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


Rules Questions

201 to 250 of 558 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

1 person marked this as a favorite.

To me, the justification for the special case with the sorcerer bloodlines, is that it is an innate trait in your body, that gives you an affinity with that particular energy type. Therefore, any time you are manipulating that energy type, it is done so with a higher level of potency. I don't, however, see how your years of arcane training (wizard level) are going to encourage your god to let your heal someone more than if you were untrained in the arcane arts.

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Companion Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
seebs wrote:

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.

You duplicate something that exist and you cast the spell at your caster level. Heal on the Adept list is a 5th level spell but it require a CL of 16.

You claim that you can use limited wish to duplicate something that don't exist without exceeding the spell parameters?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Diego Rossi wrote:
seebs wrote:

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.

You duplicate something that exist and you cast the spell at your caster level. Heal on the Adept list is a 5th level spell but it require a CL of 16.

You claim that you can use limited wish to duplicate something that don't exist without exceeding the spell parameters?

Were saying that you're inventing restrictions that don't exist in the rules because you want things to work a certain way.

In the quoted case, it's a simple matter of reading the spell: the only restriction is on class (non sorcerer/wizard) and spell level (5, per adept).

You don't want it to work, so you've added some stuff about CL which does not exist.


I always assumed they intended for you to use the core PC casting classes for limited wish, but I agree that RAW does not support that.

I do have to agree that matching the CL level is not mentioned anywhere in limited wish, but as a general rule you would to. RAW it does not specifically allow you to break all of the casting rules, but RAW it also says you can cast the spell.

This might be a good FAQ question. I could see this one going either way.


Mexcalibur wrote:


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)

The rules dont say it because it is assumed to be understood. The devs have stated however that each spell list is tracked separately as if each class was a different character. The cleric ability to convert spells gives no rule exception like the mystic theurge does.

SKR wrote:
Then you can have multiclassed cleric/sorcerers or sorcerer/wizards, which have two sets of spells and two sets of SLAs.

Both of these are arcane and you are still expected to track them separately.

The Exchange Owner - D20 Hobbies

KrispyXIV wrote:

Diego, perhaps you should read the rules

Heal is a 5th level Adept spell, and therefore Limited wish can duplicate

What is it about the corner case threads that spawn all the corner case awkward RAW interpretations.

Make a new thread on whether or not Limited Wish can or can not get you adept 5th level spells at 13th level, my vote is it can't for the same reason Diego mentioned.

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.

It has been post in the thread previously and was summarily rejected.

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.

They don't laugh about it, they have on several occasions said they wish we wouldn't use these awkward interpretations. I don't think they find it funny as much as depressing.

Silver Crusade

James Risner wrote:
KrispyXIV wrote:

Diego, perhaps you should read the rules

Heal is a 5th level Adept spell, and therefore Limited wish can duplicate

What is it about the corner case threads that spawn all the corner case awkward RAW interpretations.

Make a new thread on whether or not Limited Wish can or can not get you adept 5th level spells at 13th level, my vote is it can't for the same reason Diego mentioned.

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.

It has been post in the thread previously and was summarily rejected.

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.
They don't laugh about it, they have on several occasions said they wish we wouldn't use these awkward interpretations. I don't think they find it funny as much as depressing.

Well, sometimes you have to laugh to keep from crying.

Liberty's Edge

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.).

As mentioned above, this is a good point, but keep in mind that Pathfinder is still a 3rd party modification of the d20 rules. Since this text is possibly a relic of 3.5. I am not taking a side at this time, but it is a valid interpretation that the FAQ entry regarding spell casting class abilities indicates that the developers intended for class abilities to overlap. It is also possible that Sean Reynolds responded earlier as a D&D developer instead of a Pathfinder developer and, if so, his views do not reflect Paizo's official stance.

With that in mind, I think both stances are valid within Pathfinder, though not in 3.5.


Mystic Theurge wrote:

Combined Spells (Su): A mystic theurge can prepare and cast spells from one of his spellcasting classes using the available slots from any of his other spellcasting classes. Spells prepared or cast in this way take up a slot one level higher than they originally occupied. This ability cannot be used to cast a spell at a lower level if that spell exists on both spell lists. At 1st level, a mystic theurge can prepare 1st-level spells from one of his spellcasting classes using the 2nd-level slots of the other spellcasting class. Every two levels thereafter, the level of spells that can be cast in this way increases by one, to a maximum of 5th-level spells at 9th level (these spells would take up 6th-level spell slots). The components of these spells do not change, but they otherwise follow the rules for the spellcasting class used to cast the spell.

Spontaneous spellcasters can only select spells that they have prepared that day using non-spontaneous classes for this ability, even if the spells have already been cast. For example, a cleric/sorcerer/mystic theurge can use this ability to spontaneously cast a bless spell using a 2nd-level sorcerer spell slot, if the character had a prepared bless spell using a 1st-level cleric spell slot, even if that spell had already been cast that day.

