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


Rules Questions

351 to 400 of 558 << first < prev | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | next > last >>

Diego Rossi wrote:

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?

Hold up. You've just quoted the Prd saying that it's irrelevant whether or not spells are arcane or divine when casting them, casting them works the same way for both.

That certainly doesn't help your argument that wizards can't convert cures because of the whole divine energy thing.

In fact, it sounds to me like rules text that says arcane/divine doesn't matter when you're actually casting a spell (as opposed to scrolls and such, where the rules specifically say it matters).

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Companion Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
Gaberlunzie wrote:
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.

PRD wrote:


Activation: Staves use the spell trigger activation method, so casting a spell from a staff is usually a standard action that doesn't provoke attacks of opportunity.
PRD wrote:


Spell Trigger: Spell trigger activation is similar to spell completion, but it's even simpler. No gestures or spell finishing is needed, just a special knowledge of spellcasting that an appropriate character would know, and a single word that must be spoken. Spell trigger items can be used by anyone whose class can cast the corresponding spell. This is the case even for a character who can't actually cast spells, such as a 3rd-level paladin. The user must still determine what spell is stored in the item before she can activate it. Activating a spell trigger item is a standard action and does not provoke attacks of opportunity.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
wraithstrike wrote:

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.

Although I agree that spontaneous converting of arcane spells should not be a thing, I find myself slightly uncomfortable with the parsing here. I'm not sure I would agree with these two sentences if they did not already reflect my opinion.


Coriat wrote:
wraithstrike wrote:

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.

Although I agree that spontaneous converting of arcane spells should not be a thing, I find myself slightly uncomfortable with the parsing here. I'm not sure I would agree with these two sentences if they did not already reflect my opinion.

That's actually the biggest problem with this whole situation. I am a major proponent of the rules being written so that my players may interpret them without needing developer input. I think that wizard/cleric swapping is bad for the game, but I don't like that in order for me to determine if it was intended to work that way the only "official" comment is a rant post by an ex-employee.

I would like to be able to just point to the rule and say to my players, "it doesn't let you do that, here, let me show you why."

So my main purpose here is to demonstrate that a flat reading of the rules will get a player to "yes" when it should get them to "no." If I can establish that then perhaps it will prompt an errata. But if everyone believes that the rules don't indicate it is possible, then there will likely be no errata.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

Mmmm ok.
the sorcerers faq basically means whatever spell u cast it will modify all spells the sorcerer can cast even from different classes.
going over all the modifications, i dont see any situation where it actually changes the spell u cast into another spell.
u cast a fireball but instead of fire u want ice? Ok can do, BUT its still the fireball spell.
want to cast a balemorph spell and make it last longer? Ok can do, but its still the same spell.

Now with the cleric and sorcerer using said faq.
u want to sacrifice a burning hands spell for a cure light wounds....whole different scenario.
here u are doing something the faq doesnt say because everytime with said faq, u were casting a spell and changing it, but itbwas always THAT spell u cast. That fireball spell u fhanged to ice damage didnt bcome a new spell called iceball, no it was still fireball that did ice and not fire. Here u are not casting a fireball spell and modifying it to cure someone but still be a fireball spell, no u are giving up a fireball spell and casting a cure light wounds.

Doesnt fit or follow the modifications the faq states.

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Companion Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
Redneckdevil wrote:

Mmmm ok.

the sorcerers faq basically means whatever spell u cast it will modify all spells the sorcerer can cast even from different classes.
going over all the modifications, i dont see any situation where it actually changes the spell u cast into another spell.
u cast a fireball but instead of fire u want ice? Ok can do, BUT its still the fireball spell.
want to cast a balemorph spell and make it last longer? Ok can do, but its still the same spell.

Now with the cleric and sorcerer using said faq.
u want to sacrifice a burning hands spell for a cure light wounds....whole different scenario.
here u are doing something the faq doesnt say because everytime with said faq, u were casting a spell and changing it, but itbwas always THAT spell u cast. That fireball spell u fhanged to ice damage didnt bcome a new spell called iceball, no it was still fireball that did ice and not fire. Here u are not casting a fireball spell and modifying it to cure someone but still be a fireball spell, no u are giving up a fireball spell and casting a cure light wounds.

Doesnt fit or follow the modifications the faq states.

This.

The Exchange Owner - D20 Hobbies

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

I've tried. I think when you try you might find an appreciation for it.

seebs wrote:
most of us have explicitly stated that we think it should not work and would not allow it in our own games.

