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


Rules Questions

101 to 150 of 558 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

Diego Rossi wrote:

To me it support Kazaan and Nefreet position nicely. The ability is written with a a single classed cleric in mind.

The cleric ability don't change the character spellcasting ability, it give a single class cleric the ability swap the spell from his single class with healing spells, so the other FAQ don't apply. You guys are trying to invent a option that don't exist.

So were bloodline arcana. And the only difference between the two is the Subject of the sentence, which has no bearing on the rules content afterwards. 'you' and 'the cleric' are interchangeable.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Given that the Mystic Theurge PRC has an ability to do just what we are talking about, I would venture to say that converting Wizard spells to cure spells is NOT supposed to work.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
KrispyXIV wrote:
Diego Rossi wrote:

I want to point you all to another FAQ:

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.

That specification that classes abilities are written for single classes character is right in the FAQs, not only in a Dev post.

This will change someone position?

Its completely irrelevant. No one is disputing WHO may use spontaneous casting under cleric, which is the only context cleric is referred to under the rule.

I don't agree. I think the intended distinction here is:

If I am a wizard/cleric, then "the cleric" refers, not to me-as-a-whole, but to my abilities as a cleric. So, "the cleric's level" is like "your cleric levels"; it refers to the levels you have in cleric, not to all the levels had by the person who happens to be a cleric.

I'm not sure I find this argument convincing, and we'd need to check a bunch more features and abilities to see whether it's consistent, but it is a plausible distinction to draw, and does appear to predict most of the FAQ answers so far.

Hmm.

PRD wrote:
Upon reaching 4th level, and at every even-numbered sorcerer level after that (6th, 8th, and so on), a sorcerer can choose to learn a new spell in place of one she already knows. In effect, the sorcerer loses the old spell in exchange for the new one. The new spell's level must be the same as that of the spell being exchanged. A sorcerer may swap only a single spell at any given level, and must choose whether or not to swap the spell at the same time that she gains new spells known for the level.

Okay, I think everyone would agree that you're intended to be retraining sorcerer spells only, so if you were a sorcerer/bard, you couldn't retrain a bard spell when you made sorcerer 4. And this does indeed refer to you as "the sorcerer".

I think I find this interpretation persuasive: If the ability refers to "the <class>", then it probably means to apply only to class abilities. If it refers to "you", then it means your character as a whole.


KrispyXIV wrote:
Diego Rossi wrote:

To me it support Kazaan and Nefreet position nicely. The ability is written with a a single classed cleric in mind.

The cleric ability don't change the character spellcasting ability, it give a single class cleric the ability swap the spell from his single class with healing spells, so the other FAQ don't apply. You guys are trying to invent a option that don't exist.

So were bloodline arcana. And the only difference between the two is the Subject of the sentence, which has no bearing on the rules content afterwards. 'you' and 'the cleric' are interchangeable.

"You" and the "cleric" are interchangeable only if you want to break the rules. The cleric may spontaneous change his/her spells. Not the play who happens to have a single level of cleric. As further evidence, the text mentions not being permitted to swap out osirons, not cantrips, because only clerical casting is being considered in this task. This isn't a game where we have to prove you can't do X. You have to demonstrate you can, and a disanalogous FAQ doesn't override the plain text here. Particular when, within the context of the game, you are arguing for a plainly absurd outcome.

The Exchange Owner - D20 Hobbies

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Diego Rossi wrote:
To me it support Kazaan and Nefreet position nicely. You guys are trying to invent a option that don't exist.

Kazaan and Nefreet have been point it out more succinctly than I have been. It is essentially the same point I've been trying to make.

If it references the class like "The Cleric" and "Magus spell list" then it is tied to the class due to the single classed mindset of all rules and the FAQ on Spell Combat.

The Exchange Owner - D20 Hobbies

seebs wrote:
I think I find this interpretation persuasive: If the ability refers to "the <class>", then it probably means to apply only to class abilities. If it refers to "you", then it means your character as a whole.

Isn't that essentially what you and I have been discussing earlier? Or did I fail to communicate this point to your satisfaction? I'm not riding you, I'm legitimately trying to understand how I failed to convey this concept.


Create Mr. Pitt wrote:
Particularly when, within the context of the game, you are arguing for a plainly absurd outcome.

I don't know we're playing the same game. Wizards casting healing spells is already a thing. Limited Wish, Wish, and UMD are relatively cheap and easy.

Letting them spontaneously cast cures at the cost of a class level is almost certainly a net loss compared to them take pure wizard.

Plainly absurd is a huge (and subjective) stretch.

Silver Crusade RPG Superstar 2014 Top 16

1 person marked this as a favorite.
James Risner wrote:
seebs wrote:
It doesn't say "mention a class", it says "says it only applies to spells from that class."

Either you need to say the Magus FAQ on Spell Combat is invalidated by the Sorcerer bloodline FAQ, or you conclude that any time it mentions a class or a class spell list the Sorcerer bloodline FAQ is not in effect.

The bloodline you quoted with Sorcerer mentioned sets a value, it doesn't reference the class doing something (like Magus using Spell Combat or Cleric using Spontaneous Cures) and it doesn't reference the Sorcerer spell list.

