Fighter going mythic? Choose archmage. Here's why.


Pathfinder First Edition General Discussion

351 to 400 of 552 << first < prev | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | next > last >>

1 person marked this as a favorite.

After spending a few minutes in this thread...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5hfYJsQAhl0

I've seen some ridiculous parsing of rules and abuses of English to justify all sorts of shenanigans, but this thread hits new lows.

Just sayin...


master_marshmallow wrote:
master_marshmallow wrote:
BigDTBone wrote:
master_marshmallow wrote:

And the whole, expanding your spell list debacle created by Eldritch Heritage and Paragon Surge.

That ruling alone prevents this from working. As the fighter has no spell list, he cannot cast any arcane spell.
Certainly, he can use his ability to cast any of his own arcane spells, but his class does not offer them.
This ability doesn't require a spell list. The ability specifically allows the casting of "any arcane" spell.

It also tells you how to do it based on what kind of caster you are, but you're ignoring that for your own convenience.

Never mind that the FAQ on the matter came out after Mythic Adventures.
You don't have a spell list as a fighter.
The FAQ specifically calls out abilities that would add to your spell list, and says that they cannot.
Ignoring the FAQ that directly disproves you does not mean you are following RAW, it means you are clearly trying to bend the rules based on a loose interpretation of one sentence taken out of context.
There are only two types of spell casters present in the current game

Source cite please.


BigDTBone wrote:

The archmage is intended for arcane casters but there isn't a prerequisite that requires it.

Then there is arcane surge. Spoilered in whole, though I will break it down in parts. ** spoiler omitted **

MA wrote:
Arcane Surge (Su): As a swift action, you can expend one use of mythic power to cast any one arcane spell without expending a prepared spell or spell slot.

So that's straight forward. You can cast ANY arcane spell. You don't have to have an available spell slot or the spell prepared.

MA wrote:
If you prepare spells, this spell must be one you prepared today (even if you have already cast it);

You don't prepare spells, so this restriction doesn't apply to you.

MA wrote:
if you're a spontaneous caster, this spell must be one of your spells known.

You don't cast spells spontaneously so this restriction doesn't apply to you. This will require you to be careful though. The SLA FAQ could really hurt you here, because SLA's count as spontaneous spells. Make sure to avoid any option that grants an SLA.

MA wrote:
If the spell requires a saving throw, any non-mythic creatures affected by the spell roll twice and take the lower result.

No problem here, cool

MA wrote:
If you must attempt a caster level check for the spell to overcome
...

This doesn't work as you have to have spells known or prepared. Just because you don't have spells known or prepared doesn't mean it doesn't apply.


voska66 wrote:
This doesn't work as you have to have spells known or prepared. Just because you don't have spells known or prepared doesn't mean it doesn't apply.

That's not what's written.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Player: "My fighter can now cast ANY arcane spell everywhere thanks to this rules exploit based on a selective reading of the mythic rules."

GM: "No."

Problem solved.

Grand Lodge

pennywit wrote:
Problem solved.

The fact that the GM can veto things does not mean that the problem never existed.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
pennywit wrote:

Player: "My fighter can now cast ANY arcane spell everywhere thanks to this rules exploit based on a selective reading of the mythic rules."

GM: "No."

Problem solved.

I actually agree that this is a totally valid thing, by the way.

(Although check out my posts for seeing how that possibly wouldn't work out as well as most people seem to presume.)


BigDTBone wrote:
voska66 wrote:
This doesn't work as you have to have spells known or prepared. Just because you don't have spells known or prepared doesn't mean it doesn't apply.
That's not what's written.

The second sentence says you can't:

"If you prepare spells, this spell must be one you prepared today (even if you have already cast it); if you're a spontaneous caster, this spell must be one of your spells known. "

You can't ignore this line. It the spell MUST be prepared or Known. The fighter MUST have the spell prepared or a known spell.

I think you are confused by the if. The if in this case is if prepared casting do X if spontaneous casting do Y. It's not if you cast do X if not the 1st level fighter can cast wish.


BigDTBone wrote:
This ability doesn't require a spell list. The ability specifically allows the casting of "any arcane" spell.

