Can a Wizard 1 / Cleric 1 spontaneously cast prepared wizard spells?


Rules Questions

451 to 500 of 558 << first < prev | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | next > last >>

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Paul Watson wrote:
BigDTBone wrote:
Durngrun Stonebreaker wrote:
I don't play PFS, but I've been on the boards long enough to know they have a "common sense" clause for GMs.
Everyone is on the "common sense" train. I get it, wizards don't cast curatives in pathfinder/dnd tradition. New players don't necessarily know that. That is the extent of the common sense argument. I don't feel you should have to have knowledge over the history of dnd and its traditions in order to read the rules.
Actually, it isn't. The extent of the common sendse argument is that spontaneously replacing a spell is not the same as modifying spellcasting. You disagree with this premise, but it's still there and underpins the other arguments. Of course as common sense is so rare it should be considered a super-power, common sense isn't necessarily that helpful.

I haven't seen anyone (until now) state that modifying was the common sense point. I happen to completely disagree and indeed say it is common sense that an ability that lets prepared casters cast spells spontaneously is unequivocally modifying how they cast spells. But that really isn't the point I want to make in this post.

Common sense in this discussion has absolutely nothing to do with any level of reading in the rules. People who poke their heads in an say "common sense! Durrr" haven't taken the time to look at the argument. They haven't taken the initiative to think about what "modify" means in this context. All they have done us hear, "WHAT?!? Wizards want to cast cure spells!?!? Hell no!! That goes against common sense! Y'all are dumb! Use common sense!!!"

If they had a better argument they would make it, but they don't so they just say "common sense!"


BigDTBone wrote:


I don't just "simply affirm" that it works that way. I have laid out a detailed description of my logic process relating to my view point. Essentially, I have explained why the rules work the way I say they do. I have yet to see anyone else offer evidence as to (1) why my logic is faulty (beyond "nuh-uh") or (2) a ground up logic rooted approach to the rules which present a different solution than my interpretation.

Actually any counter supported by the rules is evidence, even if it not the way you read the rules. Whether or you accept it as "valid" evidence is another thing altogether. I have been right several times in debates, but the opposition refused to accept my evidence, and it took an FAQ or a dev chiming in for them to stop going against what I said.

TLDR: Your(general statement) lack of accepting something does not make it invalid.

edit: added "general statement"

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Companion, Pathfinder Accessories, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber

BigDTBone,
Apologies for misunderstanding you. Naturally, I fele my interpretarion of modifies is the 'common sense' ruling. This was not how you were using the term, so I misunderstood you.

The Exchange Owner - D20 Hobbies

seebs wrote:
The concern, I think, is that if you find the argument that rules-as-written permits this persuasive, then you're on the hook to run it that way for organized play, even if you think it's pretty stupid, because you're not allowed to disregard a FAQ just because you think it's silly.

Not correct.

They have said many times that if intent is known go with that.


But does a given GM have any way to know the intent of the rule, as opposed to merely what the FAQ fairly clearly says?

The Exchange Owner - D20 Hobbies

1 person marked this as a favorite.
BigDTBone wrote:
Durngrun Stonebreaker wrote:
I don't play PFS, but I've been on the boards long enough to know they have a "common sense" clause for GMs.
Everyone is on the "common sense" train. I get it, wizards don't cast curatives in pathfinder/dnd tradition. New players don't necessarily know that. That is the extent of the common sense argument. I don't feel you should have to have knowledge over the history of dnd and its traditions in order to read the rules.

New players absolutely don't jump to "so this allows my wizard to cure" bandwagon.

The only way a new player jumps on these trains is when they go here to read threads and bring rules assertions like this to a table.

Then wonder why the GM is being a jerk and not letting them be "able to play".

I've ran a PFS game every Tues for a year and several months now. I've seen several new players come with "rules knowledge" learned from here. Many of the awkward interpretations.


New players don't generally read the FAQ. I've seen a bunch of people come to the conclusion that the FAQ appears to be communicating a thing which we think is silly, and I'm pretty sure there's a dev post since then stating that the cleric thing doesn't work that way, but how is someone supposed to find that dev post that I think I saw someone link to once? Without that, the best answer available is the FAQ, and the FAQ turns out to have a highly misleading "general rule" which does not produce the correct results, so far as I can tell, in the majority of cases.

The Exchange Owner - D20 Hobbies

1 person marked this as a favorite.
seebs wrote:
But does a given GM have any way to know the intent of the rule, as opposed to merely what the FAQ fairly clearly says?

By looking at the ability, by knowing from a deb post, or by talking it through with their table.

I'm very knowledgable on all rules. But I don't go many days without running into a new rule. I just ran the PFS games last night at Origins. Every table had a rule I've never used. Where I didn't look up how it worked, the table worked out how I the GM thought it worked and I usually as if they all think that seems right then go with it.

