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


Rules Questions

251 to 300 of 558 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | next > last >>

I actually think most people who say the Sorcerer FAQ would allow it have also said it would probably never fly at an actual table, including me.

wraithstrike wrote:
He has just been given another option

Adding a new option certainly seems like a modification.


wraithstrike wrote:
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?

So if I understand your question correctly (which I may not), you are asking if an inquisitor can use the line "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," to swap out inquisitor spells known.

In this case the rules would not support that, because that line exists inside the sorcerer's "spells" class feature. That text is explaining how that feature works. If instead there was another class feature, outside of "spells", called "Hermetic Epiphany" that had the exact same rules text then it would work. Because that ability would be changing the way the "spells" class-feature worked.

Silver Crusade

1 person marked this as a favorite.

So after 100+ posts, I gave up reading. This thread is too long. So forgive me if someone already said this, but I have an interpretation of the FAQ in question that I haven't seen anyone else mention yet.

FAQ wrote:


General rule: If a class ability modifies your spellcasting, it applies to your spells from all classes, not just spells from the class that grants the ability. (The exception is if the class ability specifically says it only applies to spells from that class.)

To me, this applies only to the results of casting a spell. So it would apply to the damage dealt, spell DC, spell duration, etc, but it would NOT apply to other aspects of spellcasting, such as the choice of spells available to be cast.

Thus, sorcerer bloodlines that increase spell duration or add extra damage would apply to every spell cast, regardless of what class the spell comes from.

But a sorcerer being able to retrain to a different known spell at level 4 would only be able to use that retraining on their sorcerer known spells, not spells known from other classes. This also means multi-class clerics can't spontaneously convert non-cleric spells to inflict/cure spells, nor could multi-class druids spontaneously convert non-druid spells to summons. This also means that a multi-class wizard's opposition schools would only affect their wizard spellcasting, so they could still cast cleric spells in the opposition school as if they were a cleric without opposition schools.

Just my interpretation as to how the FAQ and SKR's post quoted earlier in this thread don't contradict each other.

That said, as a PFS GM, I'd probably allow it until we get an official response from Paizo, because I tend to err on the side of the players unless I have a good reason not to.


Kelarith wrote:
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 separate 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.

Both class features are called "spells."


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

Fair enough, but the accusation that people are arguing a position only because they "want it to work" is still an accusation of intellectual dishonesty, and that can't be useful. Especially when it's so utterly clear that several of us are at best vaguely tolerant of the idea that this could be allowed, and have mostly been arguing since the beginning of the thread that the FAQ can't possibly be right.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
BigDTBone wrote:


In this case the rules would not support that, because that line exists inside the sorcerer's "spells" class feature. That text is explaining how that feature works. If instead there was another class feature, outside of "spells", called "Hermetic Epiphany" that had the exact same rules text then it would work. Because that ability would be changing the way the "spells" class-feature worked.

It is a mistake to say the rules work a certain way because of the book, chapter, heading, or sub heading the rules happen to be organized under.

See threads on threatening and the ability to take an AoO as an example. Just because the rules on threatening are defined in the same place as the rules on taking an AoO does not mean you cannot threaten when you cannot take an AoO (which some have erroneously argued). There are other examples of this kind of incorrect application of the organizational structure of the rules as being the rules themselves too.


Fromper wrote:

So after 100+ posts, I gave up reading. This thread is too long. So forgive me if someone already said this, but I have an interpretation of the FAQ in question that I haven't seen anyone else mention yet.

FAQ wrote:


General rule: If a class ability modifies your spellcasting, it applies to your spells from all classes, not just spells from the class that grants the ability. (The exception is if the class ability specifically says it only applies to spells from that class.)

To me, this applies only to the results of casting a spell. So it would apply to the damage dealt, spell DC, spell duration, etc, but it would NOT apply to other aspects of spellcasting, such as the choice of spells available to be cast.

Thus, sorcerer bloodlines that increase spell duration or add extra damage would apply to every spell cast, regardless of what class the spell comes from.

But a sorcerer being able to retrain to a different known spell at level 4 would only be able to use that retraining on their sorcerer known spells, not spells known from other classes. This also means multi-class clerics can't spontaneously convert non-cleric spells to inflict/cure spells, nor could multi-class druids spontaneously convert non-druid spells to summons. This also means that a multi-class wizard's opposition schools would only affect their wizard spellcasting, so they could still cast cleric spells in the opposition school as if they were a cleric without opposition schools.

Just my interpretation as to how the FAQ and SKR's post quoted earlier in this thread don't contradict each other.

That said, as a PFS GM, I'd probably allow it until we get an official response from Paizo, because I tend to err on the side of the players unless I have a good reason not to.

The difference is that one of those abilities is listed as an option inside the "spells" class feature (Sorcerer retraining) and one of those abilities is a class feature of its own (Spontaneous Casting).

So the question becomes does "Spontaneous Casting" modify spellcasting ("spells" class feature)? On that point let me ask another question, does the "spells" class feature of the cleric permit a cleric to swap a cure/inflict spell for a prepared spell? No, it does not. The ability which lets a cleric do that comes from a different class feature.

Additionally (and this is a super important part of this), the "Spontaneous Casting" class feature does not grant the ability to cast spells so it necessarily must be modifying the "spells" class feature.

So, because "Spontaneous Casting" is modifying the "spells" class feature and does not specifically call out that it only modifies the cleric "spells" class feature it modifies all "spells" class features that the character has.


Samasboy1 wrote:

I actually think most people who say the Sorcerer FAQ would allow it have also said it would probably never fly at an actual table, including me.

wraithstrike wrote:
He has just been given another option
Adding a new option certainly seems like a modification.