Seems strange to me that a Wizard 9/Cleric 1 could conceivably be better at casting cure spells than a character with 5 levels of Mystic Theurge (a class which is expressly intended to combine one's ability to cast both divine and arcane spells). Said W/C could spontaneously cast cure spells better than a MT could prepare to cast them. Seems quite odd, to say the least.

RAI is clear. RAW is at best murky. Doesn't that pretty strongly imply that RAI is what we're supposed to go with?

*shrug*


3 people marked this as a favorite.

Right.

Guys, I hope you all like the new $500 and 50# CRB you're asking for.

Honestly, do you really want Paizo to write every line as a paragraph and every rule takes up several pages? Use some common sense. In PF, RAI trumps RAW. Don't parse rules like they are lines of legal boilerplate.


Here is an edited version of a post on another topic.

I am going to present an example that is more reasonable the and "dead" condition this time, but still something I don't expect for a GM to allow.

"A sorcerer casts arcane spells drawn primarily from the sorcerer/wizard spell list presented in Spell Lists. In effect, the sorcerer loses the old spell in exchange for the new one.

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."

Now in my cleric post the rules say the cleric loses his spell in exchange for a cure spell so if the cleric is a modification then so is this as intended under the FAQ then so is this.

Full paragraph--> " A sorcerer casts arcane spells drawn primarily from the sorcerer/wizard spell list presented in Spell Lists. In effect, the sorcerer loses the old spell in exchange for the new one."

There is nothing say they have to come from the sorcerer's spell list.

In addition if the character was a sorcerer/inquisitor could she use this to change out an inquisitor spell at level 4?

If not then why?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Diego Rossi wrote:
seebs wrote:

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.

You duplicate something that exist and you cast the spell at your caster level. Heal on the Adept list is a 5th level spell but it require a CL of 16.

You claim that you can use limited wish to duplicate something that don't exist without exceeding the spell parameters?

No, I claim that you are making up a new restriction. The spell does not say that the duplicated spell must be at a caster level which could cast that spell in some other class. It just duplicates the effects of the spell, using your caster level. That's it. There is nothing fancy or complicated about this. The complication you're inventing is not in the rules.

You seem to be acting on a spell which says that you can:

"Pick any spell from the 5th level or lower spell list of a class which is not sorcerer or wizard, and which is not in one of your opposition schools. Determine the caster level a member of that class would need to be in order to cast this spell. If that level does not exceed your caster level, you can duplicate that spell's effects at your caster level."

But that's not the spell we're talking about. We don't care what level you'd have to be to cast heal as an adept, we just care whether it is 5th level or lower.

Consider, for a moment, overwhelming presence. sor/wiz 9, bard 6. You can duplicate the bard spell using a full wish, because it's a non-sorcerer/wizard spell of 7th level or lower, but you can't duplicate the wizard spell using a wish, because it's a 9th level spell. This is fine. No one cares.


wraithstrike wrote:


If not then why?

My first reaction would be to respond because those rules are in the Spells class feature that describes how their spellcasting works, and not in a class feature that modifies spellcasting.

Since only features that modify spellcasting are what is stated in the FAQ as appling to spells from every class, those lines don't apply to spells from other classes.

Haven't given it very thorough thought, but since you posted that example here and in the BK thread, I thought I would try to address it.


Samasboy1 wrote:
wraithstrike wrote:


If not then why?

My first reaction would be to respond because those rules are in the Spells class feature that describes how their spellcasting works, and not in a class feature that modifies spellcasting.

Since only features that modify spellcasting are what is stated in the FAQ as appling to spells from every class, those lines don't apply to spells from other classes.

Haven't given it very thorough thought, but since you posted that example here and in the BK thread, I thought I would try to address it.

So even though both class features lose spells for another spell you are limiting one because it is directly in the "spell" section for a class instead of being its own feature?

edit: I am asking because to me whether you look at the sorcerer rule, the cleric rule or divine inteference in all cases you are just trading a spell out for something else, even if it is another spell. None of those are seen as modifications in the sense that the spell is being changed to add something to it or take away from it in the sense that adding damage would be.

Liberty's Edge

fretgod99 wrote:
Mystic Theurge wrote:

Combined Spells (Su): A mystic theurge can prepare and cast spells from one of his spellcasting classes using the available slots from any of his other spellcasting classes. Spells prepared or cast in this way take up a slot one level higher than they originally occupied. This ability cannot be used to cast a spell at a lower level if that spell exists on both spell lists. At 1st level, a mystic theurge can prepare 1st-level spells from one of his spellcasting classes using the 2nd-level slots of the other spellcasting class. Every two levels thereafter, the level of spells that can be cast in this way increases by one, to a maximum of 5th-level spells at 9th level (these spells would take up 6th-level spell slots). The components of these spells do not change, but they otherwise follow the rules for the spellcasting class used to cast the spell.

