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


Rules Questions

301 to 350 of 558 << first < prev | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | next > last >>

Wrong John Silver wrote:
What's the point of this back-and-forth? There's no convincing going on.

I have to waste time before work. I realized a long time ago none of us will convince the other. :)


Fromper wrote:
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.

Would you let a multiclass sorcerer/wizard take advantage of "eschew materials" when casting wizard spells?


Samasboy1 wrote:
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]

Actually it is because we have no idea if you REALLY think your argument is how the game should be played or not, and generally that is why people come to the rules section. Saying the ability works like A, but due to its terrible writing is written as B is more likely to get you support than if you claim "I don't care about intent, the words say ___".

But in any event I have answered your question about your name keeps coming. From this point you can decide what to do about it.


BigDTBone wrote:
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"?
etc

I have already explained all of these. You just don't agree with the path I took to get my answer, but I will admit I have been correct while using the incorrect logic before.

Silver Crusade

BigDTBone wrote:
Fromper wrote:
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.

Would you let a multiclass sorcerer/wizard take advantage of "eschew materials" when casting wizard spells?

Eschew Materials is a feat, not the same thing.


shallowsoul wrote:
BigDTBone wrote:
Fromper wrote:
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.

Would you let a multiclass sorcerer/wizard take advantage of "eschew materials" when casting wizard spells?
Eschew Materials is a feat, not the same thing.

Obviously.

But for the sake of argument the class ability that gives it to you says 'a sorcerer', which was the very argument used a while ago to say that the FAQ doesn't apply to spontaneous Casting. Specifically, since it mentioned cleric at all in the text.

By that argument, the Feat should only apply to the Sorcerer levels (which is absurd).


shallowsoul wrote:
BigDTBone wrote:
Fromper wrote:
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.

Would you let a multiclass sorcerer/wizard take advantage of "eschew materials" when casting wizard spells?
Eschew Materials is a feat, not the same thing.

Could the wizard use his familiar to deliver a touch spell cast from a sorcerer slot?


BigDTBone wrote:
shallowsoul wrote:
BigDTBone wrote:
Fromper wrote:
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.

Would you let a multiclass sorcerer/wizard take advantage of "eschew materials" when casting wizard spells?
Eschew Materials is a feat, not the same thing.
Could the wizard use his familiar to deliver a touch spell cast from a sorcerer slot?

IIRC sorcerer and wizard class levels stack for the purpose of the familiar's power so it should work for both. Now using it for cleric is something I would not know unless I actually read the rules again to try to determine if it is a sorc/wiz "only" ability, or something that is supposed to work across all casting classes.

edit: for clarity


wraithstrike wrote:
BigDTBone wrote:
shallowsoul wrote:
BigDTBone wrote:
Fromper wrote:
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.

Would you let a multiclass sorcerer/wizard take advantage of "eschew materials" when casting wizard spells?
Eschew Materials is a feat, not the same thing.
Could the wizard use his familiar to deliver a touch spell cast from a sorcerer slot?

IIRC sorcerer and wizard class levels stack for the purpose of the familiar's power so it should work for both. Now using it for cleric is something I would not know unless I actually read the rules again to try to determine if it is a sorc/wiz "only" ability, or something that is supposed to work across all casting classes.

edit: for clarity

Sorry for my lack of clarity in the question. Assuming the sorcerer/wizard in question was a draconic bloodline sorcerer who does not gain the benefits of a familiar, could the character use the familiar he gained from his wizard "arcane bond" class feature to cast a shocking grasp he cast from a sorcerer slot?

On a side note, I have an oracle/sorcerer with arcane bloodline just to get the familiar to deliver touch healing spells. I thought it was a cool idea mostly because it is something I haven't really seen before.


The rules don't state that you have to have the arcane ability to stack the two class levels, so it won't matter. They only state that both classes stack. If they specifically called out both classes needing the arcane bond then I would say only the class with the arcane bond could benefit, even if I did not think it made sense.

PS: Then I would just houserule it so it did work.


wraithstrike wrote:

The rules don't state that you have to have the arcane ability to stack the two class levels, so it won't matter. They only state that both classes stack. If they specifically called out both classes needing the arcane bond then I would say only the class with the arcane bond could benefit, even if I did not think it made sense.

PS: Then I would just houserule it so it did work.

I think you may have misremembered on this one. The only place which states that they stack is in the arcane bloodline power: arcane bond. Neither the wizard arcane bond nor the wizard familiar section state that familiar's stack with other class levels.

Unless you are trying to say that you get bloodline powers from bloodlines you don't have, or you are saying that class level=character level for the purpose of your wizard familiar no matter what classes you have.