I still don't understand how being granted the ability to cast a spell bypasses the "Casting Spells" section on page 206 of the CRB. (As per your claim that this one ability is an entirely self contained subset of the rules - introducing a new type of spellcasting different from all others).

It seems to me that you're taking a hardline RAW approach in the OP, then hand waving that section of the rules. It spells out how each class casts a spell in inordinate detail and spellcasting classes released subsequent to the CRB also go into a lot of detail as to how spellcasting works.

If you're really going to take "any arcane spell" at face value, as unrestricted by the general rule by virtue of "trumping" it, then you'd have to allow verbal spells while silenced, and spells with somatic components while restrained, wouldn't you? Those restrictions are called out in the same section as the "choose a spell" step, which It has been claimed is either implied or superseded by "any arcane spell". The alternative interpretation (that "any" contains an implicit restriction to any arcane spell you are otherwise entitled to cast) sounds like the reasonable one to me.

My draw a weapon example may not have been perfect, but it wouldn't be hard to find a similar, mundane example would it? That is, after all, basically what you did in coming up with the OP (except you didn't restrict yourself to the mundane).


Steve Geddes wrote:
If you're really going to take "any arcane spell" at face value, as unrestricted by the general rule by virtue of "trumping" it, then you'd have to allow verbal spells while silenced, and spells with somatic components while restrained, wouldn't you?
Arcane Surge wrote:
You can't add a metamagic feat to a spell you cast using this ability.

Thus, only if you'd know a variant of a verbal or stilled spell would it apply.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I think someone mentioned this previously, but looking up the definition of "Arcane Spell" seems like another way to reject the OP, whilst accepting the premise.

An arcane spell is a spell cast by a wizard, sorcerer or bard (presumably later books spell out which subsequent classes are also casters of arcane spells, but neither fighter nor Archmage is on the list).

Thus, this ability grants the ability to cast any arcane spell - but that trait is not a quality of the spell, but of the caster. In order to be an arcane spell, the caster must be a wizard, sorcerer or bard (or similar, newer class). As such, you will, per force, fall into one of the limited scenarios depending on whether you're a prepared or spontaneous caster.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Tacticslion wrote:
Steve Geddes wrote:
If you're really going to take "any arcane spell" at face value, as unrestricted by the general rule by virtue of "trumping" it, then you'd have to allow verbal spells while silenced, and spells with somatic components while restrained, wouldn't you?
Arcane Surge wrote:
You can't add a metamagic feat to a spell you cast using this ability.
Thus, only if you'd know a variant of a verbal or stilled spell would it apply.

What I mean is, taking the strict interpretation of "any arcane spell" which is being advocated - if you're gagged and get told "you can't cast a spell with a verbal component as per this general rule on spellcasting", you can reply: "my specific rule is a self contained rule that tells me everything I need to know about casting spells. It trumps the general rule, so I can cast ANY arcane spell." (This seemed to be what BigDTBone was arguing before, in ignoring the 'choose a spell' section).

Again, I'm accepting the premise and suggesting it leads to absurdity - not advocating an interpretation.


Steve Geddes wrote:

What I mean is, taking the strict interpretation of "any arcane spell" which is being advocated - if you're gagged and get told "you can't cast a spell with a verbal component as per this general rule on spellcasting", you can reply: "my specific rule is a self contained rule that tells me everything I need to know about casting spells. It trumps the general rule, so I can cast ANY arcane spell." (This seemed to be what BigDTBone was arguing before, in ignoring the 'choose a spell' section).

Again, I'm accepting the premise and suggesting it leads to absurdity - not advocating an interpretation.

"Any arcane spell" is still argued from within the context of the ability as a whole. It does not ignore the rest of the wording, where that wording applies.

I do see what you're saying, however, and I can see why that might seem to follow. Certainly could, if someone felt like reading it that way, though I disagree that it automatically leads to absurdity.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Tacticslion wrote:
Steve Geddes wrote:

What I mean is, taking the strict interpretation of "any arcane spell" which is being advocated - if you're gagged and get told "you can't cast a spell with a verbal component as per this general rule on spellcasting", you can reply: "my specific rule is a self contained rule that tells me everything I need to know about casting spells. It trumps the general rule, so I can cast ANY arcane spell." (This seemed to be what BigDTBone was arguing before, in ignoring the 'choose a spell' section).