Spontaneous spellcasters can only select spells that they have prepared that day using non-spontaneous classes for this ability, even if the spells have already been cast. For example, a cleric/sorcerer/mystic theurge can use this ability to spontaneously cast a bless spell using a 2nd-level sorcerer spell slot, if the character had a prepared bless spell using a 1st-level cleric spell slot, even if that spell had already been cast that day.

Seems strange to me that a Wizard 9/Cleric 1 could conceivably be better at casting cure spells than a character with 5 levels of Mystic Theurge (a class which is expressly intended to combine one's ability to cast both divine and arcane spells). Said W/C could spontaneously cast cure spells better than a MT could prepare to cast them. Seems quite odd, to say the least.

RAI is clear. RAW is at best murky. Doesn't that pretty strongly imply that RAI is what we're supposed to go with?

*shrug*

A mystic theurge can do that with any spell, but we're talking about an ability restricted to cure spells. It's not surprising that it's more efficient.

Due to the FAQ, the RAI for 3.5 is clear, but Pathfinder RAI is muddy.


DrDeth wrote:

Right.

Guys, I hope you all like the new $500 and 50# CRB you're asking for.

Honestly, do you really want Paizo to write every line as a paragraph and every rule takes up several pages? Use some common sense. In PF, RAI trumps RAW. Don't parse rules like they are lines of legal boilerplate.

Funnily enough, I've found in my work career that clear technical writing (rules and mechanics) often takes up less space. If you end up having to spend a lot of time putting in qualifiers and explanations, what you are trying to convey is either too technical/detailed to be easily usable and needs to be redesigned, or the writer needs to step back, throw pretty much everything out and approach the problem again working from the general concept they want to convey. Typically the writing takes up less space after it's been cleaned up, not more.


Caedwyr writing rules for a game that is only limited by your imagination is not as easy as writing for something with definite limits.

I tried to rewrite the Dhamphir abiility that was causing trouble along with 2 other guys here that know the rules well. We kept finding loopholes in the other's writing. After that my respect for the rules team increased 10 times.

Writing in such a way that it has virtually no room for misinterpretation is very hard.

PS: Yeah I do admit some things just need to be rewritten or explained in more detail.


In a whole lot of cases, I am pretty sure I could write a specific rule more clearly *and* more concisely. In some, I think it would take more space.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

The issue I think you probably ran into, and I've run into as well when doing some homebrew, is how various different parts of the rules interact with each other, often in contradictory ways. In this case, I'd suggest that whole chunks of the system would need to get rewritten in order for things to work clearly. After that work is done, it'd be much easier to write new mechanics. A good example of this is the simplifications and reorganization done for the Beginners Box set.

The flip side of this situation, is: Should you write a new mechanic if writing it to do what you want requires lots of qualifiers and a large amount of text? Or is that an area you should shy away from because of the complexity, confusion and difficulty in writing a clean mechanic that won't conflict with other mechanics and cause problems for the readers.

I just wanted to point out that cleaning up the entire rulebook is more likely to shorten the text rather than lengthen the text as Dr.Deth was suggesting. If you rewrite everything in isolation, then of course you'd have a massive and confusing tome, but I don't know why you'd want to take that approach.


wraithstrike wrote:

Caedwyr writing rules for a game that is only limited by your imagination is not as easy as writing for something with definite limits.

I tried to rewrite the Dhamphir abiility that was causing trouble along with 2 other guys here that know the rules well. We kept finding loopholes in the other's writing. After that my respect for the rules team increased 10 times.

Writing in such a way that it has virtually no room for misinterpretation is very hard.

PS: Yeah I do admit some things just need to be rewritten or explained in more detail.

Agreed on all counts.

In this case, though, the simple addition of the word "cleric" to the text would have cut off any questions along this avenue, at least. Instead, we'd be arguing about something else. : D


wraithstrike wrote:


So even though both class features lose spells for another spell you are limiting one because it is directly in the "spell" section for a class instead of being its own feature?

edit: I am asking because to me whether you look at the sorcerer rule, the cleric rule or divine inteference in all cases you are just trading a spell out for something else, even if it is another spell. None of those are seen as modifications in the sense that the spell is being changed to add something to it or take away from it in the sense that adding damage would be.

They "lose" spells in entirely different meanings.

The sorcerer "loses" (completely forgets how to cast) a spell to learn a new spell in its place. That is how their casting works, since it under the Spells feature.

Clerics "loses" (exchanges) a single spell slot to cast a different spell. It isn't how their base casting mechanic works, since it is in a different class feature. It isn't a modification to the spell, but a modification on how they cast spells.

I guess, yes, at its basis, I wouldn't count anything under the Spells feature itself, because that is how your spellcasting works. Other features would be things that modify the Spells feature.

blahpers wrote:
In this case, though, the simple addition of the word "cleric" to the text would have cut off any questions along this avenue, at least. Instead, we'd be arguing about something else.

Or a different wording of the General Rule in the sorcerer FAQ, since without that as a rule I don't think this would be an issue either.

