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


Rules Questions

151 to 200 of 558 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

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.

True, but you still need the 25k (the relative triviality of which is clearly viewed differently). And while you are travelling around the universe tracking down 25k diamonds, I'll wander down to the local temple and buy a Heal scroll and then pop next door to the pub with enough change for a beer or two hundred (or, for that matter, buy the pub and most of the surrounding buildings with the change). ;-)


Gallo wrote:
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.

True, but you still need the 25k (the relative triviality of which is clearly viewed differently). And while you are travelling around the universe tracking down 25k diamonds, I'll wander down to the local temple and buy a Heal scroll and then pop next door to the pub with enough change for a beer or two hundred (or, for that matter, buy the pub and most of the surrounding buildings with the change). ;-)

Fun off topic fact: it'd be cheaper to limited wish for a Heal off the Adept spell list than to buy a scroll unless I botched the math.

...Wizards are surprisingly proficient healers at level 13.


KrispyXIV wrote:

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.

You probably skipped some post but another PDT member also agreed with him, and I explained why the sorcerer rule did not apply earlier in the post.

I did not dismiss it out of hand.

edit: I do think that it needs revising, but the intent is still pretty clear.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
cartmanbeck wrote:
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.

No, you follow the intent of the rules or do you allow dead people to take actions in your games?

edit: In case you don't know it is perfectly legal by RAW.

Some conditions specifically restrict you from taking actions. The dead condition does not.


KrispyXIV wrote:
Gallo wrote:
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.

True, but you still need the 25k (the relative triviality of which is clearly viewed differently). And while you are travelling around the universe tracking down 25k diamonds, I'll wander down to the local temple and buy a Heal scroll and then pop next door to the pub with enough change for a beer or two hundred (or, for that matter, buy the pub and most of the surrounding buildings with the change). ;-)

Fun off topic fact: it'd be cheaper to limited wish for a Heal off the Adept spell list than to buy a scroll unless I botched the math.

...Wizards are surprisingly proficient healers at level 13.

Ok, I'd buy two pubs with the change then ;)


wraithstrike wrote:
cartmanbeck wrote:
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.

No, you follow the intent of the rules or do you allow dead people to take actions in your games?

edit: In case you don't know it is perfectly legal by RAW.

Some conditions specifically restrict you from taking actions. The dead condition does not.

Only if you die from a death effect. If you take HP damage then you will also have the unconscious and dying conditions. The dead condition doesn't remove those conditions.


BigDTBone wrote:
wraithstrike wrote:
cartmanbeck wrote:
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.

No, you follow the intent of the rules or do you allow dead people to take actions in your games?

edit: In case you don't know it is perfectly legal by RAW.

Some conditions specifically restrict you from taking actions. The dead condition does not.

Only if you die from a death effect. If you take HP damage then you will also have the unconscious and dying conditions. The dead condition doesn't remove those conditions.

I understand that, just like gaining the "dying" condition means you are out of luck by RAW, but the my point still stands that the "dead" condition itself does not prevent actions, but per RAI we know the intent.

And I am sure he would not allow it in a PFS game if someone went directly to "dead".

The Exchange

I keep seeing "The dead condition doesn't keep you from acting" brought up as an excuse for 'rules-as-written cannot stand alone without the GM being allowed to exercise judgement', and although I happen to agree in this case that the GM should be using "obvious intent" to rule on an unclear phrase, I'd really appreciate it if my fellow Supporters of Obvious Intent would stop riding a dead horse around the pasture!


Lincoln Hills wrote:
I keep seeing "The dead condition doesn't keep you from acting" brought up as an excuse for 'rules-as-written cannot stand alone without the GM being allowed to exercise judgement', and although I happen to agree in this case that the GM should be using "obvious intent" to rule on an unclear phrase, I'd really appreciate it if my fellow Supporters of Obvious Intent would stop riding a dead horse around the pasture!

The poster in question said he would not allow it in a home game, most likely because he thinks the wizard slot should not be used, but he would allow it because it is RAW. If he is going to ignore RAI should he not be consistent?

The Exchange

If he's both a home and PFS GM, he's virtually obligated to follow different criteria at different times. I don't like it any more than you do. Certainly in this case I think he can still make an argument that the rules-as-written are not permitting this tactic, merely worded too vaguely to explicitly forbid it, so he'd still be on solid ground.