Again, I'm accepting the premise and suggesting it leads to absurdity - not advocating an interpretation.

"Any arcane spell" is still argued from within the context of the ability as a whole. It does not ignore the rest of the wording, where that wording applies.

Yeah, I'm not suggesting adding a metamagic feat, merely pointing out that my self contained magic system makes no mention of components and says I can cast ANY arcane spell - therefore win. :)

I think BigDTBone will walk that claim back. One could rather argue that specifying which of the any spells you can cast constitutes choosing one. And therefore my previous objection doesn't apply.

Liberty's Edge

Caster level has to be a minimum requirement. Because if it's not, any 1st level wizard is a DC 24 Spellcraft check and 810gp from casting wish 1/day via their arcane bond.

EDIT: well, maybe not wish. It's still expensive. How about wail of the banshee though?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Steve Geddes wrote:
Tacticslion wrote:
Steve Geddes wrote:

What I mean is, taking the strict interpretation of "any arcane spell" which is being advocated - if you're gagged and get told "you can't cast a spell with a verbal component as per this general rule on spellcasting", you can reply: "my specific rule is a self contained rule that tells me everything I need to know about casting spells. It trumps the general rule, so I can cast ANY arcane spell." (This seemed to be what BigDTBone was arguing before, in ignoring the 'choose a spell' section).

Again, I'm accepting the premise and suggesting it leads to absurdity - not advocating an interpretation.

"Any arcane spell" is still argued from within the context of the ability as a whole. It does not ignore the rest of the wording, where that wording applies.

Yeah, I'm not suggesting adding a metamagic feat, merely pointing out that my self contained magic system makes no mention of components and says I can cast ANY arcane spell - therefore win. :)

I think BigDTBone will walk that claim back. One could rather argue that specifying which of the any spells you can cast constitutes choosing one. And therefore my previous objection doesn't apply.

I don't know, it's a fine line; but I think I fall on the side of, "it's a (su) ability so verbal, somatic, and material components (even expensive ones) aren't required." I should add, I think the ability actually does work this way for wizards/sorcerers/whatever's that use it too.

Supernatural spellcasting would relieve the need for almost all other adjudications.


bookrat wrote:
master_marshmallow wrote:

And the whole, expanding your spell list debacle created by Eldritch Heritage and Paragon Surge.

That ruling alone prevents this from working. As the fighter has no spell list, he cannot cast any arcane spell.
Certainly, he can use his ability to cast any of his own arcane spells, but his class does not offer them.
That's a fine house rule. One I am sure those who wish to deny this ability to their players would enforce. Unfortunately, it is not a part of the ability, as it has no mention of spell lists. It only requires those who are prepard casters to have it memorized or those that are spontaneous casters to have it as a known spell. Those are both behind IF statements, and since neither apply to the fighter, s/he is not restricted to those gates and therefore uses a different method (mentioned in the same paragraph: any arcane spell).

The way this reads to me reminds me of how the local theater did seating, with evens on one side and odds on the other.

If you have an Even ticket, go up the left stairs.
If you have an Odd ticket, go up the right stairs.
If you don't have either ticket, you don't go up the stairs.

It seems to me that this is the jist of the argument, with one side saying the fighter can't go up the stairs because he has no ticket (spell list) and the other side saying he can go through a third way (through the wall) because not having a ticket means he is not restricted by the first two if statements and the third one is not expressly written.


BigDTBone wrote:
master_marshmallow wrote:
master_marshmallow wrote:
BigDTBone wrote:
master_marshmallow wrote:

And the whole, expanding your spell list debacle created by Eldritch Heritage and Paragon Surge.

That ruling alone prevents this from working. As the fighter has no spell list, he cannot cast any arcane spell.
Certainly, he can use his ability to cast any of his own arcane spells, but his class does not offer them.
This ability doesn't require a spell list. The ability specifically allows the casting of "any arcane" spell.

It also tells you how to do it based on what kind of caster you are, but you're ignoring that for your own convenience.

