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


Rules Questions

401 to 450 of 558 << first < prev | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | next > last >>

seebs wrote:

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."

not so sure about that Seeb. SKR's reply in last November (while he was still a paizo employee) clearly shows what they had in mind...He clearly expressed that when they design a class they design it with a single class in mind and not every other multi-class interaction (it is not LAW it is just RAI)

The FAQ answered about the bloodline ability. I believe ( I might be wrong here) but I believe that when they considered the question the PDT probably thought that it would be a good idea to give bloodline benefits to all other spellcasters... for example, somebody choosing the Fey bloodline would have all his compulsion spell's DC increased by 2. They probably though it would be good for a bard/sorcerer (for exemple) to benefits from the same thing....

then, I can only assume that instead of revisiting ALL rules (and interaction) in ALL books, they came up with the general rules that came with it. They probably never saw or considered the impact on the cleric's spontaneous casting. An there is probably lots of other such unwanted interactions...

However:

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

You are absolutely right about that!!!! that is the hearth of the problem....


Diego wrote:


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).

Exactly.....


Actually, let's think about that....would it make sense to have a wizard 19/cleric 1 with 11 of wisdom capable of casting cure spell of 4th level while a cleric 6th with 18 wisdom would not be able to do it?!?!?!?! Technically, such a wizard/cleric should not even be capable of casting a cure critical wound....

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Companion Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber

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.


Is spellcasting defined anywhere?? I tried to find it earlier, but couldn't find it....


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Diego Rossi wrote:

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.

Liberty's Edge

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

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.

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Companion Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
Cuttler wrote:
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.
Diego Rossi wrote:
KrispyXIV wrote:
Diego Rossi wrote:

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.


KrispyXIV wrote:
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....

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Companion Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber

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.


Diego Rossi wrote:

Cuttler wrote:

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.

Ya exactly what I thought(saw it in the casting a spell section)...unfortunately, it won't help since as you indicated it will be interpreted different ways ....


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.


Diego Rossi wrote:

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.
Cuttler wrote:
KrispyXIV wrote:
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.


Cuttler wrote:
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.

The Exchange

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?


Lincoln Hills wrote:

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.

The Exchange

Is it possible to state the question in a way that is completely unbiased? Because that would really boost the number of FAQ-clicks.


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?"

The Exchange Owner - D20 Hobbies

Durngrun Stonebreaker wrote:
Isn't reading the sorcerer FAQ "seeking out developer intent?"

No it is more like, learning how to correctly read the text.

HangarFlying wrote:
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.

seebs wrote:

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.
James Risner wrote:
Durngrun Stonebreaker wrote:
Isn't reading the sorcerer FAQ "seeking out developer intent?"

No it is more like, learning how to correctly read the text.

HangarFlying wrote:
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.

seebs wrote:

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?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Cuttler wrote:
seebs wrote:

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."

not so sure about that Seeb. SKR's reply in last November (while he was still a paizo employee) clearly shows what they had in mind...He clearly expressed that when they design a class they design it with a single class in mind and not every other multi-class interaction (it is not LAW it is just RAI)

You make a good point here. I think the problem is:

When writing, they write as though each class stands alone, most of the time. They don't really think about multiclass. That doesn't mean "they explicitly intend everything never to interact with other classes", though, it just means "they don't always think about the interactions".

And then there's interactions, and I don't really think there is an overall consistent rule, rather, there's a fair bit of "well, that'd be silly" or "that sounds pretty reasonable" going on.

So I guess my point is: The answer to the bloodline FAQ would have just been "No" if it were not only true that "each class is written as though it is your only class", but also "and that means that the abilities do not modify your abilities from other classes".

Quote:

The FAQ answered about the bloodline ability. I believe ( I might be wrong here) but I believe that when they considered the question the PDT probably thought that it would be a good idea to give bloodline benefits to all other spellcasters... for example, somebody choosing the Fey bloodline would have all his compulsion spell's DC increased by 2. They probably though it would be good for a bard/sorcerer (for exemple) to benefits from the same thing....

then, I can only assume that instead of revisiting ALL rules (and interaction) in ALL books, they came up with the general rules that came with it. They probably never saw or considered the impact on the cleric's spontaneous casting. An there is probably lots of other such unwanted interactions...

Yes.

So I think that FAQ is wrong. I'm not sure whether there is any reliable way to tell, from the text of the rules, which abilities should or should not modify the abilities of other classes. Some are explicit one way or another; bards explicitly have no ASF in light armor, but only for bard spells. Others are not really clear, and we're just going off guesswork and dev posts.

I think it's quite clear that the intent of the devs is that the cleric/druid spontaneous casting applies only to their own spell slots, but that means that the FAQ is wrong, because neither of them says so explicitly.


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

seebs wrote:

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.

Then you should have no trouble understanding my motivation.

Quote:
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.


