Mystic Theurge and spontaneous casting of heals


Rules Questions


19 people marked this as FAQ candidate.

Let's say we have a wizard/cleric/mystic theurge, rejoicing in the resurrection of this much-maligned PrC brought about by the early entry allowed by SLAs.

I was reading the bit on spontaneous casting, and no where does it say that the prepared spell to be lost must be a cleric spell. According to the rules, would it be possible for said character to 'lose' a wizard spell in order to spontaneously cast a heal?

From Spontaneous Casting:

Quote:
A good cleric (or a neutral cleric of a good deity) can channel stored spell energy into healing spells that she did not prepare ahead of time. The cleric can “lose” any prepared spell that is not an orison or domain spell in order to cast any cure spell of the same spell level or lower (a cure spell is any spell with “cure” in its name).

Just curious.

For added amusement, I imagine the MT could do this is in armor without worrying about the Arcane Spell Failure %?


Ackbladder wrote:

Let's say we have a wizard/cleric/mystic theurge, rejoicing in the resurrection of this much-maligned PrC brought about by the early entry allowed by SLAs.

I was reading the bit on spontaneous casting, and no where does it say that the prepared spell to be lost must be a cleric spell. According to the rules, would it be possible for said character to 'lose' a wizard spell in order to spontaneously cast a heal?

From Spontaneous Casting:

Quote:
A good cleric (or a neutral cleric of a good deity) can channel stored spell energy into healing spells that she did not prepare ahead of time. The cleric can “lose” any prepared spell that is not an orison or domain spell in order to cast any cure spell of the same spell level or lower (a cure spell is any spell with “cure” in its name).

Just curious.

For added amusement, I imagine the MT could do this is in armor without worrying about the Arcane Spell Failure %?

As it is listed in the cleric class features it only applies to cleric spells. The further text also makes it clear.

When you look at preferred spell feat, however, things are different. There it really does not say that you have to use the spell from the same class. As a feat it is not restricted to class features.
Of course you do not have the same flexibility wrt. spells at every spell level, but it is rulewise ok :-)


Sangalor wrote:
Ackbladder wrote:

Let's say we have a wizard/cleric/mystic theurge, rejoicing in the resurrection of this much-maligned PrC brought about by the early entry allowed by SLAs.

I was reading the bit on spontaneous casting, and no where does it say that the prepared spell to be lost must be a cleric spell. According to the rules, would it be possible for said character to 'lose' a wizard spell in order to spontaneously cast a heal?

From Spontaneous Casting:

Quote:
A good cleric (or a neutral cleric of a good deity) can channel stored spell energy into healing spells that she did not prepare ahead of time. The cleric can “lose” any prepared spell that is not an orison or domain spell in order to cast any cure spell of the same spell level or lower (a cure spell is any spell with “cure” in its name).

Just curious.

For added amusement, I imagine the MT could do this is in armor without worrying about the Arcane Spell Failure %?

As it is listed in the cleric class features it only applies to cleric spells. The further text also makes it clear.

When you look at preferred spell feat, however, things are different. There it really does not say that you have to use the spell from the same class. As a feat it is not restricted to class features.
Of course you do not have the same flexibility wrt. spells at every spell level, but it is rulewise ok :-)

Why do you think that a feature of this class only can interact with spells of this class? I don't think that is a real thing.


Because that's been the general rule for the entire 3E life cycle; in general, class features that modify how you obtain or use spell slots apply only to the spell slots of the class giving the feature.

Do you expect that a cleric/wizard can spontaneously convert wizard spells to healing spells? Does it fit with the normal sense of the D&D rules that a wiz19/clr1 with a wisdom of 11 can swap an 8th level spell for "mass cure critical wounds"?

Does anything in the rules say that the wizard's requirement of having a spell book only applies to their wizard spells, not to all their other spells as well? If not, perhaps the theurge ought to have to get a spell book for cleric spells, because being a wizard requires them to have their spells in a book.


Plenty of magus class abilities call out only being able to use spells from the magus spell list, for instance. It's basically common sense.