Never mind that the FAQ on the matter came out after Mythic Adventures.
You don't have a spell list as a fighter.
The FAQ specifically calls out abilities that would add to your spell list, and says that they cannot.
Ignoring the FAQ that directly disproves you does not mean you are following RAW, it means you are clearly trying to bend the rules based on a loose interpretation of one sentence taken out of context.
There are only two types of spell casters present in the current game
Source cite please.
CRB, Magic wrote:

Some spellcasters select their spells from a limited list of spells known, while others have access to a wide variety of options.

Most spellcasters prepare spells in advance-whether from a spellbook or through prayers-while some cast spells spontaneously without preparation. Despite these different ways characters use to learn or prepare their spells, when it comes to casting them, the spells are very much alike.

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.

It only lists two possibilities, not a third.

In addition, the section entitled Choosing a Spell only lists how to cast them as previously quoted in the thread, by one of these two methods.


BigDTBone wrote:
Steve Geddes wrote:
Tacticslion wrote:
Steve Geddes wrote:

What I mean is, taking the strict interpretation of "any arcane spell" which is being advocated - if you're gagged and get told "you can't cast a spell with a verbal component as per this general rule on spellcasting", you can reply: "my specific rule is a self contained rule that tells me everything I need to know about casting spells. It trumps the general rule, so I can cast ANY arcane spell." (This seemed to be what BigDTBone was arguing before, in ignoring the 'choose a spell' section).

Again, I'm accepting the premise and suggesting it leads to absurdity - not advocating an interpretation.

"Any arcane spell" is still argued from within the context of the ability as a whole. It does not ignore the rest of the wording, where that wording applies.

Yeah, I'm not suggesting adding a metamagic feat, merely pointing out that my self contained magic system makes no mention of components and says I can cast ANY arcane spell - therefore win. :)

I think BigDTBone will walk that claim back. One could rather argue that specifying which of the any spells you can cast constitutes choosing one. And therefore my previous objection doesn't apply.

I don't know, it's a fine line; but I think I fall on the side of, "it's a (su) ability so verbal, somatic, and material components (even expensive ones) aren't required." I should add, I think the ability actually does work this way for wizards/sorcerers/whatever's that use it too.

Supernatural spellcasting would relieve the need for almost all other adjudications.

Would you also rule any such spell bypasses SR and can't be dispelled?


voska66 wrote:
I don't think you understand the word MUST. It must be prepared spell if you prepared cast or it MUST be a know spell if you are spontaneous caster.

If x do y

if w do z

Fighter is neither x or w.

You cannot conclude that the fighter must do y or z with the given information.


Haskol wrote:
bookrat wrote:
master_marshmallow wrote:

And the whole, expanding your spell list debacle created by Eldritch Heritage and Paragon Surge.

That ruling alone prevents this from working. As the fighter has no spell list, he cannot cast any arcane spell.
Certainly, he can use his ability to cast any of his own arcane spells, but his class does not offer them.
That's a fine house rule. One I am sure those who wish to deny this ability to their players would enforce. Unfortunately, it is not a part of the ability, as it has no mention of spell lists. It only requires those who are prepard casters to have it memorized or those that are spontaneous casters to have it as a known spell. Those are both behind IF statements, and since neither apply to the fighter, s/he is not restricted to those gates and therefore uses a different method (mentioned in the same paragraph: any arcane spell).

The way this reads to me reminds me of how the local theater did seating, with evens on one side and odds on the other.

If you have an Even ticket, go up the left stairs.
If you have an Odd ticket, go up the right stairs.
If you don't have either ticket, you don't go up the stairs.

It seems to me that this is the jist of the argument, with one side saying the fighter can't go up the stairs because he has no ticket (spell list) and the other side saying he can go through a third way (through the wall) because not having a ticket means he is not restricted by the first two if statements and the third one is not expressly written.

That would make sense if there were only ever two casting systems, past, present, and future. Unfortunately, the wording in the book leaves open the possibility that there may be more than two casting systems. When you use odd and even, there isn't ever another option.


Haskol wrote:
If you don't have either ticket, you don't go up the stairs.

... but instead, you go up the ladder! (Or take the elevator, or the escalator, or perhaps rope-and-grappling hook, maybe a levitate spell...)