I don't really understand your motive if that is true. Do you just desire to poke fun at the game, the authors that work for Paizo, or what? You just want new people to say "the rules are dumb, lets play something that doesn't have stupid things like this argued slavishly despite everyone agreeing what the rules mean and the intent."

Diego Rossi wrote:
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.

It is very common.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

When players start arguing that a wizard should be able to cast cure critical wound with a single level of cleric, it's time for a new edition.

Welcome to Loopfinder, where you can search for improbable rules interpretation and have fun with it.
Suggested for 25+ years old graduates, preferably in Law.


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

I've tried. I think when you try you might find an appreciation for it.

seebs wrote:
most of us have explicitly stated that we think it should not work and would not allow it in our own games.

I don't really understand your motive if that is true. Do you just desire to poke fun at the game, the authors that work for Paizo, or what? You just want new people to say "the rules are dumb, lets play something that doesn't have stupid things like this argued slavishly despite everyone agreeing what the rules mean and the intent."

Diego Rossi wrote:
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.
It is very common.

James, I know your post was directed at seebs but I am going to respond anyway. The reason that I am pressing this point is because I want the rules to be written in such a way that my players can read them and understand how they work without needing to seek out developer intent. Ie. a new player to dnd who isn't familiar with the tradition of clerical healing could very reasonably read the sorcerer FAQ and the "spontaneous casting" class ability and come to the conclusion that he can swap prepared wizard spells for cures.

I find this to be a problem. I also see multiple very simple ways to correct the disconnect that also reduce or preserve word count.

On the point about "RAW RAW RAW fluff" I have responded to that several times but I will do so again. I did not believe Diego's issue was truly the "divine power" clause. I (correctly) believed that if that text were removed that it wouldn't change his mind. Also, its presence wasn't convincing to me. So, rather than chase him down the rabbit hole I proposed a scenario which still has the same basic rules interaction as the cleric/wizard question but removes the "divine power" issue. So I am not ignoring it, but I am side-stepping it. At the point that we reach a conclusive position on the greater rule issue I will be happy to discuss specific interactions, but until then I would prefer not to be sidetracked by ancillary issues.


Dekalinder wrote:

When players start arguing that a wizard should be able to cast cure critical wound with a single level of cleric, it's time for a new edition.

Welcome to Loopfinder, where you can search for improbable rules interpretation and have fun with it.
Suggested for 25+ years old graduates, preferably in Law.

I don't think we need a new edition. I think this one is fine and this problem can be resolved super easily. Also, the sorcerer FAQ was begging for this kind of problem to crop up.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Rulebook, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

Time to pull out the (highly subjective) "reasonableness test":

Would a non-gamer who is not trying to read the rules as a legal document believe that a Cleric 1/Wizard 7 can convert a 4th level Wizard spell into a Cure Critical Wounds?

My own answer is "probably not, but it is not clear", which therefore makes this FAQ-worthy.

Webstore Gninja Minion

Removed several posts and their replies. Keep your arguments to the mechanics, not about the other posters—be civil, please!

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.

@BigDTBone We had a couple of post get caught up in the crossfire. I'll repost this one because it's really the only one relevant, IMHO.

I agree that Spontaneous Casting is a class feature of the Cleric class, though it only applies to those spells prepared in Cleric spell slots. You can't prepare magic missile in a cleric slot anymore than you can prepare cure light wounds in a wizard slot.

For the most part, everyone who says that you could spontaneously cast from wizard spells are reading the spontaneously casting class description out of context.

The "any" doesn't refer to "any spell slot from any spell-casting class". And "prepared" doesn't refer to slots from a spell-casting class that prepares spells ahead of time. It is written in context of the cleric class and the cleric class only. So, a cleric must have a spell prepared, and any of those spells prepared may be exchanged for a cure spell of that level or lower.

Remember, the whole point of the class ability is so the Cleric can still be an effective healer without having to prepare healing spells ahead of time as well as an effective buffer without having to waste slots on preparing cure spells. In absolutely no way does the rules allow this class feature to apply to other spell-casting classes. Regardless of what people want from a misapplied FAQ.

Silver Crusade

BigDTBone wrote:

I know that you don't read "modify spellcasting" the same way I do. I believe that it means anything which modifies how spellcasting works where you believe it is limited to those things which modify particular spells. I don't know who is correct but I will say that I don't see the text that brings you to the conclusion that "modify" is as limited as you suggest.