I don't think you are saying either of those, but I could be wrong about that.


Right, the prd entry for wizard familiar only allows the stacking of classes entitled to familiar, which does not include sorcerers.

I believe that is why the arcane bloodline modifies the familiar ability to allow stacking.


KrispyXIV wrote:

Right, the prd entry for wizard familiar only allows the stacking of classes entitled to familiar, which does not include sorcerers.

I believe that is why the arcane bloodline modifies the familiar ability to allow stacking.

The ultimate point being that everyone seems to agree that the sorcerer/wizard multiclass should be able to use the familiar to deliver touch attacks. But if we were to use the logic of some on this board then we would have to say that you could not do so because it does not change the "effect" of the spell.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

The table listing all the special abilities a Cleric/Druid gets as it levels up omits "Spontaneous Casting" as a new feature. The Sorcerer entry includes "Bloodline Power". Seems plausible that if "Spontaneous Casting" was supposed to be something wholly distinct from "Spells", it would be listed on the table like other new and distinct abilities that are gained in each class entry as they level up. Perhaps not determinative (since we are all very much entrenched in our respective positions), but curious nonetheless.

Regardless, I remain unconvinced that "Spontaneous Casting" for CoDs is necessarily a separate class feature that modifies their spellcasting, as opposed to simply being another particular aspect of their spellcasting power.

*shrug*


I'm curious as to why anyone would think the familiar of a Wizard/Cleric couldn't deliver divine touch spells.


BigDTBone wrote:
KrispyXIV wrote:

Right, the prd entry for wizard familiar only allows the stacking of classes entitled to familiar, which does not include sorcerers.

I believe that is why the arcane bloodline modifies the familiar ability to allow stacking.

The ultimate point being that everyone seems to agree that the sorcerer/wizard multiclass should be able to use the familiar to deliver touch attacks. But if we were to use the logic of some on this board then we would have to say that you could not do so because it does not change the "effect" of the spell.

The lack of RAW's ability to support RAI better without contradicting someone where else is a flaw in the way the rules are written. I think these will always pop up in core, and in new books. It can be very difficult to figure out intent when some things are written very clearly, but another ability has a grey area. It gets worse when two things are written in a similar pattern, but one is a lot more permissive than another.

They allow writers to not be restricted to a more codified language too much for freedom of expression, but it can make the rules more difficult to understand.

Silver Crusade RPG Superstar 2014 Top 16

wraithstrike wrote:
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.

Oh crap, this just got even better!

Now I'm thinking that by RAW a Druid-1/Cleric-1/Wizard-18 can spontaneously cast all of the Summon Nature's Ally and Cure spells with his wizard slots!


Zahir ibn Mahmoud ibn Jothan wrote:
wraithstrike wrote:
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.

Oh crap, this just got even better!

Now I'm thinking that by RAW a Druid-1/Cleric-1/Wizard-18 can spontaneously cast all of the Summon Nature's Ally and Cure spells with his wizard slots!

And an urban druid anything from any of three domains.

Of course, at some point your wizard lost two levels of spell progression (ouch) or he took them at 19-20,by which point balance has long since vanished.


Zahir ibn Mahmoud ibn Jothan wrote:
wraithstrike wrote:
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.

Oh crap, this just got even better!

Now I'm thinking that by RAW a Druid-1/Cleric-1/Wizard-18 can spontaneously cast all of the Summon Nature's Ally and Cure spells with his wizard slots!

Actually that would work since the druid has it's own spontaneous casting section, assuming your GM would allow the cleric ability to use wizard spells.


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

Let's take a step back. I interpret the two camps as follows:

I'm a level 4 wizard/level 1 cleric. I have the following abilities.

Camp 1: abilities are abilities

Spells (cleric 1)
Channel Energy
Spontaneous Casting (Cures)
Spells (wizard 4)
Arcane Bond

Camp 2: Spontaneous casting modifies cleric spells

Spells (cleric 1)
<tab> Spontaneous Casting (Cures)
Channel Energy
Spells (wizard 4)
Arcane Bond

So the disagreement(as far as I can tell) is whether it's an ability the character gets or a feature of the spell-casting.

So from camp 1's perspective, the argument about sorcerers swapping inquisitor spells isn't related since it's still part of the same ability, so it modifies that.

In the interest of full disclosure, I tend to fall towards camp 1 since it seems like what the sorcerer bloodline arcana sets as the precedent. I also think slots belong to a specific class's spell list. Otherwise if there were a summoner-like class that has Cure Serious Wounds as a 2nd level spell, the cleric would have to be able to swap that way. And that's silly.


I don't really think a sorcerer should be allowed to swap inquisitor spells. I just made that argument because the sorcerer and the cleric both "lose" a spell to gain the use of another spell.

