|
The problem is that some people think that swapping your memorized spells for cure spells "modifies your spellcasting", while other don't think so.
The problem isn't the FAQ, is the definition of what modifies your spellcasting and what don't.
And of what is spellcasting, as the term is used in different meanings (while I think that using any magic item isn't spellcasting, sometime the term is used in item descriptions [a couple of possible exceptions exist, but using staves isn't one of them, the staves have very clear rules about what abilities you can use with them]).
Way more basic problems than that FAQ is you disagree on what those terms mean.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
The problem is that some people think that swapping your memorized spells for cure spells "modifies your spellcasting", while other don't think so.
The problem isn't the FAQ, is the definition of what modifie your spellcasting and what don't.
And of what is spellcsting, as the term is used in different meanings (while I think that using any magic item isn't spellcasting, sometime the term is used in item descriptions [a couple of possible exceptions exist, but using staves isn't one of them, the staves have very clear rules about what abilities you can use with them]).
Way more basic problems than that FAQ is you disagree on what those terms mean.
The problem IS the Sorcerer FAQ, and the selective application thereof that some people desire to make of it.
If it didn't have 'General Rule' right there in the FAQ, I'd have sympathy for your point of view. But It flat out says its inclusive unless an ability specifically says otherwise.
Spontaneous Casting does not say otherwise. The fact that its written with clerics in mind... hence the reference to 'The Cleric'... is irrelevant, since the ability itself says any prepared spell.
Either the FAQ needs to be modified, or Spontaneous casting does.
Arguments like "Does it make any sense a Wizard 19 can cast Cure Critical Wounds?" are irrelevant (and silly, they can for all intents and purposes, and can pretty much duplicate any divine feat they want at that point...) as they are explicitly statements of opinion and ignore the rules themselves.
|
|
The problem is that some people think that swapping your memorized spells for cure spells "modifies your spellcasting", while other don't think so.
The problem isn't the FAQ, is the definition of what modifie your spellcasting and what don't.
And of what is spellcsting, as the term is used in different meanings (while I think that using any magic item isn't spellcasting, sometime the term is used in item descriptions [a couple of possible exceptions exist, but using staves isn't one of them, the staves have very clear rules about what abilities you can use with them]).
Way more basic problems than that FAQ is you disagree on what those terms mean.
The problem IS the Sorcerer FAQ, and the selective application thereof that some people desire to make of it.
If it didn't have 'General Rule' right there in the FAQ, I'd have sympathy for your point of view. But It flat out says its inclusive unless an ability specifically says otherwise.
Spontaneous Casting does not say otherwise. The fact that its written with clerics in mind... hence the reference to 'The Cleric'... is irrelevant, since the ability itself says any prepared spell.
Either the FAQ needs to be modified, or Spontaneous casting does.
Arguments like "Does it make any sense a Wizard 19 can cast Cure Critical Wounds?" are irrelevant (and silly, they can for all intents and purposes, and can pretty much duplicate any divine feat they want at that point...) as they are explicitly statements of opinion and ignore the rules themselves.
Round and round we go.
You think that swapping spell modify your spellcasting, I think that it swap the spell and don't change how you cast it at all.
|
|
Is spellcasting defined anywhere?? I tried to find it earlier, but couldn't find it....
Indirectly, in the magic section.
But exactly because it is an indirect definition it can be interpreted in different ways.What worse, as the books are written by different contributors, not all of them Paizo employees, sometime the terms are used in different ways.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The problem is that some people think that swapping your memorized spells for cure spells "modifies your spellcasting", while other don't think so.
The problem isn't the FAQ, is the definition of what modifie your spellcasting and what don't.
And of what is spellcsting, as the term is used in different meanings (while I think that using any magic item isn't spellcasting, sometime the term is used in item descriptions [a couple of possible exceptions exist, but using staves isn't one of them, the staves have very clear rules about what abilities you can use with them]).
Way more basic problems than that FAQ is you disagree on what those terms mean.