That's pretty much what I said yesterday, and several others have said something similar. I think it's pretty obvious, especially in light of SKR's post, that this is the RAI, though I'll agree that the RAW is poorly worded enough to make that unclear.

BigDTBone wrote:
The reason that I am pressing this point is because I want the rules to be written in such a way that my players can read them and understand how they work without needing to seek out developer intent.

That just isn't going to happen for a game this complex. There are always going to be oddball corner cases based on people trying combinations that the developers didn't specifically plan for. Heck, it doesn't happen for games far more simple and easy to understand, so why should it happen here?

That's why there are FAQs, and why the responsiveness of the Paizo staff on these forums is one of the (many) selling points of this game.

HangarFlying wrote:

I agree that Spontaneous Casting is a class feature of the Cleric class, though it only applies to those spells prepared in Cleric spell slots. Which goes back to my point which you conveniently dodged. You can't prepare magic missile in a cleric slot anymore than you can prepare cure light wounds in a wizard slot.

For the most part, everyone who says that you could spontaneously cast from wizard spells are reading the spontaneously casting class description out of context.

The "any" doesn't refer to "any spell slot from any spell-casting class". And "prepared" doesn't refer to slots from a spell-casting class that prepares spells ahead of time. It is written in context of the cleric class and the cleric class only. So, a cleric must have a spell prepared, and any of those spells prepared may be exchanged for a cure spell of that level or lower.

Remember, the whole point of the class ability is so the Cleric can still be an effective healer without having to prepare healing spells ahead of time as well as an effective buffer without having to waste slots on preparing cure spells. In absolutely no way does the rules allow this class feature to apply to other spell-casting classes. Regardless of what people want from a misapplied FAQ.

I agree with this, as well, though the Core Rulebook wording could have made that clearer.

Liberty's Edge

Fromper wrote:
HangarFlying wrote:

I agree that Spontaneous Casting is a class feature of the Cleric class, though it only applies to those spells prepared in Cleric spell slots. Which goes back to my point which you conveniently dodged. You can't prepare magic missile in a cleric slot anymore than you can prepare cure light wounds in a wizard slot.

For the most part, everyone who says that you could spontaneously cast from wizard spells are reading the spontaneously casting class description out of context.

The "any" doesn't refer to "any spell slot from any spell-casting class". And "prepared" doesn't refer to slots from a spell-casting class that prepares spells ahead of time. It is written in context of the cleric class and the cleric class only. So, a cleric must have a spell prepared, and any of those spells prepared may be exchanged for a cure spell of that level or lower.

Remember, the whole point of the class ability is so the Cleric can still be an effective healer without having to prepare healing spells ahead of time as well as an effective buffer without having to waste slots on preparing cure spells. In absolutely no way does the rules allow this class feature to apply to other spell-casting classes. Regardless of what people want from a misapplied FAQ.

I agree with this, as well, though the Core Rulebook wording could have made that clearer.

Sure, but considering the descriptions are written for the classes they are written for, I'm not too worked up about how it's currently worded.

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Companion Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
Chemlak wrote:

Time to pull out the (highly subjective) "reasonableness test":

Would a non-gamer who is not trying to read the rules as a legal document believe that a Cleric 1/Wizard 7 can convert a 4th level Wizard spell into a Cure Critical Wounds?

My own answer is "probably not, but it is not clear", which therefore makes this FAQ-worthy.

What is the caster level of that Cure Critical wounds?

It is a clerical ability, so it has a CL of 1.

But:

PRD wrote:
You can cast a spell at a lower caster level than normal, but the caster level you choose must be high enough for you to cast the spell in question, and all level-dependent features must be based on the same caster level.

this seem to prohibit that.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
James Risner wrote:

seebs wrote:
most of us have explicitly stated that we think it should not work and would not allow it in our own games.
I don't really understand your motive if that is true.

You think there must be a motive for discussing how things are, rather than how they should be?

I don't agree that the ability to take one spell slot and use it to cast a different spell is not a modification of your spellcasting. But, at that point we are discussing something with no clear delineation in the rules (what is a modification).

I think the "divine energy" line from the Magic section represents a pretty good argument that wizards don't benefit from Spontaneous Casting. But that would still leave other prepared divine casters as eligible, such as Druid.

Reviewing it, if Spontaneous Casting is a class feature that modifies spellcasting, it does seem fair that Chaotic, Evil, Good, and Lawful Spells is also a class feature that modifies spellcasting.