Now, were you to use the MT's ability to prepare an arcane spell as a divine spell, you'd be able to still do it then. But even being an MT doesn't let you sack arcane spells to dole out cure/inflict spells. If your GM wants to rule differently, more power to him.


Ashram wrote:
Plenty of magus class abilities call out only being able to use spells from the magus spell list, for instance. It's basically common sense.

Those two sentences counter one another.

Why is it called out for Magus abilities if it is a universal rule?

If it is a universal rule, where is the text which states it is so?


seebs wrote:

Because that's been the general rule for the entire 3E life cycle; in general, class features that modify how you obtain or use spell slots apply only to the spell slots of the class giving the feature.

Do you expect that a cleric/wizard can spontaneously convert wizard spells to healing spells? Does it fit with the normal sense of the D&D rules that a wiz19/clr1 with a wisdom of 11 can swap an 8th level spell for "mass cure critical wounds"?

Does anything in the rules say that the wizard's requirement of having a spell book only applies to their wizard spells, not to all their other spells as well? If not, perhaps the theurge ought to have to get a spell book for cleric spells, because being a wizard requires them to have their spells in a book.

You're all over the place in this reply.

What 3E are we talking about? Pathfinder 3E? I don't care what D&D 3E rules are.

Sure, why couldn't a cleric/wizard spontaneously convert spell slots into cure spells? They seem to posses the ability to do exactly that.

That is an awfully specific and erroneous example. A wiz19/clr1 is not a very common thing to encounter, especially one with only an 11 wis. So, by default it doesn't fit the normal sense of D&D, although it is perfectly valid 'in the rules'. But he cannot cast Mass Cure Critical Wounds, his wisdom is 11.

Yes, the rules on spellbooks are very specific, and refer to the wizard spell list on several occasions. The wizard needs a spellbook for their wizard spells only.


I think this is one of those. "If it isent called out as somthing you can do? Then you most likely cannot." Instances.
The cleric class features is not written with multiclassing in mind.


By that logic one sorcerer level should let my wizard use spontaneous casting with the entire spellbook. Not exactly a good idea.


Example:

Let's say you are a Sorcerer3 and pick up a level of Oracle, and take the Deaf curse.

Are you now unable to cast Sorcerer spells properly, because you are deaf, or does …

"You cannot hear and suffer all of the usual penalties for being deafened. You cast all of your spells as if they were modified by the Silent Spell feat. This does not increase their level or casting time."

…also apply to your sorcerer spells too?

I think it applies to all of your spells. Why? Because it says it does.

It doesn't matter that it is from a class ability, it says all.

Just like with spontaneous casting from cleric uses the phrasing any prepared spell for any cure spell.


Grey Lensman wrote:
By that logic one sorcerer level should let my wizard use spontaneous casting with the entire spellbook. Not exactly a good idea.

No it wouldn't. "Spontaneous Casting" isn't an ability Sorcerers gain. They gain a "Spells" special ability that functions as described (which uses a spontaneous casting mechanic).

The mechanics of the sorcerer's spells ability never alters the mechanic of the wizard's spells ability.

The question here is whether a cleric's "Spontaneous Casting" special ability applies to any/all 'spells' special abilities that it has, or if it only applies to the 'spells' special ability it gained from the cleric class.


As an aside: Familiars can deliver any and all touch spells their master is capable of casting, as far as I know. So there are class feats that extend beyond their classes.

Also: I suggest we all FAQ, as well as discuss.


the general rule of classes in pf is that all their abilities only refer to themselves unless stated otherwise. basically read the class entry and assume no other classes exist unless it states otherwise.

more or less it does not allow you to convert other classes spells ino cure spells because it does not explicitly say you can.


I can't even believe this discussion is happening.... The rules don't explicitly state it because the people who made the game expect this stuff to be read with some common sense.

It makes NO sense for a character to be able to lose stored arcane spells to case cure spells. (like the L19 wizard/L1 cleric example from above).

