Faith Magic and Mystic Theurge

[Abraham spalding]

Faith Magic discovery allows a wizard to cast a divine spell using up a spell slot one level higher than it normally takes, as a divine spell.

Faith Magic Discovery:

Benefit: Select one spell granted by a domain belonging to the god you worship. This spell must be at least 2 levels lower than the highest-level wizard spell you can cast. When you first prepare your spells for the day, you can prepare this spell once, using a spell slot 1 level higher than the spell's actual level. This is cast as a divine spell.

If you take Faith Magic at level 7 as a wizard you could then take a 2nd level divine spell (from the a domain) and cast it as a third level spell.

Would this allow you to qualify for Mystic Theurge? (question 1)

Mystic Theurge states that it increases an "existing divine spellcasting class".

I read this to mean even though you qualify if you have not taken at least one level in a divine spellcasting class you will not gain the benefit of the mystic theurge class (question 2, is this correct?)

If that is the case would it be correct to say the best way to take advantage of the faith magic discovery would be to take one level in a divine class at level 8 and then start taking mystic theurge at level 9 (so you can take faith magic at level 7)? (question 3)

[Saethori]

This seems... pretty sound. Obviously Wizard is not a "divine spellcasting class", but you CAN cast 2nd level divine spells... well, spell. But it seems good enough to qualify.

[Gilarius]

I would allow it to work. But it's something that would definitely need the GM to approve. If you're the GM, and a player has asked you, I'd still say yes, but not in combination with the Guild rules concerning Eclectic Training and Esoteric Training until I saw how powerful it was in play.

[Abraham spalding]

*bump*

[CBDunkerson]

It's a bit of a stretch from casting 2nd level spells down to being able to cast ONE 2nd level spell... but I'd allow it because it has little practical impact.

Basically, the only 'benefit' it grants is that you can go two levels heavier on wizard... Wizard 9 / Cleric 1 / Mystic Theurge 10. However, I don't see why you would want to. You're giving up 7th level Cleric spells (and a feat for Faith Magic) in exchange for a few more Wizard spells per day of levels you could have cast with Wizard level 7.

[Entryhazard]

CBDunkerson wrote:

It's a bit of a stretch from casting 2nd level spells down to being able to cast ONE 2nd level spell... but I'd allow it because it has little practical impact.

It's not a stretch if how english grammar works is taken in account.

A plural without any article is an indefinite form that indicates an unspecified number of istances of the object, that could be a single one

[CBDunkerson]

Entryhazard wrote:

CBDunkerson wrote:

It's a bit of a stretch from casting 2nd level spells down to being able to cast ONE 2nd level spell... but I'd allow it because it has little practical impact.

It's not a stretch if how english grammar works is taken in account.

A plural without any article is an indefinite form that indicates an unspecified number of istances of the object, that could be a single one

Yeah, and that's the kind of nonsense which would tempt me to reject the argument immediately.

The 'normal case' for the requirement was clearly that the character must have sufficient levels in some class that they can cast 2nd level divine spells. Saying that being able to cast one 2nd level divine spell via a different method qualifies is thus, 'a stretch'.

Purely semantic arguments? No thanks. I think that kind of rules interpretation is inherently destructive.

[Abraham spalding]

One could point out your own argument is purely semantics too since it doesn't say the time period one has to cast the spells in.

by your argument a level 4 inquisitor (level 3 druid) with a 12 wisdom wouldn't qualify since he can only cast 1 level 2 spell per day.

[CBDunkerson]

Abraham spalding wrote:

One could point out your own argument is purely semantics too since it doesn't say the time period one has to cast the spells in.

by your argument a level 4 inquisitor (level 3 druid) with a 12 wisdom wouldn't qualify since he can only cast 1 level 2 spell per day.

Ummm... no.

A semantic argument is one based on details of the wording. Your 'does not say the time period' and Entryhazard's 'plural without any article' arguments are thus semantic.

My argument doesn't reference or rely on precise analysis of the wording at all. Rather it makes an (ubsubstantiated, but also unchallenged) claim about how the developers expected the requirement to be met and notes that the alternate means suggested is less extensive, and thus might or might not be considered sufficient.

This is not to say that semantic arguments are always wrong or inherently inferior. Just that I think they are a poor basis for RPG rules analysis. Basically... do you really believe that the person who wrote the requirements for Mystic Theurge was thinking about the time period within which spell(s) could hypthetically be cast, or how plurals without any article could be interpreted? I do not. Ergo, even if the parsing of the language were unambiguously 'correct' (which it virtually never is given the vagaries of language) in most cases it still wouldn't tell us what the actual intent was.

