as this was common right around the time 3.5 was released as a lot of the gamers were (rightly so) royally cheesed at the timing of the change and asking why it was not looked at and done before 3.0 was set to the presses.
Spontaneous casting, as it is called now, was not completely accepted by some. The fact that spells could be "Spammed" out over and over instead of picked over the night before with love and care incensed the purists of ye ol' AD&D.
I, on the other hand, wondered why they had both Wizard and Sorcerer in the same book. It was the same class with slightly different mechanics. At least in PF the classes are separated a bit more and have a better identity than what the 3.0 book did.
There were few that didn't like the Sorcerer, but those that hated the change were some of the worst DM's ever to run a game, at least until they calmed down, became a player for a bit, and actually worked with the rules instead of trying to hammer the square peg into a circular hole.
I am sorry for the player that had to go through this. Hope springs eternal that you find a new group or GM that can actually run a fun game instead of fiddling about discussing rules.
I hope the GM takes a week, reads the book and gets more familiar with the rules. If he has anyone playing a Summoner, read that class through at least five times, copy it down and use block letters, highlight the notes and do level breakdowns of Eidolons....
Just don't rule from the seat of your johnsons and DM Fiat on trivial matters such as forcing someone to use UMD to use a wand.
Better yet, have someone else GM and play some...
It's only a house rule if you know how the official rule works first, and you are intentionally changing it.
Otherwise, you're simply wrong.
While I'm at it, let me quote the official DnD 3.5 FAQ:
Who can use a wand or other item that is activated with
a spell trigger? I would think that you would have to be
able to cast the stored spell. That is, you must have levels in
a class that can cast the spell, have enough levels in that
class to cast the stored spell, and have an ability score
sufficient to cast that spell. If you’re a fighter with an
Intelligence score of 9, you can’t just pick up a level of
wizard and start using a wand of fireball, can you? Wands
and other spell trigger items are for dedicated spellcasters
who use them to carry around a few extra spells in case
they run out, right? These are not items that allow dabblers
to mimic true spellcasting ability. Still, some of my friends
insist that you can use any spell trigger item (wand or staff)
if you have at least one level in a class that could possibly
cast the spell. They point to the term “spell list” in the
description of spell trigger items in the DMG. Surely, that
refers to the list of spell you can conceivably cast, not to a
class’s entire spell list. After all, the DMG does not use the
term “class spell list” when talking about spell trigger
items. Please preserve play balance in our local campaign
by telling me that I’m right.Sorry, but your friends are correct. If you’re a member of a
class that has spellcasting ability, you can use any spell trigger
item that stores a spell that’s on your class’s spell list, even
when you don’t have the class level or the ability score to cast
the stored spell. This even applies when you don’t have enough
class levels to cast any spells at all. For example, a paladin of
1st, 2nd, or 3rd level has not yet gained any spellcasting ability,
but she still can use spell trigger items that store spells on the
paladin class list. If you’re a specialist...
BOOMSTICKS!
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Class Spell List is the list of pages that say you can choose spells.
Known Spells are the limited list of spells a member of a spontanious class like "Sorcerer" can cast.
You can cast wand spells without UMD checks from your class list. This is the rule as written. Ruling that the rules as written say it must be known spells instead would in fact be "nerfing" the sorcerer class, even if that isn't the most polite way of saying it.
You can cast wand spells without UMD checks from your class list. This is the rule as written. Ruling that the rules as written say it must be known spells instead would in fact be "nerfing" the sorcerer class, even if that isn't the most polite way of saying it.
Which is fine if thats what Tolvin wanted to do, but he should have informed the player of that in advance and also note that this is a house rule, not the base rule for the game.