If you are going to go strictly by RAW reading it as if you are a computer program then both examples work the same way. <----I do not advocate reading the rules that way.

That is why you have to read the rules in context, and not always read them in the most literal sense.

Saying "the rules don't say I can't" allows for endless possibilities, but the permissions of the rules are not really endless.


Berinor wrote:

Let's take a step back. I interpret the two camps as follows:

I'm a level 4 wizard/level 1 cleric. I have the following abilities.

Camp 1: abilities are abilities

Spells (cleric 1)
Channel Energy
Spontaneous Casting (Cures)
Spells (wizard 4)
Arcane Bond

Camp 2: Spontaneous casting modifies cleric spells

Spells (cleric 1)
<tab> Spontaneous Casting (Cures)
Channel Energy
Spells (wizard 4)
Arcane Bond

So the disagreement(as far as I can tell) is whether it's an ability the character gets or a feature of the spell-casting.

So from camp 1's perspective, the argument about sorcerers swapping inquisitor spells isn't related since it's still part of the same ability, so it modifies that.

In the interest of full disclosure, I tend to fall towards camp 1 since it seems like what the sorcerer bloodline arcana sets as the precedent. I also think slots belong to a specific class's spell list. Otherwise if there were a summoner-like class that has Cure Serious Wounds as a 2nd level spell, the cleric would have to be able to swap that way. And that's silly.

Which would seem to be exactly why the spell that heals an eidolon is called "rejuvenate" and not "cure."


wraithstrike wrote:

I don't really think a sorcerer should be allowed to swap inquisitor spells. I just made that argument because the sorcerer and the cleric both "lose" a spell to gain the use of another spell.

If you are going to go strictly by RAW reading it as if you are a computer program then both examples work the same way. <----I do not advocate reading the rules that way.

That is why you have to read the rules in context, and not always read them in the most literal sense.

Saying "the rules don't say I can't" allows for endless possibilities, but the permissions of the rules are not really endless.

You are tilting at windmills.

No one is saying "the rules don't say I can't." People are saying "the rules say you can do this."

No one is reading the rules as a computer parses code. That doesn't change the fact that abilities are static and do not modify themselves, nor does it change that letting a prepared spellcaster cast spells spontaneously is definitely modifying their spellcasting.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Act I, Scene I

Scene Somewhere in Golarion

Cast Charles the Cleric 1 and Wanda the Wizard 3 / Cler 1

Just before dawn

Charles and Wanda kneel, heads bowed in prayer

Charles: O Mighty Saranrae! Please bestow your blessings on me so I can serve in your name.

Saranrae: Certainly, my devoted follower. What shall it be today?

Charles: A Bless and a Command O holy one!

Saranrae: Certainly. Sure you don't want a Cure Light Wounds?

Charles: No thank you. As a Pathfinder Cleric I can convert a spell into a cure spell of equal power.

Saranrae: Slaps forehead Silly me. Got muddled up after bestowing my divine graces on a bunch of 2ed hold-overs.

Charles: Now that you mention it o mighty one. Any chance of a Cure Moderate Wounds? You know, as a special treat? We're smiting some pretty heavy duty evil critters in your name today.

Saranrae: Alas, as I have told you every morning for the last Me-knows-how-long, you are not yet spiritually powerful enough to handle such powerful spells. You are simply not sufficiently well versed to manifest or handle such powerful divine magic. CLW or nothing today.

Charles: Oh well. Never hurts to ask.

Meanwhile

Wanda: Oh might Saranrae, please bestow upon me....... etc etc

Saranrae: You aren't going to ask me for Cure Moderate Wounds today are you. Charles does it every dawn and I am getting really close to smiting his irritating a##.

Wanda: No need, o holy one. I'll just convert my Wizardly Glitterdust into a CMW if need be. It's really weird, even though I am not in any way powerful enough to cast such powerful divine magic, I apparently can. And you, in your infallible wisdom have pointed that out to me that you could not even grant such divine magic to me as I am too lowly a cleric to handle such power. Yet, it just so happens - it's actually really funny how it works - because I am moderately proficient in arcane magic I can actually cast CMW. It doesn't make sense, but who am I to argue......

Saranrae: !?!

End Act I, Scene I


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Rulebook, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
wraithstrike wrote:

I don't really think a sorcerer should be allowed to swap inquisitor spells. I just made that argument because the sorcerer and the cleric both "lose" a spell to gain the use of another spell.

If you are going to go strictly by RAW reading it as if you are a computer program then both examples work the same way. <----I do not advocate reading the rules that way.

That is why you have to read the rules in context, and not always read them in the most literal sense.