I really feel like this is just a common sense thing. It even says "not an orison or domain spell", that implies that the designers were clearly thinking about the cleric spells at the time, because this is a base class.

Also keep in mind, when someone is new to this game, making a character, they have to absorb a lot of stuff at once. If every single ability had to over-explain everything, it would add pages and pages more text to a book that is already pretty intimidating in size.

Maybe it's just because I'm tired, but the fact that this thread even exists makes me wish I could make a weapon out of common sense, and stab it into people's heads, because some people clearly need some common sense in their brains.....

Yes, that sounds very hostile, no I don't want to hurt anyone.... I just don't know how to make people realize how ridiculous they sound. Stop and consider how broken it would be if I was wrong. Then pretty much EVERY high level prepared caster (wizard, druid, witch, magus I believe, it's been forever since I've looked at a non-Core Rulebook class) would be an IDIOT to not take a level in cleric, so they could turn their high level spells into powerful heals when needed. Amount of sense made = 0.

And in reference to the magus, I assume a lot of the abilities were written the way they were to help prevent craziness like this from happening. My common sense says by the time that class was being written, the people making the book were more aware of multi-class shenanigans, so they put more thought into making things precisely clear. So don't get sidetracked by the difference in witting style.

TL:DR; The OP's idea is BROKEN, and makes no sense thematically. Don't read too much into things, use common sense.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Rulebook, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

I initially dismissed this out of hand, but Remy is correct that it's a separate ability, not a part of Spells. Unless someone has a good reason it's different from, say, getting bonus damage to your wizard fireball from having the draconic bloodline, I'm going to have to agree that it's allowed by RAW.

That said, I see no reason the wizard would be able to convert a spell from being a wizard spell to being a cleric spell. Hence, a wizard can convert invisibility into any cure spell of level two or lower from the wizard list.

Witches get a little bit out of this, as do rangers and paladins. Bards don't (they don't have prepared spells to swap out). Druids do, as well.

I don't see a significant harm in allowing a level dip into cleric to open up flexibility a bit. The only class that benefits and can have significant benefit from the cleric level beyond domain powers and this trick is a Cleric/Witch/Mystic Theurge and I'm ok with that from a power perspective because a witch is much more grounded in class abilities than a wizard is, so they're still less compelling than a Cleric/Wizard/Mystic Theurge.

I might disallow it on fluff grounds, but I'm not overwhelmed by the mechanical advantages.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I think one of the big pieces being missed here is, we're not just taking a Wizard/Cleric - we're talking a Mystic Theurge!

One of the class abilities is to cast a spell of one type (Divine or Arcane) as the other type at one spell slot higher.

So, while I agree you can't sacrifice a Magic Missile to cast Cure Light Wounds, using the MT's ability, you can sacrifice an Acid Arrow to cast Cure Light Wounds.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Rulebook, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Cid Ayrbourne wrote:

I think one of the big pieces being missed here is, we're not just taking a Wizard/Cleric - we're talking a Mystic Theurge!

One of the class abilities is to cast a spell of one type (Divine or Arcane) as the other type at one spell slot higher.

So, while I agree you can't sacrifice a Magic Missile to cast Cure Light Wounds, using the MT's ability, you can sacrifice an Acid Arrow to cast Cure Light Wounds.

You're right. I forgot about that ability. There's a lot to parse in there that is ambiguous.

Generally, unless there's a compelling reason otherwise, I read that as, "You treat all 1st level cleric spells as 2nd level wizard spells. If you're a sorceror, you treat those 1st level cleric spells you prepared today as 2nd level sorceror known spells." There are additional analogous statements that apply to every class pair that goes into MT.

By that interpretation, I'd allow acid arrow to become CLW because CLW is a 2nd level wizard spell. You couldn't use sorcerer slots to cast CLW unless you had it actually prepped as a cleric since spontaneous casting (cleric ability) only applies to prepared spells.

Is your reasoning the same? I think it leads to the same place as this analysis, but I'm curious to read your path of getting there.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Rulebook, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Markon wrote:

I can't even believe this discussion is happening.... The rules don't explicitly state it because the people who made the game expect this stuff to be read with some common sense.