1 person marked this as a favorite.
bookrat wrote:
Haskol wrote:
bookrat wrote:
master_marshmallow wrote:

And the whole, expanding your spell list debacle created by Eldritch Heritage and Paragon Surge.

That ruling alone prevents this from working. As the fighter has no spell list, he cannot cast any arcane spell.
Certainly, he can use his ability to cast any of his own arcane spells, but his class does not offer them.
That's a fine house rule. One I am sure those who wish to deny this ability to their players would enforce. Unfortunately, it is not a part of the ability, as it has no mention of spell lists. It only requires those who are prepard casters to have it memorized or those that are spontaneous casters to have it as a known spell. Those are both behind IF statements, and since neither apply to the fighter, s/he is not restricted to those gates and therefore uses a different method (mentioned in the same paragraph: any arcane spell).

The way this reads to me reminds me of how the local theater did seating, with evens on one side and odds on the other.

If you have an Even ticket, go up the left stairs.
If you have an Odd ticket, go up the right stairs.
If you don't have either ticket, you don't go up the stairs.

It seems to me that this is the jist of the argument, with one side saying the fighter can't go up the stairs because he has no ticket (spell list) and the other side saying he can go through a third way (through the wall) because not having a ticket means he is not restricted by the first two if statements and the third one is not expressly written.

That would make sense if there were only ever two casting systems, past, present, and future. Unfortunately, the wording in the book leaves open the possibility that there may be more than two casting systems. When you use odd and even, there isn't ever another option.

Well, past and future are irrelevant.

As of now though, there are only two forms of spell casting, prepared and spontaneous. Sure, some are given in different forms such as the Alchemist extracts, but all are variations on one of the two basic themes of spell casting. Because there are only two forms of spell casting illustrated in the Pathfinder rules, the analogy holds.

If I am wrong about this, what is the official term for this third form of spell casting and where would that be found in the books?


Haskol wrote:
..about this, what is the official term for this third form of spell casting and where would that be found in the books?

Mythic power points. Found here in combination with this.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

If I'm not very much mistaken, the third option is called: Mythic Shenanigans.

…I'm still unclear about why anyone would feel the need to argue that this isn't RAW. We've already covered that this wouldn't be allowed in Society play, and would receive a quick 'yes' or 'no' by any gm at a home-game. To paraphrase what other posters have already said, "What are you afraid of?" Yes, I still find this funny. =]

BTW, Dracovar, I think you're being a bit harsh. There's a time and a place for that video, but I don't think this thread deserves it.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Cuuniyevo wrote:


…I'm still unclear about why anyone would feel the need to argue that this isn't RAW.

In my case, it's partly intellectual exercise but mainly because I don't take the view that RAW is an objectively determinable "thing" - language is too imprecise for that, in my view. RAW only has meaning (imo) when it is uncontroversial. The issues people argue about stem from inherent ambiguity - no amount of selective quoting, linking or parsing ever changes that.

I prefer to focus on the consequences - if this is RAW, can you cast a spell without components? If it's an (Su) power does that imply that any arcane spell cast via this power bypasses SR? Does that change if you're a wizard/Archmage vs a fighter/archmage?

FWIW - I think the objection I repeated that someone raised earlier (that a spell is not inherently "arcane" but becomes so based on the class of the caster - if the fighter/Archmage tries to cast wish it won't meet the definition of an arcane spell, since it hasn't been cast by a sorcerer, wizard or bard) is a decent RAW rebuttal. It's certainly the best I've been able to come up with.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Steve Geddes wrote:
I prefer to focus on the consequences - if this is RAW, can you cast a spell without components? If it's an (Su) power does that imply that any arcane spell cast via this power bypasses SR? Does that change if you're a wizard/Archmage vs a fighter/archmage.

You... I like you. Good way to think.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Steve Geddes wrote:
FWIW - I think the objection I repeated that someone raised earlier (that a spell is not inherently "arcane" but becomes so based on the class of the caster - if the fighter/Archmage tries to cast wish it won't meet the definition of an arcane spell, since it hasn't been cast by a sorcerer, wizard or bard) is a decent RAW rebuttal. It's certainly the best I've been able to come up with.