Saying "the rules don't say I can't" allows for endless possibilities, but the permissions of the rules are not really endless.

Don't worry - I'm pretty sure I understand your position and it seems reasonable. I just disagree that those two examples work the same way. Looking it as a computer program :-), the Spells ability for each class evolves and gives you opportunities to change the nature of that ability. Like bonus feats for fighters, since that is modified in the same ability, that provides a natural scoping.

Much like Samasboy1, in my heart the answer is that the sorcerer arcana ruling is what I disagree with. In light of that, though, I interpret that abilities that don't specify that they apply to the abilities of a specific class are abilities of the character. The "the cleric" vs. "he" wording seems far too minor a difference in wording to be intended to anchor the rules on.

So if you like, I think I understand your argument and your stance. I'm trying to find a good way to figure out which abilities are like the bloodline arcana and which are like the magus spell pool. SKR has said in an only semi-official manner that spontaneous casting is like the spell pool. I don't have a good answer for that and I appreciate you striving to provide examples. The spell swapping doesn't hit the mark, though.


BigDTBone wrote:
No one is reading the rules as a computer parses code. That doesn't change the fact that abilities are static and do not modify themselves, nor does it change that letting a prepared spellcaster cast spells spontaneously is definitely modifying their spellcasting.

Not if it's a specific aspect of their more general "Spells" class feature, right? If "Spontaneous Casting" is simply a separate aspect of "Spells", as opposed to a separate ability altogether, then it's not modifying "Spells", since abilities are static and do not modify themselves.


Why would someone claim the "spells" class feature doesn't modify a character's spellcasting abilities?


I was making a general case with the computer program analogy, and nobody has to say "the rules don't say I can't" to read them that way. Just like someone can always argue "the don't rules don't say you can" to be restrictive which is also be an error I see made on the boards at times.

That first line was to let the poster know I don't think the sorc/inquis idea was something I thought should be done.


Gaberlunzie wrote:
Why would someone claim the "spells" class feature doesn't modify a character's spellcasting abilities?

Spells is what grants the spellcasting ability. So people protest to the idea that the thing is modifying itself. Seems reasonable.

But the real question is whether the ability of the CoDzilla to spontaneously cast is a part of Spells or something distinct. I don't believe there's really a clear answer on that.


fretgod99 wrote:
Gaberlunzie wrote:
Why would someone claim the "spells" class feature doesn't modify a character's spellcasting abilities?

Spells is what grants the spellcasting ability. So people protest to the idea that the thing is modifying itself. Seems reasonable.

But the real question is whether the ability of the CoDzilla to spontaneously cast is a part of Spells or something distinct. I don't believe there's really a clear answer on that.

Honestly, this is probably the best reasoning I have heard about why this doesn't work. The table doesn't give "spells" or "spontaneous casting" as a class feature so it may be reasonable to assume they are collectively "spellcasting" and so it does not modify itself.


fretgod99 wrote:
Gaberlunzie wrote:
Why would someone claim the "spells" class feature doesn't modify a character's spellcasting abilities?
Spells is what grants the spellcasting ability. So people protest to the idea that the thing is modifying itself. Seems reasonable.

Not necessarily. The "spells" class feature is just one way to get spellcasting ability.

Furthermore, there is a difference between "spellcasting ability" in general and the "spells" class feature in specific.

Gaining the "spells" class feature of any class modifies your ability to cast spells, right? In many cases, you may not have had any ability beforehand, but then gaining that ability is clearly an alteration.

If someone teaches me to drive a car, they've altered by car-driving ability.

Furthermore, as is the case in this thread, many characters WILL already have spellcasting when they gain the spells class feature, such as when the above mentioned wizard 19 takes a level of cleric. Or, depending on how you interpret the "SLA's are like spells", any paladin will have spellcasting ability before they gain the spells class feature, due to detect evil.

I can see having a more strict definition of "modify spellcasting" that requires the spells themselves to be modified, rather than the ability to cast spells, but that would also exclude spontaneous casting as it doesn't modify spells, it modifies the ability to cast certain spells.


Gaberlunzie wrote:
fretgod99 wrote:
Gaberlunzie wrote:
Why would someone claim the "spells" class feature doesn't modify a character's spellcasting abilities?
Spells is what grants the spellcasting ability. So people protest to the idea that the thing is modifying itself. Seems reasonable.
Not necessarily. The "spells" class feature is just one way to get spellcasting ability.

Really? Name another.

Gaberlunzie wrote:


Furthermore, there is a difference between "spellcasting ability" in general and the "spells" class feature in specific.

No there isn't. You get "spellcasting" from "spells" class feature. They are the same.