You can get it wrong when thought isn't put into it. In the case of this when thought is expended, you read "to case a cure" and that it references The Cleric it seems clear this is something a cleric does with their spell slots without involving other classes slots.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
James Risner wrote:
seebs wrote:
The concern, I think, is that if you find the argument that rules-as-written permits this persuasive, then you're on the hook to run it that way for organized play, even if you think it's pretty stupid, because you're not allowed to disregard a FAQ just because you think it's silly.

Not correct.

They have said many times that if intent is known go with that.

Quiet a few posters have said RAW trumps RAI. I don't agree though.

One even said there is an obligation to follow RAW in PFS.


James Risner wrote:


I've ran a PFS game every Tues for a year and several months now. I've seen several new players come with "rules knowledge" learned from here. Many of the awkward interpretations.

That is why I think posters should differniate when they are advocating how the game should be played vs "I don't like the writing, or this is a thought exercise".


3 people marked this as a favorite.

That's a really interesting theory, but it directly contradicts the absolutely unambiguous wording of the FAQ.

Here's that wording again, since you seem to be forgetting it constantly:

FAQ wrote:
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.)

Bolded a bit for emphasis. Note the word: SPECIFICALLY.

That does not mean "implies". That does not mean "suggests". That does not mean that it is totally okay for you to insultingly imply that anyone who doesn't agree with your reading of the FAQ is not applying thought.

Look at the bard rules for casting spells in light armor. Note how it says that this works with bard spells, and that it does not have any effect on other arcane spellcasting ability:

PRD wrote:
A bard can cast bard spells while wearing light armor and use a shield without incurring the normal arcane spell failure chance. Like any other arcane spellcaster, a bard wearing medium or heavy armor incurs a chance of arcane spell failure if the spell in question has a somatic component. A multiclass bard still incurs the normal arcane spell failure chance for arcane spells received from other classes.

That is an ability which modifies spellcasting, and which "specifically says it only applies to spells from that class". An ability which modifies spellcasting, and doesn't have such language, is therefore an ability which modifies spellcasting, and which does not state specifically that it applies only to that class's spells.

If there were no abilities like the bard's ability, you might be able to get away with the claim that "mentioning" the cleric qualified as "specifically" saying that it only works with spells from that class. But the bard ability exists, and serves as a template for what it would look like if something modified spellcasting, and said that it only works with that class.

If we are to take your ruling to heart, then it would mean exactly the same thing if the bard rules just said:

The Risner PRD wrote:
A bard can cast spells while wearing light armor and use a shield without incurring the normal arcane spell failure chance.

But they don't say that. Why? Because your interpretation is not how the rules are written. The writers do not, in general, believe that merely "mentioning" the class absolutely restricts an ability to working with that class's spells.

The problem here is that you're doing the thing people so often do when reading rules, which is taking the fact that you know the intended answer, and letting that control your interpretation of the text. But that's a really, really, bad way to read rules, because it means that you end up with a horribly twisted interpretive mechanic which is going to produce the wrong results when reading other text that you don't already start by knowing the right answer for.

The FAQ distinguishes between things which should apply to all spellcasting, and things which should apply to only the spells for the class that gives the ability. The distinguishing feature is a specific statement restricting the ability. This leaves us with three possibilities:

1. The people who wrote the words for the bard ability had no understanding of the way the rules are written and interpreted.
2. The cleric ability is intended to work with all classes.
3. The FAQ's "general rule" is wrong.

We can rule out #1 and #2. All that's left is #3. And that wouldn't be a problem, and we could all just say "yeah, this general rule is actually not very good", except that we have this inexplicable devotion to proving that nothing the Paizo team has ever done or said could possibly be unclear or occasionally just plain wrong.

Nah, this one's just wrong. The other FAQ answer, that in general class abilities are written assuming you're single-classed and should be read as only applying to that class's abilities unless you're told otherwise, appears to be nearly-always correct. The bloodline arcana are the only case I can think of where an ability is apparently intended to modify all of your spellcasting, and yet, it doesn't say so. Maybe specialist wizard stuff, but I am honestly not sure at all about that.

And I don't see how this is even a tiny bit controversial. We all know that the intent of the cleric spontaneous casting rule was to apply to cleric spells. We also know that "specifically" saying that an ability works only with that class's spells would look something like the bard armor rules, not like the mere presence of a class name in a paragraph. Therefore, the FAQ's general rule is not actually the general rule. This is not hard.

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Companion Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
seebs wrote:

That's a really interesting theory, but it directly contradicts the absolutely unambiguous wording of the FAQ.

Here's that wording again, since you seem to be forgetting it constantly:

FAQ wrote:
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.)

Bolded a bit for emphasis. Note the word: SPECIFICALLY.

That does not mean "implies". That does not mean "suggests". That does not mean that it is totally okay for you to insultingly imply that anyone who doesn't agree with your reading of the FAQ is not applying thought.

Now define spellcasting and modifies.

You and a few other posters in this thread think that swapping spell on the fly modifies spellcasting, Wraithstrike, I and a few other poster in this thread think that it don't modifies spellcasting.

