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


Rules Questions

501 to 550 of 558 << first < prev | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | next > last >>

JoeJ wrote:
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.

Druid are actually powered by nature, but the power is still divine.

Clerics get their power directly from a deity.


I like the idea of the interpretation that a rule saying "the cleric" implies that the ruling is somehow specific to the character-as-cleric, but there is no rule saying that's how it works, and I don't think it's actually consistent through the rest of the rules text.


BigDTBone wrote:
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.

NEGATIVE GHOST RIDER.

This is incredibly problematic, because of MATH.

Intelligence is more valuable than Wisdom. Just based on what stats do. This allows a maximum WIS of 11 in all POINT BUY, optimized games. The issue is that this, as worded, enables access to spells while dumping a stat. Cure Critical Wounds is not game breaking but it's still a major advantage, IF NO ONE ELSE CAN DO IT.

Also the wizards can activate Divine based Spell Trigers now. (So Heal, and Raise are still options from the magic mart).

I'm also assuming it would extend to the Druid's Spontaneous Casting ability. You can argue that Cure spells are sub-optimal all day, but SUMMONING spells are not Sub-Optimal, most players would agree I think.

So what is really at stake is a 19Wiz/1Druid.
The Wizard is a specialist who takes Conjuration as an opposed school but now gets to swap spells for SUMMONING spells, All day long.
That's maybe worth losing a single caster level.

That this allows the Wizard to replace yet another class in the party, is just wrong. It isn't balanced, screws long standing "Flavor" tradition, and is kinda tacky.

I agree that as worded, it works. It shouldn't. Now if the argument was that it allowed a swap to a Cure/SNA that the character could actually cast, it's no big deal, but that is not the wording.


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

NEGATIVE GHOST RIDER.

This is incredibly problematic, because of MATH.

Intelligence is more valuable than Wisdom. Just based on what stats do. This allows a maximum WIS of 11 in all POINT BUY, optimized games. The issue is that this, as worded, enables access to spells while dumping a stat. Cure Critical Wounds is not game breaking but it's still a major advantage, IF NO ONE ELSE CAN DO IT.

Also the wizards can activate Divine based Spell Trigers now. (So Heal, and Raise are still options from the magic mart).

I'm also assuming it would extend to the Druid's Spontaneous Casting ability. You can argue that Cure spells are sub-optimal all day, but SUMMONING spells are not Sub-Optimal, most players would agree I think.

So what is really at stake is a 19Wiz/1Druid.
The Wizard is a specialist who takes Conjuration as an opposed school but now gets to swap spells for SUMMONING spells, All day long.
That's maybe worth losing a single caster level....

I'm still not seeing the balance problem.

Why is intelligence more valuable than wisdom? Skills points vs Will saves and perception bonus? Hmm. At best that is a wash and I haven't found many players willing to tank their will saves while I have found plenty willing to tank their skill points.

Also, wisdom could still get dumped by the entire party if they relied on an Oracle for healing or a Bard, or wands of CLW...

Cure Critical Wounds is not an advantage over Greater Invisibility, Black Tentacles, Dimension Door, Extended Greater Magic Weapon, Enervation, and about 10 others.

"Wizards can activate divine spell triggers now." Yea, because they have a level of cleric. Not because of any other interaction.

Summoning Spells are nice, but SNA is inferior to SM which the wizard already gets.

So a wizards could take conjuration as an opposed school, loose a caster level, and access the weaker list of a spell he already has a better version of? All for the low price of never being able to wear anything made of metal or cast mage armor without burning two slots.

Even if he focused on Summoning, he would still be shooting himself in the foot by swapping a SM for a SNA. And if he focused on Summoning he would not be very bright if he took conjuration as an opposed school.

I don't see this letting a wizard replace a party member anymore than a wand of cure light wounds replaces a party member. (ie, it doesn't. even in a heal bot scenario you still need someone to provide status effect removal, ability damage healing, remove disease, etc) Being able to spontaneously cast SNA certainly doesn't replace anything that the wizard wasn't already doing better anyway.


BigDTBone wrote:

Cure Critical Wounds is not an advantage over Greater Invisibility, Black Tentacles, Dimension Door, Extended Greater Magic Weapon, Enervation, and about 10 others.

Except the wizard would still have access to all those spells and any cure spell at a moment's notice.


wraithstrike wrote:


Druid are actually powered by nature, but the power is still divine.