It makes NO sense for a character to be able to lose stored arcane spells to case cure spells. (like the L19 wizard/L1 cleric example from above).

I really feel like this is just a common sense thing. It even says "not an orison or domain spell", that implies that the designers were clearly thinking about the cleric spells at the time, because this is a base class.

Also keep in mind, when someone is new to this game, making a character, they have to absorb a lot of stuff at once. If every single ability had to over-explain everything, it would add pages and pages more text to a book that is already pretty intimidating in size.

Maybe it's just because I'm tired, but the fact that this thread even exists makes me wish I could make a weapon out of common sense, and stab it into people's heads, because some people clearly need some common sense in their brains.....

Yes, that sounds very hostile, no I don't want to hurt anyone.... I just don't know how to make people realize how ridiculous they sound. Stop and consider how broken it would be if I was wrong. Then pretty much EVERY high level prepared caster (wizard, druid, witch, magus I believe, it's been forever since I've looked at a non-Core Rulebook class) would be an IDIOT to not take a level in cleric, so they could turn their high level spells into powerful heals when needed. Amount of sense made = 0.

And in reference to the magus, I assume a lot of the abilities were written the way they were to help prevent craziness like this from happening. My common sense says by the time that class was being written, the people making the book were more aware of multi-class shenanigans, so they put more thought into making things precisely clear. So don't get sidetracked by the difference in witting style.

TL:DR; The OP's idea is BROKEN, and makes no sense...

Respectfully, I don't think this kind of reaction is the right way to approach questions in the rules forum, at least initially.

First, "common sense" is difficult to define. Sometimes, things I would have considered common sense have not been the same as the eventual rulings. The notable recent example is the "spell-like ability = general spellcasting for qualifying for stuff" ruling. In that case, I would have thought "common sense" would mean that ability to cast specific spells (reqs for Dimensional Dervish, for example) means ability to generate that effect, while ability to cast 4th level spells would mean that you have to be an actual spellcaster.

Second, just because something looks overpowered, doesn't mean we should dismiss it out of hand. We should understand what the thing does or doesn't do. Once we understand it, we can change or houserule it, but without that, we risk additional unintended consequences.

Finally, "no because duh" is neither persuasive nor helpful. It lends itself to slippery slope arguments - when you say no, that interpretation is invalid because it's too powerful, I can't tell what other apparently rules-legal combos will be disallowed. If you can show me why it's different from those other things, great. My example of this applying to other classes vs. draconic bloodline applying to other classes was an attempt to do that.

So "it's broken" is a fine motivation to say no. It's a weak, at best, justification.


Markon wrote:

I can't even believe this discussion is happening.... The rules don't explicitly state it because the people who made the game expect this stuff to be read with some common sense.

I should have made clear that I was just playing Devil's Advocate as far as interpreting rules, and hoping to learn which 'rules of thumb' cover this type of situation. I did do a few searches and didn't see anything that seemed to cover it explicitly.

In fact, this came about because I was reading the section with my DM last night because he wasn't sure that a MT would keep his spontaneous casting for all levels of cleric spells (as opposed to say, only those he could cast as a cleric before becoming a MT). We laughed, he said 'yeah - that not's happening', and I agreed and we carried on. Common sense applied. I'd rule the same way if I were a DM, and I was not expecting or arguing for this to work as a player - I just wanted to make sure he agreed that spontaneous casting could be applied to cleric spells gained via MT levels.

But this thread has brought up a few points I've enjoyed seeing discussed, perhaps because I'm a bit of a d20/Pathfinder noob and I haven't sat in on dozens of these discussions before.

One poster asserted that any where it says "spells" you are assuming it to apply to only that class's spells, which I (personally) think is a pretty big leap and possibly causes as many problems as it solves. Another poster pointed out the implications of that wrt to the Oracle's Deaf curse, which highlights the point. A similar point would be the Draconic/Orc bloodline powers affecting non-sorcerer spells, which I think most people would agree is RAI and desirable (leading to the common 1-level dip in cross-blooded sorcerer for blaster wizards).