So has the sorcerer.


bbangerter wrote:
BigDTBone wrote:


In this case the rules would not support that, because that line exists inside the sorcerer's "spells" class feature. That text is explaining how that feature works. If instead there was another class feature, outside of "spells", called "Hermetic Epiphany" that had the exact same rules text then it would work. Because that ability would be changing the way the "spells" class-feature worked.

It is a mistake to say the rules work a certain way because of the book, chapter, heading, or sub heading the rules happen to be organized under.

See threads on threatening and the ability to take an AoO as an example. Just because the rules on threatening are defined in the same place as the rules on taking an AoO does not mean you cannot threaten when you cannot take an AoO (which some have erroneously argued). There are other examples of this kind of incorrect application of the organizational structure of the rules as being the rules themselves too.

I don't understand how this relates to this topic. Perhaps you could be more illustrative with your point because right now it sounds something like, "some people read something wrong and blamed it on the book's organization. Therefore all rules arguments that take into account how things are organized are automatically incorrect."

I don't think you are actually saying that, so please help me out here.

I will say though, that the class features being organized the way they are is EXTREMELY important to how the game works. If we just ignore how class features were organized then you couldn't even have a game with archetypes in it.


wraithstrike wrote:
Samasboy1 wrote:

I actually think most people who say the Sorcerer FAQ would allow it have also said it would probably never fly at an actual table, including me.

wraithstrike wrote:
He has just been given another option
Adding a new option certainly seems like a modification.
So has the sorcerer.

Wraith, that simply isn't the case. The line that lets a sorcerer change spells known is part of the sorcerer's "spells" class feature it cannot modify its own self.


BigDTBone wrote:
wraithstrike wrote:
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?

So if I understand your question correctly (which I may not), you are asking if an inquisitor can use the line "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," to swap out inquisitor spells known.

In this case the rules would not support that, because that line exists inside the sorcerer's "spells" class feature. That text is explaining how that feature works. If instead there was another class feature, outside of "spells", called "Hermetic Epiphany" that had the exact same rules text then it would work. Because that ability would be changing the way the "spells" class-feature worked.

That restriction is not printed, just like the restriction to use the cleric's spells is not explicitly printed.

RAW it works, if you want to follow the "the rules don't say I can't" argument.

PS: I am not advocating that RAW is how the game should be played. My only point is that since a lot of rules could be written better it is good to think about the intent, and yes I know you don't think RAW is RAI for this situation. I am just using your post to state a point.. :)


seebs wrote:
wraithstrike wrote:
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.

Fair enough, but the accusation that people are arguing a position only because they "want it to work" is still an accusation of intellectual dishonesty, and that can't be useful. Especially when it's so utterly clear that several of us are at best vaguely tolerant of the idea that this could be allowed, and have mostly been arguing since the beginning of the thread that the FAQ can't possibly be right.

But people do it. I understand the accusation may hurt feelings, but it is true. What people want can cloud judgement, and I don't think it is an across the board thing.

What I mean is this. Sometimes when people say "it is not OP", they are not trying to say what the rules is. They are just saying "if the rule worked like _____ that it would not cause a problem".<--In that case we understand they know the rule.

PS: I don't think it is so much that the FAQ is wrong, but they did not think of every use someone might apply to the word "modify". What they will likely have to do is give specific examples and/or errata the cleric and magic section to say that you must use the cleric's(from that class only) spells unless otherwise stated.


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

So if I understand your question correctly (which I may not), you are asking if an inquisitor can use the line "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," to swap out inquisitor spells known.

In this case the rules would not support that, because that line exists inside the sorcerer's "spells" class feature. That text is explaining how that feature works. If instead there was another class feature, outside of "spells", called "Hermetic Epiphany" that had the exact same rules text then it would work. Because that ability would be changing the way the "spells" class-feature worked.

That restriction is not printed, just like the restriction to use the cleric's spells is not explicitly printed.

RAW it works, if you want to follow the "the rules don't say I can't" argument.

PS: I am not advocating that RAW is how the game should be played. My only point is that since a lot of rules could be written better it is good to think about the intent, and yes I know you don't think RAW is RAI. I am just using your post to state a point.. :)

FAQ wrote:
General rule: If a class ability modifies your spellcasting, it applies to your spells from all classes, not just spells from the class that grants the ability. (The exception is if the class ability specifically says it only applies to spells from that class.)

The restriction in the case of sorcerer's changing spells known is not needed because it does not modify spellcasting. It IS spellcasting. The FAQ only applies to class features which modify another class feature.

And... it isn't a "the rules don't say I can't" thing. The problem is in this case the rules specifically say I can.

I think we are generally on the same page here. I don't think it should work. I know it isn't intended to work. The rules simply don't support how we feel or how the feature was designed to work.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
wraithstrike wrote:


But people do it. I understand the accusation may hurt feelings, but it is true.

The claim on the table is that the people arguing that the rules as written support this are doing so because they "want it to work". That's what I was responding to; a blanket assertion that the people arguing for this "want it to work".

That is not true. It is absolutely obviously not true, because most of us have explicitly stated that we think it should not work and would not allow it in our own games.

Quote:
PS: I don't think it is so much that the FAQ is wrong, but they did not think of every use someone might apply to the word "modify". What they will likely have to do is give specific examples and/or errata the cleric and magic section to say that you must use the...

Every case I've found so far happens to match the rule that if the rule says "The [class] can..." it applies to that class, and if it says "You can..." it applies to the character as a whole. So, bloodline arcana say "whenever you cast", but the cleric thing says that a cleric can spontaneously cast cures.

I don't know whether that's an intentional choice of writing, but it would make sense if it were. Although I bet there's errors to be had there, too, I just haven't found them.

I don't think the problem is the word "modify", I think it's that there is no general rule here. And indeed, the sorcerer thing is the only thing I've seen that appears to be intended to modify all casting abilities.


BigDTBone wrote:
So, because "Spontaneous Casting" is modifying the "spells" class feature and does not specifically call out that it only modifies the cleric "spells" class feature it modifies all "spells" class features that the character has.