Gaberlunzie wrote:


Gaining the "spells" class feature of any class modifies your ability to cast spells, right? In many cases, you may not have had any ability beforehand, but then gaining that ability is clearly an alteration.

No, it grants it. Granting is not modifying. You go to the store and buy a pair of pants. You now have the pants. The pants were not modified. They are the same pants. You just have access to them now.

Gaberlunzie wrote:


If someone teaches me to drive a car, they've altered by car-driving ability.

Great Point! If someone teaches you how to drive better then you can use that ability in ANY car you have.

Gaberlunzie wrote:


Furthermore, as is the case in this thread, many characters WILL already have spellcasting when they gain the spells class feature, such as when the above mentioned wizard 19 takes a level of cleric. Or, depending on how you interpret the "SLA's are like spells", any paladin will have spellcasting ability before they gain the spells class feature, due to detect evil.

Detect Evil and other SLA's are unique class features and are not spellcasting. If you want to say that a Cleric 1/Fighter 9 can swap out her daylight SLA for a cure serious wounds I might listen to your argument. But I really don't think that is what you are getting at. At any rate, even if we were to say that SLA abilities are spellcasting instead of counting-as spellcasting then they are only granting those abilities, not modifying them.

Gaberlunzie wrote:


I can see having a more strict definition of "modify spellcasting" that requires the spells themselves to be modified, rather than the ability to cast spells, but that would also exclude spontaneous casting as it doesn't modify spells, it modifies the ability to cast certain spells.

Until that new definition shows up then all we have to go on is what is written. Allowing a prepared caster to cast spontaneously is definitely modifying their spellcasting.

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Companion, Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber
wraithstrike wrote:

The rules don't state that you have to have the arcane ability to stack the two class levels, so it won't matter. They only state that both classes stack. If they specifically called out both classes needing the arcane bond then I would say only the class with the arcane bond could benefit, even if I did not think it made sense.

PS: Then I would just houserule it so it did work.

PRD Familiars wrote:
Levels of different classes that are entitled to familiars stack for the purpose of determining any familiar abilities that depend on the master's level.

Stacking the sorcerer levels require the arcane bond. Witch level stack without problems.

PRD wrote:
Deliver Touch Spells (Su): If the master is 3rd level or higher, a familiar can deliver touch spells for him. If the master and the familiar are in contact at the time the master casts a touch spell, he can designate his familiar as the “toucher.” The familiar can then deliver the touch spell just as the master would. As usual, if the master casts another spell before the touch is delivered, the touch spell dissipates.

The requirement is touch spells. It should work.

I think that the "pro" camp is using grasping at straws with these examples. They are totally irrelevant.
It is not a power of the spellcaster, it is a effect of the link with the familiar, under Familiar Ability Descriptions.

fretgod99 wrote:
I'm curious as to why anyone would think the familiar of a Wizard/Cleric couldn't deliver divine touch spells.

Because someone is trying to mud the waters inventing useless examples. Look the eschew material example. At the same time they continue to dodge a very simple question:

Why you dismiss this:
PRD wrote:

Spontaneous Casting of Cure and Inflict Spells:

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.
...
Spontaneous Casting of Summon Nature's Ally Spells:
The divine energy of the spell that the summon spell substitutes for is converted as if that spell had been prepared all along.

So far the only reply I have seen is "wizard are in denial and use divine energy."


Diego Rossi wrote:
wraithstrike wrote:

The rules don't state that you have to have the arcane ability to stack the two class levels, so it won't matter. They only state that both classes stack. If they specifically called out both classes needing the arcane bond then I would say only the class with the arcane bond could benefit, even if I did not think it made sense.

PS: Then I would just houserule it so it did work.

PRD Familiars wrote:
Levels of different classes that are entitled to familiars stack for the purpose of determining any familiar abilities that depend on the master's level.

Stacking the sorcerer levels require the arcane bond. Witch level stack without problems.

PRD wrote:
Deliver Touch Spells (Su): If the master is 3rd level or higher, a familiar can deliver touch spells for him. If the master and the familiar are in contact at the time the master casts a touch spell, he can designate his familiar as the “toucher.” The familiar can then deliver the touch spell just as the master would. As usual, if the master casts another spell before the touch is delivered, the touch spell dissipates.

The requirement is touch spells. It should work.

I think that the "pro" camp is using grasping at straws with these examples. They are totally irrelevant.
It is not a power of the spellcaster, it is a effect of the link with the familiar, under Familiar Ability Descriptions.

fretgod99 wrote:
I'm curious as to why anyone would think the familiar of a Wizard/Cleric couldn't deliver divine touch spells.