(And I didn't mean for you to take the 'fully functional dead horse' comment too personally, wraithstrike; it's just my way of celebrating the 1000th time I've seen it come up.)


wraithstrike wrote:
Lincoln Hills wrote:
I keep seeing "The dead condition doesn't keep you from acting" brought up as an excuse for 'rules-as-written cannot stand alone without the GM being allowed to exercise judgement', and although I happen to agree in this case that the GM should be using "obvious intent" to rule on an unclear phrase, I'd really appreciate it if my fellow Supporters of Obvious Intent would stop riding a dead horse around the pasture!
The poster in question said he would not allow it in a home game, most likely because he thinks the wizard slot should not be used, but he would allow it because it is RAW. If he is going to ignore RAI should he not be consistent?

Its a trap comparison, very close to a false dichotomy in nature. One is several more degrees unreasonable than the other.

One is a clear refusal to acknowledge intent (dead) where it's obvious.

The other is a perfectly reasonable reading based on an FAQ where the intent is subjectively questionable, and the results are subjective in whether or not they are reasonable.

Silver Crusade RPG Superstar 2014 Top 16

wraithstrike wrote:
You probably skipped some post but another PDT member also agreed with him, and I explained why the sorcerer rule did not apply earlier in the post.

I just tried looking upthread and couldn't find where a Dev had chimed in on this, can you point me in the right direction?


A dev didn't weigh in on this thread, rather I linked earlier comments by SKR that are very relevant to this issue.

bbangerter wrote:

No, you can only convert your cleric spells into spontaneous healing spells.

SKR

Silver Crusade RPG Superstar 2014 Top 16

Ahh, that thread from last year. I'm not sure when the Sorcerer FAQ came out, but I believe it is after that thread was closed.

Does anyone know the date of the Sorcerer FAQ?


KrispyXIV wrote:

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.

This might be true if you didn't keep ignoring all the clear linguistic and structural evidence that this only applies to clerics. Stop pretending the RAW are as clear as can be. There is obvious dispute on both sides of this, thus we should look to the structure of the game, a game where wizard/sorcerers have no access to cure spells, let alone can trade their arcane spells for divine spells.

The Exchange Owner - D20 Hobbies

Zahir ibn Mahmoud ibn Jothan wrote:
Does anyone know the date of the Sorcerer FAQ?

Forever.

Here is a link to a 2010 article talking about it


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

Ok, this has gotten fairly off-track, but I'm going to weigh in in support of "I don't see how this is different from sorcerer bloodline arcana." So I would allow a cleric to spontaneously convert their spells into the same or lower level cure spells.

Where I'm going to draw a distinction is that I'd allow you to switch to wizard spells from wizard spells. So a witch could do it if they have the appropriate spells known. A druid could convert (although not as efficiently).

The sharing of spell lists and slots is a pretty significant theurge ability, so I feel comfortable being a stickler there.

All that said, it's hard to argue with the PDT. :-)

Digital Products Assistant

Okay, guys, I haven't gone back to remove posts because this has already begun to spiral. If we can't get back on topic and discussing the original question, rather than dredging up old drama and sniping, this will be locked. Also, please, flag and move on.


I think the issue here is that the sorcerer FAQ makes a general claim that, apparently, is not actually true.


seebs wrote:
I think the issue here is that the sorcerer FAQ makes a general claim that, apparently, is not actually true.

It even has 'general rule' right there in the FAQ entry. If it somehow does not apply to this, what does it apply to?


If the FAQ is designed for official rulings on how the game works, it being stated in the FAQ makes it true, doesn't it?

The Exchange

Though there are parallels between the rulings, the impact still seems significant enough that a specific ruling would be required. Slight modifications to a wizard's spellcasting ability are quite different from the ability to transform his spells into healing on the basis of a one-level class dip. I still think it takes a lot more stretching of the rules-as-written to allow this than it does to assume that brevity and clarity were the reasons the problem sentence said "spells," not "cleric spells".


KrispyXIV wrote:
wraithstrike wrote:
Lincoln Hills wrote:
I keep seeing "The dead condition doesn't keep you from acting" brought up as an excuse for 'rules-as-written cannot stand alone without the GM being allowed to exercise judgement', and although I happen to agree in this case that the GM should be using "obvious intent" to rule on an unclear phrase, I'd really appreciate it if my fellow Supporters of Obvious Intent would stop riding a dead horse around the pasture!
The poster in question said he would not allow it in a home game, most likely because he thinks the wizard slot should not be used, but he would allow it because it is RAW. If he is going to ignore RAI should he not be consistent?