OK. I see what you are saying now. So you think it should have to state something like "the cleric may only use this to lose/sacrifice spells that are prepared in the in the cleric's daily spell slots"?


seebs wrote:
wraithstrike wrote:


But people do it. I understand the accusation may hurt feelings, but it is true.

That is not true. It is absolutely obviously not true, because most of us have explicitly stated that we think it should not work and would not allow it in our own games.

I am not saying it is true for everyone, and I was not just speaking about this particular topic. As a general case it can be true at times. That is what I was saying. I also thought that is what the other poster was saying, but they will have to speak for themselves.


FAQ wrote:
General rule: If a class ability (ie. NOT "spells") modifies your spellcasting("spells"), it applies to your spells (class feature) from all classes, not just spells(class feature) from the class that grants the ability.

Text added for clarity.


wraithstrike wrote:
I am not advocating that RAW is how the game should be played. My only point is that since a lot of rules could be written better it is good to think about the intent, and yes I know you don't think RAW is RAI.

Too true...

Of course, the whole SLA thing, the halfling racial weapon not working with halfling racial traits and feats thing, oracles being discriminated on wisdom-for-casting-stat on spells thing, the magus not being able to use haste while using spell combat thing, the monk having to flurry with different weapons thing, etc.... interpreting intent is a tricky wicket.

People are only questioning the intent due to the sorcerer FAQ. That's not a bad thing. Look at the change of understanding intent due to SLA thing. Most people were caught by surprise by that. I certainly was. Perhaps the sorcerer FAQ was in error, or it needs to be re-worded slightly.

For the record...

...I believe the intent is that wizard spells cannot be spontaneously cast as cure spells by having a level of cleric.

...I believe the sorcerer FAQ can be used to legitimately argue that wizards can spontaneously cast as cure spells by having a level of cleric.

...I know that the "divine energy" phrase in the magic section will be my scapegoat to avoid this issue in my PFS games.


wraithstrike wrote:


I am not saying it is true for everyone, and I was not just speaking about this particular topic. As a general case it can be true at times. That is what I was saying. I also thought that is what the other poster was saying, but they will have to speak for themselves.

It seemed pretty unambiguous that they divided the thread into people arguing that the rules do not work that way, and people who want the rules to work that way and that is why they are arguing it.

Perhaps more importantly: Even in the cases where it is true, it cannot lead to a productive discussion to assert it. It's useless.


bbangerter wrote:
BigDTBone wrote:


In this case the rules would not support that, because that line exists inside the sorcerer's "spells" class feature. That text is explaining how that feature works. If instead there was another class feature, outside of "spells", called "Hermetic Epiphany" that had the exact same rules text then it would work. Because that ability would be changing the way the "spells" class-feature worked.

It is a mistake to say the rules work a certain way because of the book, chapter, heading, or sub heading the rules happen to be organized under.

See threads on threatening and the ability to take an AoO as an example. Just because the rules on threatening are defined in the same place as the rules on taking an AoO does not mean you cannot threaten when you cannot take an AoO (which some have erroneously argued). There are other examples of this kind of incorrect application of the organizational structure of the rules as being the rules themselves too.

Another example would be the bonus and penalties being in the magic section, but they apply even when no magic or spells are being used.


wraithstrike wrote:
BigDTBone wrote:
So, because "Spontaneous Casting" is modifying the "spells" class feature and does not specifically call out that it only modifies the cleric "spells" class feature it modifies all "spells" class features that the character has.

OK. I see what you are saying now. So you think it should have to state something like "the cleric may only use this to lose/sacrifice spells that are prepared in the in the cleric's daily spell slots"?

That would be great. What I think would be the best is if they removed the "Spontaneous Casting" class feature and just included the text as an additional line in the cleric "spells" class feature.


seebs wrote:
wraithstrike wrote:


I am not saying it is true for everyone, and I was not just speaking about this particular topic. As a general case it can be true at times. That is what I was saying. I also thought that is what the other poster was saying, but they will have to speak for themselves.

It seemed pretty unambiguous that they divided the thread into people arguing that the rules do not work that way, and people who want the rules to work that way and that is why they are arguing it.

Perhaps more importantly: Even in the cases where it is true, it cannot lead to a productive discussion to assert it. It's useless.

I disagree that it is useless. Sometimes it gets people back on track IF they can realize they are arguing from a position of emotion. I would agree that it can make things worse, depending on who you say it to.


wraithstrike wrote:


Another example would be the bonus and penalties being in the magic section, but they apply even when no magic or spells are being used.

It's not that simple! There is another set of rules for bonuses and penalties, which are different, in another part of the book. Pathfinder changed the way those rules are organized, and left us with some rules being found in the intro material explaining how bonuses work, and different rules being used in the magic chapter.

Consider the fact that the very same section of the magic chapter defines "attack" in a way completely different from how non-magic things define "attack".

I think this is an editing error, and I'm pretty sure that rule is intended to apply everywhere, but there's actual reasons to believe that the section in question is intended to only apply to magic.


BigDTBone wrote:
wraithstrike wrote:
BigDTBone wrote:
So, because "Spontaneous Casting" is modifying the "spells" class feature and does not specifically call out that it only modifies the cleric "spells" class feature it modifies all "spells" class features that the character has.

OK. I see what you are saying now. So you think it should have to state something like "the cleric may only use this to lose/sacrifice spells that are prepared in the in the cleric's daily spell slots"?

That would be great. What I think would be the best is if the removed the "Spontaneous Casting" class feature and just included the text as an additional line in the cleric "spells" class feature.

I am assuming the druid has a similar class feature since it can convert spells also, but I don't think where the its located really matters.


seebs wrote:
wraithstrike wrote:


Another example would be the bonus and penalties being in the magic section, but they apply even when no magic or spells are being used.