Diego Rossi wrote:

What is the caster level of that Cure Critical wounds?
It is a clerical ability, so it has a CL of 1.

But:

PRD wrote:
You can cast a spell at a lower caster level than normal, but the caster level you choose must be high enough for you to cast the spell in question, and all level-dependent features must be based on the same caster level.

this seem to prohibit that.

I don't see how it follows that using the Cleric ability to modify the other class' spell, you would use Cleric CL instead of the other class' CL, since the spell you are modifying still comes from the other class.

A Sorcerer 1/Wizard 10 casts fireball, but changes it to cold with their bloodline ability. He used a sorcerer ability, but the CL is still 10.

So the Druid 19/Cleric 1 would be able to spontaneously cast cure spells from Druid slots, but would be restricted in the alignment of spells they can cast.

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Companion Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
Samasboy1 wrote:


Diego Rossi wrote:

What is the caster level of that Cure Critical wounds?
It is a clerical ability, so it has a CL of 1.

But:

PRD wrote:
You can cast a spell at a lower caster level than normal, but the caster level you choose must be high enough for you to cast the spell in question, and all level-dependent features must be based on the same caster level.

this seem to prohibit that.

I don't see how it follows that using the Cleric ability to modify the other class' spell, you would use Cleric CL instead of the other class' CL, since the spell you are modifying still comes from the other class.

A Sorcerer 1/Wizard 10 casts fireball, but changes it to cold with their bloodline ability. He used a sorcerer ability, but the CL is still 10.

So the Druid 19/Cleric 1 would be able to spontaneously cast cure spells from Druid slots, but would be restricted in the alignment of spells they can cast.

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

Who is doing the action? The good cleric. It is an ability of the cleric class.

The caster is the cleric, so his caster level matter.
What are you trying to say, that a cleric class abilities can be based on his levels as a wizard/druid/whatever?


Diego Rossi wrote:


It is an ability of the cleric class.

But it is a cleric ability that is modifying the druid's* spellcasting at that point, not the cleric spellcasting.

So you would use the CL from the Druid.

Just like Bloodline is a sorcerer ability, but when modifying wizard spellcasting, you use the Wizard CL.

*Switching from wizard to druid per my previous acceptance of a "divine energy" limitation.


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

I've tried. I think when you try you might find an appreciation for it.

seebs wrote:
most of us have explicitly stated that we think it should not work and would not allow it in our own games.

I don't really understand your motive if that is true. Do you just desire to poke fun at the game, the authors that work for Paizo, or what? You just want new people to say "the rules are dumb, lets play something that doesn't have stupid things like this argued slavishly despite everyone agreeing what the rules mean and the intent."

Diego Rossi wrote:
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.
It is very common.

James, I know your post was directed at seebs but I am going to respond anyway. The reason that I am pressing this point is because I want the rules to be written in such a way that my players can read them and understand how they work without needing to seek out developer intent. Ie. a new player to dnd who isn't familiar with the tradition of clerical healing could very reasonably read the sorcerer FAQ and the "spontaneous casting" class ability and come to the conclusion that he can swap prepared wizard spells for cures.

I find this to be a problem. I also see multiple very simple ways to correct the disconnect that also reduce or preserve word count.

On the point about "RAW RAW RAW fluff" I have responded to that several times but I will do so again. I did not believe Diego's issue was truly the "divine power" clause. I (correctly) believed that if that text were removed that it wouldn't change his mind. Also, its presence wasn't convincing to me. So, rather than chase him down the rabbit hole I proposed a scenario which still has the same basic rules...

Isn't reading the sorcerer FAQ "seeking out developer intent?"


Diego Rossi wrote:
Who is doing the action? The good cleric. It is an ability of the cleric class.

I believe you hold the key here Diego...

The wizard who would like to cast a cure critical instead of a dimension door would have to cast the cure as a cleric...he doesn't have the cure on his wizard spell list

But then, How would he be able to cast it if he doesn't have sufficient level (caster levels in his cleric class) to do so in the first way....it's kind of a paradox...

Samasboy1's point about druid makes it more complex since he technically could do it in his druid slot....But it still is the cleric part of him who can cast...with the same restriction on caster level....

I believe the wizard arguments clearly shows not supposed to work this way...

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Companion Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
Samasboy1 wrote:
Diego Rossi wrote:


It is an ability of the cleric class.

But it is a cleric ability that is modifying the druid's* spellcasting at that point, not the cleric spellcasting.

So you would use the CL from the Druid.