Because someone is trying to mud the waters inventing useless examples. Look the eschew material example. At the same time they continue to dodge a very simple question:

Why you dismiss this:
PRD wrote:

Spontaneous Casting of Cure and Inflict Spells:

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.
...
Spontaneous Casting
...

1) I am not trying to "mud" the waters with my examples. If you believe that multiclass caster can deliver touch spells with the familiar of the other class I would like you to demonstrate why. Because your answer will undoubtedly prove that wizard swapping spells for cures is ok.

2) The "divine" source you keep quoting is flavor text and completely not relevant to this conversation. BUT IN ORDER TO MAKE YOU HAPPY... Lets talk about the Druid's Spontaneous Casting ability. No need to cloud the stage with bit parts. There is no flavor text which suggests that a Druid's ability to swap in SNA spells is divine. So I assume you are ok with a Druid 1/Wizard 19 spontaneously casting SNA9?

Liberty's Edge

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Companion, Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber
BigDTBone wrote:
2) The "divine" source you keep quoting is flavor text and completely not relevant to this conversation. BUT IN ORDER TO MAKE YOU HAPPY... Lets talk about the Druid's Spontaneous Casting ability. No need to cloud the stage with bit parts. There is no flavor text which suggests that a Druid's ability to swap in SNA spells is divine. So I assume you are ok with a Druid 1/Wizard 19 spontaneously casting SNA9?

Be careful of the cut off point when you cite another guy post.

You have missed a row.

PRD wrote:

Spontaneous Casting of Cure and Inflict Spells:

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.
...
Spontaneous Casting of Summon Nature's Ally Spells:
The divine energy of the spell that the summon spell substitutes for is converted as if that spell had been prepared all along.

It was bolded, but missing something is so easy.

- * -

I "like" people that say RAW, RAW, RAW, and then reject some of the RAW as "flavour text" because it don't agree with their opinion.

That flavour text is in the section about Divine Spells. You are claiming that it is all flavour text? to me that section seem all hard rules.


Diego Rossi wrote:
BigDTBone wrote:
2) The "divine" source you keep quoting is flavor text and completely not relevant to this conversation. BUT IN ORDER TO MAKE YOU HAPPY... Lets talk about the Druid's Spontaneous Casting ability. No need to cloud the stage with bit parts. There is no flavor text which suggests that a Druid's ability to swap in SNA spells is divine. So I assume you are ok with a Druid 1/Wizard 19 spontaneously casting SNA9?

Be careful of the cut off point when you cite another guy post.

You have missed a row.

PRD wrote:

Spontaneous Casting of Cure and Inflict Spells:

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.
...
Spontaneous Casting of Summon Nature's Ally Spells:
The divine energy of the spell that the summon spell substitutes for is converted as if that spell had been prepared all along.

It was bolded, but missing something is so easy.

- * -

I "like" people that say RAW, RAW, RAW, and then reject some of the RAW as "flavour text" because it don't agree with their opinion.

That flavour text is in the section about Divine Spells. You are claiming that it is all flavour text? to me that section seem all hard rules.

My bad on the Druid SNA swap. This still isn't a convincing argument. Let's get all the cards out on the table. Would you be ok with a cleric 1/ Druid 19 spontaneously swapping out a prepared Druid spell for a cure critical wounds? Would you be ok with a Druid 1/ranger 19 spontaneously swapping a prepared spell for a SNA4?


Diego Rossi wrote:
wraithstrike wrote:

The rules don't state that you have to have the arcane ability to stack the two class levels, so it won't matter. They only state that both classes stack. If they specifically called out both classes needing the arcane bond then I would say only the class with the arcane bond could benefit, even if I did not think it made sense.

PS: Then I would just houserule it so it did work.

PRD Familiars wrote:
Levels of different classes that are entitled to familiars stack for the purpose of determining any familiar abilities that depend on the master's level.
Stacking the sorcerer levels require the arcane bond. Witch level stack without problems.

Thanks. I was going off of memory.

PRD wrote:

Spontaneous Casting of Cure and Inflict Spells:

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.

Without scrolling down I am guessing they will say it converts the arcane spell into a divine one, or that it is flavor text.


What about a Wiz/Clr with low Wisdom?
Or a Wiz/Clr who lost their Cleric spells?


BigDTBone wrote:
Diego Rossi wrote:
BigDTBone wrote:
2) The "divine" source you keep quoting is flavor text and completely not relevant to this conversation. BUT IN ORDER TO MAKE YOU HAPPY... Lets talk about the Druid's Spontaneous Casting ability. No need to cloud the stage with bit parts. There is no flavor text which suggests that a Druid's ability to swap in SNA spells is divine. So I assume you are ok with a Druid 1/Wizard 19 spontaneously casting SNA9?