Diego Rossi wrote:


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.

Liberty's Edge

BigDTBone wrote:
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.

The sorcerer FAQ is dealing with something different that doesn't apply to the Clerics ability to spontaneously cast cure spells.


HangarFlying wrote:
BigDTBone wrote:
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.
The sorcerer FAQ is dealing with something different that doesn't apply to the Clerics ability to spontaneously cast cure spells.

No, it isn't. In fact the part that is in play is where it says, "general rule."

Liberty's Edge

BigDTBone wrote:
HangarFlying wrote:
BigDTBone wrote:
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.
The sorcerer FAQ is dealing with something different that doesn't apply to the Clerics ability to spontaneously cast cure spells.
No, it isn't. In fact the part that is in play is where it says, "general rule."

Well, let's just agree to disagree and leave it at that.


HangarFlying wrote:
BigDTBone wrote:
HangarFlying wrote:
BigDTBone wrote:
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.
The sorcerer FAQ is dealing with something different that doesn't apply to the Clerics ability to spontaneously cast cure spells.
No, it isn't. In fact the part that is in play is where it says, "general rule."
Well, let's just agree to disagree and leave it at that.

Never!!


HangarFlying wrote:
BigDTBone wrote:
HangarFlying wrote:
BigDTBone wrote:
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.
The sorcerer FAQ is dealing with something different that doesn't apply to the Clerics ability to spontaneously cast cure spells.
No, it isn't. In fact the part that is in play is where it says, "general rule."
Well, let's just agree to disagree and leave it at that.

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?


It's at this point 9 pages in to a debate that you realise that forums are utterly terrible for any coherent argument.

They need tiered replies, so that separate discussions can be kept under a single comment and tree out. (Even something simple like Reddit without an upvote/downvote would have kept each expanding comments from interrupting everyone)

There seems to be numerous arguments in this thread with people agreeing on some things and disagreeing on others.

1. It works as RAW against RAI
2. It works as RAW with RAI (not many people saying this)
3. It doesn't work as RAW with RAI
4. It doesn't work as RAW against RAI (don't think anyone said this)

People who say 3 have different reasons which is the problem with the thread spiralling into disaster.

1. Spontaneous Casting doesn't count as modifying spellcasting.
2. Divine/Arcane energy is different and so cannot be used
3. Because it has "Cleric" in the sentence it means that it refers to Cleric spell slots only
4. If you accept this premise then it becomes insane on what you can do (which is probably what people would have said about SLA counting as spells) with other classes.


RMcD wrote:

It's at this point 9 pages in to a debate that you realise that forums are utterly terrible for any coherent argument.

They need tiered replies, so that separate discussions can be kept under a single comment and tree out. (Even something simple like Reddit without an upvote/downvote would have kept each expanding comments from interrupting everyone)

There seems to be numerous arguments in this thread with people agreeing on some things and disagreeing on others.

1. It works as RAW against RAI
2. It works as RAW with RAI (not many people saying this)
3. It doesn't work as RAW with RAI
4. It doesn't work as RAW against RAI (don't think anyone said this)

People who say 3 have different reasons which is the problem with the thread spiralling into disaster.

1. Spontaneous Casting doesn't count as modifying spellcasting.
2. Divine/Arcane energy is different and so cannot be used
3. Because it has "Cleric" in the sentence it means that it refers to Cleric spell slots only
4. If you accept this premise then it becomes insane on what you can do (which is probably what people would have said about SLA counting as spells) with other classes.

Pretty good summary of the thread, and a good idea for how to reorganize the forum:)

Unfortunately, you used one single word which will cause a bunch of forumites to declare everything you say forever invalid:
RMcD wrote:
tier


BigDTBone wrote:
Lincoln Hills wrote:

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.
DrDeth wrote:
BigDTBone wrote:
Lincoln Hills wrote:

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.

Webstore Gninja Minion

Removed some unhelpful posts. Please be civil guys, and agree to disagree.


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.

Liberty's Edge

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

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.

BigDTBone wrote:
Cuttler wrote:
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.

Liberty's Edge

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

seebs wrote:

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.

Then you should have no trouble understanding my motivation.

Quote:
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.


Diego Rossi wrote:
BigDTBone wrote:
Diego Rossi wrote:

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.

BigDTBone wrote:
Cuttler wrote:
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.

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.

Liberty's Edge

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


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:

PRD wrote:
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.]


seebs wrote:
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.

Liberty's Edge

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

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.

BigDTBone wrote:
Cuttler wrote:
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.
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.

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.
Diego Rossi wrote:

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.

Liberty's Edge

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Companion, Pathfinder Accessories, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber

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


Paul Watson wrote:

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.


Durngrun Stonebreaker wrote:
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.

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Companion, Pathfinder Accessories, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
BigDTBone wrote:
Durngrun Stonebreaker wrote:
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.

401 to 450 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