The problem IS the Sorcerer FAQ, and the selective application thereof that some people desire to make of it.
If it didn't have 'General Rule' right there in the FAQ, I'd have sympathy for your point of view. But It flat out says its inclusive unless an ability specifically says otherwise.
Spontaneous Casting does not say otherwise. The fact that its written with clerics in mind... hence the reference to 'The Cleric'... is irrelevant, since the ability itself says any prepared spell.
Either the FAQ needs to be modified, or Spontaneous casting does.
Arguments like "Does it make any sense a Wizard 19 can cast Cure Critical Wounds?" are irrelevant (and silly, they can for all intents and purposes, and can pretty much duplicate any divine feat they want at that point...) as they are explicitly statements of opinion and ignore the rules themselves.
Round and round we go.
You think that swapping spell modify your spellcasting, I think that it swap the spell and don't change how you cast it at all.
By the Spells rule for clerics, they may cast spells they've prepared (abbreviated). Such is how spellcasting works for them.
Spontaneous casting allows them to break the above rules; it has modified their spellcasting.
Its not complicated. Its an ancillary rule that modifies how Clerics cast spells. Its not like I'm spinning this somehow, or making stuff up. Its just fact.
Wizards cannot cast cure spells. They can cast wish which can duplicate a cure spell but they cannot cast cure spells. If we are going to be pedantic, lets at least be consistent.
Already said, already countered, Already re-said, already re-countered.
Round and round the carousel go.
You can't convince me, I can't convince you.
I missed where you countered this. Where did you explain that allowing spontaneous casting does not modify the default prepared casting model of the cleric? Did I miss the post where you quoted the rules text that says "prepared and spontaneous casting is the same thing and all spells are cure spells and all spells are SNA?"
Because I can't find where you quoted that. Also, try as I may, I can't find that in my CRB either. What page is it on?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Spontaneous Casting does not say otherwise. The fact that its written with clerics in mind... hence the reference to 'The Cleric'... is irrelevant, since the ability itself says any prepared spell.Totally the opposite....it is relevant because it's exactly the reason why it was written that way....that was the heart of SKR' post that explicitly stated that....
You shouldn't need developer statements to read the rules. You should just be able to read the rules.
Is spellcasting defined anywhere?? I tried to find it earlier, but couldn't find it....
No, it isn't. Which is part of the problem with the sorcerer FAQ. It uses that term as though it were a specific thing when in actuality it is a fairly amorphous ambiguous term in pathfinder.
Well, this has run on longer than expected.
Question to both sides: Should we be regarding this as a separate FAQ that needs to go under 'cleric'? Or should we be clamoring for an amendment to the 'general rule' that follows the sorceror bloodline FAQ? I believe somebody already mentioned that the Fighter FAQ about retraining feats contains another 'general rule' ('class features are written on the assumption the character is single-classed') which seems to be directly in conflict.
Personally I think amending the bloodline FAQ in order to clarify things one way or t'other is the best solution. Anybody agree to that?
Absolutely. I think everyone active in this thread feels that using spontaneous casting from a different caster's slots is a bad thing.
I think about 90% of us also agree that the ambiguity stems from the poorly worded sorcerer FAQ.
If someone were to write a new thread with the fighter FAQ and the sorcerer FAQ quoted and asked which "general rule" takes priority I would click FAQ in a heartbeat. In fact, unless someone else does it in the next few hours, I will when I get home.
Just quote the two FAQ's and say something like, "these clarifications appear to be in conflict. Which should take priority or should one be revised?"
Owner - D20 Hobbies
|
Isn't reading the sorcerer FAQ "seeking out developer intent?"
No it is more like, learning how to correctly read the text.
Or issue a short FAQ that clarifies that, yes, it does only apply to the Cleric spells
They have said they try to not do FAQ for things that the majority of players don't get confused.
I was on an international standards committee for a decade for recreation.
read them correctly even when the result is stupid
I recall, as I've seen a couple previous posts where you mentioned it.