Be careful of the cut off point when you cite another guy post.

You have missed a row.

PRD wrote:

Spontaneous Casting of Cure and Inflict Spells:

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.
...
Spontaneous Casting of Summon Nature's Ally Spells:
The divine energy of the spell that the summon spell substitutes for is converted as if that spell had been prepared all along.

It was bolded, but missing something is so easy.

- * -

I "like" people that say RAW, RAW, RAW, and then reject some of the RAW as "flavour text" because it don't agree with their opinion.

That flavour text is in the section about Divine Spells. You are claiming that it is all flavour text? to me that section seem all hard rules.

My bad on the Druid SNA swap. This still isn't a convincing argument. Let's get all the cards out on the table. Would you be ok with a cleric 1/ Druid 19 spontaneously swapping out a prepared Druid spell for a cure critical wounds? Would you be ok with a Druid 1/ranger 19 spontaneously swapping a prepared spell for a SNA4?

Nope, but at least it is evidence against the wizard or "any(without limits)" prepared caster being able to do this. One battle at time.. :)


wraithstrike wrote:
BigDTBone wrote:
Diego Rossi wrote:
BigDTBone wrote:
2) The "divine" source you keep quoting is flavor text and completely not relevant to this conversation. BUT IN ORDER TO MAKE YOU HAPPY... Lets talk about the Druid's Spontaneous Casting ability. No need to cloud the stage with bit parts. There is no flavor text which suggests that a Druid's ability to swap in SNA spells is divine. So I assume you are ok with a Druid 1/Wizard 19 spontaneously casting SNA9?

Be careful of the cut off point when you cite another guy post.

You have missed a row.

PRD wrote:

Spontaneous Casting of Cure and Inflict Spells:

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.
...
Spontaneous Casting of Summon Nature's Ally Spells:
The divine energy of the spell that the summon spell substitutes for is converted as if that spell had been prepared all along.

It was bolded, but missing something is so easy.

- * -

I "like" people that say RAW, RAW, RAW, and then reject some of the RAW as "flavour text" because it don't agree with their opinion.

That flavour text is in the section about Divine Spells. You are claiming that it is all flavour text? to me that section seem all hard rules.

My bad on the Druid SNA swap. This still isn't a convincing argument. Let's get all the cards out on the table. Would you be ok with a cleric 1/ Druid 19 spontaneously swapping out a prepared Druid spell for a cure critical wounds? Would you be ok with a Druid 1/ranger 19 spontaneously swapping a prepared spell for a SNA4?
Nope, but at least it is evidence against the wizard or "any(without limits)" prepared caster being able to do this. One battle at time.. :)

So the "divine" text isn't the real problem for you then. It is a red herring issue being used to distract us from the actual rules debate.


BigDTBone wrote:
wraithstrike wrote:
BigDTBone wrote:
Diego Rossi wrote:
BigDTBone wrote:
2) The "divine" source you keep quoting is flavor text and completely not relevant to this conversation. BUT IN ORDER TO MAKE YOU HAPPY... Lets talk about the Druid's Spontaneous Casting ability. No need to cloud the stage with bit parts. There is no flavor text which suggests that a Druid's ability to swap in SNA spells is divine. So I assume you are ok with a Druid 1/Wizard 19 spontaneously casting SNA9?

Be careful of the cut off point when you cite another guy post.

You have missed a row.

PRD wrote:

Spontaneous Casting of Cure and Inflict Spells:

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.
...
Spontaneous Casting of Summon Nature's Ally Spells:
The divine energy of the spell that the summon spell substitutes for is converted as if that spell had been prepared all along.

It was bolded, but missing something is so easy.

- * -

I "like" people that say RAW, RAW, RAW, and then reject some of the RAW as "flavour text" because it don't agree with their opinion.

That flavour text is in the section about Divine Spells. You are claiming that it is all flavour text? to me that section seem all hard rules.

My bad on the Druid SNA swap. This still isn't a convincing argument. Let's get all the cards out on the table. Would you be ok with a cleric 1/ Druid 19 spontaneously swapping out a prepared Druid spell for a cure critical wounds? Would you be ok with a Druid 1/ranger 19 spontaneously swapping a prepared spell for a SNA4?
Nope, but at least it is evidence against the wizard or "any(without limits)" prepared caster being able to do this. One battle at time.. :)
So the "divine" text isn't the real problem for you then. It is a red herring issue being used to distract us from the actual rules debate.

I did not bring up the "divine" text initially. Someone else did. Even the latest mention of it was not me. It was Diego Rossi. I just answered the question as if I was being asked, but it was really Deigo that was being asked.


