Nothing really (that's what "never mind" meant, above) I'm just answering your questions.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.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, I think you'll find that RAW-lawyers are far more reasonable in rules debates than you imagine. We take the game as a whole to contextualize specific statements.
"arcane spell," for example, isn't defined any where with the requisite clarity to allow wizards to activate scrolls. But, we know that wizards do activate scrolls. So how do we determine that scrolls are arcane or divine? (Because sometimes even the module doesn't tell us.) We look to see if the spell appears on an Arcane caster's spell list. If it does, then the scroll can count as arcane because we know the spell is arcane.
That is the definition of arcane spells we are working with. It isn't a book:chapter:verse discussion all the time, but actually a very nuanced discussion.
HOWEVER; when rules text is available it will always trump inference (which is good, because inference errs on the conservative side anyway.) So when we see something like, "You can cast any arcane spell," then that statement is both explicit and specific so it trumps all other considerations. Then we go about understanding what that means and how the game would have us adjudicate that. Just because part of the sentence isn't well defined, like "arcane spells," doesn't open the statement up to additional scrutiny; UNLESS you are prepared to break a major game subsystem to deny it (scrolls.)
Assuming you are not willing to break a major subsystem of the game is also part of "reading RAW." Ie, if we accept X in this case then we must accept X in all cases. Therefore in case Z, ability Q works differently than previously thought.
Reading RAW is more about applying strict consistency of interpretation and demanding clear language use than it is finding exploits. It's just that the exploits get all of the attention (usually negative) from those folks who don't read the rules like we do.
So how do we determine that scrolls are arcane or divine? (Because sometimes even the module doesn't tell us.)Ultimate Equipment pages 372 through 378 CLEARLY lists Arcane scrolls and 378 through 386 lists Divine scrolls .
How did wizards use scrolls before UE?
I'll take a swing at it. An arcane spell is a spell cast by an arcane spellcasting class. Fireball is not an arcane spell. A fireball spell cast by a wizard, sorcerer, magus, or bloodrager is. A fireball spell cast by a cleric with the Fire domain, however, is a divine spell. Similarly, resurrection is not a divine spell. A resurrection spell cast by a cleric is a divine spell, but a resurrection spell cast by a witch is arcane.
Thus, to answer the scroll question, there is no such thing as "a scroll of an arcane spell." Instead, it would be "an arcane scroll of a spell", since the spell itself is not inherently arcane or divine (or psychic, when that becomes a thing).
Using this definition leads to either of two possibilities; (1) arcane surge doesn't work at all for any class because "arcane spell" isn't a thing until it is cast so it isn't selectable as a choice before casting, or (2) a wizard 1/ cleric 19 could use arcane surge to cast "miracle" she has prepared in a cleric slot because she is an arcane caster and she could cast miracle.
If you are willing to accept the consequences then that is fine. I think that you would find that most people aren't willing to accept those consequences and so they wouldn't accept your definition.
I was perhaps imprecise.
Miracle is not a divine spell.
Miracle prepared as a 9th-level cleric spell is a divine spell.
Miracle on a spellcaster's spells known list as a 9th-level oracle spell is a divine spell.
A scroll of miracle created by a cleric or oracle is a divine scroll.Does that clear things up?
So, is miracle as prepared by hector the vicar a divine spell just for him or does the act of his preparation make it a divine spell for everyone?
It is a divine spell for Hector, since he prepared it as a divine spell.
Ok, when does a spell become arcane for a sorcerer? When he learns it or when he casts it?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
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.
GameMastery Guide p. 125-130 contains lists, by level, explicitly labeled as "Arcane Spells".
GameMastery Guide p. 125-130 contains lists, by level, explicitly labeled as "Arcane Spells".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.
Good find! Thanks for clearing that up.
|
Maybe i missed something here .... i didn't read all the replies. my two cents.
Player: Ah ha i want to cast a fireball
ME (as dm) : ok spend your surge ..... you cast a 0d6 fireball
Player: i want to summon a balor
Me: ok you summon a balor, it pops in for 0 rounds
Player i want a wish! make it mimic resurrection!
ME: you have no knowledge of the minutiae of resurrection or the material components for it .... make a spell craft dc45 or you get a zombie
as for the traits that add to your spell caster level .... since you have nothing to add to i would say they are irrelevant
as for having spell like abilities .... those don't meet the qualification to be an actual caster. it just means you got a couple tricks up your sleeve
So what am i missing?