A lot of opinions have been given to support one or the other position, but in the end those definitions don't exist and neither you or I can prove that who is right.

You say:

seebs wrote:


I was on an international standards committee for a decade for recreation.

Very well, what is the first thing you do when setting up a international standard?

You get clear and unequivocal values for the reference tools you use.
Here we have highly subjective reference tools and you are amazed that we reach different results?

In this thread we have people supporting the position that using magic items is spellcasting and that SLA are spellcasting.

People that say that you modify as spell only if you change some parameter of the spell, other people that say that swapping a spell for a unmodified version of another spell mean that you are modifying it.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Diego Rossi wrote:
Now define spellcasting and modifies.

The big problem right now is, to me this is self evident. To everyone I know, this is self evident.

Its whats listed under your 'Spells' class feature, as that's the simplest and most functional definition.

Everything else is an amendment or modification to that... you know, as you have 'how it works' under spells, and then things like Spontaneous Casting change, or 'modify', how those base rules work.

Think of it this way: if there were an archetype that replaced 'Spellcasting', what would it replace? (hint: its 'Spells')

If there were an archetype that modified Spellcasting, or replaced a modification to spellcasting, or gave you new ways to use that spellcasting, what would it replace?

We have a few examples of Spontaneous Casting being replaced or modified, I believe, under Druid.

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Companion Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
PRD wrote:
Skirmishers do not gain any spells or spellcasting ability, do not have a caster level, and cannot use spell trigger and spell completion magic items.

It appear that spell and spellcasting aren't the same thing.

Or maybe they are?

PRD wrote:
Diminished Spellcasting: A kensai may cast one fewer spell of each level than normal. If this reduces the number to 0, he may cast spells of that level only if his Intelligence allows bonus spells of that level.

Less than 2 minutes of search, mostly to make the citations.

Not so clear cut as you make it.

- * -

Let's apply the "modifies spellcasting FAQ" to those two abilities with teh broad interpretation.

Skirmishers do not gain any spells or spellcasting ability,
This modifies spellcasting? With the pro interpretation, yes.
so a giu with 1 level in the Skirmisher archetype and 19 levels as a wizard will have no spell.right?

A kensai may cast one fewer spell of each level than normal. so this guy instead get 1 less spell of each level he can cast in each class with casting abilities?
After all the modification isn't limited to the class, it simply cite the class, like in the cleric ability.


Diego Rossi wrote:
PRD wrote:
Skirmishers do not gain any spells or spellcasting ability, do not have a caster level, and cannot use spell trigger and spell completion magic items.

It appear that spell and spellcasting aren't the same thing.

Or maybe they are?

PRD wrote:
Diminished Spellcasting: A kensai may cast one fewer spell of each level than normal. If this reduces the number to 0, he may cast spells of that level only if his Intelligence allows bonus spells of that level.

Less than 2 minutes of search, mostly to make the citations.

Not so clear cut as you make it.

One of these is (*see edit) a clear cut example of modification to spellcasting (dictionary definition even, just to make sure I looked it up).

You'll note that Diminished Spellcasting for the Magus does NOT replace a class ability its a new class ability.

Yes, that means its very scary to have Diminished Spellcasting anywhere on your character... by the FAQ, it applies to all of your casting classes.

EDIT: Whoops, my bad. Skirmisher IS in fact a Spells replacement (because it says so). Only helps my point though. You've identified one thing that is NOT a modification and one that is.

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Companion Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber

Nice, I see you have already replied to what I was adding.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

So, for the sake of advancing discussion and increasing clarity...

Does anyone not agree that the probable intent of the Sorcerer FAQ would be more clearly stated as the following? (changes bolded)

"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 the effects 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 the effects of spells you cast, 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.)"

If so, would the issue at hand be more clearly phrased as the following question?

"General Spellcasting Question: If I have an ability that appears to let me cast spells from one class from another classes slots, may I?"

I'd guess that the intent for the above question would put the answer as, "No. You need an ability like the Mystic Theurge's combined spells class feature to do that unless you have some way to add spells to you class spell list."


KrispyXIV wrote:

So, for the sake of advancing discussion and increasing clarity...

Does anyone not agree that the probable intent of the Sorcerer FAQ would be more clearly stated as the following? (changes bolded)

"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 the effects 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 the effects of spells you cast, 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.)"

If so, would the issue at hand be more clearly phrased as the following question?

"General Spellcasting Question: If I have an ability that appears to let me cast spells from one class from another classes slots, may I?"

I'd guess that the intent for the above question would put the answer as, "No. You need an ability like the Mystic Theurge's combined spells class feature to do that unless you have some way to add spells to you class spell list."