[Vatras]

I'd say it works, be it plural or singular in the prerequisite, I leave that to the rule lawyers .)

As pointed out above you end up as a 19th/11th level caster without half your class features. On the other hand it is a practical idea how to get a MT.
In regular play it is OK to level up to wizard 3, but to go cleric 1-3 afterwards is no fun. You are reduced to 2nd level spells while the regulars cast already 4th, which makes you maybe not a burden, but not much of an asset either. Doing it this way should make actual play more fun.

[Entryhazard]

Your entire line of reasoning is that spells has an s as last letter removing the context of the rest of the sentence and you're accusing others of semantic arguments, the irony is palpable.

And on a side note you still avoided tov address that some class/stat combinations can have only one spell slot available of a certain level and are shafted by your interpretation

[Rory]

CBDunkerson wrote:

My argument doesn't reference or rely on precise analysis of the wording at all. Rather it makes an (ubsubstantiated, but also unchallenged) claim about how the developers expected the requirement to be met and notes that the alternate means suggested is less extensive, and thus might or might not be considered sufficient.

An aside... which might also establish a precedence...

Arcane Trickster was clearly intended to require enough levels in a rogue-like class to achieve 2d6 sneak attack. Times have changed. There is a feat (Accomplished Sneak Attacker) that adds +1d6 sneak attack. This allows early access (e.g. less multiiclassing requirements) into Arcane Trickster.

The developers of old and the developers of new are certainly different.

I have no opinion either way on this, yet. I just wanted to dot the thread by adding an example of a "less extensive alternate means" of entry into a Prestige Class.

[Lorewalker]

I'm just going to leave this here.

Paizo Design Team wrote:

The design team does not consider a prerequisite or requirement of "ability to cast 1st-level arcane spells" to literally mean "ability to cast at least two or more 1st-level arcane spells."

Being able to cast one spell of that type and level meets the prerequisite or requirement (if the prerequisite or requirement was intended to mean "two or more," it would say that, or use language like "at least two").

[CBDunkerson]

That would be the FAQ which was over-ruled and replaced with;

Spell-Like Abilities, Casting, and Prerequisites: Does a creature with a spell-like ability count as being able to cast that spell for the purpose of prerequisites or requirements?
Only if the pre-requisite calls out the name of a spell explicitly. For instance, the Dimensional Agility feat (Ultimate Combat) has "ability to use the abundant step class feature or cast dimension door" as a prerequisite; a barghest has dimension door as a spell-like ability, so the barghest meets the "able to cast dimension door prerequisite for that feat. However, the barghest's dimension door would not meet requirements such as "Ability to cast 4th level spells" or "Ability to cast arcane spells".

[Abraham spalding]

Those two do not overlap at all. I think. You are confused.

The faq that the one you quote took out said spell likes filled arcane or divine requirements.

[Lorewalker]

CBDunkerson wrote:

That would be the FAQ which was over-ruled and replaced with;

Spell-Like Abilities, Casting, and Prerequisites: Does a creature with a spell-like ability count as being able to cast that spell for the purpose of prerequisites or requirements?
Only if the pre-requisite calls out the name of a spell explicitly. For instance, the Dimensional Agility feat (Ultimate Combat) has "ability to use the abundant step class feature or cast dimension door" as a prerequisite; a barghest has dimension door as a spell-like ability, so the barghest meets the "able to cast dimension door prerequisite for that feat. However, the barghest's dimension door would not meet requirements such as "Ability to cast 4th level spells" or "Ability to cast arcane spells".

No, the FAQ that was replaced by that was...

Replaced FAQ wrote:

"Yes.

For example, the Dimensional Agility feat (Ultimate Combat) has "ability to use the abundant step class feature or cast dimension door" as a prerequisite; a barghest has dimension door as a spell-like ability, so the barghest meets the "able to cast dimension door prerequisite for that feat.

Edit 7/12/13: The design team is aware that the above answer means that certain races can gain access to some spellcaster prestige classes earlier than the default minimum (character level 6). Given that prestige classes are usually a sub-optimal character choice (especially for spellcasters), the design team is allowing this FAQ ruling for prestige classes. If there is in-play evidence that this ruling is creating characters that are too powerful, the design team may revisit whether or not to allow spell-like abilities to count for prestige class requirements."

What I posted wasn't a FAQ, but an official clarification.