Just like Bloodline is a sorcerer ability, but when modifying wizard spellcasting, you use the Wizard CL.

*Switching from wizard to druid per my previous acceptance of a "divine energy" limitation.

I have edited the psot above to make it clearer, here is the new text:

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

Who is doing the action? The good cleric. It is an ability of the cleric class.

The caster is the cleric, so his caster level matter.
What are you trying to say, that a cleric spellcaster level can be based on his levels as a wizard/druid/whatever?

Further Edit in italic.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Diego Rossi wrote:
Samasboy1 wrote:


Diego Rossi wrote:

What is the caster level of that Cure Critical wounds?
It is a clerical ability, so it has a CL of 1.

But:

PRD wrote:
You can cast a spell at a lower caster level than normal, but the caster level you choose must be high enough for you to cast the spell in question, and all level-dependent features must be based on the same caster level.

this seem to prohibit that.

I don't see how it follows that using the Cleric ability to modify the other class' spell, you would use Cleric CL instead of the other class' CL, since the spell you are modifying still comes from the other class.

A Sorcerer 1/Wizard 10 casts fireball, but changes it to cold with their bloodline ability. He used a sorcerer ability, but the CL is still 10.

So the Druid 19/Cleric 1 would be able to spontaneously cast cure spells from Druid slots, but would be restricted in the alignment of spells they can cast.

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

Who is doing the action? The good cleric. It is an ability of the cleric class.

What are you trying to say, that a cleric class abilities can be based on his levels as a wizard/druid/whatever?

This is a flawed argument. 'The good cleric' in this case is simply identifying who has the ability... the cleric. Its the subject of the sentence. Its telling you who is doing the action that comes later. It is COMPLETELY interchangeable with 'the character' or 'this character' or 'this cleric', because all of these things are accurate descriptions of the character in question (who, by virtue of having a level in cleric, is a cleric).

The description of what the cleric may is what is relevant. The restriction in that part of the rules says any prepared spell.

For it to work like you want, for the nth time, it needs to say "any prepared cleric spell".

For what its worth, no one I've showed the sorcerer FAQ to and then asked this question to has gotten the question. The answer to them was obvious... of course the Wizard can convert them to cures. The General Rule in the FAQ says so.

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Companion Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber

Read the edited posts.
The ability is very clear:

The cleric can “lose” any prepared spell that is not an orison or domain spell in order to cast any cure spell of the same spell level or lower (a cure spell is any spell with “cure” in its name).

Not the druid/wizard/inquisitor/ecc. So what matter is the cleric caster level.


HangarFlying wrote:

@BigDTBone We had a couple of post get caught up in the crossfire. I'll repost this one because it's really the only one relevant, IMHO.

I agree that Spontaneous Casting is a class feature of the Cleric class, though it only applies to those spells prepared in Cleric spell slots. You can't prepare magic missile in a cleric slot anymore than you can prepare cure light wounds in a wizard slot.

For the most part, everyone who says that you could spontaneously cast from wizard spells are reading the spontaneously casting class description out of context.

The "any" doesn't refer to "any spell slot from any spell-casting class". And "prepared" doesn't refer to slots from a spell-casting class that prepares spells ahead of time. It is written in context of the cleric class and the cleric class only. So, a cleric must have a spell prepared, and any of those spells prepared may be exchanged for a cure spell of that level or lower.

Remember, the whole point of the class ability is so the Cleric can still be an effective healer without having to prepare healing spells ahead of time as well as an effective buffer without having to waste slots on preparing cure spells. In absolutely no way does the rules allow this class feature to apply to other spell-casting classes. Regardless of what people want from a misapplied FAQ.

Wow, what happened here while I was at Costco?

I agree that is how it should be read. That is indeed how I read it when the CRB was published. The sorcerer FAQ has changed that reading. I have to accept that "spontaneous casting" is modifying "spells" and because it doesn't specifically call out the fact that it only works with cleric "spells" (say, like, the Bard's armor use ability that specifically states it only works with spells cast from bard slots) then it works with all "spells" class features that the character has.

I think the best way to fix this is just to wrap "spontaneous casting" into the "spells" class feature that way it will not be modifying it, it will just be part of it.

Liberty's Edge

BigDTBone wrote:
I think the best way to fix this is just to wrap "spontaneous casting" into the "spells" class feature that way it will...

Or issue a short FAQ that clarifies that, yes, it does only apply to the Cleric spells (and the Druid's only applies to druid spells, etc).