My responce to you was really meant to disparage the "divine" argument by calling it a red herring which is getting in our way, more than it was to actually hold you to point on it. I know it is Diego's pet argument, not yours.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
BigDTBone wrote:
My responce to you was really meant to disparage the "divine" argument by calling it a red herring which is getting in our way, more than it was to actually hold you to point on it. I know it is Diego's pet argument, not yours.

Actually I do think it is a valid point. I do agree that RAW is murky but at this point we both know that. Samasboy is getting the most attention because he won't state if he is arguing as a devil's advocate or if he really believes this is PDT's intent. At least with you we know this is just a disagreement on the RAW more than anything else.


BigDTBone wrote:
Really? Name another.

Imbue with Spell Ability would be an obvious example. In addition, since spellcasting isn't a defined term and used more descriptively than anything else, whether stuff like casting from a stave or using SLAs is spellcasting isn't really specified in the rules.

But let's take IwSA as that's a 100% clear cut case that's not in any way subject to interpretation.

Quote:
Gaberlunzie wrote:


Furthermore, there is a difference between "spellcasting ability" in general and the "spells" class feature in specific.
No there isn't. You get "spellcasting" from "spells" class feature. They are the same.

Many characters might already have spellcasting ability before gaining the class feature - thus they are not the same.

Quote:
Gaberlunzie wrote:


If someone teaches me to drive a car, they've altered by car-driving ability.
Great Point! If someone teaches you how to drive better then you can use that ability in ANY car you have.

Uhm... Which doesn't have anything to do with anything I've written. Are you saying me learning to drive a car has NOT modified my car-driving ability?

Gaberlunzie wrote:


Detect Evil and other SLA's are unique class features and are not spellcasting.

This might be your interpretation, but it's not explicit in RAW. SLA's are considered spells except for a few specific explicit exceptions (like components), using an SLA is casting it, and follows the rules in the magic chapter that time and again refer to the user as a "spellcaster".

Furthermore, being a "unique class feature" has no bearing on anything, they aren't mutually exclusive.

If you want to say that a Cleric 1/Fighter 9 can swap out her daylight SLA for a cure serious wounds I might listen to your argument. But I really don't think that is what you are getting at. At any rate, even if we were...

I'm saying that if we are to consider things that modify spellcasting in any way as falling within the sorcerer FAQ, rather than just stuff that modifies actual spells specifically, then the "spells" class feature is as much of such ability as any, since it modifies the spellcasting ability of the user.


A daylight SLA is not a prepared spell.

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Companion, Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber
Gaberlunzie wrote:
BigDTBone wrote:
Really? Name another.

Imbue with Spell Ability would be an obvious example. In addition, since spellcasting isn't a defined term and used more descriptively than anything else, whether stuff like casting from a stave or using SLAs is spellcasting isn't really specified in the rules.

PRD wrote:

Casting Spells

Whether a spell is arcane or divine, and whether a character prepares spells in advance or chooses them on the spot, casting a spell works the same way.

Followed by the whole magic paragraph of the rules.

Casting spells and spellcasting seem synonymous to me. You disagree?


Diego Rossi wrote:
Gaberlunzie wrote:
BigDTBone wrote:
Really? Name another.

Imbue with Spell Ability would be an obvious example. In addition, since spellcasting isn't a defined term and used more descriptively than anything else, whether stuff like casting from a stave or using SLAs is spellcasting isn't really specified in the rules.

PRD wrote:

Casting Spells

Whether a spell is arcane or divine, and whether a character prepares spells in advance or chooses them on the spot, casting a spell works the same way.

Followed by the whole magic paragraph of the rules.

Casting spells and spellcasting seem synonymous to me. You disagree?

Of course not, and that's my point; the "spells" class feature isn't the only way to get spellcasting.

The vagueness in staves is that some people don't consider the user as "casting" the spell (though the staff chapter uses that very word) and in the case with SLA's it's that some people don't consider SLA's spells (which they sometimes are, sometimes are not, but they use all the rules in the magic chapter talking about the user as a spellcaster).

Personally, I think SLA's and staff usage are both spellcasting, but I don't want to get bogged down in a sub-debate about that, hence I took Imbue with Spell Ability as the main example since there's no such risk of a sub-debate as it clearly state you get the spell and the ability to cast it.


seebs wrote:
A daylight SLA is not a prepared spell.

Quote who you were replying too. <---A suggestion, not a command. :)


"I don't want to get bogged down in a sub-debate" - Gaberlunzie

Isn't that the purpose of the Rules forum?

301 to 350 of 558 << first < prev | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / Rules Questions / Can a Wizard 1 / Cleric 1 spontaneously cast prepared wizard spells? All Messageboards