James, help me out here. Do you mean the general FAQ on "What spells can I cast when using spell combat?"

If so, can I offer a bit of nuance? First of all, the Magus ability does specifically state it must be a spell off the Magus spell list. That narrows it down a bit. The ambiguity was likely something along the lines of "ok Shocking Grasp is on the Magus spell list, but it is also a Wizard spell, so if I am also a Wizard, can I prepare it in a Wizard slot and use it that way?" It is this second part that I think the FAQ is really addressing. The Magus FAQ is stating that they meant it "has to be a Magus Spell prepared in a Magus slot." Yes, that does appear to conflict with the Sorcerer FAQ which leads to this business about spontaneous cures. The simple addition within the Magus writeup making it clear that Magus slots have to be used would make the two FAQs entirely consistent, but obviously that is missing.

Without the Sorcerer FAQ being out, I could see the Magus FAQ being used to rule against the spontaneous cures. But when looking at the two FAQs side by side, it seems the Sorcerer FAQ is written more definitively and in a way that it better includes a broader range of abilities and situations. In fact the Sorcerer FAQ has verbiage making it clear it is intended to apply to other examples outside of the Sorcerer one (unless specifically excluded), whereas the Magus FAQ seems a much more focused ruling.

Again, don't get me wrong, it seems nonsensical to me that the 19/1 healer-Wizard should actually work, but the Sorcerer ruling just really doeturns me into a believer. I'd love to hear from Paizo on this, and not just on the forums, one of those FAQs could use some tweaking.


KrispyXIV wrote:
Create Mr. Pitt wrote:
Particularly when, within the context of the game, you are arguing for a plainly absurd outcome.

I don't know we're playing the same game. Wizards casting healing spells is already a thing. Limited Wish, Wish, and UMD are relatively cheap and easy.

Letting them spontaneously cast cures at the cost of a class level is almost certainly a net loss compared to them take pure wizard.

Plainly absurd is a huge (and subjective) stretch.

I am not talking about realism. I am talking about the rules structure of the game. Of course wizards seem like they can cast whatever they want. However, for whatever reason, there has been a clear decision to not grant wizard/sorcerers the power to cast cure spells. So arguing that they should be able swap out wizard spell slots for any cure spell of that level is a plainly absurd outcome in the context of the rules structure of Pathfinder. Especially in light of the fact that this class feature specifically refers to the cleric and clerical spell types.


seebs wrote:

There are two definite answers we've gotten, in general:

1. Of course any ability that refers to your spellcasting applies to all of your spellcasting; for instance, sorcerer bloodline traits that modify spell damage would apply to all spell damage, not just sorcerer spell damage.
2. All the text for classes defaults to assuming you are single-classed and should not be taken as applying generally.

You might note that these answers contradict.

I think the clear intent is that this is a special feature of the clerical spellcasting abilities, and as such applies to your clerical spells only, but then, I would have thought that sorcerer bloodline powers would only modify your sorcerer abilities.

This is a stellar assessment of the current situation. Class features that reference spellcasting apply to all spells that character casts--except when they don't.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
James Risner wrote:
seebs wrote:
I think I find this interpretation persuasive: If the ability refers to "the <class>", then it probably means to apply only to class abilities. If it refers to "you", then it means your character as a whole.
Isn't that essentially what you and I have been discussing earlier? Or did I fail to communicate this point to your satisfaction? I'm not riding you, I'm legitimately trying to understand how I failed to convey this concept.

Mostly, it was your use of the term "mention".

What you said was: If it mentions the class, that means it's specific to the class.

What I have concluded is: If the subject of the sentence is described as the class, it probably means that they intended it to be restrictive.

In which case, we get back to my original conclusion: The FAQs contradict each other. If this interpretation is correct, the FAQ about bloodline arcana offers a general rule which is just plain wrong. The rule should be something like "if an ability is described as affecting choices for a member of the class, it affects only that class's abilities; if it is described as affecting you, it affects all of your abilities from any class."

But basically, you failed to convey the concept because what you actually said was something totally different from the concept I'm discussing.

Sczarni

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Starfinder Charter Superscriber
seebs wrote:
"if an ability is described as affecting choices for a member of the class, it affects only that class's abilities; if it is described as affecting you, it affects all of your abilities from any class."

I vote this gets added to the FAQ.


Zahir ibn Mahmoud ibn Jothan wrote:
James Risner wrote:
seebs wrote:
It doesn't say "mention a class", it says "says it only applies to spells from that class."

Either you need to say the Magus FAQ on Spell Combat is invalidated by the Sorcerer bloodline FAQ, or you conclude that any time it mentions a class or a class spell list the Sorcerer bloodline FAQ is not in effect.

The bloodline you quoted with Sorcerer mentioned sets a value, it doesn't reference the class doing something (like Magus using Spell Combat or Cleric using Spontaneous Cures) and it doesn't reference the Sorcerer spell list.

James, help me out here. Do you mean the general FAQ on "What spells can I cast when using spell combat?"