Sorry for the edits as you're posting. I'm a programmer, so I tend to miss bugs in my logic until after they're posted. (:
A spell becomes arcane for a sorcerer when it is learned.
In short, my logic is this.
A spell becomes arcane or divine when the character becomes capable of casting it as an arcane or divine spell. A specific instance of a spell becomes arcane or divine as it is cast.
I think Scythia found the printed rule that trumps your examination.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Maybe i missed something here .... i didn't read all the replies. my two cents.
Player: Ah ha i want to cast a fireball
ME (as dm) : ok spend your surge ..... you cast a 0d6 fireballPlayer: i want to summon a balor
Me: ok you summon a balor, it pops in for 0 roundsPlayer i want a wish! make it mimic resurrection!
ME: you have no knowledge of the minutiae of resurrection or the material components for it .... make a spell craft dc45 or you get a zombieas for the traits that add to your spell caster level .... since you have nothing to add to i would say they are irrelevant
as for having spell like abilities .... those don't meet the qualification to be an actual caster. it just means you got a couple tricks up your sleeve
So what am i missing?
All the other uses of wish, time stop, power words, basically all the spells with no save and no CL scaling component.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
as for having spell like abilities .... those don't meet the qualification to be an actual caster. it just means you got a couple tricks up your sleeve
Tell the devs that. Until then, that is not how the rules work.
Btw. SLAs were already a third kind of casting. You are not prep. You are not a spont caster (no slots).
So there goes that argument too.
Possibly.
If so, what about spells that were released after the GameMastery Guide?
EDIT: Sorry, this was supposed to be a quote.
[snark]See darkthorne's quote above[/snark]
In all actuality the list makes it clear that spells are "arcane" all the time. We can look at the list as published in the GMG and reverse engineer the methodology with fair results. Likely it uses a priority the same as the FAQ for determining whether an SLA is divine or arcane; and that's what I would use in my home game. But even with extreme conservatism of reading one MUST accept that all the spells on the list in the GMG are arcane, all the time.
|
|
All the other uses of wish, time stop, power words, basically all the spells with no save and no CL scaling component.Maybe i missed something here .... i didn't read all the replies. my two cents.
Player: Ah ha i want to cast a fireball
ME (as dm) : ok spend your surge ..... you cast a 0d6 fireballPlayer: i want to summon a balor
Me: ok you summon a balor, it pops in for 0 roundsPlayer i want a wish! make it mimic resurrection!
ME: you have no knowledge of the minutiae of resurrection or the material components for it .... make a spell craft dc45 or you get a zombieas for the traits that add to your spell caster level .... since you have nothing to add to i would say they are irrelevant
as for having spell like abilities .... those don't meet the qualification to be an actual caster. it just means you got a couple tricks up your sleeve
So what am i missing?
so why couldn't you rule that they don't know the verbal components? i guess i would rule that they have the power to shape magic at their fingertips.... but they have to be able to correctly form the right words in the language of magic which they would not know.
i am reasoning that i have a great knowledge of 20th century literature and could give a rousing discourse on it ..... but if i had to give it in Latin i would be useless
All the other uses of wish, time stop, power words, basically all the spells with no save and no CL scaling component.Maybe i missed something here .... i didn't read all the replies. my two cents.
Player: Ah ha i want to cast a fireball
ME (as dm) : ok spend your surge ..... you cast a 0d6 fireballPlayer: i want to summon a balor
Me: ok you summon a balor, it pops in for 0 roundsPlayer i want a wish! make it mimic resurrection!
ME: you have no knowledge of the minutiae of resurrection or the material components for it .... make a spell craft dc45 or you get a zombieas for the traits that add to your spell caster level .... since you have nothing to add to i would say they are irrelevant
as for having spell like abilities .... those don't meet the qualification to be an actual caster. it just means you got a couple tricks up your sleeve
So what am i missing?
so why couldn't you rule that they don't know the verbal components? i guess i would rule that they have the power to shape magic at their fingertips.... but they have to be able to correctly form the right words in the language of magic which they would not know.
i am reasoning that i have a great knowledge of 20th century literature and could give a rousing discourse on it ..... but if i had to give it in Latin i would be useless
As an (su) ability there are no verbal components. If you were going to force a check (which has no basis) then spellcraft of DC 15+spell level is the worst you could push.
|
|
As an (su) ability there are no verbal components. If you were going to force a check (which has no basis) then spellcraft of DC 15+spell level is the worst you could push.All the other uses of wish, time stop, power words, basically all the spells with no save and no CL scaling component.Maybe i missed something here .... i didn't read all the replies. my two cents.