Tyvm, i was wondering where everyone was going on about spellcasting when the faq and bloodline talk about the effects of the SPELLS you can cast. SPELLS u can cast, not spellcasting. "Spells u can cast" is a sentence that is talking just about the spells while "spellcasting" is a single word that is talking about the ability to cast spells.

the faq nor the bloodline say anywhere "spellcasting", the single word for the ability to cast spells but say "spells u can cast" which is a sentence that they use talking directly about the spells.
that is why i have no problem with the sorcerer faq because it is talking directly about the "spells u can cast" and not the single word ability "spellcasting". That means when u cast a SPELL, it modifies that SPELL, NOT ur ability to CAST spells. Just simy that SPELL.
So with the faq, if u are a wizard/sorcerer its legal to make ur fireball from the wizards slot do ice damage or have ur wizard spell go longer, etc etc because its THE spell itself, not ur ability to cast spells that being modified by the bloodline.
If ur sacrificing a spell for another, ur not modifying that SPELL so the faq doesnt work


The current wording absolutely references Spellcasting. That's the entire problem.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
wraithstrike wrote:
BigDTBone wrote:


I don't just "simply affirm" that it works that way. I have laid out a detailed description of my logic process relating to my view point. Essentially, I have explained why the rules work the way I say they do. I have yet to see anyone else offer evidence as to (1) why my logic is faulty (beyond "nuh-uh") or (2) a ground up logic rooted approach to the rules which present a different solution than my interpretation.

Actually any counter supported by the rules is evidence, even if it not the way you read the rules. Whether or you accept it as "valid" evidence is another thing altogether. I have been right several times in debates, but the opposition refused to accept my evidence, and it took an FAQ or a dev chiming in for them to stop going against what I said.

TLDR: Your(general statement) lack of accepting something does not make it invalid.

edit: added "general statement"

I completely agree that any argument presented is evidence. Someone could say that the Care Bears came to them in a vision and explained this rule to them using interpretive dance. That doesn't make it good evidence. That's why I explain my criteria for acceptable evidence as a qualifier directly after I used the word.

Additionally, I have readily admitted in this thread that I (1) want to be wrong, and (2) could be wrong. That doesn't preclude me from believing and arguing fervently that I am correct, nor does it mean that I must accept weak evidence against my views. I have stated why I believe that my interpretation is correct using a detailed constructive process, and I haven't seen that from any other poster (with the acceptation of them, "trust me, I'm wraithstrike, I know the rules. Which is strangely compelling because I trust your readings. However in this case I don't get there with you on that alone.)

TLDR: I am free to set my own acceptance criteria, and I think mine are reasonable.


Redneckdevil wrote:
KrispyXIV wrote:

So, for the sake of advancing discussion and increasing clarity...

Does anyone not agree that the probable intent of the Sorcerer FAQ would be more clearly stated as the following? (changes bolded)

"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 the effects 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 the effects of spells you cast, 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.)"

If so, would the issue at hand be more clearly phrased as the following question?

"General Spellcasting Question: If I have an ability that appears to let me cast spells from one class from another classes slots, may I?"

I'd guess that the intent for the above question would put the answer as, "No. You need an ability like the Mystic Theurge's combined spells class feature to do that unless you have some way to add spells to you class spell list."

Tyvm, i was wondering where everyone was going on about spellcasting when the faq and bloodline talk about the effects of the SPELLS you can cast. SPELLS u can cast, not spellcasting. "Spells u can cast" is a sentence that is talking just about the spells while "spellcasting" is a single word that is talking about the ability to cast spells.

the faq nor the bloodline say anywhere "spellcasting", the single word for the ability to cast spells but say "spells u can cast" which is a sentence that they use talking directly about the spells.
that is why i have no problem with the sorcerer faq because it is talking directly about the "spells u can cast" and not the single word ability "spellcasting". That means when u cast a...
FAQ in question wrote:
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.)

Liberty's Edge

KrispyXIV wrote:


If so, would the issue at hand be more clearly phrased as the following question?

"General Spellcasting Question: If I have an ability that appears to let me cast spells from one class from another classes slots, may I?"

I'd guess that the intent for the above question would put the answer as, "No. You need an ability like the Mystic Theurge's combined spells class feature to do that unless you have some way to add spells to you class spell list."

That question doesn't make sense to me. I think you'd be better off asking a more direct question:

"Can a Cleric (or Druid) use her Spontaneous Casting ability to spontaneously cast a cure spell (or SNA) in place of a spell prepared in a spell slot from a different class?"


BigDTBone wrote:
Redneckdevil wrote:
KrispyXIV wrote:

So, for the sake of advancing discussion and increasing clarity...

Does anyone not agree that the probable intent of the Sorcerer FAQ would be more clearly stated as the following? (changes bolded)

"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 the effects 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 the effects of spells you cast, 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.)"

If so, would the issue at hand be more clearly phrased as the following question?

"General Spellcasting Question: If I have an ability that appears to let me cast spells from one class from another classes slots, may I?"

I'd guess that the intent for the above question would put the answer as, "No. You need an ability like the Mystic Theurge's combined spells class feature to do that unless you have some way to add spells to you class spell list."