If so, can I offer a bit of nuance? First of all, the Magus ability does specifically state it must be a spell off the Magus spell list. That narrows it down a bit. The ambiguity was likely something along the lines of "ok Shocking Grasp is on the Magus spell list, but it is also a Wizard spell, so if I am also a Wizard, can I prepare it in a Wizard slot and use it that way?" It is this second part that I think the FAQ is really addressing. The Magus FAQ is stating that they meant it "has to be a Magus Spell prepared in a Magus slot." Yes, that does appear to conflict with the Sorcerer FAQ which leads to this business about spontaneous cures. The simple addition within the Magus writeup making it clear that Magus slots have to be used would make the two FAQs entirely consistent, but obviously that is missing.

Without the Sorcerer FAQ being out, I could see the Magus FAQ being used to rule against the spontaneous cures. But when looking at the two FAQs side by side, it seems the Sorcerer FAQ is written more definitively and in a way that it better includes a broader range of abilities and situations. In fact the Sorcerer FAQ has verbiage making it clear it is intended to apply to other examples outside of the Sorcerer one (unless specifically excluded), whereas the Magus FAQ seems a much more focused...

Exactly. The text in question:

PRD wrote:
As a full-round action, he can make all of his attacks with his melee weapon at a –2 penalty and can also cast any spell from the magus spell list with a casting time of 1 standard action (any attack roll made as part of this spell also takes this penalty).

The phrase "the magus spell list" is used explicitly refer to the set of all spells a magus can learn:

PRD wrote:
Spells: A magus casts arcane spells drawn from the magus spell list. A magus must choose and prepare his spells ahead of time.

And it's the list used to control access to spell-trigger items.

What they mean is:

... and can also cast any of his magus spells with a casting time of 1 standard action ...

Because "the magus spell list" (emphasis mine) refers to the class feature.

The FAQ makes their intent clear, it doesn't change the fact that what they wrote is not what they apparently meant.

My rationale for thinking they might have intended that meaning: It might be intended that the magus list is the list of spells suitable for casting in combat and vetted for appropriateness.

But it does follow the pattern of saying "the magus" rather than "you" for a thing that's interpreted restrictively.

Now curious, because the Arcanist writeup never says "you", and the Bloodrager one says "you" pretty awesome. Maybe intentional?


For what it's worth Seebs, I dont know that your assessment of what they intended is incorrect. It very well could be dead on.

But I also think it's very clear how the FAQ tells us things currently work, and I also having a hard time finding a legitimate problem with how it currently works. Most objections seem to boil down to 'Wizards shouldn't cast cure spells' which is a total Sacred Cow issue.

I dont think it's a problem if they spend Resources to do so.


Nefreet wrote:
seebs wrote:
"if an ability is described as affecting choices for a member of the class, it affects only that class's abilities; if it is described as affecting you, it affects all of your abilities from any class."
I vote this gets added to the FAQ.

I would like to first verify that this is actually what they intend, because honestly I'd be sort of stunned if I found out that this was actually done consistently.


KrispyXIV wrote:

For what it's worth Seebs, I dont know that your assessment of what they intended is incorrect. It very well could be dead on.

But I also think it's very clear how the FAQ tells us things currently work, and I also having a hard time finding a legitimate problem with how it currently works. Most objections seem to boil down to 'Wizards shouldn't cast cure spells' which is a total Sacred Cow issue.

I dont think it's a problem if they spend Resources to do so.

I am pretty sure that the arcana FAQ is wrong about the interpretation rule, because it produces a lot of surprising results that are clearly unintentional.

I am not sure about the balance issues. A single-level dip giving you the ability to cast level 5 or higher spells from that class's list on the fly is actually pretty amazing, and is a credible choice for a high-level wizard to get some serious off-spec functionality.

Sczarni

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Starfinder Charter Superscriber

For the people advocating that Clerics can swap out Wizard spells for Cure spells, consider this quote:

"A Magus must choose and prepare his spells ahead of time".

If you claim that the phrase "The Cleric" is irrelevant, and what it really means is "The Character", then wouldn't a multi-classed Magus/Sorcerer have to "choose and prepare" ALL of "his" spells "ahead of time"?

In effect, a Magus/Sorcerer would lose the ability to spontaneously cast spells.


seebs wrote:
KrispyXIV wrote:

For what it's worth Seebs, I dont know that your assessment of what they intended is incorrect. It very well could be dead on.

But I also think it's very clear how the FAQ tells us things currently work, and I also having a hard time finding a legitimate problem with how it currently works. Most objections seem to boil down to 'Wizards shouldn't cast cure spells' which is a total Sacred Cow issue.

I dont think it's a problem if they spend Resources to do so.

I am pretty sure that the arcana FAQ is wrong about the interpretation rule, because it produces a lot of surprising results that are clearly unintentional.

I am not sure about the balance issues. A single-level dip giving you the ability to cast level 5 or higher spells from that class's list on the fly is actually pretty amazing, and is a credible choice for a high-level wizard to get some serious off-spec functionality.

Eh, most of the wizards that care about this sort of off spec functionality were probably taking UMD anyway. Past the first few levels in my last campaign, the cleric did no more or less healing than any other character in the party (and none of them were divine) .