Eh, it would seem that scrolls can be used to classify spells. That at least allows for classification of all spells that have ever been made into scrolls even if one objects to generalizing that to all spells.


WWWW wrote:
Steve Geddes wrote:
FWIW - I think the objection I repeated that someone raised earlier (that a spell is not inherently "arcane" but becomes so based on the class of the caster - if the fighter/Archmage tries to cast wish it won't meet the definition of an arcane spell, since it hasn't been cast by a sorcerer, wizard or bard) is a decent RAW rebuttal. It's certainly the best I've been able to come up with.
Eh, it would seem that scrolls can be used to classify spells. That at least allows for classification of all spells that have ever been made into scrolls even if one objects to generalizing that to all spells.

I was basing it from the CRB, page 206:

"Spells come in two types: arcane (cast by bards, sorcerers and wizards) and divine (cast by clerics, Druids and experienced Paladins and rangers."

Is there somewhere else where "arcane spell" is defined?


Steve Geddes wrote:
WWWW wrote:
Steve Geddes wrote:
FWIW - I think the objection I repeated that someone raised earlier (that a spell is not inherently "arcane" but becomes so based on the class of the caster - if the fighter/Archmage tries to cast wish it won't meet the definition of an arcane spell, since it hasn't been cast by a sorcerer, wizard or bard) is a decent RAW rebuttal. It's certainly the best I've been able to come up with.
Eh, it would seem that scrolls can be used to classify spells. That at least allows for classification of all spells that have ever been made into scrolls even if one objects to generalizing that to all spells.

I was basing it from the CRB, page 206:

"Spells come in two types: arcane (cast by bards, sorcerers and wizards) and divine (cast by clerics, Druids and experienced Paladins and rangers."

Is there somewhere else where "arcane spell" is defined?

Did you miss the part where I said scrolls. Well if you did, scrolls. It's actually rather useful that spells on scrolls can be arcane, as it keeps the ability from being unusable by everyone (which would exclude fighters but at a great cost).


WWWW wrote:
Steve Geddes wrote:
WWWW wrote:
Eh, it would seem that scrolls can be used to classify spells. That at least allows for classification of all spells that have ever been made into scrolls even if one objects to generalizing that to all spells.

I was basing it from the CRB, page 206:

"Spells come in two types: arcane (cast by bards, sorcerers and wizards) and divine (cast by clerics, Druids and experienced Paladins and rangers."

Is there somewhere else where "arcane spell" is defined?

Did you miss the part where I said scrolls. Well if you did, scrolls. It's actually rather useful that spells on scrolls can be arcane, as it keeps the ability from being unusable by everyone (which would exclude fighters but at a great cost).

No, I didn't miss the bit where you said scrolls. I obviously didn't explain myself well enough.

I meant is there some section of the rules where "arcane spell" is defined, other than the CRB section I quoted?


Steve Geddes wrote:
WWWW wrote:
Steve Geddes wrote:

I was basing it from the CRB, page 206:

"Spells come in two types: arcane (cast by bards, sorcerers and wizards) and divine (cast by clerics, Druids and experienced Paladins and rangers."

Is there somewhere else where "arcane spell" is defined?

Did you miss the part where I said scrolls. Well if you did, scrolls. It's actually rather useful that spells on scrolls can be arcane, as it keeps the ability from being unusable by everyone (which would exclude fighters but at a great cost).

No, I didn't miss the bit where you said scrolls. I obviously didn't explain myself well enough.

I meant is there some section of the rules where "arcane spell" is defined, other than the CRB section I quoted?

Hmm, so you're saying that scrolls do not constitute a sufficiently strong exception to the general rule and as such can not ever contain arcane spells, meaning that arcane spellcasters can never use scrolls.


WWWW wrote:
Steve Geddes wrote:
WWWW wrote:
Steve Geddes wrote:

I was basing it from the CRB, page 206:

"Spells come in two types: arcane (cast by bards, sorcerers and wizards) and divine (cast by clerics, Druids and experienced Paladins and rangers."

Is there somewhere else where "arcane spell" is defined?

Did you miss the part where I said scrolls. Well if you did, scrolls. It's actually rather useful that spells on scrolls can be arcane, as it keeps the ability from being unusable by everyone (which would exclude fighters but at a great cost).