So far my take away from this is that there is no over-riding principle that can be applied here, apart from common sense, and that class features that refer to spells should sometimes mean "spells gained from that class" and other times mean "all spells of a certain nature".


Remy, I can't seriously believe you think that the history of rules in 3E is irrelevant to Pathfinder. Trumped by new data, yes. Irrelevant, no.

The Oracle's "deafness" curse changes the character to have a new trait. Obviously, that applies to the character as a whole; being deaf gives you certain penalties, period. But something that modifies a given class's spellcasting will, in general, apply only to that class's spellcasting. I'm pretty sure the intent was that the ability only applied to cleric spells.

However, I do see the extra complications with mystic theurge.


Does this official FAQ post help you? It is not the exact same issue but it is in regard to whether or not a class feature works on class exclusive spells or all spells from all classes.

"Sorcerer: Do the bonuses granted from Bloodline Arcana apply to all of the spells cast by the sorcerer, or just those cast from the sorcerer's spell list?
The Bloodline Arcana powers apply to all of the spells cast by characters of that bloodline, not just those cast using the sorcerer's spell slots.

General rule: If a class ability modifies your spellcasting, it applies to your spells from all classes, not just spells from the class that grants the ability. (The exception is if the class ability specifically says it only applies to spells from that class.)

—Jason Bulmahn, 10/21/10"


1 person marked this as FAQ candidate.

I think that it's unclear enough that it could use an FAQ.

Here's why: We've an FAQ from the lead designer that says this:

Quote:

Do the bonuses granted from Bloodline Arcana apply to all of the spells cast by the sorcerer, or just those cast from the sorcerer's spell list?

The Bloodline Arcana powers apply to all of the spells cast by characters of that bloodline, not just those cast using the sorcerer's spell slots.

General rule: If a class ability modifies your spellcasting, it applies to your spells from all classes, not just spells from the class that grants the ability. (The exception is if the class ability specifically says it only applies to spells from that class.)

So the questions we have to ask are:

1. Does the Spontaneous Casting class feature alter the class's spellcasting ability? I'd say that yes, it does: It allows a prepared caster to spontaneously cast spells that he has not prepared, even if the spell selection he can cast this way is limited.

2. Since the Spontaneous Casting feature was basically copied-and-pasted from an earlier source, was it intended that a restriction be added (to restrict it to only using spells from the class granting the feature) and that restriction was accidentally left out?

We can't answer this second question with any surety. We have precedent from the older game, but that's contradicted by official FAQ that implies otherwise. Based on the FAQ I linked and the above logic(and this is actually the opposite of what I thought originally), I'd argue that you could sacrifice any spell using Spontaneous Casting.

[edit]Note that this would apply to the Oracle's Deafness curse (and its benefits as well): A dual-caster-class deaf Oracle would cast all her spells as though they were Silent, regardless of class.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Huh.

Okay, I'm willing to concede I might be wrong on Pathfinder's intent here, but man is that surprising.

A single level druid splash on some other class would give you all the animal summons, too.


seebs wrote:

Huh.

Okay, I'm willing to concede I might be wrong on Pathfinder's intent here, but man is that surprising.

A single level druid splash on some other class would give you all the animal summons, too.

hehe i think not:)

edit:But i did FAQ it i have been wrong before about Dev. rulings.


At the very most, I would allow someone who has this class ability to spontaneously cast the appropriate spells only up to the limit of the levels they have in that class. So if someone playing a wizard takes a one level dip into cleric thinking they can use this ability to spontaneously cast Cure Critical Wounds, I hope he won't be too disappointed with his Cure Light Wounds instead. I don't see anything game breaking in giving a multi-class wizard/cleric or wizard/druid the ability to use prepared wizard spells to cast their spontaneous spells. The only class that this would really benefit to any extent would be the Mystic Theurge, but it fits will with the class' ability to cross spell slots already, so I really don't see a problem with it.