Liberty's Edge

KrispyXIV wrote:
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.

[Inego Montoya]I don't think that means what you think it means.[/Inego Montoya]

Dumping a prepared spell to spontaneously cast cure light wounds isn't a modification to spell casting. Changing the DC, CL, damage dice, or adding damage to the damage caused by a spell is a modification of spellcasting.

If we continue with your logic, a Clr 1/Wiz 1 should be able to prepare Cleric spells in the Wizard spell slots, which we know cannot be done (unless they also have the Mystic Theurge Prestige Class.

No, regardless of what the Sorcerer FAQ says (because that FAQ is actually irrelevant to this discussion), one may not "lose" a prepared Wizard spell to cast a cure spell.

Furthermore, actually read what the description says:

Spontaneous Casting wrote:
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).

And compare it to the bloodline arcana of Sorcerers:

Aberrant wrote:
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.
Abyssal wrote:
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.
Arcane wrote:
Whenever you apply a metamagic feat to a spell that increases the slot used by at least one level, increase the spell's DC by +1. This bonus does not stack with itself and does not apply to spells modified by the Heighten Spell feat.
Celestial wrote:
Whenever you cast a spell of the summoning subschool, the creatures summoned gain DR/evil equal to 1/2 your sorcerer level (minimum 1). This does not stack with any DR the creature might have.
Destined wrote:
Whenever you cast a spell with a range of “personal,” you gain a luck bonus equal to the spell's level on all your saving throws for 1 round.
Draconic wrote:
Whenever you cast a spell with an energy descriptor that matches your draconic bloodline's energy type, that spell deals +1 point of damage per die rolled.
Elemental wrote:
Whenever you cast a spell that deals energy damage, you can change the type of damage to match the type of your bloodline. This also changes the spell's type to match the type of your bloodline.
Fey wrote:
Whenever you cast a spell of the compulsion subschool, increase the spell's DC by +2.
Infernal wrote:
Whenever you cast a spell of the charm subschool, increase the spell's DC by +2.
Undead wrote:
Some undead are susceptible to your mind-affecting spells. Corporeal undead that were once humanoids are treated as humanoids for the purposes of determining which spells affect them.

There is a distinct difference.


HangarFlying wrote:
Dumping a prepared spell to spontaneously cast cure light wounds isn't a modification to spell casting. Changing the DC, CL, damage dice, or adding damage to the damage caused by a spell is a modification of spellcasting.

So being able to make a Fireball deal cold damage is a modification, but being able to make a Fireball into a Cure Serious Wounds isn't?

That doesn't make a lot of sense.

HangarFlying wrote:

Furthermore, actually read what the description says:

Spontaneous Casting wrote:


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).
And compare it to the bloodline arcana of Sorcerers:

How about we compare it to the Bloodline ability of Sorcerers, since that is the actual class feature that provides the Arcana benefit.

Bloodline wrote:
Each sorcerer has a source of magic somewhere in her heritage that grants her spells, bonus feats, an additional class skill, and other special abilities. This source can represent a blood relation or an extreme event involving a creature somewhere in the family's past. For example, a sorcerer might have a dragon as a distant relative or her grandfather might have signed a terrible contract with a devil. Regardless of the source, this influence manifests in a number of ways as the sorcerer gains levels. A sorcerer must pick one bloodline upon taking her first level of sorcerer. Once made, this choice cannot be changed.

Wow. It mentions Sorcerer a bunch of times! And yet, the part of this class feature that modifies spellcasting still applies to other classes.

The Exchange

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Samasboy1 wrote:
HangarFlying wrote:
Dumping a prepared spell to spontaneously cast cure light wounds isn't a modification to spell casting. Changing the DC, CL, damage dice, or adding damage to the damage caused by a spell is a modification of spellcasting.

So being able to make a Fireball deal cold damage is a modification, but being able to make a Fireball into a Cure Serious Wounds isn't?

That doesn't make a lot of sense.

No real opinion on the rest of the post, Samasboy1, but I have to call you on this one. I think that if you're honest with yourself, you'll concede that turning "a medium-range spell that sprays 8d6 fire damage in a 20' burst" into "a medium-range spell that sprays 8d6 cold damage in a 20' burst" is a mere alteration of the same basic spell, while turning "a spell that sprays 8d6 fire damage in a 20' burst" into "a touch spell that heals a single target of 3d8+8 damage" is very distinctly a complete substitution. Eh?


Lincoln Hills wrote:
Samasboy1 wrote:
HangarFlying wrote:
Dumping a prepared spell to spontaneously cast cure light wounds isn't a modification to spell casting. Changing the DC, CL, damage dice, or adding damage to the damage caused by a spell is a modification of spellcasting.

So being able to make a Fireball deal cold damage is a modification, but being able to make a Fireball into a Cure Serious Wounds isn't?

That doesn't make a lot of sense.