I assert if you read a rule and result in a stupid interpretation as you say, then you are probably reading it wrong. Several developers have said "if it seems too good, it probably is" or similar over the years.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Isn't reading the sorcerer FAQ "seeking out developer intent?"No it is more like, learning how to correctly read the text.
Or issue a short FAQ that clarifies that, yes, it does only apply to the Cleric spellsThey have said they try to not do FAQ for things that the majority of players don't get confused.
I was on an international standards committee for a decade for recreation.
read them correctly even when the result is stupid
I recall, as I've seen a couple previous posts where you mentioned it.
I assert if you read a rule and result in a stupid interpretation as you say, then you are probably reading it wrong. Several developers have said "if it seems too good, it probably is" or similar over the years.
There in lies the issue. A new player would not be aware of tradition that wizards cannot cast curatives and subbing out a haste for a cure serious wounds at the low cost of an entire caster level doesn't exactly seem "too good to be true."
KrispyXIV what do you beleive the PDT team would say the rule is if they issued clarification today?
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?
No, I disagree. If Spontaneous Casting is a modification**, and per the FAQ, applied to the spellcasting of another class, it is STILL the spellcasting of the other class you are using. Not cleric spellcasting.
The origin of the ability doesn't matter since it is specifically being applied to a the other class's spellcasting.
So Cleric 1/Druid 19 spontaneously cast cures from druid spells at CL 19. Because the Druid's spellcasting is CL 19, and you are applying the ability to spontaneously cast cure spells to it.
**I am not arguing that Spontaneous Casting IS a modification in this post. For the sake of discussing this point, we would have to assume it is, and since you raised the point I assume you are interested in discussing it. I believe SC is a modification, but acknowledge that not all think so.
|
|
The sorcerer FAQ disagrees with this. The sorcerer FAQ says that it must specifically call out if it only works with its own class.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.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,...
The sorcerer FAQ is dealing with something different that doesn't apply to the Clerics ability to spontaneously cast cure spells.
The sorcerer FAQ is dealing with something different that doesn't apply to the Clerics ability to spontaneously cast cure spells.The sorcerer FAQ disagrees with this. The sorcerer FAQ says that it must specifically call out if it only works with its own class.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.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, it isn't. In fact the part that is in play is where it says, "general rule."
|
|
No, it isn't. In fact the part that is in play is where it says, "general rule."The sorcerer FAQ is dealing with something different that doesn't apply to the Clerics ability to spontaneously cast cure spells.The sorcerer FAQ disagrees with this. The sorcerer FAQ says that it must specifically call out if it only works with its own class.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.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,...
Well, let's just agree to disagree and leave it at that.
Well, let's just agree to disagree and leave it at that.No, it isn't. In fact the part that is in play is where it says, "general rule."The sorcerer FAQ is dealing with something different that doesn't apply to the Clerics ability to spontaneously cast cure spells.The sorcerer FAQ disagrees with this. The sorcerer FAQ says that it must specifically call out if it only works with its own class.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.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,...
Never!!
Well, let's just agree to disagree and leave it at that.No, it isn't. In fact the part that is in play is where it says, "general rule."The sorcerer FAQ is dealing with something different that doesn't apply to the Clerics ability to spontaneously cast cure spells.The sorcerer FAQ disagrees with this. The sorcerer FAQ says that it must specifically call out if it only works with its own class.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.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,...
Happy to, but that is the rules debate we are having in this thread so if you want to agree to disagree you really don't have much else to say here, no?
Well, this has run on longer than expected.
Question to both sides: Should we be regarding this as a separate FAQ that needs to go under 'cleric'? Or should we be clamoring for an amendment to the 'general rule' that follows the sorceror bloodline FAQ? I believe somebody already mentioned that the Fighter FAQ about retraining feats contains another 'general rule' ('class features are written on the assumption the character is single-classed') which seems to be directly in conflict.
Personally I think amending the bloodline FAQ in order to clarify things one way or t'other is the best solution. Anybody agree to that?