No, I didn't miss the bit where you said scrolls. I obviously didn't explain myself well enough.

I meant is there some section of the rules where "arcane spell" is defined, other than the CRB section I quoted?

Hmm, so you're saying that scrolls do not constitute a sufficiently strong exception to the general rule and as such can not ever contain arcane spells, meaning that arcane spellcasters can never use scrolls.

No, I'm not making any such claim. I'm asking a question.


My understanding is that BigDTBone's contention is that arcane surge grants a fighter/archmage the ability to cast any arcane spell. I'm happy to accept that premise and figure the next, obvious question is "what (by RAW) is an arcane spell?"

The only answer I have seen is as I quoted (which means anyone must, per force, fall into one of the limited cases he's trying to avoid). I'm interested to hear the RAW counter to that. But figure, being RAW, that it should be based on the text of the rules - since any kind of handwaving, RAI argument opens his initial OP up to similar attack.


Steve Geddes wrote:
WWWW wrote:
Steve Geddes wrote:


No, I didn't miss the bit where you said scrolls. I obviously didn't explain myself well enough.

I meant is there some section of the rules where "arcane spell" is defined, other than the CRB section I quoted?

Hmm, so you're saying that scrolls do not constitute a sufficiently strong exception to the general rule and as such can not ever contain arcane spells, meaning that arcane spellcasters can never use scrolls.

No, I'm not making any such claim. I'm asking a question.

Okay then. By scrolls I meant the section of the rules covering scrolls. I apologize for being unclear as to what part of the rules I was talking about when I said scrolls.


WWWW wrote:
Steve Geddes wrote:
WWWW wrote:
Steve Geddes wrote:


No, I didn't miss the bit where you said scrolls. I obviously didn't explain myself well enough.

I meant is there some section of the rules where "arcane spell" is defined, other than the CRB section I quoted?

Hmm, so you're saying that scrolls do not constitute a sufficiently strong exception to the general rule and as such can not ever contain arcane spells, meaning that arcane spellcasters can never use scrolls.

No, I'm not making any such claim. I'm asking a question.

Okay then. By scrolls I meant the section of the rules covering scrolls. I apologize for being unclear as to what part of the rules I was talking about when I said scrolls.

It doesn't appear to define arcane spells in the scrolls section of the CRB. Where it mentions the type of spell (on page 490):

"To have any chance of activating a scroll spell, the scroll user must meet the following requirements:

  • the spell must be if the correct type (arcane or divine)...

(Etcetera)..."

it relies on the concept being previously defined.


Steve Geddes wrote:
WWWW wrote:
Steve Geddes wrote:
WWWW wrote:
Steve Geddes wrote:


No, I didn't miss the bit where you said scrolls. I obviously didn't explain myself well enough.

I meant is there some section of the rules where "arcane spell" is defined, other than the CRB section I quoted?

Hmm, so you're saying that scrolls do not constitute a sufficiently strong exception to the general rule and as such can not ever contain arcane spells, meaning that arcane spellcasters can never use scrolls.

No, I'm not making any such claim. I'm asking a question.

Okay then. By scrolls I meant the section of the rules covering scrolls. I apologize for being unclear as to what part of the rules I was talking about when I said scrolls.

It doesn't appear to define arcane spells in the scrolls section of the CRB. Where it mentions the type of spell (on page 490):

"To have any chance of activating a scroll spell, the scroll user must meet the following requirements:

  • the spell must be if the correct type (arcane or divine)...

(Etcetera)..."

it relies on the concept being previously defined.

There are either scrolls with arcane spells or there are not. If yes, then those spells are arcane spells. If no, then arcane spell casters can not use scrolls (and arcane surge is probably unusable by everyone for the most part).


Perhaps I misunderstand the RAW game. Never mind.


Steve Geddes wrote:
Perhaps I misunderstand the RAW game. Never mind.

I think what he's saying is "because an arcane scroll of cure light wounds exists per RAW, cure light wounds counts as an arcane spell."

Doesn't change that there are about five different portions of shaky-ground RAW that have to be deliberately interpreted in a particular fashion for this to be allowed, regardless.