Well, what's bugging me is: It's pretty obvious to me that the intent should have been that spontaneous casting applied only to your spells from that class. But ... I can't actually find a thing saying that. And while it does maybe hit the "too good to be true", so would the unthinkably over-the-top notion of claiming that spell-like abilities count as the ability to cast a spell. (Not that I am sure how I'd have fixed the problem of critters with dimension door as a SLA needing to take dimensional agility, but the answer we got is definitely not the one I'd have picked.)


Ackbladder wrote:
Markon wrote:

I can't even believe this discussion is happening.... The rules don't explicitly state it because the people who made the game expect this stuff to be read with some common sense.

...

One poster asserted that any where it says "spells" you are assuming it to apply to only that class's spells, which I (personally) think is a pretty big leap and possibly causes as many problems as it solves. Another poster pointed out the implications of that wrt to the Oracle's Deaf curse, which highlights the point. A similar point would be the Draconic/Orc bloodline powers affecting non-sorcerer spells, which I think most people would agree is RAI and desirable (leading to the common 1-level dip in cross-blooded sorcerer for blaster wizards).
...

I was at least one of those :-P

Sorcerer was always considered to be an exception because it has that "arcane" reference in its wordings which you then can read to apply to more than the "spells" entry in its class text...

But first about this specific instance. If you look into the magic chapter under divine spells it says:

Quote:


Spontaneous Casting of Cure and Inflict Spells: A good cleric (or a cleric of a good deity) can spontaneously cast a cure spell in place of a prepared spell of the same level or higher, but not in place of a bonus domain spell. An evil cleric (or a cleric of an evil deity) can spontaneously cast an inflict spell in place of a prepared spell (that is not a domain spell) of the same level or higher. Each neutral cleric of a neutral deity spontaneously casts either cure spells like a good cleric or inflict spells like an evil one, depending on which option the player chooses when creating the character. The divine energy of the spell that the cure or inflict spell substitutes for is converted into the cure or inflict spell as if that spell had been prepared all along.

So this already makes it clear that the source to be substituted for has to be divine - no crossing over between arcane and divine. Now if we play devil's advocate we could consider dipping from druid into cleric to convert druid spells.

Was this intended? I do not think so, and I also think they started to specifically call out in later books, like in the case of the magus, to which spells it applied in order to make it clear in situations like that. Unfortunately this then gets turned around to say "well, when it says there it does not apply to others it automatically must apply when it does not call it out".

I think it's clear they are referring to the cleric spells. "Spells" is what it is labelled in the chapter, and the "spells per day" table reers to cleric spells. If you multiclass, you would thus gain "multiple" "spells" entries - what happens if they are not kept separate? Are you allowed to use the spells per day of a sorcerer for your cleric spells per day when you multiclass?

On the other hand, Paizo has surprised me a bit with their two-handed attack rulings and its effects on off-hand attacks and their willingness to let spell-like abilities count as prerequisites for feats etc. So I think I am gonna FAQ this, maybe they have something else in mind with this as well...

If they do I imagine seeing a lot of cleric 1 / druid 1 dips in the near-future ;-P


A little late to this party I guess, but a few things to add...

The Cleric's Spontaneous Casting entry only prohibits orison and domain slots from being converted. If we follow the logic that this doesn't apply exclusively to Cleric spells, then a wizard's school slot is also available for conversion as it is not explicitly prohibited.

Based on the illogic of this, I expect RAI to exclude all spells from other classes.

However, I suspect there may be an exception for Cleric spells prepared in 'arcane slots' via MT. (If indeed the requirement is "a prepared Cleric spell" as it seems to be.)


seebs wrote:
Remy, I can't seriously believe you think that the history of rules in 3E is irrelevant to Pathfinder. Trumped by new data, yes. Irrelevant, no.

Dungeons and Dragons is made by a different company, and is a different game.

Pathfinder is built from the d20 system, and imported a quantity of the same content as was used by Dungeons and Dragons, but just as much or more is original content.