It's not that simple! There is another set of rules for bonuses and penalties, which are different, in another part of the book. Pathfinder changed the way those rules are organized, and left us with some rules being found in the intro material explaining how bonuses work, and different rules being used in the magic chapter.

Consider the fact that the very same section of the magic chapter defines "attack" in a way completely different from how non-magic things define "attack".

I think this is an editing error, and I'm pretty sure that rule is intended to apply everywhere, but there's actual reasons to believe that the section in question is intended to only apply to magic.

The word "attack" in this game causes a lot of issues.

Which rules are different?

And the only time anyone has tried to argue that bonuses apply only to magic it has been shown that they work outside of magic(particularly spells).


seebs wrote:
wraithstrike wrote:


I am not saying it is true for everyone, and I was not just speaking about this particular topic. As a general case it can be true at times. That is what I was saying. I also thought that is what the other poster was saying, but they will have to speak for themselves.

It seemed pretty unambiguous that they divided the thread into people arguing that the rules do not work that way, and people who want the rules to work that way and that is why they are arguing it.

Perhaps more importantly: Even in the cases where it is true, it cannot lead to a productive discussion to assert it. It's useless.

All I 'want' is a reasonable, non semantics based explanation of why the Sorcerer FAQ doesn't apply here when it obviously does. Every single counterargument I've seen is based on claiming inconsistent word use, that spontaneous Casting doesn't modify Spellcasting (yes, it does) or worse yet, on flavor text that isn't relevant to the class ability.

Really, what I'd prefer would be clarification as to whether or not the Sorcerer FAQ stands or if it's out of date and needs revised, as it applies to a whole lot more than this issue (even though apparently it's a General Rule that a lot of people would rather ignore and never apply).

I couldn't care less about how this in particular gets ruled... I'll allow this in a heartbeat in any game I run if someone wants it (because it will make the game more fun for everyone) and not shed a tear otherwise as I'll never play a wizard cleric.

Silver Crusade

BigDTBone wrote:
Fromper wrote:

So after 100+ posts, I gave up reading. This thread is too long. So forgive me if someone already said this, but I have an interpretation of the FAQ in question that I haven't seen anyone else mention yet.

FAQ wrote:


General rule: If a class ability modifies your spellcasting, it applies to your spells from all classes, not just spells from the class that grants the ability. (The exception is if the class ability specifically says it only applies to spells from that class.)

To me, this applies only to the results of casting a spell. So it would apply to the damage dealt, spell DC, spell duration, etc, but it would NOT apply to other aspects of spellcasting, such as the choice of spells available to be cast.

Thus, sorcerer bloodlines that increase spell duration or add extra damage would apply to every spell cast, regardless of what class the spell comes from.

But a sorcerer being able to retrain to a different known spell at level 4 would only be able to use that retraining on their sorcerer known spells, not spells known from other classes. This also means multi-class clerics can't spontaneously convert non-cleric spells to inflict/cure spells, nor could multi-class druids spontaneously convert non-druid spells to summons. This also means that a multi-class wizard's opposition schools would only affect their wizard spellcasting, so they could still cast cleric spells in the opposition school as if they were a cleric without opposition schools.

Just my interpretation as to how the FAQ and SKR's post quoted earlier in this thread don't contradict each other.

That said, as a PFS GM, I'd probably allow it until we get an official response from Paizo, because I tend to err on the side of the players unless I have a good reason not to.

The difference is that one of those abilities is listed as an option inside the "spells" class feature (Sorcerer retraining) and one of those abilities is a class feature of its own (Spontaneous Casting).

So the question becomes does "Spontaneous Casting" modify spellcasting ("spells" class feature)? On that point let me ask another question, does the "spells" class feature of the cleric permit a cleric to swap a cure/inflict spell for a prepared spell? No, it does not. The ability which lets a cleric do that comes from a different class feature.

Additionally (and this is a super important part of this), the "Spontaneous Casting" class feature does not grant the ability to cast spells so it necessarily must be modifying the "spells" class feature.

So, because "Spontaneous Casting" is modifying the "spells" class feature and does not specifically call out that it only modifies the cleric "spells" class feature it modifies all "spells" class features that the character has.

Ummm... no. You completely ignored what I wrote. Why were you even responding to me?

Now that I've caught up on the thread, it seems HangarFlying and a few others made the same point already, and were mostly ignored.

The "It works by RAW" crowd seems to think that this FAQ says that anything that modifies the "Spells" class feature of one class affects the "Spells" class feature of other classes. That's not what it says. At all. Not even close.

It says anything that affects spellcasting. Not spell preparing. Not "anything listed under the Spells class feature description for the class". Casting. And only casting. That's a verb. If you're not up to the point of your character actually doing the verbal, somatic, and manipulating the material and/or focus components, then you're not yet up to the part of spell casting that this FAQ applies to.

Changing fire damage to cold damage modifies the casting of Fireball. Casting Cure Serious Wounds instead doesn't modify the casting of Fireball - it's a completely different spell being cast.

Instead of spellcasting, what if it said "hot dog eating"? Putting mustard on a hot dog would modify the experience of hot dog eating. So would cutting the hot dog in half, adding relish, or any number of other things that someone can do to a hot dog before eating it. But eating pizza instead wouldn't modify the experience of hot dog eating, because it's a completely different food being eaten. Ok, my mind just went to a scary place of hot dog as a pizza topping, but that would be like Fireball Serious Wounds, so my metaphor doesn't need to cover that.

I think this is the obvious RAI behind the FAQ, but the FAQ is poorly worded and should probably be rewritten for clarity. That poor wording is why I'd probably allow this at a PFS table, where RAW rules, even though I think it's pretty obvious that this isn't what the FAQ intended.


wraithstrike wrote:
BigDTBone wrote:
wraithstrike wrote:
BigDTBone wrote:
So, because "Spontaneous Casting" is modifying the "spells" class feature and does not specifically call out that it only modifies the cleric "spells" class feature it modifies all "spells" class features that the character has.