Absolutely. I think everyone active in this thread feels that using spontaneous casting from a different caster's slots is a bad thing.
I think about 90% of us also agree that the ambiguity stems from the poorly worded sorcerer FAQ.
I agree on these two points, 100% but:
Does anyone think that it's played that way IRL? Does anyone think that's what the Devs intended, that it's RAI?
Because, honestly, there are a LOT more useful questions I'd like to see FAQed over this one. Sure, I agree, that Sorc FAQ could be worded better. No doubt. Good catch. I think we all agree on that. Some think the poor wording changes the rules radically, some do not agree. I think we all agree it's not perfect, right?
But it's a looooooooong stretch from that to "That's how it's supposed to be played". I am not sure if ANYone is arguing that point?
So, assuming the number of FAQ's which will be answered is finite (and it is)- just how critical is this?
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Well, this has run on longer than expected.
Question to both sides: Should we be regarding this as a separate FAQ that needs to go under 'cleric'? Or should we be clamoring for an amendment to the 'general rule' that follows the sorceror bloodline FAQ? I believe somebody already mentioned that the Fighter FAQ about retraining feats contains another 'general rule' ('class features are written on the assumption the character is single-classed') which seems to be directly in conflict.
Personally I think amending the bloodline FAQ in order to clarify things one way or t'other is the best solution. Anybody agree to that?
Absolutely. I think everyone active in this thread feels that using spontaneous casting from a different caster's slots is a bad thing.
I think about 90% of us also agree that the ambiguity stems from the poorly worded sorcerer FAQ.
I agree on these two points, 100% but:
Does anyone think that it's played that way IRL? Does anyone think that's what the Devs intended, that it's RAI?
Because, honestly, there are a LOT more useful questions I'd like to see FAQed over this one. Sure, I agree, that Sorc FAQ could be worded better. No doubt. Good catch. I think we all agree on that. Some think the poor wording changes the rules radically, some do not agree. I think we all agree it's not perfect, right?
But it's a looooooooong stretch from that to "That's how it's supposed to be played". I am not sure if ANYone is arguing that point?
So, assuming the number of FAQ's which will be answered is finite (and it is)- just how critical is this?
Some have said they highly doubt it is the intent. They are trying to make a case for stronger rules writing. Some however refuse to answer that question.
And I do agree with you, this one is clear enough that other questions should be answered first. If I sit at 100 tables I doubt more than 5 would ever use this interpretation.
|
|
Already said, already countered, Already re-said, already re-countered.
Round and round the carousel go.
You can't convince me, I can't convince you.I missed where you countered this. Where did you explain that allowing spontaneous casting does not modify the default prepared casting model of the cleric? Did I miss the post where you quoted the rules text that says "prepared and spontaneous casting is the same thing and all spells are cure spells and all spells are SNA?"
Because I can't find where you quoted that. Also, try as I may, I can't find that in my CRB either. What page is it on?
It was countered the same way in which was proved by the people that think it work the opposite way. Stating it. There is no complete definition of what modifying spellcasting it, so it is simply interpretation.
And it wasn't counter argued by me, it was counter argued by several posters, me included.
I leave alone the snarking comment. Don't want to restart the flame war.
Is spellcasting defined anywhere?? I tried to find it earlier, but couldn't find it....No, it isn't. Which is part of the problem with the sorcerer FAQ. It uses that term as though it were a specific thing when in actuality it is a fairly amorphous ambiguous term in pathfinder.
You admit it yourself and then make statement based on your interpretation of what is spellcasting and affirm that you are following RAW.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I recall, as I've seen a couple previous posts where you mentioned it.I was on an international standards committee for a decade for recreation.
read them correctly even when the result is stupid
Then you should have no trouble understanding my motivation.
I assert if you read a rule and result in a stupid interpretation as you say, then you are probably reading it wrong. Several developers have said "if it seems too good, it probably is" or similar over the years.Your assertion is plausible if and only if the rules are objectively perfect. Otherwise, it's quite possible that the rule does not correctly express intent.