That is where the similarity ends, as Pathfinder is not Dungeons and Dragons. The classes are different, the skills are different, combat is different, a huge chunk of the game and how it works and interacts is different. If we're here to talk about Pathfinder rules, and I'm assuming we are... what good does it do any of us to talk bout some other game? (Hint: None)

seebs wrote:

The Oracle's "deafness" curse changes the character to have a new trait. Obviously, that applies to the character as a whole; being deaf gives you certain penalties, period. But something that modifies a given class's spellcasting will, in general, apply only to that class's spellcasting. I'm pretty sure the intent was that the ability only applied to cleric spells.

However, I do see the extra complications with mystic theurge.

All abilities change the character as a whole. What are you talking about?

The ruling is that a class feature that modifies spell casting applies to any/all spell casting that character can do, unless otherwise noted. You, and others, keep saying that abilities only modify the class’s spellcasting, but that isn’t a thing, in fact, we have official rulings saying exactly the opposite… so I’m not sure what to say, other than you’re wrong.

The Oracle’s Deaf curse class feature applies to the character as a whole. So, if he had Sorcerer levels previously, he goes deaf, but can now cast ‘all’ his spells as though they were modified by Silent Spell metamagic feat. Both sorcerer and oracle spells. And any other spells he later gains access to as well.

The cleric/druid ability “Spontaneous Casting” may not have been intended to work with another class’s spells, but by RAW there is no reason it doesn’t work with another class’s spells.

RAI is even a little questionable, because they’d have had to completely forget to include restrictions. There isn’t even some vague line about it, or some strangely worded line that has multiple meanings here. It is simply an ability that clerics gain, which allows them to convert prepared spells into cure/inflict or druids get to allow them to convert prepared spells into summons. No restriction listed, or even hinted at.

I’m curious what the official ruling on this one will be. By RAW it is pretty airtight. I suspect that this use of the ability wasn’t expected or foreseen, but so long as it isn’t game breaking (which I’m not so sure it is) there shouldn’t be a problem with it working like it is written.


thelemonache wrote:

Does this official FAQ post help you? It is not the exact same issue but it is in regard to whether or not a class feature works on class exclusive spells or all spells from all classes.

"Sorcerer: Do the bonuses granted from Bloodline Arcana apply to all of the spells cast by the sorcerer, or just those cast from the sorcerer's spell list?
The Bloodline Arcana powers apply to all of the spells cast by characters of that bloodline, not just those cast using the sorcerer's spell slots.

General rule: If a class ability modifies your spellcasting, it applies to your spells from all classes, not just spells from the class that grants the ability. (The exception is if the class ability specifically says it only applies to spells from that class.)

—Jason Bulmahn, 10/21/10"

Thanks for linking it! I failed to find it, I couldn't remember what the original question was, just the answer portion >.<


Xaratherus wrote:

I think that it's unclear enough that it could use an FAQ.

Here's why: We've an FAQ from the lead designer that says this:

Quote:

Do the bonuses granted from Bloodline Arcana apply to all of the spells cast by the sorcerer, or just those cast from the sorcerer's spell list?

The Bloodline Arcana powers apply to all of the spells cast by characters of that bloodline, not just those cast using the sorcerer's spell slots.

General rule: If a class ability modifies your spellcasting, it applies to your spells from all classes, not just spells from the class that grants the ability. (The exception is if the class ability specifically says it only applies to spells from that class.)

So the questions we have to ask are:

1. Does the Spontaneous Casting class feature alter the class's spellcasting ability? I'd say that yes, it does: It allows a prepared caster to spontaneously cast spells that he has not prepared, even if the spell selection he can cast this way is limited.

2. Since the Spontaneous Casting feature was basically copied-and-pasted from an earlier source, was it intended that a restriction be added (to restrict it to only using spells from the class granting the feature) and that restriction was accidentally left out?

We can't answer this second question with any surety. We have precedent from the older game, but that's contradicted by official FAQ that implies otherwise. Based on the FAQ I linked and the above logic(and this is actually the opposite of what I thought originally), I'd argue that you could sacrifice any spell using Spontaneous Casting.