OK. I see what you are saying now. So you think it should have to state something like "the cleric may only use this to lose/sacrifice spells that are prepared in the in the cleric's daily spell slots"?

That would be great. What I think would be the best is if the removed the "Spontaneous Casting" class feature and just included the text as an additional line in the cleric "spells" class feature.

I am assuming the druid has a similar class feature since it can convert spells also, but I don't think where the its located really matters.

Druid's "Spontaneous Casting" is a discrete class feature from "Spells" as well. It should be rolled into the the Druid's "Spells" class feature as well.

Where it is located does matter because the FAQ is using the phrase "modifies your spellcasting." So any feature that doesn't grant spells but changes how spells work (ie, lets you cast spells spontaneously even if you are a prepared caster) is modifying spellcasting.

If instead the ability were contained within the same feature that grants spells, then it would not be modifying it because it would be part of it.


KrispyXIV wrote:

[

All I 'want' is a reasonable, non semantics based explanation of why the Sorcerer FAQ doesn't apply here when it obviously does. Every single counterargument I've seen is based on claiming inconsistent word use, that spontaneous Casting doesn't modify Spellcasting (yes, it does) or worse yet, on flavor text that isn't relevant to the class ability.

Really, what I'd prefer would be clarification as to whether or not the Sorcerer FAQ stands or if it's out of date and needs revised, as it applies to a whole lot more than this issue (even though apparently it's a General Rule that a lot of people would rather ignore and never apply).

I couldn't care less about how this in particular gets ruled... I'll allow this in a heartbeat in any game I run if someone wants it (because it will make the game more fun for everyone) and not shed a tear otherwise as I'll never play a wizard cleric.

It obviously does not apply, not unless the sorcerer can also modify(not my word) inquisitor spells. <----No I dont think that is a valid interpretation.

The intent is obvious, that it does not. Samasboy1 is not even arguing for intent. He just wants the rules to be very exact in what they say. He is going to be very disappointed as he gets deeper into the rules. A lot of things are not written as well as they could be, and are still waiting on an FAQ.

PS: Honestly you will always have to look at the rules in a certain context to get RAI. Yeah it can be annoying, but that is how it is. There is a even a topic around here devoted to rules which don't work as per, but everyone knows the RAI.

SKR's post(which was linked to) explained why it does not work. RAW, depending on how you want to look at "modifying" it might work. Since he was still on the dev team when the FAQ in question came out I am sure he knows the intent, even if his word is not official.
The question then becomes do you care more about RAW(See above) or RAI.


wraithstrike wrote:
KrispyXIV wrote:

[

All I 'want' is a reasonable, non semantics based explanation of why the Sorcerer FAQ doesn't apply here when it obviously does. Every single counterargument I've seen is based on claiming inconsistent word use, that spontaneous Casting doesn't modify Spellcasting (yes, it does) or worse yet, on flavor text that isn't relevant to the class ability.

Really, what I'd prefer would be clarification as to whether or not the Sorcerer FAQ stands or if it's out of date and needs revised, as it applies to a whole lot more than this issue (even though apparently it's a General Rule that a lot of people would rather ignore and never apply).

I couldn't care less about how this in particular gets ruled... I'll allow this in a heartbeat in any game I run if someone wants it (because it will make the game more fun for everyone) and not shed a tear otherwise as I'll never play a wizard cleric.

It obviously does not apply, not unless the sorcerer can also modify(not my word) inquisitor spells. <----No I dont think that is a valid interpretation.

The intent is obvious, that it does not. Samasboy1 is not even arguing for intent. He just wants the rules to be very exact in what they say. He is going to be very disappointed as he gets deeper into the rules. A lot of things are not written as well as they could be, and are still waiting on an FAQ.

BigDTBone covered the inquisitor situation. If it's under the spells section, it's part of your Spellcasting.

If it's outside of it, it's a modification.


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

So after 100+ posts, I gave up reading. This thread is too long. So forgive me if someone already said this, but I have an interpretation of the FAQ in question that I haven't seen anyone else mention yet.

FAQ wrote:


General rule: If a class ability modifies your spellcasting, it applies to your spells from all classes, not just spells from the class that grants the ability. (The exception is if the class ability specifically says it only applies to spells from that class.)

To me, this applies only to the results of casting a spell. So it would apply to the damage dealt, spell DC, spell duration, etc, but it would NOT apply to other aspects of spellcasting, such as the choice of spells available to be cast.

Thus, sorcerer bloodlines that increase spell duration or add extra damage would apply to every spell cast, regardless of what class the spell comes from.

But a sorcerer being able to retrain to a different known spell at level 4 would only be able to use that retraining on their sorcerer known spells, not spells known from other classes. This also means multi-class clerics can't spontaneously convert non-cleric spells to inflict/cure spells, nor could multi-class druids spontaneously convert non-druid spells to summons. This also means that a multi-class wizard's opposition schools would only affect their wizard spellcasting, so they could still cast cleric spells in the opposition school as if they were a cleric without opposition schools.

Just my interpretation as to how the FAQ and SKR's post quoted earlier in this thread don't contradict each other.

That said, as a PFS GM, I'd probably allow it until we get an official response from Paizo, because I tend to err on the side of the players unless I have a good reason not to.

The difference is that one of those abilities is listed as an option inside the "spells" class feature (Sorcerer retraining) and one of those abilities is a class feature of its own
...
Perhaps you could explain how this isn't modifying spellcasting
PRD Druid wrote:
She can “lose” a prepared spell in order to cast any summon nature's ally spell of the same level or lower.

I see "spell" and I see "cast," hmmm.... actually looks as though that verb and noun are used dependently.

So please explain the functional difference between "even though you prepared shillelagh you get to cast summon nature's ally 1" and "when you cast fireball add +1 damage per die."