Clerics get their power directly from a deity.

It's setting specific, but Inner Sea Gods includes details on each gods' clergy. It mentions several gods which have druidic followers, going so far as the druid gets additional options from their patron.

For example, druids of Gorum can wear metal armor (there are limitations).


Durngrun Stonebreaker wrote:
BigDTBone wrote:

Cure Critical Wounds is not an advantage over Greater Invisibility, Black Tentacles, Dimension Door, Extended Greater Magic Weapon, Enervation, and about 10 others.

Except the wizard would still have access to all those spells and any cure spell at a moment's notice.

The point is he would have to give one of those up to cast the cure critical. It is a bad choice everytime. It is a power-down, not a power up. And, it is a power-down that COSTS the wizard a caster level.

This rules interaction has several issues for me, but balance is not one of them.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
BigDTBone wrote:
Durngrun Stonebreaker wrote:
BigDTBone wrote:

Cure Critical Wounds is not an advantage over Greater Invisibility, Black Tentacles, Dimension Door, Extended Greater Magic Weapon, Enervation, and about 10 others.

Except the wizard would still have access to all those spells and any cure spell at a moment's notice.

The point is he would have to give one of those up to cast the cure critical. It is a bad choice everytime. It is a power-down, not a power up. And, it is a power-down that COSTS the wizard a caster level.

This rules interaction has several issues for me, but balance is not one of them.

No it's not (a bad choice every time). You would have (whatever arcane spell) prepared and would not convert it to a cure spell unless you needed a cure spell. Adding options is not a "power-down."


BigDTBone wrote:


Except the wizard would still have access to all those spells and any cure spell at a moment's notice.

The point is he would have to give one of those up to cast the cure critical. It is a bad choice everytime. It is a power-down, not a power up. And, it is a power-down that COSTS the wizard a caster level.

This rules interaction has several issues for me, but balance is not one of them.

The right spell at the right time is never a bad choice. (Now casting a cure spell in combat is often not the right spell at the right time... but that is a whole different discussion). But greater invis vs a foe with true seeing is a bad choice. Black tentacles could also be a bad choice in a given scenario. Dimension door might be utterly useless for a given combat. Choosing a cure spell over one of those in those situations is a better choice. And depending on the wizards spell resources remaining for the day the cure spell may be infinitely better than making an attack with his light crossbow. Flexibility in options though is powerful. (enough to trump taking the last level in wizard can be argued against).


Samasboy1 wrote:
wraithstrike wrote:


Druid are actually powered by nature, but the power is still divine.

Clerics get their power directly from a deity.

It's setting specific, but Inner Sea Gods includes details on each gods' clergy. It mentions several gods which have druidic followers, going so far as the druid gets additional options from their patron.

For example, druids of Gorum can wear metal armor (there are limitations).

I am saying druids don't need a deity to get their powers. I am not saying no druids follow deities.


Durngrun Stonebreaker wrote:
BigDTBone wrote:
Durngrun Stonebreaker wrote:
BigDTBone wrote:

Cure Critical Wounds is not an advantage over Greater Invisibility, Black Tentacles, Dimension Door, Extended Greater Magic Weapon, Enervation, and about 10 others.

Except the wizard would still have access to all those spells and any cure spell at a moment's notice.

The point is he would have to give one of those up to cast the cure critical. It is a bad choice everytime. It is a power-down, not a power up. And, it is a power-down that COSTS the wizard a caster level.

This rules interaction has several issues for me, but balance is not one of them.

No it's not (a bad choice every time). You would have (whatever arcane spell) prepared and would not convert it to a cure spell unless you needed a cure spell. Adding options is not a "power-down."

So you have two scenarios where the wizard would "need it"

(1) In combat. It has been demonstrated time and time again that in-combat healing is sub-optimal. The better choice is always to kill the enemy first. Swapping a buff, control, or attack spell for a cure is a poor choice in that scenario. In this case, the cure swap is a trap option.

(2) Out of Combat. The bard/ranger/inquisitor/paladin/cleric/oracle/you use a wand of cure light wounds and keep your spells for better uses later.

So it is never better in a "needed" situation. It is useful at the end of the day, right before the wizard is going to rest. He can expend his spells to heal the party so that a cash resource isn't being spent. That is nice, but at that point he is trading his caster power for party wealth. That too has been shown to be a poor option overall.