Silver Crusade RPG Superstar 2014 Top 16

Since no one else has mentioned it, I would like to point out that the 19/1 example given above has only been discussed with respect to Cure spells. It should also work for a N or E Wizard to be able to spontaneously Inflict.

I would posit, however, that Wizards have far better damage spells available to them to inflict damage than any of the Cleric's inflict spells.

Luckily though, the Magus FAQ clearly would keep a Magus 19/Cleric 1 from spontaneously inflicting. Actually, I guess the casting time of a spontaneous inflict would also have made that unviable.


Nefreet wrote:

For the people advocating that Clerics can swap out Wizard spells for Cure spells, consider this quote:

"A Magus must choose and prepare his spells ahead of time".

If you claim that the phrase "The Cleric" is irrelevant, and what it really means is "The Character", then wouldn't a multi-classed Magus/Sorcerer have to "choose and prepare" ALL of "his" spells "ahead of time"?

In effect, a Magus/Sorcerer would lose the ability to spontaneously cast spells.

This is not an ability that modifies Spellcasting, like Bloodline Arcana or Spontaneous Casting. It is Spellcasting. Not comparable.

Silver Crusade RPG Superstar 2014 Top 16

I'm gonna weigh in quick and just say that I have to agree with those suggesting that you CAN sacrifice prepared Wizard (or Arcanist or Witch or Druid, for that matter) spells to spontaneously cast cure spells... thanks to the FAQ, it definitely works by RAW. Now, I would not allow it in a home game, but if someone comes to a PFS table with a Cleric 1/Wizard 7 and wants to sacrifice a 3rd-level Wizard spell to cast cure serious wounds, I think I'm obligated to allow it.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
cartmanbeck wrote:
I'm gonna weigh in quick and just say that I have to agree with those suggesting that you CAN sacrifice prepared Wizard (or Arcanist or Witch or Druid, for that matter) spells to spontaneously cast cure spells... thanks to the FAQ, it definitely works by RAW. Now, I would not allow it in a home game, but if someone comes to a PFS table with a Cleric 1/Wizard 7 and wants to sacrifice a 3rd-level Wizard spell to cast cure serious wounds, I think I'm obligated to allow it.

Even though cure serious wounds is not available to a Cleric 1/Wizard 7?

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Companion Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
Zahir ibn Mahmoud ibn Jothan wrote:
Actually, I guess the casting time of a spontaneous inflict would also have made that unviable.

1 standard action? It work as if "that spell had been prepared all along", so it maintain its normal casting time.

BTW, this:

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.

is under Divine Spells in the Magic chapter too, not only under the cleric class abilities.

Make what you wish of that.

Liberty's Edge

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Companion Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
KrispyXIV wrote:
Nefreet wrote:

For the people advocating that Clerics can swap out Wizard spells for Cure spells, consider this quote:

"A Magus must choose and prepare his spells ahead of time".

If you claim that the phrase "The Cleric" is irrelevant, and what it really means is "The Character", then wouldn't a multi-classed Magus/Sorcerer have to "choose and prepare" ALL of "his" spells "ahead of time"?

In effect, a Magus/Sorcerer would lose the ability to spontaneously cast spells.

This is not an ability that modifies Spellcasting, like Bloodline Arcana or Spontaneous Casting. It is Spellcasting. Not comparable.

Spontaneously casting cure or inflict spells is Spellcasting, not an ability that modifies Spellcasting.

:-P


Diego Rossi wrote:


BTW, this:
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.

is under Divine Spells in the Magic chapter, not only under teh cleric class abilities.

Make what you wish of that.

Hmm, interesting. Let's zoom in on that.

PRD wrote:


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.

Wizard spells have no divine energy in them to convert.

I wouldn't count that as a strong argument against the wizard converting spells, as written it seems to simply be a word choice. But isn't that what all rules are, simply word choices? Sometimes chosen poorly (like the sorcerer bloodline FAQ imo).


Diego Rossi wrote:
KrispyXIV wrote:
Nefreet wrote:

For the people advocating that Clerics can swap out Wizard spells for Cure spells, consider this quote:

"A Magus must choose and prepare his spells ahead of time".

If you claim that the phrase "The Cleric" is irrelevant, and what it really means is "The Character", then wouldn't a multi-classed Magus/Sorcerer have to "choose and prepare" ALL of "his" spells "ahead of time"?

In effect, a Magus/Sorcerer would lose the ability to spontaneously cast spells.

This is not an ability that modifies Spellcasting, like Bloodline Arcana or Spontaneous Casting. It is Spellcasting. Not comparable.

Spontaneously casting cure or inflict spells is Spellcasting, not an ability that modifies Spellcasting.

:-P

You are incorrect. Please check the Cleric Class entry on the PRD and you will see Spontaneous Casting listed as a seperate Class Ability from Spells*.

*aka Spellcasting. It turns out 'Spells' is the name of the class feature.


KrispyXIV wrote:
Create Mr. Pitt wrote:
Particularly when, within the context of the game, you are arguing for a plainly absurd outcome.