And please ALSO explain how one of those two things is modifying spellcasting and how the other is not modifying spellcasting.


KrispyXIV wrote:
wraithstrike wrote:
KrispyXIV wrote:

[

All I 'want' is a reasonable, non semantics based explanation of why the Sorcerer FAQ doesn't apply here when it obviously does. Every single counterargument I've seen is based on claiming inconsistent word use, that spontaneous Casting doesn't modify Spellcasting (yes, it does) or worse yet, on flavor text that isn't relevant to the class ability.

Really, what I'd prefer would be clarification as to whether or not the Sorcerer FAQ stands or if it's out of date and needs revised, as it applies to a whole lot more than this issue (even though apparently it's a General Rule that a lot of people would rather ignore and never apply).

I couldn't care less about how this in particular gets ruled... I'll allow this in a heartbeat in any game I run if someone wants it (because it will make the game more fun for everyone) and not shed a tear otherwise as I'll never play a wizard cleric.

It obviously does not apply, not unless the sorcerer can also modify(not my word) inquisitor spells. <----No I dont think that is a valid interpretation.

The intent is obvious, that it does not. Samasboy1 is not even arguing for intent. He just wants the rules to be very exact in what they say. He is going to be very disappointed as he gets deeper into the rules. A lot of things are not written as well as they could be, and are still waiting on an FAQ.

BigDTBone covered the inquisitor situation. If it's under the spells section, it's part of your Spellcasting.

If it's outside of it, it's a modification.

That is his opinion, but there is no RAW to say it takes a separate class ability to modify anything and the classification of AoO's and threatening also show "headers" are not the best way to determine rules interaction.


wraithstrike wrote:
KrispyXIV wrote:
wraithstrike wrote:
KrispyXIV wrote:

[

All I 'want' is a reasonable, non semantics based explanation of why the Sorcerer FAQ doesn't apply here when it obviously does. Every single counterargument I've seen is based on claiming inconsistent word use, that spontaneous Casting doesn't modify Spellcasting (yes, it does) or worse yet, on flavor text that isn't relevant to the class ability.

Really, what I'd prefer would be clarification as to whether or not the Sorcerer FAQ stands or if it's out of date and needs revised, as it applies to a whole lot more than this issue (even though apparently it's a General Rule that a lot of people would rather ignore and never apply).

I couldn't care less about how this in particular gets ruled... I'll allow this in a heartbeat in any game I run if someone wants it (because it will make the game more fun for everyone) and not shed a tear otherwise as I'll never play a wizard cleric.

It obviously does not apply, not unless the sorcerer can also modify(not my word) inquisitor spells. <----No I dont think that is a valid interpretation.

The intent is obvious, that it does not. Samasboy1 is not even arguing for intent. He just wants the rules to be very exact in what they say. He is going to be very disappointed as he gets deeper into the rules. A lot of things are not written as well as they could be, and are still waiting on an FAQ.

BigDTBone covered the inquisitor situation. If it's under the spells section, it's part of your Spellcasting.

If it's outside of it, it's a modification.

That is his opinion, but there is no RAW to say it takes a separate class ability to modify anything and the classification of AoO's and threatening also show "headers" are not the best way to determine rules interaction.

If I buy a car with factory settings (the base spells feature) it is unmodified. If I then add remote start, I've changed my options for starting the car and modified it.

Other than the fact I can't then drive a second car, the above metaphor makes it clear that you are wrong.


BigDTBone wrote:

I see "spell" and I see "cast," hmmm.... punctually looks as though that verb and noun are used dependently.

So please explain the functional difference between "even though you prepared shillelagh you get to cast summon nature's ally 1" and "when you cast fireball add +1 damage per die."

And please ALSO explain how one of those two things is modifying spellcasting and how the other is not modifying spellcasting.

Adding the +1 is changing the spell and how it is cast.

Changing a spell out is not changing how the spell is cast or spellcasting in any other form.

And the heading is not a factor so putting in the spell section means nothing. Either the words modify spellcasting or they do not.

You have yet to explain how losing a spell permanently is different than losing one temporarily.

Is your argument resting on "it has it's own heading, and the words matter less"?


wraithstrike wrote:


The intent is obvious, that it does not. Samasboy1 is not even arguing for intent. He just wants the rules to be very exact in what they say. He is going to be very disappointed as he gets deeper into the rules. A lot of things are not written as well as they could be, and are still waiting on an FAQ.

I don't see why I deserve to be singled out since my position is the same as several other posters, like seebs and BigDTBone.

My point of view has nothing to do with how I necessarily play the game (and playing it for more than 20 years now).

Saying, "This is what the rule says" is not saying "this is how I would play it at my table."

The intent of something does not have to be the same as the affect it actually has. That would invalidate the entire concept of "unintended consequences." Plenty of rules, laws, guidelines, etc exist that don't have the impact that was expected when they were drafted.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
KrispyXIV wrote:

If I buy a car with factory settings (the base spells feature) it is unmodified. If I then add remote start, I've changed my options for starting the car and modified it.

Other than the fact I can't then drive a second car, the above metaphor makes it clear that you are wrong.

I agree the remote start modifies the car, but if you trade in your car for another car you have modified nothing. <---This analogy is correct.

You just have a new car(spell).


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

[

All I 'want' is a reasonable, non semantics based explanation of why the Sorcerer FAQ doesn't apply here when it obviously does. Every single counterargument I've seen is based on claiming inconsistent word use, that spontaneous Casting doesn't modify Spellcasting (yes, it does) or worse yet, on flavor text that isn't relevant to the class ability.

Really, what I'd prefer would be clarification as to whether or not the Sorcerer FAQ stands or if it's out of date and needs revised, as it applies to a whole lot more than this issue (even though apparently it's a General Rule that a lot of people would rather ignore and never apply).