No real opinion on the rest of the post, Samasboy1, but I have to call you on this one. I think that if you're honest with yourself, you'll concede that turning "a medium-range spell that sprays 8d6 fire damage in a 20' burst" into "a medium-range spell that sprays 8d6 cold damage in a 20' burst" is a mere alteration of the same basic spell, while turning "a spell that sprays 8d6 fire damage in a 20' burst" into "a touch spell that heals a single target of 3d8+8 damage" is very distinctly a complete substitution. Eh?

And both are obviously, clearly modifications to how basic spellcasting works for those classes. The degree is utterly irrelevant.


Following on the tought its going, any spontaneous caster CAN increase their spell "known" by multiclassing and theurging ... REALLY? Common sense tell me divine and arcane DO NOT COME FROM THE SAME SOURCE! Divine : some entity give your spells. Arcane : you channelsome unknown energy called magic. Even the mechanic to access your spell is totally ddifferent. Divine: you pray for some effect you desire and *POUF!* here is your spell. Arcane: throught study or whatever mean you craft some energy into some effect.

How you retain your spellcasting ability is totally different also. Divine: be the " slave" of XYZ and keep your mind or loose casting. Arcane : loose your sanity and you loose your casting or spellbook.

Lastly : why the hell only and only specialised prestige class and to an extend some feat three actually DEAL whit mix and match different casting class WORDING SO, if any whould be multiclass spontaneous class could outdo that by lv 2?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
"Samasboy1 wrote:

They "lose" spells in entirely different meanings.

The sorcerer "loses" (completely forgets how to cast) a spell to learn spell in its place. That is how their casting works, since it under the feature.

Clerics "loses" (exchanges) a single spell slot to cast a different spell. isn't how their base casting mechanic works, since it is in a different feature. It isn't a modification to the spell, but a modification on how to cast spells.

Losing a spell permanently does not affect whether it is a modification or not. You still did not addess divine interference which allws you to sacrifice a spell in order to make an enemy reroll the.dice


1 person marked this as a favorite.
KrispyXIV wrote:
Lincoln Hills wrote:
Samasboy1 wrote:
HangarFlying wrote:
Dumping a prepared spell to spontaneously cast cure light wounds isn't a modification to spell casting. Changing the DC, CL, damage dice, or adding damage to the damage caused by a spell is a modification of spellcasting.

So being able to make a Fireball deal cold damage is a modification, but being able to make a Fireball into a Cure Serious Wounds isn't?

That doesn't make a lot of sense.

No real opinion on the rest of the post, Samasboy1, but I have to call you on this one. I think that if you're honest with yourself, you'll concede that turning "a medium-range spell that sprays 8d6 fire damage in a 20' burst" into "a medium-range spell that sprays 8d6 cold damage in a 20' burst" is a mere alteration of the same basic spell, while turning "a spell that sprays 8d6 fire damage in a 20' burst" into "a touch spell that heals a single target of 3d8+8 damage" is very distinctly a complete substitution. Eh?
And both are obviously, clearly modifications to how basic spellcasting works for those classes. The degree is utterly irrelevant.

So.giving up a spell for something else is always a modification?


lantzkev wrote:
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.

Agrees with this " a good/evil/ neutral cleric can replace.... it does not say a good wizard can replace stored spell to cast healing spells


1 person marked this as a favorite.
wraithstrike wrote:


Losing a spell permanently does not affect whether it is a modification or not. You still did not addess divine interference which allws you to sacrifice a spell in order to make an enemy reroll the.dice

I had to look up Divine Interference, didn't realize it was a feat as opposed to you meaning a god was all up in your business.

Well, the FAQ says class features that modify spellcasting apply to all spells. This is a feat. So the FAQ doesn't apply.

And if you don't see a difference in the sorcerer mechanic (which is part of their spellcasting entry and refers to spells known) and the cleric mechanic (which is not in their spellcasting entry and refers to casting one spell as a different spell) I don't know what to say.

wraithstrike wrote:
None of those are seen as modifications in the sense that the spell is being changed to add something to it or take away from it in the sense that adding damage would be.

But is adding a numerical bonus the only way to modify something?

Almost all the Bloodline Arcana can be express as IF X THEN Y
If you cast a energy spell, you can change the energy type to fire
If you cast a polymorph spell, then you can change the duration
If you cast a summoning spell, then you can change the creature

Spontaneous Casting seems (to me) to work the say way
If you cast (any prepared spell), then you can change it to a healing spell of the same level or lower.

wraithstrike wrote:
So.giving up a spell for something else is always a modification?

Well, for the FAQ to apply it has to be a class feature allowing the substitution. And I would think it has to be a class feature other than the actual spellcasting class feature itself.


I am not saying it has to always be a number the spell must still be cast. If the spell is not being cast then it is not being modified. As an example with the cleric situation, the spell is being given up so you can use a different spell.

It is like trading a car in for another car.

For the sorcerer it is the same thing, but it is a permanent change.

Liberty's Edge

Samasboy1 wrote:

So being able to make a Fireball deal cold damage is a modification, but being able to make a Fireball into a Cure Serious Wounds isn't?