There is no balance problem. On the whole, the lost caster level isn't worth the versatility and the specific spells you swap are never worth the trade.


The loss of a caster level, and being behind a level in spells at half your levels, is a pretty huge loss in power.

I'd also point out, my wizard has been using any and all cleric spell trigger items for many levels now, because UMD is not that hard to get.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

It can be a balance problem because it is stepping on the toes of another class, not because it makes the wizard more powerful to an extent that it matter.

As an example giving a bard full BAB won't break the game, but it makes him good enough in combat, combined with his other skills that mechanically there will be a good reason to have a bard as a 3rd or 4th team member instead of the 5th character.


wraithstrike wrote:


I am saying druids don't need a deity to get their powers. I am not saying no druids follow deities.

Sorry, I am not arguing Druids must worship a deity.

Only that some druids seem to get their power from a god, rather than an undefined "nature" source. Thus receiving the god-specific boons.

No-god is definitely a possible choice for druids.


Samasboy1 wrote:
wraithstrike wrote:


I am saying druids don't need a deity to get their powers. I am not saying no druids follow deities.

Sorry, I am not arguing Druids must worship a deity.

Only that some druids seem to get their power from a god, rather than an undefined "nature" source. Thus receiving the god-specific boons.

No-god is definitely a possible choice for druids.

Even then they dont get their powers from a deity, but the deity gives them additional powers beyond what nature gives them.

IIRC: According to a post I saw on these boards you can get a boon without being a divine powered classes.

I don't have the Inner Sea Gods book so I can't say for sure if the poster misread the book or not.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
wraithstrike wrote:

Even then they dont get their powers from a deity, but the deity gives them additional powers beyond what nature gives them.

IIRC: According to a post I saw on these boards you can get a boon without being a divine powered classes.

I don't have the Inner Sea Gods book so I can't say for sure if the poster misread the book or not.

You know, now that you mention it, I do think some non-divine classes that are part of the clergy received boons too (I am thinking bards did for some gods).

[edit]When I say boon, I mean bonuses that all clergy members receive, not boons from the Prestige Classes in the book. Like clerics of Cayden making ale with Create Water, or druids of Gorum wearing metal.[/edit]

Hmmm....

Okay, so maybe even druids that worship a god still receive their power for the mysterious forces of nature. Seems a bit strange, given that they are probably (but not always) worshiping a god of nature, but isn't a deal breaker or anything.

Still plenty of room for a Druid/Cleric of Gozreh, who probably doesn't distinguish much between nature magic and magic from the god of nature.

And the idea of a Wizard/Cleric of Nethys thinking of both magics as coming "from" Nethys is cool too, in a fluff (ie, story telling as opposed to rules) sense.


It's a setting specific mechanic but in Golarion, many Druids get spells from the deity Gozreh.

In Forgotten Realms it was Silvanus.

Greyhawk it was Obad Hai.

Druids are frequently powered up by deities. They can be just generally juiced by nature. Theoretically the Cleric can get his power from an ideology or a concept like Humility or Bravery. The Core rules are designed to run without a Pantheon of Gods of any kind.


Clerics need GM permission to not use a deity.

Where in PF(Golarion lore/which book) does it say druids get powers from a deity? I know some worship a deity, but that is different than a rule saying they are powered by that deity.

PS: I am asking because my Golarion-Fu is only ok, and I missed it if it was specifically written.


BigDTBone wrote:
Durngrun Stonebreaker wrote:
BigDTBone wrote:
Durngrun Stonebreaker wrote:
BigDTBone wrote:

Cure Critical Wounds is not an advantage over Greater Invisibility, Black Tentacles, Dimension Door, Extended Greater Magic Weapon, Enervation, and about 10 others.

Except the wizard would still have access to all those spells and any cure spell at a moment's notice.

The point is he would have to give one of those up to cast the cure critical. It is a bad choice everytime. It is a power-down, not a power up. And, it is a power-down that COSTS the wizard a caster level.

This rules interaction has several issues for me, but balance is not one of them.

No it's not (a bad choice every time). You would have (whatever arcane spell) prepared and would not convert it to a cure spell unless you needed a cure spell. Adding options is not a "power-down."

So you have two scenarios where the wizard would "need it"

(1) In combat. It has been demonstrated time and time again that in-combat healing is sub-optimal. The better choice is always to kill the enemy first. Swapping a buff, control, or attack spell for a cure is a poor choice in that scenario. In this case, the cure swap is a trap option.