I am aware of the "if it seems to good to be true, it probably is" ruling. You know what? I've seen it used a lot on these boards, and in a large number of those cases, after multiple people spent hours or days being snide and derisive and dismissive about an argument and citing that over and over as the absolute proof that they were right, we got a FAQ or errata which confirmed that the thing in question was not actually "too good to be true".
Remember magus spell combat and haste? Lots of people said that giving the extra attack would be "too good to be true". Paizo did not agree with that conclusion.
"Seems too good to be true" is very subjective, and relies heavily on personal evaluation of the relative worth of various options. It's not a useful heuristic if you're trying to actually figure out what the rules are in any kind of formal sense.
It's a good heuristic for a specific game with friends who don't care that much what the rules are and everyone's having fun. But then, that also produces things where, say, the game I'm in has a half-dozen or more spells which are simply banned because they are too powerful, or they've been bumped up or down a few levels because they are good or bad. And that works fine, but you couldn't use that for PFS.
Read the rules of Star Fleet Battles. They are very clear and precise and seem exactly what you want.
Now look how many people play Star fleet Battles against how many people play Pathfinder.SFB is based on Star Trek and the first edition was made in 1979, so it has all the basis to be a very successful franchise with as many followers as Pathfinder, but I doubt is is even in the same order of magnitude.
The Pathfinder rules are made to be readable as recreation even if you don't use them. That require a different approach than a technical manual or a old stile ruleset for a boardgame.
Already said, already countered, Already re-said, already re-countered.
Round and round the carousel go.
You can't convince me, I can't convince you.I missed where you countered this. Where did you explain that allowing spontaneous casting does not modify the default prepared casting model of the cleric? Did I miss the post where you quoted the rules text that says "prepared and spontaneous casting is the same thing and all spells are cure spells and all spells are SNA?"
Because I can't find where you quoted that. Also, try as I may, I can't find that in my CRB either. What page is it on?
It was countered the same way in which was proved by the people that think it work the opposite way. Stating it. There is no complete definition of what modifying spellcasting it, so it is simply interpretation.
And it wasn't counter argued by me, it was counter argued by several posters, me included.
I leave alone the snarking comment. Don't want to restart the flame war.
You admit it yourself and then make statement based on your interpretation of what is spellcasting and affirm that you are following RAW.Is spellcasting defined anywhere?? I tried to find it earlier, but couldn't find it....No, it isn't. Which is part of the problem with the sorcerer FAQ. It uses that term as though it were a specific thing when in actuality it is a fairly amorphous ambiguous term in pathfinder.
Yes. It may come as a shock to you but when something is ambiguous that means it can be read two different ways. I happen to believe the way I read it makes the most sense. (Shocker!) But just because I am fervent in my belief, I am not precluded from being academically honest about the issue. I can 100% state that I believe it works in way X, while at the same time I can 100% state that the rule is ambiguous, and not have any contradiction in my views.
|
|
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?
No, I disagree. If Spontaneous Casting is a modification**, and per the FAQ, applied to the spellcasting of another class, it is STILL the spellcasting of the other class you are using. Not cleric spellcasting.
The origin of the ability doesn't matter since it is specifically being applied to a the other class's spellcasting.
So Cleric 1/Druid 19 spontaneously cast cures from druid spells at CL 19. Because the Druid's spellcasting is CL 19, and you are applying the ability to spontaneously cast cure spells to it.
**I am not arguing that Spontaneous Casting IS a modification in this post. For the sake of discussing this point, we would have to assume it is, and since you raised the point I assume you are interested in discussing it. I believe SC is a modification, but acknowledge that not all think so.
Repeat that after reading the text of the ability:
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 insert other class cast.
If we use the logic you suggest here a spontaneous spellcaster using a Runestone of Power would use the runestone caster level, not his caster level, when using it.
The other class is simply providing the fuel, but the cleric is casting the spell, as a cleric.