Its a trap comparison, very close to a false dichotomy in nature. One is several more degrees unreasonable than the other.

One is a clear refusal to acknowledge intent (dead) where it's obvious.

The other is a perfectly reasonable reading based on an FAQ where the intent is subjectively questionable, and the results are subjective in whether or not they are reasonable.

There is no trap. I am going to present more options later on. I am jusy starting withthe most ridiculous notion to get things started.


Lincoln Hills wrote:
I keep seeing "The dead condition doesn't keep you from acting" brought up as an excuse for 'rules-as-written cannot stand alone without the GM being allowed to exercise judgement', and although I happen to agree in this case that the GM should be using "obvious intent" to rule on an unclear phrase, I'd really appreciate it if my fellow Supporters of Obvious Intent would stop riding a dead horse around the pasture!

Why not? It can take actions, can't it?

Liberty's Edge

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

True, but you still need the 25k (the relative triviality of which is clearly viewed differently). And while you are travelling around the universe tracking down 25k diamonds, I'll wander down to the local temple and buy a Heal scroll and then pop next door to the pub with enough change for a beer or two hundred (or, for that matter, buy the pub and most of the surrounding buildings with the change). ;-)

Fun off topic fact: it'd be cheaper to limited wish for a Heal off the Adept spell list than to buy a scroll unless I botched the math.

...Wizards are surprisingly proficient healers at level 13.

Really? How do you go around duplicating a caster level of 16 (minimum level for casting heal if you are an adept) when your caster level is lower?

"I duplicate an Adept heal with my limited wish."
"Very well, you spend 1.500 gp, and duplicate the heal spell as a level 13 adept. Oops, a level 13 adept can't cast heal. Sorry, your spell fizzle."


To the OP: No. How to do it : go mystic theurge and combine spell then spontaneous cast it.


The wording isn't really different.

Spontaneous Casting says, ''the cleric can...''

Bloodline, which is where Bloodline Ariana comes from, says, ''Each [b]sorcerer/[b] has a source of magic somewhere in her heritage that grants her spells, bonus feats, an additional class skills, and other special abilities......A sorcerer must pick one bloodline upon taking her first level of sorcerer.''

Bloodline refers to sorcerer ten times more than Spontaneous Casting refers to cleric.

So if the part of Bloodline that modifies casting applies to spells from all classes, even when it refers to it as something a sorcerer gets, the fact Spontaneous Casting refers to cleric's being able to do it wouldn't prevent it from applying to non-cleric spells either.


Arlow wrote:
To the OP: No. How to do it : go mystic theurge and combine spell then spontaneous cast it.

It hasn't come up yet, last session I played my Barbarian. However I plan on playing my Theurge this Sunday and I'll let you know. I'm pretty laid back and won't really mind either way, I just think it is a cool interaction for a weak combo. I plan to before the game offer the GM a link to the PRD where it describes Spontaneous Channeling, and a link to the FAQ previously mentioned, explain how I think it should work, and let him decide. Really the only thing this allows me to do is help out my party in PFS with a little healing that I might not otherwise have.

I had made this thread in the hopes of something official to point to, either an actual FAQ ruling on this specific issue ( I deemed this unlikely due to a general FAQ ruling already covering the issue. This is my opinion and I know others disagree), Or a post by someone in PFS leadership that if I am correct in my understanding can be used as rule for PFS


1 person marked this as a favorite.

There is also the issue of what is meant by "modifying " a spell. I see the cleric as trading(losing) a cleric spell for a cure spell not changing it into cure spell much like the "divine interference " feat allows you to trade a divine spell for a particular effect. Since the spell is merely sacrificed for another effect in both cases.no it could be said.that no.modification occurs.


We do know we've been repeating the same arguments basically for 4 pages?

Can we get the dead horse in here? I think he needs a say in this.

And to anyone who thinks I'm joking. Yes the paizo forums do in fact have a dead horse that randomly peruses overdone threads.


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


Really? How do you go around duplicating a caster level of 16 (minimum level for casting heal if you are an adept) when your caster level is lower?
"I duplicate an Adept heal with my limited wish."
"Very well, you spend 1.500 gp, and...