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

I know that you don't read "modify spellcasting" the same way I do. I believe that it means anything which modifies how spellcasting works where you believe it is limited to those things which modify particular spells. I don't know who is correct but I will say that I don't see the text that brings you to the conclusion that "modify" is as limited as you suggest.

That's pretty much what I said yesterday, and several others have said something similar. I think it's pretty obvious, especially in light of SKR's post, that this is the RAI, though I'll agree that the RAW is poorly worded enough to make that unclear.

BigDTBone wrote:
The reason that I am pressing this point is because I want the rules to be written in such a way that my players can read them and understand how they work without needing to seek out developer intent.

That just isn't going to happen for a game this complex. There are always going to be oddball corner cases based on people trying combinations that the developers didn't specifically plan for. Heck, it doesn't happen for games far more simple and easy to understand, so why should it happen here?

That's why there are FAQs, and why the responsiveness of the Paizo staff on these forums is one of the (many) selling points of this game.

HangarFlying wrote:

I agree that Spontaneous Casting is a class feature of the Cleric class, though it only applies to those spells prepared in Cleric spell slots. Which goes back to my point which you conveniently dodged. You can't prepare magic missile in a cleric slot anymore than you can prepare cure light wounds in a wizard slot.

For the most part, everyone who says that you could spontaneously cast from wizard spells are reading the spontaneously casting class description out of context.

The "any" doesn't refer to "any spell slot from any spell-casting class". And "prepared" doesn't refer to slots from a spell-casting class that prepares spells ahead of time. It is

...

My goals may be lofty but that doesn't make them bad. In this particular case the solution is super easy and would not affect word count.

Liberty's Edge

KrispyXIV wrote:

This is a flawed argument. 'The good cleric' in this case is simply identifying who has the ability... the cleric. Its the subject of the sentence. Its telling you who is doing the action that comes later. It is COMPLETELY interchangeable with 'the character' or 'this character' or 'this cleric', because all of these things are accurate descriptions of the character in question (who, by virtue of having a level in cleric,...

No, the description doesn't have to reference "prepared cleric spells" because it is written for the Cleric class in the Cleric class description. To further add "cleric" as a reference would be redundant.


HangarFlying wrote:
BigDTBone wrote:
I think the best way to fix this is just to wrap "spontaneous casting" into the "spells" class feature that way it will...
Or issue a short FAQ that clarifies that, yes, it does only apply to the Cleric spells (and the Druid's only applies to druid spells, etc).

That would be fine too, but I really feel that the FAQ us there to handle what could not be fixed by errata. Though, there us quite a bit if overlap. Either solution works. Another choice would be to revoke the sorcerer FAQ and issue a new one which states that all class abilities are only referential to their own class unless specifically stated otherwise.


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

This is a flawed argument. 'The good cleric' in this case is simply identifying who has the ability... the cleric. Its the subject of the sentence. Its telling you who is doing the action that comes later. It is COMPLETELY interchangeable with 'the character' or 'this character' or 'this cleric', because all of these things are accurate descriptions of the character in question (who, by virtue of having a level in cleric,...

No, the description doesn't have to reference "prepared cleric spells" because it is written for the Cleric class in the Cleric class description. To further add "cleric" as a reference would be redundant.

The sorcerer FAQ disagrees with this. The sorcerer FAQ says that it must specifically call out if it only works with its own class.


Durngrun Stonebreaker wrote:
BigDTBone wrote:
James Risner wrote:
seebs wrote:
In a whole lot of cases, I am pretty sure I could write a specific rule more clearly *and* more concisely. In some, I think it would take more space.

I've tried. I think when you try you might find an appreciation for it.

seebs wrote:
most of us have explicitly stated that we think it should not work and would not allow it in our own games.

I don't really understand your motive if that is true. Do you just desire to poke fun at the game, the authors that work for Paizo, or what? You just want new people to say "the rules are dumb, lets play something that doesn't have stupid things like this argued slavishly despite everyone agreeing what the rules mean and the intent."

Diego Rossi wrote:
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.
It is very common.

James, I know your post was directed at seebs but I am going to respond anyway. The reason that I am pressing this point is because I want the rules to be written in such a way that my players can read them and understand how they work without needing to seek out developer intent. Ie. a new player to dnd who isn't familiar with the tradition of clerical healing could very reasonably read the sorcerer FAQ and the "spontaneous casting" class ability and come to the conclusion that he can swap prepared wizard spells for cures.