Anguish wrote:
Steve Geddes wrote:
Perhaps I misunderstand the RAW game. Never mind.
I think what he's saying is "because an arcane scroll of cure light wounds exists per RAW, cure light wounds counts as an arcane spell."

Cheers, I think I see the argument. I just thought that when one argues RAW, it is customary to grant greater weight to explicit textual statements rather than inference.

It's not my usual neck of the woods though.


Anguish wrote:
Steve Geddes wrote:
Perhaps I misunderstand the RAW game. Never mind.

I think what he's saying is "because an arcane scroll of cure light wounds exists per RAW, cure light wounds counts as an arcane spell."

Doesn't change that there are about five different portions of shaky-ground RAW that have to be deliberately interpreted in a particular fashion for this to be allowed, regardless.

That's basically it, but in light of the argument that spells are not arcane or divine unless they are being actively cast by someone it's every arcane spell really (magic missile, wish, etc). The idea is to allow for arcane spells to exist at all at times other then when a caster is in the middle of casting one of them.

Steve Geddes wrote:


Yeah, I think I see the argument. I just thought that when one argues RAW, it is customary to grant greater weight to explicit textual statements rather than inference.

It's not my usual neck of the woods though.

What do you mean. I left open the possibility that there are no scrolls that contain arcane spells.


WWWW wrote:
Steve Geddes wrote:

Yeah, I think I see the argument. I just thought that when one argues RAW, it is customary to grant greater weight to explicit textual statements rather than inference.

It's not my usual neck of the woods though.

What do you mean. I left open the possibility that there are no scrolls that contain arcane spells.

I mean that when I asked you for a definition of "arcane spell" I was asking for a book and page number. That's how I thought RAW arguments worked.

It's not an area of the boards I frequent often though.


Steve Geddes wrote:
WWWW wrote:
Steve Geddes wrote:

Yeah, I think I see the argument. I just thought that when one argues RAW, it is customary to grant greater weight to explicit textual statements rather than inference.

It's not my usual neck of the woods though.

What do you mean. I left open the possibility that there are no scrolls that contain arcane spells.

I mean that when I asked you for a definition of "arcane spell" I was asking for a book and page number. That's how I thought RAW arguments worked.

It's not an area of the boards I frequent often though.

What do book and page numbers have to do with whether or not we grant greater weight to explicit textual statements rather than inference. Both cases are going to require reading some text that is in a book on a page.


WWWW wrote:
Steve Geddes wrote:
WWWW wrote:
Steve Geddes wrote:

Yeah, I think I see the argument. I just thought that when one argues RAW, it is customary to grant greater weight to explicit textual statements rather than inference.

It's not my usual neck of the woods though.

What do you mean. I left open the possibility that there are no scrolls that contain arcane spells.

I mean that when I asked you for a definition of "arcane spell" I was asking for a book and page number. That's how I thought RAW arguments worked.

It's not an area of the boards I frequent often though.

What do book and page numbers have to do with "explicit textual statements rather than inference." Both cases are going to require reading some text that is in a book on a page.

They definitely both require reading.

However a citation of book and page number provides an explicit, textual statement. An inference does not - any textual reference is generally implicit (unless a citation is also provided).

The book and page number provides the explicitness.


Steve Geddes wrote:

They definitely both require reading.

However a citation of book and page number provides an explicit, textual statement. An inference does not - any textual reference is generally implicit (unless a citation is also provided).

The book and page number provides the explicitness.

Oh, is it still about that. I already apologized for my mistaken assumption that you would understand that when I said scrolls I meant the section of the rules covering scrolls. What more do you want.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

Apparently, book and page number.


WWWW wrote:
Steve Geddes wrote:

They definitely both require reading.

However a citation of book and page number provides an explicit, textual statement. An inference does not - any textual reference is generally implicit (unless a citation is also provided).

The book and page number provides the explicitness.

Oh, is it still about that. I already apologized for my mistaken assumption that you would understand that when I said scrolls I meant the section of the rules covering scrolls. What more do you want.

Nothing really (that's what "never mind" meant, above) I'm just answering your questions.

351 to 400 of 552 << first < prev | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / General Discussion / Fighter going mythic? Choose archmage. Here's why. All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.