I don't know we're playing the same game. Wizards casting healing spells is already a thing. Limited Wish, Wish, and UMD are relatively cheap and easy.

Letting them spontaneously cast cures at the cost of a class level is almost certainly a net loss compared to them take pure wizard.

Plainly absurd is a huge (and subjective) stretch.

UMD is available to non-spellcasters so is irrelevant in this argument. Limited Wish duplicates a spell, it doesn't mean the wizard is actually able to cast healing spells. (otherwise we open a new can of worms in the process of qualifying for Mystic Theurge.....)

Plus 25,000 gp is not "relatively cheap".

On a related tangent, how does a wizard's arcane spell become divine when it is cast as a cure using the clerical spontaneous casting? Or is that little obstacle also conveniently ignored? After all, the ability description doesn't specifically state the spell type (arcane/divine) is changed so the spell might be "converted" but if it doesn't end up divine it can't be a cure spell.

Silver Crusade RPG Superstar 2014 Top 16

Wrong John Silver wrote:
cartmanbeck wrote:
I'm gonna weigh in quick and just say that I have to agree with those suggesting that you CAN sacrifice prepared Wizard (or Arcanist or Witch or Druid, for that matter) spells to spontaneously cast cure spells... thanks to the FAQ, it definitely works by RAW. Now, I would not allow it in a home game, but if someone comes to a PFS table with a Cleric 1/Wizard 7 and wants to sacrifice a 3rd-level Wizard spell to cast cure serious wounds, I think I'm obligated to allow it.
Even though cure serious wounds is not available to a Cleric 1/Wizard 7?

Yep, even though I totally agree that it shouldn't work that way, I think this text pretty much guarantees that it does by RAW:

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

The FAQ says that a class feature that modifies spellcasting modifies it for all your spells, regardless of class, unless it specifically says otherwise. This is a class feature that modifies prepared spellcasting, and it does NOT specify that it's only for Cleric spells, or even for Divine spells.

Given that also it defines explicitly what a cure spell is (any spell with "cure" in its name) this means that the level 1 Cleric has access to these spells inherently, and is only waiting to have a spell slot of a high enough level to cast them, so even though a Wizard would normally have no way to learn how to cast the spells, they can do so once they get Wizard slots of high enough level. Just by having that one Cleric level, they know how to heal, and as they become a more powerful character, they can heal better, period.

The ONLY thing I can see that might argue otherwise is this line from the Divine Spells section that Diego was kind enough to post:

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.

Now, there's no divine energy in arcane prepared spells, true enough. Unless you want to argue that gods of magic (like Nethys) actually give all spellcasters the ability to cast arcane spells, but that's a topic for another day. However, I think it can be very reasonably argued that the part I just bolded is really nothing but fluff text, and doesn't impact the rules in any way.

TL;DR: Should it work that way? Nope. But does it as written? Yep, I believe so.


Gallo wrote:
KrispyXIV wrote:
Create Mr. Pitt wrote:
Particularly when, within the context of the game, you are arguing for a plainly absurd outcome.

I don't know we're playing the same game. Wizards casting healing spells is already a thing. Limited Wish, Wish, and UMD are relatively cheap and easy.

Letting them spontaneously cast cures at the cost of a class level is almost certainly a net loss compared to them take pure wizard.

Plainly absurd is a huge (and subjective) stretch.

UMD is available to non-spellcasters so is irrelevant in this argument. Limited Wish duplicates a spell, it doesn't mean the wizard is actually able to cast healing spells. (otherwise we open a new can of worms in the process of qualifying for Mystic Theurge.....)

Plus 25,000 gp is not "relatively cheap".

On a related tangent, how does a wizard's arcane spell become divine when it is cast as a cure using the clerical spontaneous casting? Or is that little obstacle also conveniently ignored? After all, the ability description doesn't specifically state the spell type (arcane/divine) is changed so the spell might be "converted" but if it doesn't end up divine it can't be a cure spell.

UMD is totally relevant. It's availability to other classes, however, is not. My point was that Wizards having access to Cures is not a new thing, and the fact that everyone has access to them does not undermine my point.

25000 is a pittance at level 20. 1500 for limited wish is a pittance at level 13.

A wizard converts his spells to divine spells the same way a cleric does:by changing them from one thing to another. Maybe wizards are just in denial and all Magic is divine? That's a setting issue, not a rules one.

Silver Crusade RPG Superstar 2014 Top 16

Gallo wrote:
(otherwise we open a new can of worms in the process of qualifying for Mystic Theurge.....)

An interesting point. So, a Cleric 1/Wizard 3, can then spontaneously cast 2nd level Cure spells. Presumably they are Divine ones, since it's still a Cleric ability casting them using the Arcane slots (my head hurts)!! And if you don't like this argument because there are some Arcane Cure spells (Bards do it), then go the Inflict route, which doesn't have an Arcane equivalent.

So without needing to make special racial choices, the Theurge becomes a bit more open to play from an earlier level. Depending on how one reads the FAQs.

The Exchange

4 people marked this as a favorite.