That doesn't make a lot of sense.

Yeah, no. You aren't casting Fireball to make it do 3d8+5 healing, which is what would have to happen to make what you're implying work—that would be a modification. You are dumping whatever spell was prepared to instead cast a cure spell from that previously occupied slot.

There is a distinct difference.

You can make as much noise about it as you want. You're wrong. You can houserule it as you wish, of course. But as far as how it actually works, the spontaneous casting of cure spells may only come from the Cleric spell slots.

Samasboy1 wrote:

How about we compare it to the Bloodline ability of Sorcerers, since that is the actual class feature that provides the Arcana benefit.

Bloodline wrote:
Each sorcerer has a source of magic somewhere in her heritage that grants her spells, bonus feats, an additional class skill, and other special abilities. This source can represent a blood relation or an extreme event involving a creature somewhere in the family's past. For example, a sorcerer might have a dragon as a distant relative or her grandfather might have signed a terrible contract with a devil. Regardless of the source, this influence manifests in a number of ways as the sorcerer gains levels. A sorcerer must pick one bloodline upon taking her first level of sorcerer. Once made, this choice cannot be changed.
Wow. It mentions Sorcerer a bunch of times! And yet, the part of this class feature that modifies spellcasting still applies to other classes.

Wow. It mentions Sorcerer a bunch of times to point out that a Sorcerer must pick a bloodline. That's it. You're grasping at straws with this one.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
HangarFlying wrote:


Yeah, no. You aren't casting Fireball to make it do 3d8+5 healing, which is what would have to happen to make what you're implying work—that would be a modification. You are dumping whatever spell was prepared to instead cast a cure spell from that previously occupied slot.

The FAQ doesn't say "class features that modify spells." It says "class features that modify spellcasting."

Having one spell, and using that slot to cast another spell modifies your spellcasting, because without that feature the cleric could only cast spells they had memorized.

HangarFlying wrote:
Wow. It mentions Sorcerer a bunch of times to point out that a Sorcerer must pick a bloodline. That's it. You're grasping at straws with this one.

It mentions sorcerer a bunch of times to point out that sorcerers get Bloodlines, and Bloodline is the source of the spellcasting modification.

Since many people have pointed out Spontaneous Casting mentions Cleric as a reason this doesn't work, I don't see how that isn't relevant.

Arcana isn't a separate class feature, it is part of Bloodline. So if Bloodline, which specifies sorcerer, applies to all spells; there is no reason Spontaneous Casting wouldn't despite mentioning Cleric.


Spontaneous Casting doesn't specifically call out that it only works with Cleric "spells" class feature.

FAQ applies. This works.


Of course the "spells" class feature modify spellcasting. If a cleric didn't get it, the clerics spellcasting ability would be different (it couldn't cast spells), thus the spells class feature modify spellcasting.


Pathfinder Lost Omens Subscriber

oh lord, why did this keep going, i thought we settled it with, RAW works but it's an unbalanced idea and thus shouldn't be used anyway.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Sometimes GMs have to make decisions on the application of rules.

Regarding PFS: the lack of GM discretion is one of the reasons why I don't play PFS.

For what it's worth, if I am playing a mid/high level wizard and we don't have any healing class available, I will use Summon Monster V for a bralani azata - 2 x Cure Serious Wounds.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Bandw2 wrote:
oh lord, why did this keep going, i thought we settled it with, RAW works but it's an unbalanced idea and thus shouldn't be used anyway.

Its not even close to unbalanced. That's why all this opposition is so confusing; no party will ever be hurt by having someone else capable of casting a healing spell. And since it's NOT restoration or heal or any of the important high level condition removers, it's not stepping on the clerics toes.

It's just reducing the number of wands you need to buy.


Bandw2 wrote:
oh lord, why did this keep going, i thought we settled it with, RAW works but it's an unbalanced idea and thus shouldn't be used anyway.

Well it continues because you have two sides who believe in different things and because some people read raw differently. Some read RAW (rules as written) and other read RAW (rules as Wanted)....No disrespect meant here...just the simple truth....

It is clear by now that about 50% believe it is not possible. Their interpretation is read and argued based on their belief of RAI

The other half believes it is possible because they want it to work (their arguments are : that it is not OP, it is funnier, cooler, etc)

Now both are good.....in a home game, no problem, do as you wish....

in PFS, well expect table variation, cause both interpretation are valid. Doesn't mean they are both good, just that you could argue either way based on the strict reading of RAW

But , it is clear that there won't be a concensus here...

Liberty's Edge

Hey! Don't lump me into either 50%. The only stance I am taking is that the FAQ makes RAI completely unclear. It doesn't say that the Bloodline powers affect all classes, it says that class features that affect spellcasting affects spellcasting from all classes.

Then you have Sean K. Freaking Reynolds contradicting the official FAQ and saying that people who disagree with him are being stupid.