I find this to be a problem. I also see multiple very simple ways to correct the disconnect that also reduce or preserve word count.

On the point about "RAW RAW RAW fluff" I have responded to that several times but I will do so again. I did not believe Diego's issue was truly the "divine power" clause. I (correctly) believed that if that text were removed that it wouldn't change his mind. Also, its presence wasn't convincing to me. So, rather than chase him down the rabbit hole I proposed a scenario which still has the

...

No, the FAQ is part of the ruleset. Seeking out developer intent would be searching through 4 years of developer forum posts until you found a rant post by a developer (who's title doesn't say developer anymore, hope you [generic new player "you"] aren't new here) who used this as an example in a different argument.

That's the only way you get to developer intent on this issue.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Cuttler wrote:
Diego Rossi wrote:
Who is doing the action? The good cleric. It is an ability of the cleric class.

I believe you hold the key here Diego...

The wizard who would like to cast a cure critical instead of a dimension door would have to cast the cure as a cleric...he doesn't have the cure on his wizard spell list

But then, How would he be able to cast it if he doesn't have sufficient level (caster levels in his cleric class) to do so in the first way....it's kind of a paradox...

Samasboy1's point about druid makes it more complex since he technically could do it in his druid slot....But it still is the cleric part of him who can cast...with the same restriction on caster level....

I believe the wizard arguments clearly shows not supposed to work this way...

Does the wizard/sorcerer who cast fireball from a prepared wizard slot, and who adds +1 damage per die rolled from his bloodline power have to do it "as a sorcerer?" Does he have to use his sorcerer caster level?

No and no.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
James Risner wrote:
seebs wrote:
In a whole lot of cases, I am pretty sure I could write a specific rule more clearly *and* more concisely. In some, I think it would take more space.
I've tried. I think when you try you might find an appreciation for it.

Dude, I was on an international standards committee for a decade for recreation. Your assumption that I haven't already done this and similar tasks is not only insulting, but utterly and completely baseless.

Quote:
seebs wrote:
most of us have explicitly stated that we think it should not work and would not allow it in our own games.
I don't really understand your motive if that is true.

Gosh, wouldn't it be neat if I'd explained my motives maybe two dozen times?

1. I am pedantic by nature. The study of systems of rules in and of themselves is of interest to me.
2. I think that, if you want to correctly understand systems of rules, you have to train yourself to read them correctly even when the result is stupid, then correct the result if it's obviously stupid. But if you get in the habit of just reading "what they obviously meant", you end up with stuff like GMs denying evasion or reflex saves "because you're at the center of the blast".

Quote:
Do you just desire to poke fun at the game, the authors that work for Paizo, or what? You just want new people to say "the rules are dumb, lets play something that doesn't have stupid things like this argued slavishly despite everyone agreeing what the rules mean and the intent."

None of these. I like Pathfinder, and it's one of the better-written RPG rulesets out there. But I happen to lack a fairly fundamental human instinct; it is not necessary that I pretend that the things I like are free of flaws. So I can talk about the flaws and errors without feeling like I'm somehow "betraying" the company by not lying about their product.

It is clear that not everyone agrees about the intent, but more importantly, it is clear that we don't all agree on what the written rules plus FAQs mean, and that some people feel that even though the result is bad, they would be obliged to run the game that way in a PFS game because that's the ruling. Which it is.

Quote:
Diego Rossi wrote:
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.
It is very common.

It's not nearly as common as people dismissing some of the text as flavor text because they sincerely think it's just flavor text, which Pathfinder does sometimes contain, and then because of that holding a different opinion.

The accusations that people are acting in bad faith are rarely helpful, and claiming that someone is disregarding text solely because it doesn't match their opinion is an accusation of bad faith.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
HangarFlying wrote:

@BigDTBone We had a couple of post get caught up in the crossfire. I'll repost this one because it's really the only one relevant, IMHO.

I agree that Spontaneous Casting is a class feature of the Cleric class, though it only applies to those spells prepared in Cleric spell slots. You can't prepare magic missile in a cleric slot anymore than you can prepare cure light wounds in a wizard slot.

For the most part, everyone who says that you could spontaneously cast from wizard spells are reading the spontaneously casting class description out of context.

The "any" doesn't refer to "any spell slot from any spell-casting class". And "prepared" doesn't refer to slots from a spell-casting class that prepares spells ahead of time. It is written in context of the cleric class and the cleric class only. So, a cleric must have a spell prepared, and any of those spells prepared may be exchanged for a cure spell of that level or lower.