Tyvm, i was wondering where everyone was going on about spellcasting when the faq and bloodline talk about the effects of the SPELLS you can cast. SPELLS u can cast, not spellcasting. "Spells u can cast" is a sentence that is talking just about the spells while "spellcasting" is a single word that is talking about the ability to cast spells.

the faq nor the bloodline say anywhere "spellcasting", the single word for the ability to cast spells but say "spells u can cast" which is a sentence that they use talking directly about the spells.
that is why i have no problem with the sorcerer faq because it is talking directly about the "spells u can cast" and not the single word ability
...

Sadly it finally clicked in my head. Tyvm.

Ok my new stance, the sorcerer faq where they directly answered the question i can agree with, BUT the "general" rule needs to be gone. The people like myself who was/is arguing that cleric cannot sacrifice another class spell slot for a cure spell is basically going off of what they directly answered the question in the faq. The people who are saying it is RAW is going off of the "general" rule they posted.
IF it was JUST what they answered the question with, we wouldnt be debating because they are directly talking about just the spells itself being modified. BUT then they added the general rule that basically does say a cleric can sacrifice another spell slot or even a spell slot of someone else to cast a cure light wounds because it directly talks about spellcasting "the ability to cast spells" and the spontanious casting of a cleric is a spellcasting ability.

So because they threw in that general rule below when they shoulda just left it with the direct answer they gave to the question, it is indeed RAW even though it goes against RAI (because skr straight up stated thats not the intent of the ability).

Ty BigTBone, i see where u are coming from. It is RAW, it isnt RAI, and i will straight up laugh and deny someone to try this in my game, but sadly RAW they woukd be right. Sigh :-(

Simple fix is simply to erase the general rule sentence and problem is solved. No more cleric sacrificing other class slots or even other npc/players spell slots, no more int to con for casting with scar witch doctor, etc etc.


agree with proposition...remove the general rule...

The Exchange Owner - D20 Hobbies

Diego Rossi wrote:

Skirmishers do not gain any spells or spellcasting ability,

After all the modification isn't limited to the class, it simply cite the class, like in the cleric ability.

+1 So using this clearly wrong interpretation, a Skirmisher with a level in Wizard, Sorcerer, Druid, Cleric, Oracle, Witch, Bard, and Arcanist would have no spell casting ability. No slots at all.


James Risner wrote:
Diego Rossi wrote:

Skirmishers do not gain any spells or spellcasting ability,

After all the modification isn't limited to the class, it simply cite the class, like in the cleric ability.

+1 So using this clearly wrong interpretation, a Skirmisher with a level in Wizard, Sorcerer, Druid, Cleric, Oracle, Witch, Bard, and Arcanist would have no spell casting ability. No slots at all.

Skirmishes explicitly replaces the spells feature. It's gone. Not modified. It's clear right there in the ability.

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Companion Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
KrispyXIV wrote:
James Risner wrote:
Diego Rossi wrote:

Skirmishers do not gain any spells or spellcasting ability,

After all the modification isn't limited to the class, it simply cite the class, like in the cleric ability.

+1 So using this clearly wrong interpretation, a Skirmisher with a level in Wizard, Sorcerer, Druid, Cleric, Oracle, Witch, Bard, and Arcanist would have no spell casting ability. No slots at all.

Skirmishes explicitly replaces the spells feature. It's gone. Not modified. It's clear right there in the ability.

Swapping spells is modifying spellcasting, removing spells isn't modifying spellcasting?

I fail to see how you can argue that one is a thing the other is another. What is your definition of modifying?


Diego Rossi wrote:
KrispyXIV wrote:
James Risner wrote:
Diego Rossi wrote:

Skirmishers do not gain any spells or spellcasting ability,

After all the modification isn't limited to the class, it simply cite the class, like in the cleric ability.

+1 So using this clearly wrong interpretation, a Skirmisher with a level in Wizard, Sorcerer, Druid, Cleric, Oracle, Witch, Bard, and Arcanist would have no spell casting ability. No slots at all.

Skirmishes explicitly replaces the spells feature. It's gone. Not modified. It's clear right there in the ability.

Swapping spells is modifying spellcasting, removing spells isn't modifying spellcasting?

I fail to see how you can argue that one is a thing the other is another. What is your definition of modifying?

Removing and modifying are completely different things, by definition. Removing spells is modifying the class.


But thankfully even if/is raw, a lvl 19 wizard/lvl 1 cleric can only cast cure light wounds spells and thats it because it doesnt bypass the rule about having to met the caster level to cast the spell.


Please see next post, this one was incorrect.


You're allowed to cast a spell at a reduced caster level, but not below the lowest level at which you could cast it.

I am not sure that saves us from the wiz19/clr1 casting cure critical wounds, though, because obviously when substituting wizard slots they use their wizard caster level, right?

Actually, here's a puzzler for you: Imagine for the sake of argument we think you can swap them out.

What casting stat determines the save DC?


KrispyXIV wrote:
Redneckdevil wrote:
But thankfully even if/is raw, a lvl 19 wizard/lvl 1 cleric can only cast cure light wounds spells and thats it because it doesnt bypass the rule about having to met the caster level to cast the spell.