[edit]Note that this would apply to the Oracle's Deafness curse (and its benefits as well): A dual-caster-class deaf Oracle would cast all her spells as though they were Silent, regardless of class.

Well put. Thanks for breaking it down for us.


I would not at all agree that "just as much or more" of the core Pathfinder rules are new content, and we've seen many cases in which the Paizo team's conclusions have coincidentally mirrored determinations from the Wizards team, or text that was present in the 3.5 rulebooks but not in the SRD. They've gone against that sometimes, but as a general heuristic, assuming that there isn't an intentional change unless there's actually a change in wording is pretty reasonable.


seebs wrote:
I would not at all agree that "just as much or more" of the core Pathfinder rules are new content, and we've seen many cases in which the Paizo team's conclusions have coincidentally mirrored determinations from the Wizards team, or text that was present in the 3.5 rulebooks but not in the SRD. They've gone against that sometimes, but as a general heuristic, assuming that there isn't an intentional change unless there's actually a change in wording is pretty reasonable.

I'm glad that truth remains so even if others fail to recognize it.

To the point... 3.5 is a different game. I'm not really sure what your deal is with that game, but if you are so concerned with its rules, why are you on these message boards? Why should we care what your game has to say about something? It simply doesn't matter here. This is Pathfinder. This is made by Paizo, not Wizards, and this board is for discussing Pathfinder rules, not Dungeon and Dragons rules.

If I or anyone else here wanted to discuss the rules to a different game… we should probably find a more appropriate forum for that. Like… not this one.


It's true that 3.5 is its own game. But it is also true that it is the 'genetic ancestor' of Pathfinder. A good portion of the rules are literally copied and pasted from the 3.5 rules. The rules of Pathfinder were intentionally written so that 3.5 material would be roughly compatible. Many of the designers here worked on 3.5 and brought the rules with them for Pathfinder.

To rely solely on 3.5 precedent is invalid. But so is it equally invalid to ignore that connection completely in those instances where the rules have not changed between the two systems. I'm not saying that is the case here necessarily.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber

This is an absurd question, but given that FAQ "general rule", it needs to be dealt with. FAQ'd.

I would note, that is an OLD FAQ response. They've been a lot more cautious lately with that sort of answer.


I care about the 3.5 rules because they are a huge part of the legacy of the Pathfinder rules. Look at foresight. Now look at the 3.5 SRD for it, and compare with the 3.5 rulebooks. And suddenly it's clear why the spell seems so horrible in Pathfinder; because examples were omitted in the SRD.

It's part of the history. So are the previous systems; there are spells in 3E which make more sense if you're familiar with 2E spell text and descriptions, too.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Just to provide the "final" answer: The Paizo Design Team clarified this in a post and in an official FAQ entry:
Spontaneous casting only works for the class it belongs to.

Quote:


Spontaneous Casting and Multiple Classes: Can I spontaneously cast spells from one of my classes using a different class’s spell slots?

No. This is only possible if you have a class feature that explicitly allows it, such as Combined Spells. This applies even if the two classes share a spell list or if one of the classes allows you to spontaneously convert that class’s spell slots into certain spells on that class’s spell list, such as cleric and druid.

Hope that settles it :-)


Sangalor wrote:

Just to provide the "final" answer: The Paizo Design Team clarified this in a post and in an official FAQ entry:

Spontaneous casting only works for the class it belongs to.
Quote:


Spontaneous Casting and Multiple Classes: Can I spontaneously cast spells from one of my classes using a different class’s spell slots?

No. This is only possible if you have a class feature that explicitly allows it, such as Combined Spells. This applies even if the two classes share a spell list or if one of the classes allows you to spontaneously convert that class’s spell slots into certain spells on that class’s spell list, such as cleric and druid.

Hope that settles it :-)

But to be fair, the discussion was going on before the FAQ ruling.

Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / Rules Questions / Mystic Theurge and spontaneous casting of heals All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.