I couldn't care less about how this in particular gets ruled... I'll allow this in a heartbeat in any game I run if someone wants it (because it will make the game more fun for everyone) and not shed a tear otherwise as I'll never play a wizard cleric.

It obviously does not apply, not unless the sorcerer can also modify(not my word) inquisitor spells. <----No I dont think that is a valid interpretation.

The intent is obvious, that it does not. Samasboy1 is not even arguing for intent. He just wants the rules to be very exact in what they say. He is going to be very disappointed as he gets deeper into the rules. A lot of things are not written as well as they could be, and are still waiting on an FAQ.

BigDTBone covered the inquisitor situation. If it's under the spells section, it's part of your Spellcasting.

If it's outside of it, it's a modification.

That is his opinion, but there is no RAW to say it takes a separate class ability to modify anything and the classification of AoO's and threatening also show "headers" are not the best way to determine rules interaction.

That argument is super weak-sauce. The ability is the ability. It cannot modify itself.

Also, if "headers" don't actually mean anything then how do you use archetypes in your games?


Samasboy1 wrote:
wraithstrike wrote:


The intent is obvious, that it does not. Samasboy1 is not even arguing for intent. He just wants the rules to be very exact in what they say. He is going to be very disappointed as he gets deeper into the rules. A lot of things are not written as well as they could be, and are still waiting on an FAQ.

I don't see why I deserve to be singled out since my position is the same as several other posters, like seebs and BigDTBone.

My point of view has nothing to do with how I necessarily play the game (and playing it for more than 20 years now).

Saying, "This is what the rule says" is not saying "this is how I would play it at my table."

Because you are the brightest light due to all of your post and unlike them you have yet to state a position on what you think the intent it. Both of them stated RAI is this, but RAW is ____.

You have only stated RAW as you see it so until you take a position you will continue to be questioned. Now if you are saying you have the exact same position as BigDTBone then I guess there is no further need to question you.


wraithstrike wrote:
KrispyXIV wrote:

If I buy a car with factory settings (the base spells feature) it is unmodified. If I then add remote start, I've changed my options for starting the car and modified it.

Other than the fact I can't then drive a second car, the above metaphor makes it clear that you are wrong.

I agree the remote start modifies the car, but if you trade in your car for another car you have modified nothing. <---This analogy is correct.

You just have a new car(spell).

Apparently, you missed the point.

An ability that allows you to break the rules of your Spells ability (by swapping a prepared spell for something else) has 'modified your spellcasting' by any reasonable reading of the rules.


wraithstrike wrote:


That is his opinion, but there is no RAW to say it takes a separate class ability to modify anything

You can not claim with a straight face that the existence of something modifies the existence of that same thing.

So if rule A spells out how something works normally, it would of necessity be something else (non-A) that modified it.

wraithstrike wrote:
unlike them you have yet to state a position on what you think the intent it

Oh, in that case, to be clear, I don't think the intent is necessarily important to the result it actually has.

If I intend to give money to a homeless man for food, and he uses it to buy drugs instead, my intent did not change the outcome.

If the whole dev team agreed to the Sorcerer FAQ AND also to Sean's post, we cannot know their intent since they seem at a very basic level in conflict.

What we can know, is what the official FAQ says, and try to apply it.


BigDTBone wrote:
wraithstrike wrote:
KrispyXIV wrote:
wraithstrike wrote:
KrispyXIV wrote:

[

All I 'want' is a reasonable, non semantics based explanation of why the Sorcerer FAQ doesn't apply here when it obviously does. Every single counterargument I've seen is based on claiming inconsistent word use, that spontaneous Casting doesn't modify Spellcasting (yes, it does) or worse yet, on flavor text that isn't relevant to the class ability.

Really, what I'd prefer would be clarification as to whether or not the Sorcerer FAQ stands or if it's out of date and needs revised, as it applies to a whole lot more than this issue (even though apparently it's a General Rule that a lot of people would rather ignore and never apply).

I couldn't care less about how this in particular gets ruled... I'll allow this in a heartbeat in any game I run if someone wants it (because it will make the game more fun for everyone) and not shed a tear otherwise as I'll never play a wizard cleric.

It obviously does not apply, not unless the sorcerer can also modify(not my word) inquisitor spells. <----No I dont think that is a valid interpretation.

The intent is obvious, that it does not. Samasboy1 is not even arguing for intent. He just wants the rules to be very exact in what they say. He is going to be very disappointed as he gets deeper into the rules. A lot of things are not written as well as they could be, and are still waiting on an FAQ.

BigDTBone covered the inquisitor situation. If it's under the spells section, it's part of your Spellcasting.

If it's outside of it, it's a modification.

That is his opinion, but there is no RAW to say it takes a separate class ability to modify anything and the classification of AoO's and threatening also show "headers" are not the best way to determine rules interaction.

That argument is super weak-sauce. The ability is the ability. It cannot modify itself.

Also, if "headers" don't actually mean anything then how do you use...

My point is that within the ability you can have options to modify the base use of it.

What is weaksauce is saying the same words have a different meaning if you put them under one heading, but placed elsewhere they change the rules. I can put the rules for skills in the combat chapter and they would still have the same meaning, as an example.

Also I NEVER said headings don't mean anything. I am saying you can't use the heading as your primary argument, and just ignore words.


KrispyXIV wrote:
wraithstrike wrote:
KrispyXIV wrote:

If I buy a car with factory settings (the base spells feature) it is unmodified. If I then add remote start, I've changed my options for starting the car and modified it.

Other than the fact I can't then drive a second car, the above metaphor makes it clear that you are wrong.

I agree the remote start modifies the car, but if you trade in your car for another car you have modified nothing. <---This analogy is correct.

You just have a new car(spell).

Apparently, you missed the point.

An ability that allows you to break the rules of your Spells ability (by swapping a prepared spell for something else) has 'modified your spellcasting' by any reasonable reading of the rules.