The what now?

Do you have a page number or link for this 'rule'?

I'm pretty sure the requirements to cast spell is that it must be on your class list, being able to cast spells of that spell level, and being known or prepared.

The fact that classes get the same spell at different CL's precludes any sort of CL requirement for spells.

Replying to myself because I'm wrong; there is such a requirement. Oops.

However, it still works. I've quoted and bolded the relevant text.

The PRD wrote:

Caster Level

A spell's power often depends on its caster level, which for most spellcasting characters is equal to her class level in the class she's using to cast the spell.

You can cast a spell at a lower caster level than normal, but the caster level you choose must be high enough for you to cast the spell in question, and all level-dependent features must be based on the same caster level.

In the event that a class feature or other special ability provides an adjustment to your caster level, that adjustment applies not only to effects based on caster level (such as range, duration, and damage dealt), but also to your caster level check to overcome your target's spell resistance and to the caster level used in dispel checks (both the dispel check and the DC of the check).

Since you're using your wizard abilities to actually cast the spell, you meet the requirement.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
seebs wrote:

You're allowed to cast a spell at a reduced caster level, but not below the lowest level at which you could cast it.

I am not sure that saves us from the wiz19/clr1 casting cure critical wounds, though, because obviously when substituting wizard slots they use their wizard caster level, right?

Actually, here's a puzzler for you: Imagine for the sake of argument we think you can swap them out.

What casting stat determines the save DC?

The lvl 19 wizard isnt able to substitute his spell slot out for the cure light wounds, its the lvl 1 cleric ability thats able to do so. The cleric ability and not the wizards ability is the one taking a spell from the wizards slot and the cleric ability is using the wizards spell slot to cast the cure spells. The caster is not actually casting a wizard spell, it is sacrificing a wizards spell slot for the cleric to cast a spell.

The DC would still fall under the clerics stats because its not the SPELL thats being modified, but the ability to cast it so the spell cure lights wounds would still fall under the cleric class DC and stats.

Basically in a nut shell, with it being the clerics ability thatthe cleric can swap any prepared spell for a cure spell, it doesnt matter where he got it from (aka gave up a 8th lvl spell slot, druid 4th level spell slot) because u are giving up (not casting that spell but simply throwing it away) for the cleric to cast a cure spell due to his level etc etc.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I think that is probably persuasive. But the complexity sort of serves as a metagame argument for not allowing this. :)


Redneckdevil wrote:
seebs wrote:

You're allowed to cast a spell at a reduced caster level, but not below the lowest level at which you could cast it.

I am not sure that saves us from the wiz19/clr1 casting cure critical wounds, though, because obviously when substituting wizard slots they use their wizard caster level, right?

Actually, here's a puzzler for you: Imagine for the sake of argument we think you can swap them out.

What casting stat determines the save DC?

The lvl 19 wizard isnt able to substitute his spell slot out for the cure light wounds, its the lvl 1 cleric ability thats able to do so. The cleric ability and not the wizards ability is the one taking a spell from the wizards slot and the cleric ability is using the wizards spell slot to cast the cure spells. The caster is not actually casting a wizard spell, it is sacrificing a wizards spell slot for the cleric to cast a spell.

The DC would still fall under the clerics stats because its not the SPELL thats being modified, but the ability to cast it so the spell cure lights wounds would still fall under the cleric class DC and stats.

Basically in a nut shell, with it being the clerics ability thatthe cleric can swap any prepared spell for a cure spell, it doesnt matter where he got it from (aka gave up a 8th lvl spell slot, druid 4th level spell slot) because u are giving up (not casting that spell but simply throwing it away) for the cleric to cast a cure spell due to his level etc etc.

This isn't the case. When a wizard/sorcerer adds the bloodline damage to his prepared fireball he doesn't use charisma as the save stat or casting stat. He isn't limited to only adding +1 per dice that he would get if it was using a sorcerer slot to cast. He isn't limited to adding the extra damage to spells of a level he could cast as a sorcerer.

Plainly, the class feature doesn't "carry over" to the second casting ability. The class feature applies to the second casting ability fully and independently.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I would say it depends on the ability. I would say the cleric ability is letting the cleric-class-abilities cast a spell, sacrificing energy from another slot, while the sorcerer ability is purely altering how a spell works.

You know.

If you allowed the cleric/wiz to sacrifice prepared spell slots, but only for levels of spells the cleric could cast, that would actually be sufficiently weak that it would make no sense to worry about it.


Nefreet wrote:
I read it as "The Cleric", not "The Character", so it would only be referring to the Cleric prepared spells.

This.

This comes up from time-to-time, either in this form (cleric/wizard) or similar class abilities that a player hopes would be transferable from class-to-class, but alas, like this one, are definitely not.

The general reason: I don't think this is debatable or "interpretable," or in any way vague. When a class ability is a class ability, it applies only to the relevant ability of the class. If the class ability indicates it is affected by overall character level, or in some other way affects the character, then it is transferable or usable between a single character's classes. This is what feats are for, though even they often state that they apply only to a specific school, class ability or specific spell or attack form.