(2) Out of Combat. The bard/ranger/inquisitor/paladin/cleric/oracle/you use a wand of cure light wounds and keep your spells for better uses later.

So it is never better in a "needed" situation. It is useful at the end of the day, right before the wizard is going to rest. He can expend his spells to heal the party so that a cash resource isn't being spent. That is nice, but at that point he is trading his caster power for party wealth. That too has been shown to be a poor option overall.

There is no balance problem. On the whole, the lost caster level isn't worth the
versatility and the specific spells you swap are never worth the trade.

That's an opinion.

People trade off a single Caster Level all the time.

Balance is not simply about a class to class or peer to peer comparison. The wizard is already unbalanced. He is the Poster Child for the disparity in class power. This rule interaction just makes him More Versatile, which in game terms is More Powerful.

To make that point clearer, if the specialists were completely LOCKED OUT of their prohibited Schools, they would take a hit in relative power.

This entire thread is actually a lobby for the removal of the Sorceror's Bloodline abilities affecting all spellcasting. That's the easiest fix for this issue and all of the other issues that have cropped up.

If this interaction stands it poses far more problems than Spontaneous Cure swaps. There are likely 30 or more abilities mixed into various caster archetypes that could do a serious Stupid Hex on games.
(Diego's example of Diminished Casting is the real standout).

Spellcasting should revert to a Class specific feature with NO interaction at all.
Simplicity is the answer to all the people seeking perfect rules.

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Companion Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
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.

Already pointed out a few times:

PRD wrote:
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.

The ability is very clear, thecleric cast the spell. Even with your interpretation the druid (or other divine caster, a non divine caster can't fuel the cure spell) spell slot is simply fuel, the act of casting is done by the cleric.

As it is the cleric that is casting the spell, the spell power is based on the cleric levels.

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.

As thing stand, yes it is RAW, the cleric can use druid spell slots to cast the cure spell at his caster level (as the cleric is casting the spell, not the druid) and the druid can use cleric spell slots to cast summoning spells at the Druid CL as it is the druid that is casting the spell.

The ability require a divine caster spell slot and the character cast as the class with the ability. it is clearly spelled in the ability.

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Companion Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
wraithstrike wrote:
JoeJ wrote:
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.

Druid are actually powered by nature, but the power is still divine.

Clerics get their power directly from a deity.

Several gods can have druid followers and cleric follower. Nothing stop a character from being both.

You even get the bonus spell fro wisdom twice, once for each class (at least, that is how it worked in the 3.0 edition of the game and apparently nothing has changed, I will look the example character searching for someone with two wisdom based classes to see if Paizo applies the bonus that way).


Diego Rossi wrote:
wraithstrike wrote:
JoeJ wrote:
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.

Druid are actually powered by nature, but the power is still divine.

Clerics get their power directly from a deity.

Several gods can have druid followers and cleric follower. Nothing stop a character from being both.

You even get the bonus spell fro wisdom twice, once for each class (at least, that is how it worked in the 3.0 edition of the game and apparently nothing has changed, I will look the example character searching for someone with two wisdom based classes to see if Paizo applies the bonus that way).

Any class can follow any deity. I was speaking about powering the class if it gets spells.

As for the wisdom bonus based bonus spells, each class would get bonus spells if it was a multiclasses cleric/druid. If that is not what you meant then I may need an example.


Durngrun Stonebreaker wrote:
BigDTBone wrote:

Cure Critical Wounds is not an advantage over Greater Invisibility, Black Tentacles, Dimension Door, Extended Greater Magic Weapon, Enervation, and about 10 others.

Except the wizard would still have access to all those spells and any cure spell at a moment's notice.

Or he could just Limited Wish (after level 13). As I've tried to stress before, its cheap by the time you get it and can duplicate REAL healing spells, like Heal or Restoration.

Wizards are already stepping on toes, in far more significant ways than the generally agreed to be subpar Cure series of hp recovery spells.


Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Maps, Pathfinder Accessories Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Starfinder Superscriber

This thread has run away from me a little, so this may have been covered (apologies if so)....

I'm curious whether those who think this is allowable by the rules think that the level of cleric spell should be limited by the cleric level?

That is, should a level 1/19 cleric/wizard be able to cast lots of CLW but no CSW?