Seriously? This is a mess. Neither interpretation is game breaking so I am okay with either. Just get the left hand to agree with the right hand without insulting the player base.

And there is no point in bringing balance into the discussion. There isn't any. There are only degrees of imbalance at a given level. And Zuul; only degrees of imbalance and Zuul.


Samasboy1 wrote:
HangarFlying wrote:


Yeah, no. You aren't casting Fireball to make it do 3d8+5 healing, which is what would have to happen to make what you're implying work—that would be a modification. You are dumping whatever spell was prepared to instead cast a cure spell from that previously occupied slot.

The FAQ doesn't say "class features that modify spells." It says "class features that modify spellcasting."

Having one spell, and using that slot to cast another spell modifies your spellcasting, because without that feature the cleric could only cast spells they had memorized.

HangarFlying wrote:
Wow. It mentions Sorcerer a bunch of times to point out that a Sorcerer must pick a bloodline. That's it. You're grasping at straws with this one.

It mentions sorcerer a bunch of times to point out that sorcerers get Bloodlines, and Bloodline is the source of the spellcasting modification.

Since many people have pointed out Spontaneous Casting mentions Cleric as a reason this doesn't work, I don't see how that isn't relevant.

Arcana isn't a separate class feature, it is part of Bloodline. So if Bloodline, which specifies sorcerer, applies to all spells; there is no reason Spontaneous Casting wouldn't despite mentioning Cleric.

Spellcasting is the casting spells.

The way the character cast spells has not been modified. He has just been given another option of which spell to cast, just like the sorcerer is given another option of which spell to cast if he loses a spell. Remember there is no general rule saying all spontaneous casters get to switch spells out so your logic applies in both cases.

You can't parse the language in one case, but refuse to consider the intent in another. Well you can, but it won't work.


Bandw2 wrote:
oh lord, why did this keep going, i thought we settled it with, RAW works but it's an unbalanced idea and thus shouldn't be used anyway.

Actually we never agreed with him per RAW. RAW at best he has an argument, but unless you use the "the rules don't say I can't" train of thought it has no chance, but by that logic a the game has a lot more nonsense.

As an example the rules don't say I can't change direction midjump, but I doubt any GM would ever allow it.


Gaberlunzie wrote:
Of course the "spells" class feature modify spellcasting. If a cleric didn't get it, the clerics spellcasting ability would be different (it couldn't cast spells), thus the spells class feature modify spellcasting.

I think you miss understand. "Spontaneous Casting" is a seperate and discrete feature from "spells." If it were part of the "spells" class feature then there would be no discussion right now. Instead "Spontaneous Casting" modifies the "spells" class feature and it does not specifically call out that it only modifies cleric spells,

Just as if you took the knife master archetype and did increased sneak attack damage. That damage increase applies to every class feature that grants sneak attack, like Ninja or Arcane Trickster.


BigDTBone wrote:

Spontaneous Casting doesn't specifically call out that it only works with Cleric "spells" class feature.

FAQ applies. This works.

By virtue of the FAQ applies, I'd have to disagree and say it doesn't work.

That's part of the whole problem. There are conflicting FAQ's, one of them is wrong (or at least worded so poorly as to muddy the issue).

Given we also have the magus FAQ and given the comments by SKR (which specifically talks about cleric spontaneous casting as only applying to cleric spell slots), which one do you think it more likely is wrong?


Well, as I have stated sevral times in this thread I don't think it is a good thing. However, I'm looking at it from a straight "what do the current rules state" and I can't come to any other conclusion than it works by RAW.

Part of the conversations we have on the rules forums are to point out how the current rules work and that they could be clearer or flat out need errata. This is a case where the feature flat out needs errata because it works in a way that is against design intention.


BigDTBone wrote:

Well, as I have stated sevral times in this thread I don't think it is a good thing. However, I'm looking at it from a straight "what do the current rules state" and I can't come to any other conclusion than it works by RAW.

Part of the conversations we have on the rules forums are to point out how the current rules work and that they could be clearer or flat out need errata. This is a case where the feature flat out needs errata because it works in a way that is against design intention.

So what about my sorcerer example with the inquisitor spells?


BigDTBone wrote:
Gaberlunzie wrote:
Of course the "spells" class feature modify spellcasting. If a cleric didn't get it, the clerics spellcasting ability would be different (it couldn't cast spells), thus the spells class feature modify spellcasting.

I think you miss understand. "Spontaneous Casting" is a seperate and discrete feature from "spells." If it were part of the "spells" class feature then there would be no discussion right now. Instead "Spontaneous Casting" modifies the "spells" class feature and it does not specifically call out that it only modifies cleric spells,

Just as if you took the knife master archetype and did increased sneak attack damage. That damage increase applies to every class feature that grants sneak attack, like Ninja or Arcane Trickster.