Diego, perhaps you should read the rules before responding like this. Limited wish does not care about caster level. Heal is a 5th level Adept spell, and therefore Limited wish can duplicate it if it's not in one of your opposition schools.

Or are you going to say spells don't do what they say they do either?


Ummm well it was asked in another thread but what if someone multiclassed as a scarred witch doctor with a wizard or magus. Would it make the spells u gain and cast from the wizard or magus rely on con instead of int? Basically same wording


Redneckdevil wrote:
Ummm well it was asked in another thread but what if someone multiclassed as a scarred witch doctor with a wizard or magus. Would it make the spells u gain and cast from the wizard or magus rely on con instead of int? Basically same wording

Yes, it would.


If you mean how many spells you get from wizard or magus, no. See the bolded portion. If you mean the DCs for those spells, yes. If you mean the highest spell level she can cast, yes.

Scarred Witch Doctor wrote:
A scarred witch doctor uses Constitution instead of Intelligence when determining the highest level of spells she can cast, her spell save DCs, number of spells known at 1st level, and any effects of her hexes normally determined by her Intelligence.


Huh.

So does the scarred witch doctor still use intelligence to determine bonus spells?

And while I'm being pedantic: If you had a (hypothetical) hex which allowed you to make a skill check based on an int-based skill, would you use con instead for the skill check?


From what I've seen, yes. I recall first seeing that argument from Matthew ap Niall, if that helps.

As for the second question... The question is whether the effect is simply that you make a check, stat modifier not included, or the modifier is part of the effect. I'm not entirely certain, but I err towards the latter.

Edit: Messed up the first answer due to misreading the question.

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Companion Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
KrispyXIV wrote:
Diego Rossi wrote:


Really? How do you go around duplicating a caster level of 16 (minimum level for casting heal if you are an adept) when your caster level is lower?
"I duplicate an Adept heal with my limited wish."
"Very well, you spend 1.500 gp, and...

Diego, perhaps you should read the rules before responding like this. Limited wish does not care about caster level. Heal is a 5th level Adept spell, and therefore Limited wish can duplicate it if it's not in one of your opposition schools.

Or are you going to say spells don't do what they say they do either?

Maybe you should read the limited wish text:

PRD wrote:


Duplicate any sorcerer/wizard spell of 5th level or lower, even if it belongs to one of your opposition schools.

A Adept heal with a CL of 13 exist? No, the minimum caster level is 16.

So what are you duplicating?

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Companion Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber

It is interesting how the pro guys avoid to comment on 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.

Wizard spells aren't divine, they are arcane, the ability say explicitly that you use divine energy.

So, where is the wizard taking the divine energy? At most it could work for a divine caster (druid, inquisitor, ecc.).


Who said anything about caster levels?

"Duplicate any non-sorcerer/wizard spell of 5th level or lower, provided the spell does not belong to one of your opposition schools."

It doesn't say "provided your caster level is high enough for a member of that class to cast that spell."

You're making up additional restrictions not specified by the text.


Diego Rossi wrote:

It is interesting how the pro guys avoid to comment on 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.

Wizard spells aren't divine, they are arcane, the ability say explicitly that you use divine energy.

So, where is the wizard taking the divine energy? At most it could work for a divine caster (druid, inquisitor, ecc.).

This is an interesting post Diego, I'm glad you brought it up. I wasn't ignoring it, I simply didn't see it. The problem here is I, and most other people here are quoting and linking to the actual Cleric description of it's ability, while the link you just provided comes from the section of magic in the CRB.


Jayder22 wrote:

This is an interesting post Diego, I'm glad you brought it up. I wasn't ignoring it, I simply didn't see it. The problem here is I, and most other people here are quoting and linking to the actual Cleric description of it's ability, while the link you just provided comes from the section of magic in the CRB.

So the section in the magic chapter isn't relevant when it's talking about the same ability? One piece of the same rulebook does not supersede the other. This isn't like a case of specific taking precedence over a general rule, they are both talking about the exact same rule.


Redneckdevil wrote:
Ummm well it was asked in another thread but what if someone multiclassed as a scarred witch doctor with a wizard or magus. Would it make the spells u gain and cast from the wizard or magus rely on con instead of int? Basically same wording

I am not going to check the wording but this is a perfect example of why we need to read the rules in context because this is not the intent. Imagine of someone took the scarred witch doctor, but also took the sorcerer archetype that allows you to use intelligence for their spells...