The way it's worded I'd say no.
But at home I'm just saying no it doesn't work.
I can't believe it will pass in PS games either.


zagnabbit wrote:
BigDTBone wrote:
Durngrun Stonebreaker wrote:
BigDTBone wrote:
Durngrun Stonebreaker wrote:
BigDTBone wrote:

Cure Critical Wounds is not an advantage over Greater Invisibility, Black Tentacles, Dimension Door, Extended Greater Magic Weapon, Enervation, and about 10 others.

Except the wizard would still have access to all those spells and any cure spell at a moment's notice.

The point is he would have to give one of those up to cast the cure critical. It is a bad choice everytime. It is a power-down, not a power up. And, it is a power-down that COSTS the wizard a caster level.

This rules interaction has several issues for me, but balance is not one of them.

No it's not (a bad choice every time). You would have (whatever arcane spell) prepared and would not convert it to a cure spell unless you needed a cure spell. Adding options is not a "power-down."

So you have two scenarios where the wizard would "need it"

(1) In combat. It has been demonstrated time and time again that in-combat healing is sub-optimal. The better choice is always to kill the enemy first. Swapping a buff, control, or attack spell for a cure is a poor choice in that scenario. In this case, the cure swap is a trap option.

(2) Out of Combat. The bard/ranger/inquisitor/paladin/cleric/oracle/you use a wand of cure light wounds and keep your spells for better uses later.

So it is never better in a "needed" situation. It is useful at the end of the day, right before the wizard is going to rest. He can expend his spells to heal the party so that a cash resource isn't being spent. That is nice, but at that point he is trading his caster power for party wealth. That too has been shown to be a poor option overall.

There is no balance problem. On the whole, the lost caster level isn't worth the
versatility and the specific spells you swap are never worth the trade.

That's an opinion.

People trade off a single Caster Level all the time....

There is a huge difference between *this* being unbalanced and *wizards in general* being unbalanced.

If you are staging a race and looking to give everyone an even playing field then you wouldn't let a nova and a lambo in the same match. Once that mistake gets made, it doesn't matter if the guy in the lambo changes his racing slicks for all-terrain.

The Exchange Owner - D20 Hobbies

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

Yep, but removing is subsumed into modifying.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
James Risner wrote:
KrispyXIV wrote:
Removing and modifying are completely different things, by definition. Removing spells is modifying the class.

Yep, but removing is subsumed into modifying.

Its relative. Removing a class feature modifies the class, yes.

It has not modified that class feature; its text and function remain identical, you simply no longer have access to it.

Example with cookies: You have a cookie. If I take your cookie, the cookie is unchanged but is now mine; I have modified the ownership, but not the cookie itself. If instead I add frosting, I have modified your cookie.

The Exchange Owner - D20 Hobbies

seebs wrote:
Until we got a clear and absolutely explicit statement ... apply to all of your spellcasting classes unless they specifically say otherwise.

This whole debate boils down to the definition of specifically.

seebs wrote:
I like the idea of the interpretation that a rule saying "the cleric" implies that the ruling is somehow specific to the character-as-cleric, but there is no rule saying that's how it works, and I don't think it's actually consistent through the rest of the rules text.

You like being precise, can you find an example where this convention is violated? Because to be, it has been pretty consistent.


They can keep the direct answer in the faq which states that the bloodlines does effect all the spells that are cast (not spellcasting the ability) and do away with the general rule which IS about spellcasting the ability and problem solved.

So yes its raw but it aint RAI.


James Risner wrote:
seebs wrote:
Until we got a clear and absolutely explicit statement ... apply to all of your spellcasting classes unless they specifically say otherwise.

This whole debate boils down to the definition of specifically.

seebs wrote:
I like the idea of the interpretation that a rule saying "the cleric" implies that the ruling is somehow specific to the character-as-cleric, but there is no rule saying that's how it works, and I don't think it's actually consistent through the rest of the rules text.
You like being precise, can you find an example where this convention is violated? Because to be, it has been pretty consistent.
Bard Class 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.

This class feature uses the phrase "a bard" but also specifically states that this ability only works with bard spells. This is an indication that the developers do not feel that just using the class name in the descriptive text is any indication as to whether the class ability is portable. In order for the ability not to work with other classes it must specifically say so, it is not enough to simply say "the bard," or "the cleric."