I agree with this, it does allow you to use the ability with any class that uses the same ability (sneak attack)

Sorcerors get their ability to cast magic from an arcane source, Clerics get their ability to cast magic from a divine source. The abilities are not the same ability. Similar, but not the same.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Cuttler wrote:


The other half believes it is possible because they want it to work (their arguments are : that it is not OP, it is funnier, cooler, etc)

This accusation that other people are arguing in bad faith cannot possibly contribute to a productive discussion.

I'm one of the people arguing that the sorcerer FAQ absolutely clearly indicates that this should work, and I think it's ridiculous and would never use it or allow it.

So I think the FAQ is wrong, but I absolutely agree that, given that FAQ, the words in the book clearly have that meaning.


Ok. I'll be the first to admit that I don't have the chops to fairly evaluate everything that's been said, especially since I have not gone to the original materials. It could be some are misrepresenting, misinterpreting, or misunderstanding things, as is sometimes the case.

What I feel to be compelling by simply reading the discussion is that some who feel that the ability to do so should not work agree that by the rules as written that it does work.

As the most recent example in the thread:

BigDTBone wrote:

Spontaneous Casting doesn't specifically call out that it only works with Cleric "spells" class feature.

FAQ applies. This works.

___

Rule/Flavor:
Arlow wrote:

Following on the tought its going, any spontaneous caster CAN increase their spell "known" by multiclassing and theurging ... REALLY? Common sense tell me divine and arcane DO NOT COME FROM THE SAME SOURCE! Divine : some entity give your spells. Arcane : you channelsome unknown energy called magic. Even the mechanic to access your spell is totally ddifferent. Divine: you pray for some effect you desire and *POUF!* here is your spell. Arcane: throught study or whatever mean you craft some energy into some effect.

How you retain your spellcasting ability is totally different also. Divine: be the " slave" of XYZ and keep your mind or loose casting. Arcane : loose your sanity and you loose your casting or spellbook. . . .

It's an artificial distinction. Oracles don't get their power from a specific god. They aren't 'spell beggars' like in Faerun. And I can come up with plenty of reasons, flavor wise, why certain things work like they work. Maybe arcane casters are stealing power from the divine realms and those realms are so immense that divine entities don't notice/care. Maybe, as another poster mentioned, god's with the arcane polios are granting arcane casters spells. Maybe divine casters are in denial/high functioning schizophrenics and they are just using natural loopholes in reality.

Regardless for the flavor reason, the rules should work independently.

Kirth Gersen wrote:
. . . I'd like to see a system in which the mechanical stuff all works like a swiss watch, and then the cool flavor laid over it so that you can't see the gears beneath. . . .

As to what is flavor and what is rules when the whole thing is a rule book... I don't know what to tell you. Where I put the line in my games is probably heresy to others.

___

Not Overpowered:
Bandw2 wrote:
oh lord, why did this keep going, i thought we settled it with, RAW works but it's an unbalanced idea and thus shouldn't be used anyway.

As has been pointed out, it's not unbalancing. It may be contrary to the spirit of the game or some classes, but giving up a caster level to spontaneously cast spells that are more reactive by nature and don't scale as well as damage does rather than cast prepared proactive (damage avoidance whether through enemy debuffs, ally buffs, or more direct damage to several members of the opposing forces so that they die faster) spells is nifty, but a substandard option.

And when you are saying that something is substandard to blasting, which has to contend with spell resistance, energy resistance and immunity, and saves, and poorly scaling damage compared to hit dice, it's weak.

But again, should/shouldn't is a value judgement. This thread is discussing a factual judgement, which is is/isn't. If I think it should be allowed based on how it plays, that has no bearing on what the rules say.


___

Possible Misrepresentation:
Cuttler wrote:

Well it continues because you have two sides who believe in different things and because some people read raw differently. Some read RAW (rules as written) and other read RAW (rules as Wanted)....No disrespect meant here...just the simple truth....

It is clear by now that about 50% believe it is not possible. Their interpretation is read and argued based on their belief of RAI

The other half believes it is possible because they want it to work (their arguments are : that it is not OP, it is funnier, cooler, etc). . . .

That's not it at all. To say that means you are inadvertently or intentionally glossing over arguments citing very specific statements in the rules and their interactions.

True, some are colored by bias, but to say that those that don't want it to work are unbiased and those that do are is naive at best.

Just throwing those things out there. Ignore me.


seebs wrote:
Cuttler wrote:


The other half believes it is possible because they want it to work (their arguments are : that it is not OP, it is funnier, cooler, etc)

This accusation that other people are arguing in bad faith cannot possibly contribute to a productive discussion.

I'm one of the people arguing that the sorcerer FAQ absolutely clearly indicates that this should work, and I think it's ridiculous and would never use it or allow it.

So I think the FAQ is wrong, but I absolutely agree that, given that FAQ, the words in the book clearly have that meaning.

I don't think it always makes their arguments in bad faith. Sometimes people just forget that that what is not OP, or what is cool, has nothing to do with what the rule actually is.

Bad Faith is when you know you are wrong on some level, but just try to "win" the argument.

201 to 250 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