Diego Rossi wrote:

It is interesting how the pro guys avoid to comment on 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.

Wizard spells aren't divine, they are arcane, the ability say explicitly that you use divine energy.

So, where is the wizard taking the divine energy? At most it could work for a divine caster (druid, inquisitor, ecc.).

I have had to call posters out for ignoring points I have made in other debates. Sometimes it was an honest mistake, but sometimes they were just dodging the post.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
bbangerter wrote:
Jayder22 wrote:

This is an interesting post Diego, I'm glad you brought it up. I wasn't ignoring it, I simply didn't see it. The problem here is I, and most other people here are quoting and linking to the actual Cleric description of it's ability, while the link you just provided comes from the section of magic in the CRB.

So the section in the magic chapter isn't relevant when it's talking about the same ability? One piece of the same rulebook does not supersede the other. This isn't like a case of specific taking precedence over a general rule, they are both talking about the exact same rule.

There is also this--> "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."

Like I said before the spell is not even being modified. You are trading the spell out to do something else. <---Same idea is divine interference. That sorc FAQ says nothing about trading spells, only about modifying them.

Silver Crusade

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I can imagine the devs crowded around one of their member's desk and laughing their holes off at the way some of this is interpreted.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Yeah, but before they made the official ruling that bloodline arcana affected other class spellcasting abilities, people probably felt the same way about that idea. It's ridiculous. Until it's in the FAQ.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
shallowsoul wrote:
I can imagine the devs crowded around one of their member's desk and laughing their holes off at the way some of this is interpreted.

I reckon they have a whiteboard in the corner where they keep score of how many times the same issues come up (flurry, weapon damage size increases, etc) and another one for "I can't believe anyone even asked this question".

I suspect it is next to the list of "FAQ requests we refuse to even consider on the grounds of simple common sense". When the list gets too long they then let SKR loose with one of his brilliant and refreshingly direct posts ;-)

Sczarni

1 person marked this as a favorite.
seebs wrote:
Yeah, but before they made the official ruling that bloodline arcana affected other class spellcasting abilities, people probably felt the same way about that idea. It's ridiculous. Until it's in the FAQ.

There's a large difference between an ability that says "it does this to all spells of this type" and "this class may do this as part of it's class, this class can spontaneously lose it's prepared spells..."

one refers to spells in a general sense, the other in a specific sense of it's own class (and thus it's spells)

Quote:
A good cleric (or a neutral cleric of a good deity) can channel stored spell energy into healing spells that she did not prepare ahead of time.
Quote:
Abberant Arcana: Whenever you cast a spell of the polymorph subschool, increase the duration of the spell by 50% (minimum 1 round). This bonus does not stack with the increase granted by the Extend Spell feat.

The difference is large, one is refering to the classes spells and the other is just referring to any polymorph subschool spell.


Berinor wrote:

Ok, this has gotten fairly off-track, but I'm going to weigh in in support of "I don't see how this is different from sorcerer bloodline arcana." So I would allow a cleric to spontaneously convert their spells into the same or lower level cure spells.

Where I'm going to draw a distinction is that I'd allow you to switch to wizard spells from wizard spells. So a witch could do it if they have the appropriate spells known. A druid could convert (although not as efficiently).

The sharing of spell lists and slots is a pretty significant theurge ability, so I feel comfortable being a stickler there.

All that said, it's hard to argue with the PDT. :-)

I don't tend to wade into rules debates much, but this is pretty much my understanding of the ability (as it stands now, in RAW) upon reading it and the FAQ.

Yes, it allows you to lose spells of any class to convert them to "Cure" spells of the same level or lower.

But nowhere does it state it allows you to convert spell slots of a class to spell slots of another. (I can't find the general rules text on this right now, but if my understanding of a general inability to convert spell slots of one class into a spell slot of another class is wrong I'd like someone to point that out to me, no snark intended)

Seeing as there are no "Cure" spells on the wizard's list, they can lose their spells... But they have no appropriate spells to convert them to, so the ability is rather useless.

Witches, Bards, and any other class that also has "Cure" spells on their list... That would work. Going by each class' specific progression, and using each classes' own spell slots.

All of this is my interpretation of the language as it's written, anyway.

151 to 200 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