The Exchange Owner - D20 Hobbies

BigDTBone wrote:
This is an indication that the developers do not feel that just using the class name in the descriptive text is any indication as to whether the class ability is portable.

Known to be false, as the developers have many times said they will make additional lines that are "default" but written to give more clarity.

So saying "the Bard" could have been considered clear enough (if space was a problem) but the "only Bards can do this" line didn't overrun page count and could be added for additional clarity when space is available.


James Risner wrote:
BigDTBone wrote:
This is an indication that the developers do not feel that just using the class name in the descriptive text is any indication as to whether the class ability is portable.

Known to be false, as the developers have many times said they will make additional lines that are "default" but written to give more clarity.

So saying "the Bard" could have been considered clear enough (if space was a problem) but the "only Bards can do this" line didn't overrun page count and could be added for additional clarity when space is available.

You are going to have to provide a specific source citation on that claim. The sorcerer FAQ specifically goes against what you are claiming.

Edit: also, move goal posts much? You asked for an example that is outside the desired convention proposed by seebs. There is your example.


BigDTBone-what do u think about this with sorcerer's bloodlines.

Bloodline Arcana: Whenever YOU cast a spell of the
summoning subschool, the creatures summoned gain DR/
good equal to 1/2 your SORCERER level (minimum 1). This
does not stack with any DR the creature might have.

This is the only bloodline arcana i could find that scales and its based on ur sorcerer level and not what class level u cast the oringinal spell from. The aracana sates YOU and not sorcerer in the casting part so that could be any class ur casting the spell from which goes along with the faq, BUT it does indeed state that DR gained is based on your sorcerer level.
so in a way this does mean the modification to spellcasting, the end result when needing to base stats from is from the class that lets u do the ability.
With this the spell is modified and the rounds and such of the spell is based off the class that cast it (aka spell slots in which we are talking about with cleric) but the modification of the how much Dr is gained (aka which cure spell is cast) is based off the class who gives the ability for the modification.

Again i wanna make clear, i do believe this RAW thanks to you, but like u i do not believe it is RAI and wouldnt be following this "RAW". im just debating with you.

The Exchange Owner - D20 Hobbies

BigDTBone wrote:
move goal posts much?

Insulting much? I'm tired of this "move goal post crap" when you can't refute what I say you you want to say I'm changing the objectives?


James Risner wrote:
BigDTBone wrote:
move goal posts much?

Insulting much? I'm tired of this "move goal post crap" when you can't refute what I say you you want to say I'm changing the objectives?

James, he did refute your point by referring to the Sorcerer FAQ. It contradicts you.

You moved the goalposts by arbitrarily dismissing the example provided by the bard ability based on something which cannot be proved or supported, namely 'page count'.

The Exchange Owner - D20 Hobbies

KrispyXIV wrote:
James, he did refute your point by referring to the Sorcerer FAQ. It contradicts you.

According to him, but I use the Sorcerer FAQ to prove it combined with the Magus FAQ.


Redneckdevil wrote:

BigDTBone-what do u think about this with sorcerer's bloodlines.

Bloodline Arcana: Whenever YOU cast a spell of the
summoning subschool, the creatures summoned gain DR/
good equal to 1/2 your SORCERER level (minimum 1). This
does not stack with any DR the creature might have.

This is the only bloodline arcana i could find that scales and its based on ur sorcerer level and not what class level u cast the oringinal spell from. The aracana sates YOU and not sorcerer in the casting part so that could be any class ur casting the spell from which goes along with the faq, BUT it does indeed state that DR gained is based on your sorcerer level.
so in a way this does mean the modification to spellcasting, the end result when needing to base stats from is from the class that lets u do the ability.
With this the spell is modified and the rounds and such of the spell is based off the class that cast it (aka spell slots in which we are talking about with cleric) but the modification of the how much Dr is gained (aka which cure spell is cast) is based off the class who gives the ability for the modification.

Again i wanna make clear, i do believe this RAW thanks to you, but like u i do not believe it is RAI and wouldnt be following this "RAW". im just debating with you.

I would say that the DR adjustment is based on sorcerer level no matter what class slot you cast from because the ability is specifically regulated by sorcerer level. Ie, it doesn't just say "when the sorcerer," but says "use your sorcerer level."

Just to be clear. I am certain the wizard swap cures is against RAI. I wouldn't let this in my game nor would I try to play this in another game. I would actively discourage others from trying it in a game I was playing in. I just think the rules related to this issue need cleaned up so that similar issues can be avoided in the future.