Player: Ah ha i want to cast a fireball
ME (as dm) : ok spend your surge ..... you cast a 0d6 fireballPlayer: i want to summon a balor
Me: ok you summon a balor, it pops in for 0 roundsPlayer i want a wish! make it mimic resurrection!
ME: you have no knowledge of the minutiae of resurrection or the material components for it .... make a spell craft dc45 or you get a zombieas for the traits that add to your spell caster level .... since you have nothing to add to i would say they are irrelevant
as for having spell like abilities .... those don't meet the qualification to be an actual caster. it just means you got a couple tricks up your sleeve
So what am i missing?
so why couldn't you rule that they don't know the verbal components? i guess i would rule that they have the power to shape magic at their fingertips.... but they have to be able to correctly form the right words in the language of magic which they would not know.
i am reasoning that i have a great knowledge of 20th century literature and could give a rousing discourse on it ..... but if i had to give it in Latin i would be useless
i see your point .... i really do .... i guess if someone really wanted to do this at my table i would just not let them. for instance i am running a wrath of the righteous campaign and last night everyone got their 1st mythic tier. i would talk to the player privately and explain that i won't be able to run a campaign where this was an option. hopefully they would adjust and we could move on. if not i could go play poker on Tuesdays :)
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
That's a completely excellent and good thing to do. If you decide to take the time to read my posts on the first two pages you'll see just how much we agree.
A spell is a one-time magical effect. Spells come in two types: arcane (cast by bards, sorcerers, and wizards) and divine (cast by clerics, druids, and experienced paladins and rangers). 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.
PRD Home / MagicA spell is a one-time magical effect. Spells come in two types: arcane (cast by bards, sorcerers, and wizards) and divine (cast by clerics, druids, and experienced paladins and rangers). 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.
Specific trumps general.
PRD Home / MagicA spell is a one-time magical effect. Spells come in two types: arcane (cast by bards, sorcerers, and wizards) and divine (cast by clerics, druids, and experienced paladins and rangers). 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.
I already quoted this exact phrase earlier, apparently it's not good enough because it doesn't explain how they work.
You never, at any time, showed rules that say ONLY two types of casting exist.And you honestly have not shown a third exists.
Your (Assumptions)+ (Inferences)<> a third type.arcane surge (su): spend a mythic power as a swift action to cast any arcane spell.
That isn't an assumption or an inference; it is a specific and explicit granted ability.
Except that isn't what it says, it allows you to cast an arcane spell, without spending a prepared spell or spell slot, inferring that you must have one of those two things in order to use this ability.
Taking the first half of that sentence as saying you have teh ability to cast all spells is again, nonsense as you are purposely not reading the entire ability, now you aren't even reading the entire sentence that you say grants you this ability.
It doesn't infer that, it clarifys that you don't require it.
Also, before you accuse me of not seeing the entire ability again, go read the OP.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Just out of curiosity, where does the arcanist sit in this whole thing. They prepare spells and then cast spontaneously, so which part are they governed by, the spontaneous or the prepared? Also, does this count as a third kind of casting?
Just out of curiosity, where does the arcanist sit in this whole thing. They prepare spells and then cast spontaneously, so which part are they governed by, the spontaneous or the prepared? Also, does this count as a third kind of casting?
Arcanists are spontaneous casters, who change their spells known on a daily basis.
It doesn't infer that, it clarifys that you don't require it.
Also, before you accuse me of not seeing the entire ability again, go read the OP.
It most certainly does infer that, because without saying that you don't need to spend a slot or prepared spell it would essentially do the same thing you are saying, but with no ties.
This ability specifically says you can go through the action of casting a spell as described in the rules for casting spells, and then explains that instead of spending a spell slot or prepared spell, you instead spend a mythic point.
It doesn't say that you don't need to have those spell slots or spells known available, in fact it clearly states that the spell you cast must be one you have prepared or known.
Once again, you are taking this out of context and purposely misreading the rules. You aren't even using logic, because why would the initial sentence even need to call out that you don't expend a spell slot or prepared spell if the ability didn't require you have one in the first place?
...
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.
...
It says nothing about not having an available slot or spell, it says without expending a slot or spell.