It's pretty clear that the intent was for cleric spells and only cleric spells to be convertible. The omission of a single redundant clarifying adjective (a second 'cleric' before the word 'spell') seems like pretty weak ground to base an entire position on, when it implies that they somehow forgot to add an entire clause ('of any class') that would have specifically enabled that ability.

Here's how the problematic sentence would read in a universe where the CRB ran to 8000 pages and could be used to block tank shells (or frighten potential players into embracing illiteracy as a lifestyle choice):

"The party of the first part (hereafter referred to as 'cleric') shall have limited authorization to re-employ 'spells' (see Chap LXXI, 'Definition Of The Word Spell') granted to him or her by right of his or her acquisition of a level of the Cleric class and implied or specifically stated already to have been prepared (see Chap CIX, 'Preparing a 'Spell'') by that particular cleric for that day from the Cleric list and using a Cleric spell slot in a Clerical manner that is entirely Clerical, in order to instead receive and/or provide the benefits of a healing (see Chap LXII, 'Recovering Hit Points') spell of exactly that level and no other level which shall also be specifically from the Cleric list and follow all rules pertaining thereunto. In no way, shape or form shall this specific exemption (hereafter referred to as 'spontaneous healing') be construed to grant the cleric the right, privilege, capacity or option to employ spells (again, see Chap LXXI) prepared from the spell list of any other class or granted by any form of access to an array of spontaneous spells and/or spell-like abilities and/or other form of magical or pseudo-magical access in order to acquire or provide the benefits of spontaneous healing. Only a member of the Cleric class employing the Cleric form of Clerical spellcasting to cast Cleric spells from the Cleric list shall have any access to this special benefit, which is specific and proprietary to this class and no other [except where easement or exemption is specifically permitted as detailed in Chapter LIXVIII, 'Prestige Classes, Magical'].


Zahir ibn Mahmoud ibn Jothan wrote:
Gallo wrote:
(otherwise we open a new can of worms in the process of qualifying for Mystic Theurge.....)

An interesting point. So, a Cleric 1/Wizard 3, can then spontaneously cast 2nd level Cure spells. Presumably they are Divine ones, since it's still a Cleric ability casting them using the Arcane slots (my head hurts)!! And if you don't like this argument because there are some Arcane Cure spells (Bards do it), then go the Inflict route, which doesn't have an Arcane equivalent.

So without needing to make special racial choices, the Theurge becomes a bit more open to play from an earlier level. Depending on how one reads the FAQs.

Ok, this does kindof make me want an FAQ answer.

Not that this is a new can of worms really ; its just a new wrapper on the same one that was opened for mystic theurge with SLA's. Level 4 MT is already a thing and I don't think anyone has found it broken.


Zahir ibn Mahmoud ibn Jothan wrote:
Gallo wrote:
(otherwise we open a new can of worms in the process of qualifying for Mystic Theurge.....)

An interesting point. So, a Cleric 1/Wizard 3, can then spontaneously cast 2nd level Cure spells. Presumably they are Divine ones, since it's still a Cleric ability casting them using the Arcane slots (my head hurts)!! And if you don't like this argument because there are some Arcane Cure spells (Bards do it), then go the Inflict route, which doesn't have an Arcane equivalent.

So without needing to make special racial choices, the Theurge becomes a bit more open to play from an earlier level. Depending on how one reads the FAQs.

Nice pick up. I wasn't thinking along those lines - though it is equally valid. A Wiz 3/Cle 1 would qualify without resorting to any of that SLA shenanigans.

My thoughts were that a Wiz13 could count as casting level 2 divine spells by using Limited Wish. So by dipping Cle 1 at level 14, the character could go MT at 15 and therefor by level 20 have six levels worth of cleric spells.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
KrispyXIV wrote:


A wizard converts his spells to divine spells the same way a cleric does:by changing them from one thing to another. Maybe wizards are just in denial and all Magic is divine? That's a setting issue, not a rules one.

??

A wizards spells are arcane. They are fueled by arcane power. He has NO divine spells to convert (from his wizard spell slots). They are NOT converted to divine spells with the spontaneous casting, they are still arcane spells coming from arcane spell slots.

A divine spells energy is converted to positive/negative energy for cure/inflict.

You can't ignore text simply because it is inconvenient to your argument.

The sorcerer FAQ is problematic, and the only reason why there is a question on this topic to begin with. But given it flies in the face of the Magus FAQ, the Fighter FAQ, and non-official comments by SKR specifically talking about examples of magus spells and cleric spontaneous casting...

At a 3-to-1 (or 2-to-1 if you don't want to take SKR's comments as having any weight) I believe the sorcerer FAQ is in error and needs to be fixed.

Silver Crusade RPG Superstar 2014 Top 16

bbangerter wrote:
I believe the sorcerer FAQ is in error and needs to be fixed.

Oh, hey, I'm all down with this, but as it is written it seems to be self proclaiming that it trumps the others.


KrispyXIV wrote:
UMD is totally relevant. It's availability to other classes, however, is not. My point was that Wizards having access to Cures is not a new thing, and the fact that everyone has access to them does not undermine my point.

UMD does not give a wizard access to cures, anymore than a fighter having UMD does.