Edit: just for the sake of continuity, let's bring this back to the sorcerer/wizard with draconic bloodline getting +1 damage per die. Let's say instead of building that character as sorcerer 1/ wizard x you built it wizard 1/sorcerer x. When you add the damage bonus from the evocation school it will always be +1 even if you are an 18th level sorcerer using sorcerer slots to cast because the ability is telling you how to calculate that extra damage and it specifically tells you to use 1/2 wizard level (minimum 1)

Silver Crusade RPG Superstar 2014 Top 16

Guys, you've gotta take down the hostility a notch, or one of the devs is going to come in and lock this thread. It's not worth getting angry about. Seriously.


I think it's safe to say that this thread has outlived it's usefulness.

Tempers are flaring, discussions (and arguments) are stagnant, and participation has reduced to only a few individuals (whose view points will not be changed).

This thread was interesting as a thought experiment, but most of us agree that even if this (sacrificing third level wizard slots for a cure serious wounds with a one level dip into cleric) is totally legal within RAW, it probably is not intended, and most DMs would not (and should not) allow it.

So... Is there a way to request that a thread be locked...? (Seriously).


MechE_ wrote:

I think it's safe to say that this thread has outlived it's usefulness.

Tempers are flaring, discussions (and arguments) are stagnant, and participation has reduced to only a few individuals (whose view points will not be changed).

This thread was interesting as a thought experiment, but most of us agree that even if this (sacrificing third level wizard slots for a cure serious wounds with a one level dip into cleric) is totally legal within RAW, it probably is not intended, and most DMs would not (and should not) allow it.

So... Is there a way to request that a thread be locked...? (Seriously).

I agree, especially since most of us agree with RAI, but only disagree per RAW, but I also think that if a thread is bothering you that you should just avoid it. That is what I do with some of the questions that I consider to be "obvious" in the rules forum.

I look in, realize that participation will just annoy me, and avoid the thread from that point forward.


BigDTBone wrote:
Redneckdevil wrote:

BigDTBone-what do u think about this with sorcerer's bloodlines.

Bloodline Arcana: Whenever YOU cast a spell of the
summoning subschool, the creatures summoned gain DR/
good equal to 1/2 your SORCERER level (minimum 1). This
does not stack with any DR the creature might have.

This is the only bloodline arcana i could find that scales and its based on ur sorcerer level and not what class level u cast the oringinal spell from. The aracana sates YOU and not sorcerer in the casting part so that could be any class ur casting the spell from which goes along with the faq, BUT it does indeed state that DR gained is based on your sorcerer level.
so in a way this does mean the modification to spellcasting, the end result when needing to base stats from is from the class that lets u do the ability.
With this the spell is modified and the rounds and such of the spell is based off the class that cast it (aka spell slots in which we are talking about with cleric) but the modification of the how much Dr is gained (aka which cure spell is cast) is based off the class who gives the ability for the modification.

Again i wanna make clear, i do believe this RAW thanks to you, but like u i do not believe it is RAI and wouldnt be following this "RAW". im just debating with you.

I would say that the DR adjustment is based on sorcerer level no matter what class slot you cast from because the ability is specifically regulated by sorcerer level. Ie, it doesn't just say "when the sorcerer," but says "use your sorcerer level."

Just to be clear. I am certain the wizard swap cures is against RAI. I wouldn't let this in my game nor would I try to play this in another game. I would actively discourage others from trying it in a game I was playing in. I just think the rules related to this issue need cleaned up so that similar issues can be avoided in the future.

Edit: just for the sake of continuity, let's bring this back to the sorcerer/wizard with draconic bloodline getting +1 damage...

I would say like with the bloodline i stated, it woukd based off 1/2 the wizard.

the intensity is modifying the spellcasting and it applys to all classes BUT in most cases its always a static bonus. In the cases where it isnt static (ex. Any cure spells) the modification bonus is based off the class that gives the bonus to modify it.
intensity and the bloodline modifys all spellcasting no matter the class BUT when its not static and u need to know the amount of bonus, u base it off the class that gives it to you.
this way the faq and the general rule are working.
the cleric situation would follow same suit that the spontanius casting would modify all spellcasting in that u woukd be able to "lose" a prepared spell from any class u own BUT the cure spell in question in what cure spell u could cast is based off the cleric which is the class that gives the ability for modification of spellcasting.
This way it would follow suit and align with the intensity and the bloodline and follow the same rules and pattern.