Just out of curiosity, where does the arcanist sit in this whole thing. They prepare spells and then cast spontaneously, so which part are they governed by, the spontaneous or the prepared? Also, does this count as a third kind of casting?
Prepared, the spontaneous aspect has no effect until the spells are prepared.
Specific trumps general.
In what regard? There are two types of spells, arcane (cast by bards, sorcerers, and wizards) and divine (cast by clerics, druids, and experienced paladins and rangers). Nothing changed here. A fireball cast by a Wizard is Arcane. A fireball cast by a Cleric through a Domain slot is converted to a divine spell. A Cleric could not cast a fireball spell from a scroll written by a Wizard (Arcane) and a Wizard could not cast a fireball scroll written by a Fire Domain Cleric (Divine). A martial character does not have a spell list and has no arcane spells (known or prepared), and has nothing to draw from. The Game Mastery guide list Arcane spells. An Arcane spell is one cast by an Arcane caster (bards, sorcerers, and wizards in the prd entry, more with other books).
-Doomn
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If it's an (Su) power does that imply that any arcane spell cast via this power bypasses SR?
I've seen this come up a couple times and I think it's pretty clear that they don't. The (su) power is just granting you the ability to cast spells. When you actually cast them you're not activating the (su) power, you're just casting a spell.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Steve, I think you'll find that RAW-lawyers are far more reasonable in rules debates than you imagine. We take the game as a whole to contextualize specific statements.
"arcane spell," for example, isn't defined any where with the requisite clarity to allow wizards to activate scrolls. But, we know that wizards do activate scrolls. So how do we determine that scrolls are arcane or divine? (Because sometimes even the module doesn't tell us.) We look to see if the spell appears on an Arcane caster's spell list. If it does, then the scroll can count as arcane because we know the spell is arcane.
That is the definition of arcane spells we are working with. It isn't a book:chapter:verse discussion all the time, but actually a very nuanced discussion.
HOWEVER; when rules text is available it will always trump inference (which is good, because inference errs on the conservative side anyway.) So when we see something like, "You can cast any arcane spell," then that statement is both explicit and specific so it trumps all other considerations. Then we go about understanding what that means and how the game would have us adjudicate that. Just because part of the sentence isn't well defined, like "arcane spells," doesn't open the statement up to additional scrutiny; UNLESS you are prepared to break a major game subsystem to deny it (scrolls.)
Assuming you are not willing to break a major subsystem of the game is also part of "reading RAW." Ie, if we accept X in this case then we must accept X in all cases. Therefore in case Z, ability Q works differently than previously thought.
Reading RAW is more about applying strict consistency of interpretation and demanding clear language use than it is finding exploits. It's just that the exploits get all of the attention (usually negative) from those folks who don't read the rules like we do.
Cheers. I wasn't operating under the belief that RAW discussions were just about being difficult. Although I don't often post in them, I do read RAW debates and generally find the people reasonable. I also appreciate the nuance. I had a rebuttal to my own query and a rebuttal to that. In my case, I don't find RAW meaningful - so the exercise of teasing it out is purely interesting, not useful (or important) to me.
One thing I've never seen explicitly stated is:
Assuming you are not willing to break a major subsystem of the game is also part of "reading RAW." Ie, if we accept X in this case then we must accept X in all cases. Therefore in case Z, ability Q works differently than previously thought.
which is a surprise to me. My take would have been that if examining RAW in a new situation leads us to come to some new understanding of X, then we've learned something new about Z and Q - or that RAW contradicts itself.
The assumption that RAW is consistent seems an odd one, to my mind. I would have assumed that, given the body of work out there and the plethora of designers releasing material over several years under deadline pressure, the chance of RAW being consistent would be negligible.
I'm not reading past the first page on this one, sorry guys.
Has anyone addressed the lack of a caster level?
My first interpretation is that casting spells at caster level zero means not casting spells at all.
I'm not reading past the first page on this one, sorry guys.
That's fine, but then why bother to post?
Has anyone addressed the lack of a caster level?
Yes.
My first interpretation is that casting spells at caster level zero means not casting spells at all.
See above.
That's fine, but then why bother to post?
Because I am interested in the outcome, but not so interested in catching up on the intervening 300 posts of bickering. I certainly don't begrudge this of other posters in these cases.
Would anyone care to summarize the point for me? If nothing else, it will keep the thread on track.