To repeat it again, as someone can miss it:
the cleric burn one of the memorized spells from his other class to cast a spell as a cleric. The other class spell slot is simply the fuel, he is not casting as a member of the otehr class.
[Insert the same disclaimer as above.]
The concern, I think, is that if you find the argument that rules-as-written permits this persuasive, then you're on the hook to run it that way for organized play, even if you think it's pretty stupid, because you're not allowed to disregard a FAQ just because you think it's silly.
AFAIK for PFS
1. Use the obvious(yeah I know this can be subjective) intent.
2. If the intent is not clear use RAW.
If you use RAW when it makes no sense, and is clearly not the intent the game starts to fall apart.
There was a topic devoted to such rules, but I can't find it right now.
PS: I agree with you.
PS2: You can't play RAW without interpretation, and even reading RAW there can be more than one reasonable interpretation, depending on how pedantic you want to be with the rules and/or how much you prefer to read them in context. Two people can claim RAW and have legitimate reasons on how their interpretation is correct.
When you tell me you want the RAW reading I will give you the most literal reading possible, even if it makes no sense.
If you ask me what the rule is then I take it as "what did the PDT intend", and I may give a different answer.
To me the rules are the way the game was intended to be played.
As an example of RAW not matching RAI at times, before haste was errata'd I know it applied to more than held weapons, even though RAW said "held weapons". Sometimes you just have to have a certain understanding of the game to figure out the rules, even if the words don't agree.
|
|
Yes. It may come as a shock to you but when something is ambiguous that means it can be read two different ways. I happen to believe the way I read it makes the most sense. (Shocker!) But just because I am fervent in my belief, I am not precluded from being academically honest about the issue. I can 100% state that I believe it works in way X, while at the same time I can 100% state that the rule is ambiguous, and not have any contradiction in my views.Already said, already countered, Already re-said, already re-countered.
Round and round the carousel go.
You can't convince me, I can't convince you.I missed where you countered this. Where did you explain that allowing spontaneous casting does not modify the default prepared casting model of the cleric? Did I miss the post where you quoted the rules text that says "prepared and spontaneous casting is the same thing and all spells are cure spells and all spells are SNA?"
Because I can't find where you quoted that. Also, try as I may, I can't find that in my CRB either. What page is it on?
It was countered the same way in which was proved by the people that think it work the opposite way. Stating it. There is no complete definition of what modifying spellcasting it, so it is simply interpretation.
And it wasn't counter argued by me, it was counter argued by several posters, me included.
I leave alone the snarking comment. Don't want to restart the flame war.
You admit it yourself and then make statement based on your interpretation of what is spellcasting and affirm that you are following RAW.Is spellcasting defined anywhere?? I tried to find it earlier, but couldn't find it....No, it isn't. Which is part of the problem with the sorcerer FAQ. It uses that term as though it were a specific thing when in actuality it is a fairly amorphous ambiguous term in pathfinder.
To repeat it again: check your tone, or you are trying to get this thread locked? "It may come as a shock to you" is flame bait.
To return to the discussion, you recognize that the definition is ambiguous but state that one position is demonstrated by simply affirming "it work that way", but then say the other is not demonstrated by the same affirmation?
It is that your position?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
To repeat it again: check your tone, or you are trying to get this thread locked? "It may come as a shock to you" is flame bait.
To return to the discussion, you recognize that the definition is ambiguous but state that one position is demonstrated by simply affirming "it work that way", but then say the other is not demonstrated by the same affirmation?
You think to be coherent?
I don't just "simply affirm" that it works that way. I have laid out a detailed description of my logic process relating to my view point. Essentially, I have explained why the rules work the way I say they do. I have yet to see anyone else offer evidence as to (1) why my logic is faulty (beyond "nuh-uh") or (2) a ground up logic rooted approach to the rules which present a different solution than my interpretation. The closest came a few pages back when someone mentioned that neither "spells" nor "spontaneous casting" is on the class features chart and so could collectively be considered "spellcasting."