Remember, the whole point of the class ability is so the Cleric can still be an effective healer without having to prepare healing spells ahead of time as well as an effective buffer without having to waste slots on preparing cure spells. In absolutely no way does the rules allow this class feature to apply to other spell-casting classes. Regardless of what people want from a misapplied FAQ.

I don't think you're understanding the issue here, which is that we all agreed, prior to that FAQ, that that was how it worked.

But the FAQ's wording, as-written, unambiguously states that if something is a class feature (spontaneous casting of cures is), and it modifies your spellcasting (it certainly seems like your spellcasting options are different with this than they would have been otherwise), that it applies to all your spellcasting unless it specifically states that it works only with the abilities from a given class.

Look at this example:

PRD wrote:
A bard can cast bard spells while wearing light armor and use a shield without incurring the normal arcane spell failure chance. Like any other arcane spellcaster, a bard wearing medium or heavy armor incurs a chance of arcane spell failure if the spell in question has a somatic component. A multiclass bard still incurs the normal arcane spell failure chance for arcane spells received from other classes.

Do you see anyone arguing that the FAQ in question means that this applies to non-bard spells? No, because it is explicitly called out that it works only on bard spells, and that it does not apply to arcane spells from other classes.

The fact that there are abilities which do say explicitly that they modify only this class's abilities makes the assumption that the FAQ means exactly what it says a reasonable one.

Honestly, I think the FAQ is wrong. If I were trying to fix this, I would change the FAQ to "Sorcerer bloodline abilities, and wizard school bonuses, apply to all spellcasting abilities. In general, class abilities which affect spellcasting only affect the spellcasting abilities of the class given those abilities. Prestige classes which affect your casting abilities within an existing class also modify that class's spellcasting." And I think that would be roughly correct.

Basically, I think that the FAQ's result is wrong, but I don't think that's because it's being "misapplied", I think that's because the FAQ makes a sweeping general claim which was not adequately considered before being written.


HangarFlying wrote:
Sure, but considering the descriptions are written for the classes they are written for, I'm not too worked up about how it's currently worded.

If that were true, the FAQ answer to the bloodline arcana question would have been "No."


Diego Rossi wrote:
Casting spells and spellcasting seem synonymous to me. You disagree?
PRD wrote:


Activation: Staves use the spell trigger activation method, so casting a spell from a staff is usually a standard action that doesn't provoke attacks of opportunity.

Changed the bolding to show why I think "casting spells = spellcasting" means that casting spells from a staff is spellcasting.


Gaberlunzie wrote:
Diego Rossi wrote:
Casting spells and spellcasting seem synonymous to me. You disagree?
PRD wrote:


Activation: Staves use the spell trigger activation method, so casting a spell from a staff is usually a standard action that doesn't provoke attacks of opportunity.
Changed the bolding to show why I think "casting spells = spellcasting" means that casting spells from a staff is spellcasting.

I'll agree that "spellcasting" is far too generic a term to use in an FAQ when referencing a set of abilities. By that reading one could argue that when an evoked uses a wand of scorching ray, or even a necklace of fireballs, that he would add 1/2 his wizard level to damage.

Yea, the real problem here is the sorcerer FAQ. It needs revision.


That is a good point. It's obviously not spellcasting in some senses, but it is in others. And it's even weirder because staves use the wielder's caster level (if higher) and caster stat (unconditionally).

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Companion Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
BigDTBone wrote:
Cuttler wrote:
Diego Rossi wrote:
Who is doing the action? The good cleric. It is an ability of the cleric class.

I believe you hold the key here Diego...

The wizard who would like to cast a cure critical instead of a dimension door would have to cast the cure as a cleric...he doesn't have the cure on his wizard spell list

But then, How would he be able to cast it if he doesn't have sufficient level (caster levels in his cleric class) to do so in the first way....it's kind of a paradox...

Samasboy1's point about druid makes it more complex since he technically could do it in his druid slot....But it still is the cleric part of him who can cast...with the same restriction on caster level....

I believe the wizard arguments clearly shows not supposed to work this way...

Does the wizard/sorcerer who cast fireball from a prepared wizard slot, and who adds +1 damage per die rolled from his bloodline power have to do it "as a sorcerer?" Does he have to use his sorcerer caster level?

No and no.

If the ability say that it cast the spell as a Sorcerer? Yes (but that is not what it say, while the cleric ability say that it cast the spell as a cleric).

351 to 400 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