That's the normal language of the rules.

So, no, you cannot use the cleric's class ability regarding cleric spells to try to affect the spells the character gains from another spellcasting class.

The specific example: do your levels in cleric count toward casting your wizard spells? Nope. So why would any other non-neutral, non-feat spellcasting feature of either class lend itself to the other? The cleric is not spontaneously channeling the power of his god when he recalls spells from his wizard spellbook.

This is all.


seebs wrote:

I would say it depends on the ability. I would say the cleric ability is letting the cleric-class-abilities cast a spell, sacrificing energy from another slot, while the sorcerer ability is purely altering how a spell works.

You know.

If you allowed the cleric/wiz to sacrifice prepared spell slots, but only for levels of spells the cleric could cast, that would actually be sufficiently weak that it would make no sense to worry about it.

::shrug:: I'm not concerned at all with the power level of the this option at full force. The wizard list is already far more powerful than the cleric, so he will already be using better spells than cures in his slots. You could make a rule today that says all wizards can spontaneously swap haste for cure serious and it would be a giant trap option. Add to that the fact that the wizard is now a casting level behind for his whole career and it becomes clear that this option doesn't have any real teeth compared to the power of a straight wizard.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

That is what basically everyone thought, yes.

Until we got a clear and absolutely explicit statement, in the FAQ which makes it an Official Rule Of The Game, that such abilities apply to all of your spellcasting classes unless they specifically say otherwise.

Look at the bard casting-in-armor rule. Note how specific that is. Do you see any language in the cleric spontaneous casting rules which is parallel to that very clear and specific statement? I don't.


Bruunwald wrote:
Nefreet wrote:
I read it as "The Cleric", not "The Character", so it would only be referring to the Cleric prepared spells.

This.

This comes up from time-to-time, either in this form (cleric/wizard) or similar class abilities that a player hopes would be transferable from class-to-class, but alas, like this one, are definitely not.

The general reason: I don't think this is debatable or "interpretable," or in any way vague. When a class ability is a class ability, it applies only to the relevant ability of the class. If the class ability indicates it is affected by overall character level, or in some other way affects the character, then it is transferable or usable between a single character's classes. This is what feats are for, though even they often state that they apply only to a specific school, class ability or specific spell or attack form.

That's the normal language of the rules.

So, no, you cannot use the cleric's class ability regarding cleric spells to try to affect the spells the character gains from another spellcasting class.

The specific example: do your levels in cleric count toward casting your wizard spells? Nope. So why would any other non-neutral, non-feat spellcasting feature of either class lend itself to the other? The cleric is not spontaneously channeling the power of his god when he recalls spells from his wizard spellbook.

This is all.

FAQ wrote:
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.)


1 person marked this as a favorite.
BigDTBone wrote:
Redneckdevil wrote:
seebs wrote:

You're allowed to cast a spell at a reduced caster level, but not below the lowest level at which you could cast it.

I am not sure that saves us from the wiz19/clr1 casting cure critical wounds, though, because obviously when substituting wizard slots they use their wizard caster level, right?

Actually, here's a puzzler for you: Imagine for the sake of argument we think you can swap them out.

What casting stat determines the save DC?

The lvl 19 wizard isnt able to substitute his spell slot out for the cure light wounds, its the lvl 1 cleric ability thats able to do so. The cleric ability and not the wizards ability is the one taking a spell from the wizards slot and the cleric ability is using the wizards spell slot to cast the cure spells. The caster is not actually casting a wizard spell, it is sacrificing a wizards spell slot for the cleric to cast a spell.

The DC would still fall under the clerics stats because its not the SPELL thats being modified, but the ability to cast it so the spell cure lights wounds would still fall under the cleric class DC and stats.

Basically in a nut shell, with it being the clerics ability thatthe cleric can swap any prepared spell for a cure spell, it doesnt matter where he got it from (aka gave up a 8th lvl spell slot, druid 4th level spell slot) because u are giving up (not casting that spell but simply throwing it away) for the cleric to cast a cure spell due to his level etc etc.

This isn't the case. When a wizard/sorcerer adds the bloodline damage to his prepared fireball he doesn't use charisma as the save stat or casting stat. He isn't limited to only adding +1 per dice that he would get if it was using a sorcerer slot to cast. He isn't limited to adding the extra damage to spells of a level he could cast as a sorcerer.

Plainly, the class feature doesn't "carry over" to the second casting ability. The class feature applies to the second casting ability fully and independently.

The reason why the save stat and casting stat arent changed is because the class was eligible to cast the spell in the first place and since they are able to cast the spell and follow the rules, the bloodline modified the spell. In each of those cases of it adding damage, prolonging the spell, etc etc it was still following the rules that the class who had the spell was eligible to cast the spell.

the cleric ability is a whole different beast because it differs in all the examples in that if we sacrifise a wizard slot, the wizard LOSES and does not cast the spell. The cleric makes the wizard lose his slot and cast a spell the cleric is eligible to cast.
its modifying spellcasting AND following the rules on what a class can cast of their own spells.
that scenario both rules are in agreeance whereas the cleric uses the wizard spellslot and cast a spell the cleric does not met the requirements for does not follow both rules.