KrispyXIV wrote:
25000 is a pittance at level 20. 1500 for limited wish is a pittance at level 13.

If you play a game where using up 3% of your wealth, even at level 20, on one spell is a pittance then you are playing a different game to me. But if you think that is a pittance, I guess in your games you can just walk into Diamonds'R'Us whenever you want and drop 25,000gp on a diamond. How many diamonds worth 25,000gp are floating around in your game world?

KrispyXIV wrote:
A wizard converts his spells to divine spells the same way a cleric does:by changing them from one thing to another. Maybe wizards are just in denial and all Magic is divine? That's a setting issue, not a rules one.

A cleric converts a divine spell into a different divine spell. That is completely different to a wizard somehow converting a spell from arcane into divine. Nowhere does it say arcane spells can turn into divine ones - that is a rules issue not a setting one. Otherwise why bother with the difference at all?


Zahir ibn Mahmoud ibn Jothan wrote:
bbangerter wrote:
I believe the sorcerer FAQ is in error and needs to be fixed.
Oh, hey, I'm all down with this, but as it is written it seems to be self proclaiming that it trumps the others.

I wish individual FAQ entries had a date time stamp on when they were done. It could be instructive in cases like this to show a possible reversal of thinking, or to show at least that whatever state the rules were in at the time would not have included thought regarding new abilities and powers. None of that would be definitive, but could allow a small gleaning into the thinking when the FAQ entry was written.


Gallo wrote:


KrispyXIV wrote:
25000 is a pittance at level 20. 1500 for limited wish is a pittance at level 13.
If you play a game where using up 3% of your wealth, even at level 20, on one spell is a pittance then you are playing a different game to me. But if you think that is a pittance, I guess in your games you can just walk into Diamonds'R'Us whenever you want and drop 25,000gp on a diamond. How many diamonds worth 25,000gp are floating around in your game world?

Sorry for not addressing your other points. I disagree, but don't have anything further to add.

As to this one however, a Wizard at level 20 is 1-2 spells away from wherever he needs to be to purchase a 25k diamond. They can literally travel as far as they need to in order to shop, and they should have the contacts and intelligence to pull it off. The plane of Earth? Even the Abyss has marketplaces where this sort of thing is below the base value of some cities.

If these places aren't in your setting, that's a different matter... They are in Golarion, which I consider a baseline.


KrispyXIV wrote:
Create Mr. Pitt wrote:
Particularly when, within the context of the game, you are arguing for a plainly absurd outcome.

I don't know we're playing the same game. Wizards casting healing spells is already a thing. Limited Wish, Wish, and UMD are relatively cheap and easy.

Letting them spontaneously cast cures at the cost of a class level is almost certainly a net loss compared to them take pure wizard.

Plainly absurd is a huge (and subjective) stretch.

Using limited wish, wish and UMD as examples of healing spells is not a valid argument. They are NOT healing spells.

from the PRD:
Duplicate any sorcerer/wizard spell of 8th level or lower, provided the spell does not belong to one of your opposition schools.
Duplicate any non-sorcerer/wizard spell of 7th level or lower, provided the spell does not belong to one of your opposition schools.
Duplicate any sorcerer/wizard spell of 7th level or lower, even if it belongs to one of your opposition schools.
Duplicate any non-sorcerer/wizard spell of 6th level or lower, even if it belongs to one of your opposition schools.
Undo the harmful effects of many other spells, such as geas/quest or insanity.
Grant a creature a +1 inherent bonus to an ability score. Two to five wish spells cast in immediate succession can grant a creature a +2 to +5 inherent bonus to an ability score (two wishes for a +2 inherent bonus, three wishes for a +3 inherent bonus, and so on). Inherent bonuses are instantaneous, so they cannot be dispelled. Note: An inherent bonus may not exceed +5 for a single ability score, and inherent bonuses to a particular ability score do not stack, so only the best one applies.

Clearly the spell is not a healing spell it is a utility spell that can be used to duplicate healing spells, as well as many other spell or spell like effects. This is not the same as a healing spell.


Diego Rossi wrote:

I want to point you all to another FAQ:

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.

I actually think that is why the other FAQ listed the General Rule at the end, instead of ending after answering the question.

So classes are written assuming you are single classed. This means they would have to answer near-endless questions about if X ability from Y class applies to Z other class.

The Sorcerer FAQ General Rule states just because they are written assuming single class, they still affect other classes.

You know, cause if it was written to say all classes, it wouldn't be a question.

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Companion Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
KrispyXIV wrote:
Gallo wrote:


KrispyXIV wrote:
25000 is a pittance at level 20. 1500 for limited wish is a pittance at level 13.
If you play a game where using up 3% of your wealth, even at level 20, on one spell is a pittance then you are playing a different game to me. But if you think that is a pittance, I guess in your games you can just walk into Diamonds'R'Us whenever you want and drop 25,000gp on a diamond. How many diamonds worth 25,000gp are floating around in your game world?

Sorry for not addressing your other points. I disagree, but don't have anything further to add.