That person made a good and compelling point, so I looked at my position and determined that I has been incorrect about how the problem should be addressed. At first I was arguing that "spontaneous casting" should get rolled into "spells." Now I also believe that the sorcerer FAQ is ambiguous about what "spellcasting" means. This doesn't change my initial standpoint. I still haven't seen any logic based argument that my reading is faulty nor has anyone presented a superior argument which would hold more scrutiny than mine.
As I said in the previous post, that doesn't preclude me from accepting that the hypothetical better answer exists, but as of right now I feel the "best" reading is the one I have presented.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
BigTBone (and others),
As you say, it can be interpreted both ways. Thus the alternative reading is also a valid way of reading it. So in PFS, you will get some table confusion, but as Wraithstrike has pointed out, probably not much as most people do not necessarily share your interpretation of the word 'modifies' (and yes, I think that pretty much is what the difference boils down to).
If a Fighter drops his sword and hits someone with an axe, he has modified his attack, but the sword isn't modified. To those on the "No" side, this is the anaalogy that fits, rather than the one you use. As this has gone round and round, and your summation of the reasons for disagreement is pretty good, I'm not sure further discussion is going to be productive. For reference, I am in camp 3 (Not RAW, not RAI) with reasons 1 (Spontaneous Casting is not 'modifying a spell'), 3 (It'sa Cleric ability not a caster ability), and 4 (It just doesn't make sense that way) in order of priority
BigTBone (and others),
As you say, it can be interpreted both ways. Thus the alternative reading is also a valid way of reading it. So in PFS, you will get some table confusion, but as Wraithstrike has pointed out, probably not much as most people do not necessarily share your interpretation of the word 'modifies' (and yes, I think that pretty much is what the difference boils down to).
If a Fighter drops his sword and hits someone with an axe, he has modified his attack, but the sword isn't modified. To those on the "No" side, this is the anaalogy that fits, rather than the one you use. As this has gone round and round, and your summation of the reasons for disagreement is pretty good, I'm not sure further discussion is going to be productibe. For reference, I am in camp 3 (Not RAW, not RAI) with reasons 1 (Spontaneous Casting is not 'modifying a spell', 3 (It'sa Cleric ability not a caster ability), and 4 (It just doesn't make sense that way) in order of priority
I completely understand your take. It isn't my contention that "spontaneous casting" us modifying any one particular spell that is being cast. It is my contention that "spontaneous casting" is modifying the entire "spells" class feature and that is what the design team meant when they said "spellcasting" in the sorcerer FAQ.
For what it is worth, I agree that "spontaneous casting" should be an ability that is limited to the class that grants it; however the FAQ is clear on one point, in order to be restricted to the class which grants the ability it must specifically call out that it is so restricted.
I really think that is a terrible rule. I think it has far reaching implications that haven't been realized yet, and I think it could be fixed easily.
I don't play PFS, but I've been on the boards long enough to know they have a "common sense" clause for GMs.
I don't play PFS, but I've been on the boards long enough to know they have a "common sense" clause for GMs.
Everyone is on the "common sense" train. I get it, wizards don't cast curatives in pathfinder/dnd tradition. New players don't necessarily know that. That is the extent of the common sense argument. I don't feel you should have to have knowledge over the history of dnd and its traditions in order to read the rules.
|
|
I don't play PFS, but I've been on the boards long enough to know they have a "common sense" clause for GMs.Everyone is on the "common sense" train. I get it, wizards don't cast curatives in pathfinder/dnd tradition. New players don't necessarily know that. That is the extent of the common sense argument. I don't feel you should have to have knowledge over the history of dnd and its traditions in order to read the rules.
Actually, it isn't. The extent of the common sendse argument is that spontaneously replacing a spell is not the same as modifying spellcasting. You disagree with this premise, but it's still there and underpins the other arguments. Of course as common sense is so rare it should be considered a super-power, common sense isn't necessarily that helpful.