Reasonable is subjective. By my reading and base understanding of the rules your spellcasting is not modified because the way you cast spells is not modified.

But the PDT team will have to clear this up so I guess we will have to agree to disagree.


Samasboy1 wrote:
wraithstrike wrote:


That is his opinion, but there is no RAW to say it takes a separate class ability to modify anything

You can not claim with a straight face that the existence of something modifies the existence of that same thing.

So if rule A spells out how something works normally, it would of necessity be something else (non-A) that modified it.

Actually I can claim that an ability can within itself give you several options to modify the base use.

As an example normally spell A does _____, however if ____ then you may ____ to do ___ alternately. <----Now you have a base use and an alteration(modification) within the base writing of said ability.

Silver Crusade

BigDTBone wrote:

Perhaps you could explain how this isn't modifying spellcasting

PRD Druid wrote: wrote:

She can “lose” a prepared spell in order to cast any summon nature's ally spell of the same level or lower.

I see "spell" and I see "cast," hmmm.... actually looks as though that verb and noun are used dependently.

So please explain the functional difference between "even though you prepared shillelagh you get to cast summon nature's ally 1" and "when you cast fireball add +1 damage per die."

And please ALSO explain how one of those two things is modifying spellcasting and how the other is not modifying spellcasting.

As I said, I'm not arguing RAW. I agree that this poorly worded FAQ can be interpreted that way.

But it's pretty obvious that the RAI is that the RESULTS of a spell are supposed to be modified, not anything else about casting it. So only when you reach the point of actually casting (after declaring which spell to cast, switching out spells spontaneously, etc) should the FAQ apply. Which explains SKR's post which supposedly contradicts this FAQ.


Samasboy1 wrote:


Oh, in that case, to be clear, I don't think the intent is necessarily important to the result it actually has.

You are still dodging the question so you have not taken the same stance as Seebs or BigT. That is really I was trying to point out while answering your question.


wraithstrike wrote:
BigDTBone wrote:

I see "spell" and I see "cast," hmmm.... punctually looks as though that verb and noun are used dependently.

So please explain the functional difference between "even though you prepared shillelagh you get to cast summon nature's ally 1" and "when you cast fireball add +1 damage per die."

And please ALSO explain how one of those two things is modifying spellcasting and how the other is not modifying spellcasting.

Adding the +1 is changing the spell and how it is cast.

REALLY? How is adding damage changing how the spell is cast? Did you add a somatic component? Perhaps you needed a different set of material components? Talk me through this one like I'm a 3rd grader. I understand how it changes the spell, but not spellcasting.

wraithstrike wrote:


Changing a spell out is not changing how the spell is cast or spellcasting in any other form.

Changing the spell is quite literarlly changing the spell. Also it is changing what is being cast. So it changes spells and casting... ...

wraithstrike wrote:


And the heading is not a factor so putting in the spell section means nothing. Either the words modify spellcasting or they do not.

I'm back to how do you handle archetypes in your games? When you trade a class feature for another what does that even mean if all you see is "headings"?

wraithstrike wrote:


You have yet to explain how losing a spell permanently is different than losing one temporarily.

Are you talking about "known" vs "prepared" Ok, yea I did explain why your question about sorcerers has no bearing on this argument. More on this when you get around to figuring out how to handle archetypes now that class features aren't discrete and don't mean anything. One you get that worked out I'll be happy to go over this with you.

wraithstrike wrote:


Is your argument resting on "it has it's own heading, and the words matter less"?

My argument is that class features are things in the game. They are distinct from one another. That a class feature is a static thing and therefore cannot modify itself. That any class feature that does not grant spells but changes how spells work is modifying spellcasting. That spellcasting in the FAQ is synonymous with "any class feature which grants spells."


1 person marked this as a favorite.
wraithstrike wrote:
I agree the remote start modifies the car, but if you trade in your car for another car you have modified nothing.

When I traded in my 2 seater SUV for a minivan when my son was born, it certainly seemed like I modified the car I drove to work in the morning. That could have just been sleep deprivation though.

(come on... it's a joke... laugh a little! :P)


What's the point of this back-and-forth? There's no convincing going on.


wraithstrike wrote:


Actually I can claim that an ability can within itself give you several options to modify the base use.

So, even though a dagger is defined as both a piercing and slashing weapon, using it as a slashing weapon is a modification to a piercing weapon (or vice versa); rather than both being considered included in the basic nature of a dagger?

[edit]I am not intending to dodge the question. The answer to the question is not relevant to the outcome.

I doubt that they intended Wizards to benefit, but the unintended consequence of making a new rule was that Wizards do.[/edit]

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Companion Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
wraithstrike wrote:
BigDTBone wrote:
wraithstrike wrote:
BigDTBone wrote:
So, because "Spontaneous Casting" is modifying the "spells" class feature and does not specifically call out that it only modifies the cleric "spells" class feature it modifies all "spells" class features that the character has.

OK. I see what you are saying now. So you think it should have to state something like "the cleric may only use this to lose/sacrifice spells that are prepared in the in the cleric's daily spell slots"?

That would be great. What I think would be the best is if the removed the "Spontaneous Casting" class feature and just included the text as an additional line in the cleric "spells" class feature.

I am assuming the druid has a similar class feature since it can convert spells also, but I don't think where the its located really matters.

PRD wrote:
Spontaneous Casting: A druid can channel stored spell energy into summoning spells that she hasn't prepared ahead of time. She can “lose” a prepared spell in order to cast any summon nature's ally spell of the same level or lower.
Wrong John Silver wrote:
What's the point of this back-and-forth? There's no convincing going on.

Why do you think I stopped arguing some page ago?

251 to 300 of 558 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / Rules Questions / Can a Wizard 1 / Cleric 1 spontaneously cast prepared wizard spells? All Messageboards