As to this one however, a Wizard at level 20 is 1-2 spells away from wherever he needs to be to purchase a 25k diamond. They can literally travel as far as they need to in order to shop, and they should have the contacts and intelligence to pull it off. The plane of Earth? Even the Abyss has marketplaces where this sort of thing is below the base value of some cities.

If these places aren't in your setting, that's a different matter... They are in Golarion, which I consider a baseline.

You are aware that even with greater teleport you need to have a reliabe description of the destination point?


Diego: 20th. Level. Wizard.

Calling outsiders and asking for a sketch or just divining it yourself has been an option for like 11 levels at that point. And this isn't a Schroedingers wizard thing here; these are the sorts of details and connections a character picks up over its lifetime.

We're also waaaaay off topic here.


Thomas Long 175 wrote:
wraithstrike wrote:
Thomas Long 175 wrote:
That is at best suspect logic. Nowhere does it state that specifying what class you are chang rules by which the abilities you are given work.

It does not have to. Rules 101 lets me know this

In other words I have a basic ability to interpet the rules correctly. Since I am right a lot more than I am wrong you migh just want to take notes.
aaaaand, condescension. Flagged. Have a wonderful day, apparently your ability to read doesn't translate into making intelligent or convincing arguments :)

I stated a fact, and a fact I can back up. Do I need to start providing links?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
cartmanbeck wrote:
I'm gonna weigh in quick and just say that I have to agree with those suggesting that you CAN sacrifice prepared Wizard (or Arcanist or Witch or Druid, for that matter) spells to spontaneously cast cure spells... thanks to the FAQ, it definitely works by RAW. Now, I would not allow it in a home game, but if someone comes to a PFS table with a Cleric 1/Wizard 7 and wants to sacrifice a 3rd-level Wizard spell to cast cure serious wounds, I think I'm obligated to allow it.

No. You are obligated to follow RAI. There are still many cases of RAW that don't match RAI in the game, depending on how pedantic someone wants to be when reading the rules.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

RAW there is nothing saying the cleric has to convert his own spells. If we are going to use RAW he can convert his friend's spells to healing spells. He can even convert the enemy's spells to healing spells.

As shown by SKR's post this can get really silly. So how far do you want to take this?

edit: Note--> It never say he has to lose his own spells.

random poster: but that is common sense to know it only means his spells.

Me: You can't claim RAW when it suits you and ignore it otherwise.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

My thoughts - Should it work: No. Does it work by RAW: Apparently yes...?

It seems odd to me, but the FAQ reads as if a Wizard 3 / Cleric 1 could lose his 2nd level wizard spell to cast a cure moderate wounds. Would I allow a player this option in my home game? Depends on the situation and intent of the player.

Is this a reason for that particular FAQ to be reworded/reconsidered/clarified as an exception? Maybe. Both Sean and SRM posted in the link upthread that they agreed with Sean's statement ("All classes are written assuming you are a single-classed caster."). I'm more inclined to believe that the original FAQ was an attempt to give some love to blasting and not intended to be used the way this thread is suggesting it can be used. Those are just my thoughts though.


Wraithstrike, you're saying that the Sorcerer FAQ should be selectively ignored when it suits you.

It applies in this case if it applies anywhere, meaning one of three things.

Spontaneous Casting needs an FAQ for clerics to make it an exception to the Sorcerer FAQ.

The Sorcerer FAQ needs revised.

Or it applies as it is and works as written.

I respect SKR, but this is an example where the most relevant rules resource explicitly contradicts him on a reasonable reading of it.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

As a GM, I would just laugh and say, "Good try. No."


Nefreet wrote:

For the people advocating that Clerics can swap out Wizard spells for Cure spells, consider this quote:

"A Magus must choose and prepare his spells ahead of time".

If you claim that the phrase "The Cleric" is irrelevant, and what it really means is "The Character", then wouldn't a multi-classed Magus/Sorcerer have to "choose and prepare" ALL of "his" spells "ahead of time"?

In effect, a Magus/Sorcerer would lose the ability to spontaneously cast spells.

No, because that line is in the "spells" class feature not a class feature that modifies "spells."

Silver Crusade RPG Superstar 2014 Top 16

wraithstrike wrote:
cartmanbeck wrote:
I'm gonna weigh in quick and just say that I have to agree with those suggesting that you CAN sacrifice prepared Wizard (or Arcanist or Witch or Druid, for that matter) spells to spontaneously cast cure spells... thanks to the FAQ, it definitely works by RAW. Now, I would not allow it in a home game, but if someone comes to a PFS table with a Cleric 1/Wizard 7 and wants to sacrifice a 3rd-level Wizard spell to cast cure serious wounds, I think I'm obligated to allow it.

No. You are obligated to follow RAI. There are still many cases of RAW that don't match RAI in the game, depending on how pedantic someone wants to be when reading the rules.

In PFS, I am obligated to follow RAW, for the sake of reducing table variance. And your next point about converting someone else's spells is absurd and you know it. Please don't be purposefully combative.

101 to 150 of 558 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / Rules Questions / Can a Wizard 1 / Cleric 1 spontaneously cast prepared wizard spells? All Messageboards