In all the bloodline examples they give, it modifys spells the caster is eligble in casting correct? The spellcasting is modified and the spell is modified and the rules of meeting the requirements are all met. The cleric wizard using wizard levels to determine the cleric spell does not follow all the rules.

It is not an exception to the rules because we are using the sorcerer faq as guidelines and in all those examples the bloodline modifys other classes spells, they met the requirement for casting them.


So it would be ok for a cleric/druid to use their druid slots to spontaneously cast cures? Druid use the same casting stat and have cures on their list.


BigDTBone wrote:
So it would be ok for a cleric/druid to use their druid slots to spontaneously cast cures? Druid use the same casting stat and have cures on their list.

Are there gods that allow their clerics to also be druids? It seems to me that would be exactly like a cleric of one religion being multiclassed as a cleric of a different religion.


Desna


JoeJ wrote:
BigDTBone wrote:
So it would be ok for a cleric/druid to use their druid slots to spontaneously cast cures? Druid use the same casting stat and have cures on their list.

Are there gods that allow their clerics to also be druids? It seems to me that would be exactly like a cleric of one religion being multiclassed as a cleric of a different religion.

No more weird than a Cleric/Inquisitor or a Cleric/Warpriest. All of which are legal. If you want to say that doesn't work because of fluff reasons (your apparent objection to a Cleric/Druid), thats between you and your DM... its perfectly legal RAW.

And Sarrah, yes, that is what the FAQ implies. Though to be fair, a 19 wizard can heal almost as well as a 20 cleric anyway since Limited Wish is nearly free at that point and can 'duplicate' the important Healing spells (which is the same thing as casting it for all intents) anyway.


That makes no sense.

There are nature gods that both clerics and druids can revere.

There is also a god of magic who cosniders any magic people cast as worship. He'd be totally fly with a cleric/wizard casting spontaneous heal.

So hey, how about we don't bring fluff into a rules discussion?

The Exchange

The problem is that the Core rule book FAQ contradicts itself here.

faq wrote:

Fighter: What feats can I retrain at level 4, 8, and so on?

Class entries in the Core Rulebook are written assuming that your character is single-classed (not multiclassed). The fighter's ability to retrain feats allows you to retrain one of your fighter bonus feats (gained at 1st level, 2nd level, 4th level, and so on). You can't use it to retrain feats (combat feats or otherwise) from any other source, such as your feats at level 1, 3, etc., your 1st-level human bonus feat, or bonus feats from other classes.

You may want to asterisk your fighter bonus feats on your character sheet so you can easily determine which you can retrain later.

posted Jun 18, 2013

Which says that you treat effects as if the class was singular.

and here
faq wrote:


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.)

posted October 2010

I don't know just pointing out the timing of the rulings.


JoeJ wrote:
BigDTBone wrote:
So it would be ok for a cleric/druid to use their druid slots to spontaneously cast cures? Druid use the same casting stat and have cures on their list.

Are there gods that allow their clerics to also be druids? It seems to me that would be exactly like a cleric of one religion being multiclassed as a cleric of a different religion.

There is no restriction on this but whatever; can a druid/ranger spontaneously cast SNA from her prepared ranger slots?


U know im kinda torn between this.
the sorcerer bloodlines never state the sorcerer but say "you" whereas the clerics ability states the cleric, it actually mentions the class wheread the bloodlines dont state the class but state you.
so we got one way where because it states the cleric, the cleric is still the class the spell is based on because the cleric spellcasting is modified to use any prepared spells from the other classes. Its kinda like the bloodline abilities that state like the summoning monster gaining half sorcerer level in DR, it doesnt matter who cast the spell, but it is determined by the sorcerer and not the other class who cast the spell because it called it out. Im tqlking about the abyssal bloodline arcana. It states YOU cast but its based on half the sorcerer levels. So a waizard casts that spell, they gain the benefits ofbthe modification, buts not based on half the wizards level but the sorcerers level necause they called it out.

And since it says in the cleric ability and calls out the cleric is casting, its still based on the clerics level.


LoneKnave wrote:

That makes no sense.

There are nature gods that both clerics and druids can revere.

There is also a god of magic who cosniders any magic people cast as worship. He'd be totally fly with a cleric/wizard casting spontaneous heal.

So hey, how about we don't bring fluff into a rules discussion?

I don't know what "fluff" is. I was just asking a question because, reading the description in the CRB, it doesn't sound to me like druids and clerics would be powered by the same deity.

451 to 500 of 558 << first < prev | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / Rules Questions / Can a Wizard 1 / Cleric 1 spontaneously cast prepared wizard spells? All Messageboards