And of course this is just for debating of course with no real gain or defeat in debating this because like you i have no plans whatsoever following this "raw" or allowing it in my games.

So yes i agree that u can sacrifice wizard spell slots, but u couldnt use it to cast a spell that the cleric class level u have wouldnt allow.


Maybe I missed it (it's a long thread), but if most of us are agreed on RAI and this debate is simply to clear up RAW, why can the cleric not change other character's prepared spells into cure spells (since the ability says "any prepared spell")?


@redneckdevil: I don't read it as that restrictive. I think if that were the case then a sorcerer 1/ wizard 5 would only get +1 damage to his burning hands because if the sorcerer had cast the spell it would have been 1d4. And wouldn't get to add damage to his fireball at all because the sorcerer can't cast that spell. :-/


MechE_ wrote:

I think it's safe to say that this thread has outlived it's usefulness.

Tempers are flaring, discussions (and arguments) are stagnant, and participation has reduced to only a few individuals (whose view points will not be changed).

This thread was interesting as a thought experiment, but most of us agree that even if this (sacrificing third level wizard slots for a cure serious wounds with a one level dip into cleric) is totally legal within RAW, it probably is not intended, and most DMs would not (and should not) allow it.

So... Is there a way to request that a thread be locked...? (Seriously).

Meh, I'm just here responding to questions at this point. I really don't have anything new to add. With the exception of about 3 posters it hasn't been particularly bad in here. It only seems to flare up when someone attempts to lead the otherside down a line of false questions and then get called out on it . Tempers flare back and forth and then calm down. But that's the internet. People run around with their weewee's out and then someone slams it in a fire door. "Ow, you slammed my weewee in a fire door!" "Why did you have your weewee out?"


Durngrun Stonebreaker wrote:
Maybe I missed it (it's a long thread), but if most of us are agreed on RAI and this debate is simply to clear up RAW, why can the cleric not change other character's prepared spells into cure spells (since the ability says "any prepared spell")?

Something about being limited to the casting ability of the class that grants the swap power. I'm not 100% on the argument because it didn't make sense to me.


Durngrun Stonebreaker wrote:
Maybe I missed it (it's a long thread), but if most of us are agreed on RAI and this debate is simply to clear up RAW, why can the cleric not change other character's prepared spells into cure spells (since the ability says "any prepared spell")?

That instance is completely without precedent, and I think everyone agrees its ridiculous. You are, however, technically correct in that you can take actions while dead.

Wait, or that other thing :)

However, gaining the ability to convert your own spells is something which is available from multiple sources, and we know exactly how its intended to work for single classed Cleric's and Druids. See also Preferred Spell.

(For the record, I agree we've probably reached the limits of this discussion... i'm still of the opinion this clearly works by RAW, and isn't a balance issue and would probably enhance the fun of any game it came up in, so it could stay the same or go, I dont care... I'd just like it resolved.)


BigDTBone wrote:
@redneckdevil: I don't read it as that restrictive. I think if that were the case then a sorcerer 1/ wizard 5 would only get +1 damage to his burning hands because if the sorcerer had cast the spell it would have been 1d4. And wouldn't get to add damage to his fireball at all because the sorcerer can't cast that spell. :-/

The if u are using the spell from the sorcerer spell slot then it would be 1d4 and half of what level wizard added to it. In intensity it states you cast the spell just like in the bloodlines where it doesnt matter who casts the spell, the dmg/dc/etc is based off the class who cast it and the extra damage from intensity woukd be based off half whatever levels he has in wizard.

thats what i was talking about is that the faq lets the bonuses be applied to all spells we cast no matter the class, but it woukd still be based off the class who has the ability.
it woukd make sense no that a +1 sorcerer/+5 wizard that the benefit woukd match (when its not static) based on the level of the wizard?

Silver Crusade

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Not sure if anyone has mentioned this but I found something in the PRD under the multiclass section.

Note that there are a number of effects and prerequisites that rely on a character's level or Hit Dice. Such effects are always based on the total number of levels or Hit Dice a character possesses, not just those from one class. The exception to this is class abilities, most of which are based on the total number of class levels that a character possesses of that particular class.

501 to 550 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